BT
(313
$812
SFT
BOOKS printed for J. Noon, at the White-
Hart in Cheapſide, near Mercers Chapel.
THE
man nature.
(H E Uſefulneſs, Truth, and Excellency of the
Chriſtian Revelation defended, againſt the Ob-
jections of a late Book, intitled, Chriſtianity as old as
the Creation.
Sermons on the following Subjects, viz. Of the
uniyerſal ſenſe of good and evil. The character of the
righteous and good man compared; or, benevolence
the nobleſt branch of ſocial virtue. The perfeaion of
the chriſtian ſcheme of benevolence; in anſwer to the
objection from its not having particularly recommended
private friendſhip, and the love of our country. Of
the image of God in man; or, the excellency of hu-
God not an arbitrary being. Of the
abuſes of free-thinking. Of myſteries. Aguir's prayer ;
or, the middle condition of life, generally, the moſt
eligible. The miſchiefs of ſlaviſh complaiſance, and
cowardice. Rules for the profitable reading the holy
fcriptures. Of hereſy. Of ſchiſm. Of the pleaſures
of a religious life. Religion founded on reaſon, and
the right of private judgment. The evidence of a fu-
ture ftate, on the principles of reaſon and revelation,
diſtinąly conſider’d. The nature, folly, and danger
of ſcoffing at religion.
A Letter to Dr. Stebbing, on the ſubject of Hereſy.
An Anſwer to Dr. Stebbing's Second Letter, on the
ſubject of Hereſy. In which the whole Controverſy is
fairly ſtated, and re-examined.
Theſe four by Mr. James Foſter.
A Paraphraſe and Notes on St. Paul's Epiſtles to
the Coloſſians, Philippians, and H brows. With fe-
veral critical Diſſertations on difficult Texts, after the
manner of Mr. Locke.
Fifteen

Books fold by J. Noon.
Fifteen Sermons on ſeveral Occaſions. To which is
added, a Scripture-Catechiſm, or the Principles of
the Chriſtian Religion laid down in the words of the
Bible.
En Eſſay in favour of the antient Practice of giv-
ing the Euchariſt to Children.
Theſe three by the late Reverend Mr. James Peirce
of Exon.
A free and impartial Study of the Holy Scriptures
recommended. 2 vols.
A Defence of the Diſcourſe on the Impoſſibility of
proving a future State by the Light of Nature; with
an Anſwer to the Rev. Mr. Groves's Thoughts on the
fame Subject.
Theſe two ly Jofeph Hallet, jun.
A Defence of human Liberty, in anſwer to the
principal Arguments which have been alledged againſt
it, and particularly to Cato's Letters on that Subject.
In which Defence, the Opinion of the Antients con-
cerning Fate is alſo diſtinály and largely conſider'd,
To which is added, A Vindication of human Liberty ;
in anſwer to a Diſſertation on Liberty and Neceſſity,
written by A. C. Eſq; The ſecond Edition.
Novatiani Opera, cum copiofiffimis Obſervationi-
bus & Notis, in quibus totum Argumentum auctoris
de Regula Fidei ex veterum Patrum Monimentis late
diſcutitur. Præmittitur Diſſertatio de Filii Dei Ho-
mooufio, five Coeſſentialitate uni Deo Patri.
Theſe two by John Jackſon, M. A.
The uninterrupted Succeſſion of Biſhops prov'd not
neceſſary to the Conveyance of the Miniſterial Office,
and the Validity of Ordinances in the Church: where-
in is conſider'd the Nature of the Sanhedrim, the Sy-
nagogue, and the Rights of Societies, before the Wri-
tings of the Sacred Books, and ſince they were
written.

6
AN
ANSWER
TO
Dr. ST EBBING's
SECOND LETTER
On the SUBJECT of
HERES Y

IN WHICH
The whole CONTROVERSY is fairly Stated
and Re-examined.
By YAMES FOSTER.

L O N DON,
Printed for JOHN Noon, at the White-Hart in
Cheapſide, near Mercers Chapel. MDCCXXXVI.
( Price One Shilling. )



CH
be
a
ETETODE
ERR AT A.
P. 2. 1.11. read too. p. 21. 1.4. 1. led. p. 23. 1. 17. r. nor
oppreſſes. p. 25. 1. 26. r. a TRIBUTE. p. 42. 1. 28. r. and not in.
p. 47. 1. 23. r. of it. p. 48. 1. 27. 1. it is ſaid. p. 49. I. 14. r.
nóojov. p. 51. 1. 15. r. Matthew xii. 1. 16. r. Nineveh. 1. 17. ro
autóv. p. 64. 1. 22. r. good probable- p. 73. 25 x, and xj 28, are
tranſlated and becauſe, or becauſe alfo. If any
dilike this tranſlation,
they are capable of another rendring, thus, and moreover, or moreover
alſo ; the word 28 being ſometimes uſed in tranſitions, and ſignify-
ing the ſame as porrò. p. 77. 1. 15. for them r. theſe. 1. 21. ra
Tragioves ſometimes. p. 78. 1. 25, &a pallim, r. digetirds. p. 80,
1. 10. r. didgeridszo
BT
1313

S812
F7


gift
ya papa au Precho, eso
A SECOND
L E T T E R
2-29-32 hub
TO
Dr. S T E B BIN G.
SIR,

SI
SHALL not trouble the world,
or you, with any apology for re-
viving a controverſy that has fo
long lain dormant. My reaſons
for not writing ſooner are perfom
70
nal things, that cannot affect any
part of the argument, and are of
very little importance to the public: And with
thinking men, the time when an anſwer is given, is
not the material point, but whether it be ſolid and
convincing. Being determined therefore to avoid
all formal excuſes, and little infignificant janglings,
I aſſure you, that you may exult on this occaſion
B


as
Surb

2
A SECOND LETTER

as much as you pleaſe, and take, for the future,
what liberties you ſhall think proper, with re-
ſpect to your ſtyle and manner of writing, with-
out any animadverſions on my part : Which are
the more unneceſſary, becauſe, in all ſuch caſes,
every candid and ingenuous reader will eaſily
make, without my help, the natural and juſt
reflections.
But whatever opinion I may have of theſe ex-
traneous and circumſtantial matters
, the ſubject
of HERES Y is of two great conſequence to be
entirely dropp'd in ſilence : Since nothing has been
ſo univerſally the occaſion of thoſe violent and
unwarrantable abuſes of church-power, which
have proved fo fatal to truth, and peace, and all
moral virtues; and been highly ſcandalous to re-
ligion, and prejudiciał to civil ſocieties. The
principal queſtion in debate between us is, Who
are the Heretics ſpoken of and condemned in the
New Teſtament, and whom St. Paul hath parti-
cularly deſcribed, and directed Titus to reject? To
an impartial diſcuſſion of which I ſhall directly
proceed, before I meddle with the leſs material,
and more remote, parts of the controverfy.
will give me leave, Sir, as it is in it
ſelf a thing of perfect indifference, to begin with
re-examining your account of Hereſy; in order to
which, I ſhall ſtate it in your own words. In
your firſt Letter, pag. 25, 26. you ſay,
" That
they who to the miniſters of Chriſt ſhall ap-
pear by the beſt uſe of their judgments, under
" the direction of God's word, to have departed
“ from the faith, whether with knowledge or
againſt knowledge, whether ſincerely or infin-
"
cerely,




And you


to Dr. STEBBING.
3
וזה
cerely, are to them heretics, and muſt by them
“ be treated as ſuch.” Accordingly it will fol-
low, by your own confeſſion, “ that a man may
" be a heretic to one church, who is not a here-
< tic to another; and a heretic to both, who is
“ not a heretic to God.” In your ſecond Let-
ter, pag. 30. you explain your ſelf thus, to the
fame purpoſe: “ The queſtion is, what is berely?
" I fay, an open departure from the faith, whe-
“ther with or againſt conſcience, is hereſy. But
“ how then, you ask, is a heretic ſelf-condemn’d?
« I anſwer, by publiſhing his own OFFENCE ;
" by declaring openly that departure from the
faith, for which the church adjudges him wor-
thy to be rejected. This agrees with what
you had aſſerted before, that " in this caſe he
“ becomes his own accuſer, and with his own
mouth proclaims himſelf an offender againſt
“ the order and diſcipline of the church. * ” You
tell me further, that this, viz. That he is an
offender againſt the order and diſcipline of the
is think to be the meaning of St.
“ Paul's words, when he faith, A heretic siN-
NETH who conſiders a heretic not as of-
“ fending againſt conſcience (of which the church
" is not judge) but as departing from the de-
" clared terms of communion. fo I ſhall con-
clude this ſhort account of your ſcheme, with a
very remarkable conceſſion which you have been
forced to make, and that is, " That WHOEVER
THINKS that the church is departed from the
« apoftolic doctrine, is under the fame obligation
to reject the church----as the church is to reject
* Firſt Letter, p. 17.
+ Second Letter, p. 72.
him.



church, you

AC

B 24
có
4
A SECOND LETTER
« him. I.” In conſequence of which, you muſt
come cloſer to the point, as I ſtated it, and allow
farther, That if the body of the chriſtian people,
in their COLLECTIVE capacity, judge the go-
vernours and paſtors of the church to oppoſe pub-
lickly the apoſtolic doctrine, they are obliged to
reject, i. e. to excommunicate them, and put them-
ſelves under the care of other paſtors. And I
can't help declaring, that I think the public ac-
knowledgment you have made (from whence this
conſequence directly follows) to be an extraordi-
nary point gained, and you will permit me te
make the proper uſe of it.
Before I paſs on to conſider particularly how
you have defended your notion of herefy, I ſhall
put St. Paul's words, in his epiſtle to Titus, and
a paraphraſe of them, fairly deduced from your
ayowed principles, in oppoſite columns : And if
you pleaſe, Sir, and think it will advance
your
character as a critic, you may go on to write a
commentary upon the whole New Teſtament,
after the manner of this ſpecimen.



St. Paul's words. St. Paul's fenſe, according to
Dr. Stebbing.
A man that is A man that is an heretic, i.e.
an heretic, after a man that does not believe as
the firſt and fe- the church believes ----as the
cond admonition, Biſhops and miniſters of the
reject:
church, or as the body of the
chriſtian people, believe; this
man, whether he be fincere or
Know-
in-



* Second Letter, p. 83.

to Dr. STEBBING.
5
infncere; whether his error be
with conſcience, or againſt con-
ſcience, voluntary, or involun-
tary; do thou -----
--and, after
thee, let all Biſhops, and mi-
niſters, and chriſtian people---
reject----If he be the moſt up-
right, pious, and conſcientious
man alive, let him not be ſpared,
if he eſpouſes doctrines contrary
to the articles and creeds of the
church: for he ought to be
accounted and treated as a be-
retic by the church, merely for
having the preſumption to op-
poſe what the church believes.
Knowing, that And I preſcribe this rule of
be that is fuch, conduct, becauſe, though he
is fubverted, and ſhould happen to be the beſt
finneth,being con- chriſtian upon earth, and main-
demned of him- tains pure and primitive chri-
lelf.
ſtianity, in oppoſition to the
errors and ſuperſtitions of a cor-
rupt and antichriſtianchurch---
thou knoweſt, and all miniſters,
and church-governours, and
chriſtian people, in future times,
will know notwithſtanding;
that----let him be ever ſo much
in the way of his duty, of truth,
and righteouſneſs
, and falva-
tion, he is fubverted, and ſin-
neth, i. e. is an offender againſt
the order and diſcipline of the
church,




A SECOND LETTER
6
church, to which, however,
he is not obliged to ſubmit * ;
and is condemned of himſelf, i.e.
though his own conſcience ap-
plauds him as entirely innocent,
and maintaining a right cauſe,
yet by openly abetting doctrines,
which the church thinks to be
falſe, he publiſhes his own of-
fence; and confequently ac-
cuſes, and gives evidence againſt
bimſelf, not indeed of really
departing from the faith, but
of openly abetting doctrines
which the church explains to be
departing from the faith-----
And thus he becomes the means,
or inſtrument (whether juftly
or unjuſtly it matters not) of
bis own condemnation.

By the order and diſcipline of the church, againſt which the he-
retic is an offender, I ſuppoſe you mean ſome law or rule of church-
order and diſcipline. Otherwiſe, I think, you are quite unintelligi-
ble. Now you tell us in another place, that the judgment of the
church is the rule for diſcipline ; Firſt Letter, p. 28. By offending
therefore againſt the order and diſcipline of the church, is meant of
fending againſt the judgment of the church. But can any perſon be
ſaid to be a finner (even as you have choſen to expreſs it elſewhere, with
reſpect to the aft materially conſidered) by offending againſt the rule of
diſcipline, which is the church's judgment, if he is not obliged, in
every ſuch caſe, i. e. with reſpect to all matters of faith, to ſubmit
abſolutely to this ſame rule of diſcipline, that is, to the church's judgment?
er unleſs he be bound at leaſt, not to eſpouſe openly any opinions
which are repugnant to the church's judgment. And will you take
upon you to vindicate this fundamental principle, and main ſupport
of Popery? I hope not: and therefore you muſt allow theſe words,
To which he is not obliged to ſubmit, the words that the marginal note
refers to, to be candidly inſerted in the paraphraſe.
This


to Dr. STEBBING,
7
This, Sir, upon your ſcheme, is the genuine
explication of St. Paul's direction to Titus; which
you will think it fit perhaps to diſclaim, but not
find it ſo eaſy to evade. I now proceed to con-
fider how you have defended your account of he-
reſy, from the force of the arguments which I
brought againſt it.
I objected to it, in the firſt place, that it “ has
not the leaſt foundation in Scripture ;” and
that “ the texts you have alleged to ſupport your
« notion of hereſy, and prove that the power of
ſeparating heretics from chriſtian fellowſhip has
ever been a ſtanding power in all churches, ſay
“ not a fyllable of bereſy, or heretics." To
this objection, which, if it be juſt, muſt over-
turn your whole ſcheme, you have given a very
ſlight, but moſt extraordinary anſwer: NO MAT-
Ter for that, Sir* -No matter for what? Is
it no matter whether you have wrote pertinently,
or not; whether you have proved your point, or
not? No; it ſeems this is not at all material,
and for this reaſon, becauſe though theſe texts
ſay not a fyllable of hereſy, they ſpeak of ſome-
thing elſe that runs more in your head; they
Speak plainly and expreſy of oppugners of the
chriſtian doétrine +: And you are pleaſed to tell
me, that if I will grant that ſuch were to be ſe-
parated from chriſtian fellowſhip, I may take the
WORDs hereſy, and heretics, and diſpoſe them as
I pleaſe ; i. e. in truth, if I will allow you a fo-
reign point, you will give up the point in contro-
verſy. This, Sir, is an inſtance of indulgence




* Second Letter, p. 394
#
Ibid.
and
8
A SECOND LETTER
and condeſcention that I could not expect from
you ; but I can by no means conſent to the con-
dition you have ſtipulated for me, being reſolved,
for the preſent, neither to grant, nor deny, that the
oppugners of the chriſtian doctrine are to be rejected
from chriſtian communion, for the reaſon already
ſuggeſted; becauſe 'tis entirely remote from the
fubject in debate between us----For the point you
are to prove is not, that the oppugners of the chri-
ftian doctrine are to be ſeparated from chriſtian
fellowſhip; but this only, that all oppugners of
the chriſtian doctrine, merely as oppugners of the
chriſtian do&trine, are the heretics
whom St. Paul
adviſes Titus to reject. I repeat it again, that the
fingle queſtion, which we are debating, is, who
are theſe heretics, not who are to be debarred from
the communion of the church. And if
you
had
demonſtrated as plainly (as I ſhall hereafter ſhew
you have failed in every part of your proof)
that men may be rejected for ſome errors in faith,
you could have gained no advantage by it; be-
cauſe every one muſt ſee, that though I myſelf
ſhould acknowledge this, my notion of herefy may
be true notwithſtanding--For 'tis ſurely as pof-
ſible in the nature of things, that ſome may be
rejected for their errors (as that others may for
their vices) and yet not be the ſcripture-he-
retics.
There are ſeveral things to this purpoſe in my
firſt Letter, which you have thought fit to paſs by
without the leaſt notice. I muſt therefore deſire
the reader to turn to the paſſages themſelves, be-
cauſe they contain the true ſtate of the argument:
And I now beg leave to ſubjoin to the obſer-
vations




to Dr. STEBBING.
9
vations which I formerly made *, that upon re-
viewing and confidering the matter more carefully,
I can ſee no reaſon to believe, that departing from
the faith is at all eſſential to the character and guilt
of a heretic.---- In the nature of the thing itſelf,
it is not effential. ---- For feets, or hereſies, may
be formed about rituals
, about things in them-
ſelves indifferent, and confeſi’d to be indifferent,
as well as about points of doctrine. And if the
leaders of theſe ſects, tho' they pretend to aim at
the advancement of religion, by introducing greater
ſolemnity, order, and decency in the public wor-
fhip, know, themſelves, that they mean nothing
but intereſt, or to gratify their ambition and va-
nity, and confequently act againſt their inward
convictions ; they may juſtly be deſcribed, let
them be ever ſo orthodox in matters of MERE
FAITH, as factious, ill-defgning, ſelf-condemned
heretics, or fectariest. The heretics
I now ſpeak
of can no more be ſaid to depart from the faith,
than any other notorious finners, who contradict,
by their behaviour, principles which they profeſs
to believe. But this is not the proper mean-
ing of the phraſe itſelf, nor what you mean by
departing from the faith ; which you have all along
diſtinguiſhed from immoralities and errors in
practice.
Let us now ſee how this matter ſtands upon
the foot of Scripture. There is but one paſſage
* Letter to Dr. Stebbing, p. 54.
† It may, perhaps, be
proper
for me to declare, in order to prevent
reproach and inſult, that I have put this only as a poſſible caſe in the
mere reaſon of the thing (which it moſt certainly is) without deſign-
ing any particular reflections.
с
in





IO
A SECOND LETTER
in all the New Teſtament, where the heretic's
character is exprelly and profeſedly given : This
is in the Epiſtle to Titus. There, again, there is
but one phraſe that can be thought to afford the
leaſt intimation, that 'tis ſtrictly eſſential to the
notion of a heretic, that he depart from the
faith; and that is, he is ſubverted. But ’tis
plain, that the word itſelf has only a general
meaning, and ſignifies no more than that he is
perverted, or turned out of the way. And this ſure-
ly he may be, by departing in his practice, tho'he
openly eſpouſes no opinions repugnant to the faith,
from the way of piety, peace, and integrity *.
And as for other paſſages, which may ſpeak of
the oppugners of the chriſtian doctrine, they none
of them fay (as they muſt to ſupport your ſcheme)
either that all ſuch, merely as fich, are to be conſi-
der'd as hereties; or, that this is neceſſarily included
in the idea of a heretic.---It remains then, I think,
as a fair concluſion from the whole, that to de-
part from the faith, or publickly maintain doc-
trines contrary to chriſtianity, is not abfolutely
eſſential to the character of a heretic, either from
REASON, or SCRIPTURE.


* In my Sermon I paraphraſed theſe words, a heretic is fubverted,
thus, He is turned aſide from the true faith. But the learned reader
will fee, that there was no folid foundation for this paraphraſe, and
I my ſelf am fully convinced of it. And thinking it, in controver-
fial writings, an act of juſtice to the public, to acknowledge an error
of which I am convinced, I take this only opportunity, which I have
ar preſent, to correct every thing both in the Sermon and in
my
firſt
Letter, that intimates departing from the faith, or maintaining doc-
trines contrary to chriſtianity, to be a neceſſary part of the heretic's
character, whom St. Paul hath condemn’d. It is almoſt needleſs to
add, that this alteration is not owing to any thing in your reaſoning;
the whole of which it directly oppoſes.

I
to Dr. STEBBING.

I have another very important thing behind,
which I intimated to you likewiſe in my firſt
Letter, and that is, that the greateſt part of
your texts ſpeak only of immoralities, and men-
tion not a word about departing from the faith;
ſo that you might as well have produced them
to prove that drunkerineſs, or murder, is here-
fy, as to ſerve the purpoſe you intend by them.
Certainly, Sir, turbulent and factious men, who
ſerve not our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, but their own
belly
, may cauſe diviſions and ſcandals*, contrary
to the chriſtian do&trine which condemns theſe
things, or to the rules of the goſpel relating to
unity and peace, without openly eſpouſing errors
in faith. Another perſon might walk diſorderly to
contrary to the tradition which he received of the
apoſtle, and obey not his word; i. e. he might be
an immoral man (as St. Paul himſelf directly
explains it) not working at all
, but a buſy body wt;
and yet be in profeſſion found in the faith. To
what purpoſe then are theſe texts quoted, which
have no relation at all to the argument? And
what ſay the other paſſages, on which you lay
fo great a ſtreſs?
---- 1 Cor. v. 6, 7. relates only to
the caſe of inceſt, and, by a parity of reaſon, to
other immoralities of a like fcandalous nature.----
2 Tim. ii. 16, &c. exhorts to ſkun profane and
vain bablings; ſpeaks of a word that will eat as
doth a canker ; of Hymeneus, and Philetus, who
concerning the truth have erred, ſaying, that the
reſurrection is paſt already, and overthrow the
faith of ſome ; &c. Therefore what follows ?
- It does not appear that this text ſpeaks of
* Rom. xvi. 17, 18,
+ 2 Theff. iii. 6,11,14.
C 2
Church-


ز

12
A SECOND LETTER
Church-diſcipline. And your reaſoning here muſt
ſtand thus : That becauſe the ERRORS of the
moſt groſs corrupters of chriſtianity in its eſſential
articles, errors tending to licentiouſneſs in prac-
tice, are to be funn'd; and the private chriſtian
is exhorted to purge himſelf (i.e. to keep him-
ſelf from the infection) of thoſe who eſpouſed
ſuch immoral principles : therefore every one that
departs from the faith, is, without diſtinction,
and tho' his errors are of quite another kind from
the particular errors here mentioned, to be ſe-
parated from outward and public communion
in chriſtian ſocieties. This itſelf is excellent
logic. But if any want to be informed, how it
is proved that every one is a heretic that departs
from the faith, whether ſincerely, or inſincerely,
whether with conſcience, or againſt conſcience;
this, which is the main point, muſt be taken for
granted: And then the evidence will be compleat.
The only text that ſeems to look plauſible on
your ſide is
, 2 Ep. John 10. If there come any
unto you, and bring not this do&trine, receive him
not into your houſe, neither bid him God ſpeed.
But what is the doctrine here referred to ? The
context plainly informs us that 'tis this, that Je-
ſiis Chriſt is come in the fleſh, ver. 7. If
any one
confeſs not this doctrine, he is a deceiver, and an
antichriſt. He tranſgreſſeth, and abideth not in
the doctrine of Chriſt, i. e. is an apoſtate from
chriſtianity itſelf
, and hath not God. And if there
come any unto you, and bring not THIS DOCTRINE,
receive him not into your houſe, Etc.----So that, ac-
cording to you, becauſe we are not to ſhew counte-
nance in our own houſes, or wiſh ſucceſs, to infidels
and



to Dr. STEBBING.
13

and apoftates, therefore ſuch as are neither infidels,
nor apoftates, ſuch as fincerely reverence the autho-
rity of Chriſt, (merely becauſe they have the mif-
fortune to give a wrong explication of ſome of his
doctrines) are, together with the moſt immoral
and ſcandalous offenders, abſolutely, and without
diſtinction, to be avoided and rejected by the
church. You may obſerve, Sir, upon the whole,
that the paſſages which you have produc'd prove
nothing at all to your purpoſe; not ſo much as
your own point, that all 'oppugners of the chri-
ſtian doctrine are, without diſtinction, to be fe-
parated from chriſtian fellowſhip; and much leſs
do they prove the point in controverſy, that all
ſuch oppugners are, without diſtinction, heretics:
Nor conſequently have they any relation (tho
they are the only paſſages that you have cited to
ſupport this act of church-diſcipline) to the rejec-
ting all ſuch as heretics from the communion of
the church.
I might ſafely reſt the matter here. But as I
have offered ſeveral other objections againſt your
ſcheme, I am obliged to conſider in what manner
you have replied to them. Some of theſe objec-
iions, you ſay, you do not underſtand; others, you
ſeem to think, you do underſtand, and have
therefore quoted; and to a few ſcraps, curtailed,
and altered, and partially repreſented, you have
given moſt indolent and ſententious anſwers, which
ſometimes made me doubt whether you was really
in earneſt. But of this I leave others to judge,
and ſhall now review both the intelligible
, and
unintelligible, part of the objections,


With
14
A SECOND LETTER
With reſpect to thoſe, which, you ſay, you do
not underſtand, you have choſen to ſurprize the
reader, by telling him at the ſame time, that you
are very ſure they are not worth being under-
stood How is this? Can you be certain,
without underſtanding a thing, that it is not worth
being underſtood? Or is nothing intelligible but
what you underſtand? Or nothing but what you
underſtand worth being underſtood ? Before you
can juſtly affirm of any objections, that they are
not worth being underſtood, you muſt be able to
prove, that they are trifling and remote from the
argument; i, e, you muſt underſtand them in
ſome meaſure---But this, you fay, you do not. I
ſhall now point out what theſe unintelligibles are;
and let the world determine, whether the fault
really lay in your underſtanding, or not.
The firſt thing, then, that you would be
thought not to underſtand, is this, that unleſs
« the particular inſtances of faith, to depart from
€ which conſtitutes the fin of herefy, be clearly
« defined and diſtinctly enumerated, the phraſe
[departing from the faith] can have no fixed
# meaning at all; but muſt fignify only this,
« what particular churches, or the miniſters
, or go-
vernours, of particular churches, think to be de-
parting from the faith *,”---ï.e. in other words,
It muſt fignify ſomething uncertain and variable,
and inconſiſtent with itſelf, and can convey no
uniform determinate idea.
The next thing that confounds your under-
ſtanding, and is, therefore, not worth being un-



* Letter to Dr. Stebbing, p. 5.
derſtood,

to Dr. STEBBING.
66
derſtood, is a natural and undeniable conſequence
from the foregoing; viz. “ That the chriſtian
religion hath given us a general account of he-
refy, by which we can form no notion of the
true preciſe nature of hereſy * ---- i, e. If dem
parting from the faith hath no uniform ſenſe, he-
reſy, which in your opinion is nothing elſe but
departing from the faith, can have no uniform
meaning likewiſe; and we have no rule by which
to judge who are heretics, but what always has
been, and ever will be, various and ſelf-contra-
di&tory.
Again, if the particular inſtances of faith, in
an open departure from which the eſſence of
herefy conſiſts, be not plainly pointed out, and
particularly ſpecified in the New Teſtament, and
conſequently, if the phraſe departing from the
faith can have no fixed meaning, " it will fol-
« low; That the chriſtian religion hath preſcrib-
« ed a rule, by which to frame a judgment of
“ hereſy, that ultimately reſolves itſelf into
fancy
" and conjecture up”----or, which is the ſame,
Every man, having no more than a rule of WORDS,
the meaning of which is not clearly ſtated and de-
fined, is left by the goſpel without any certain
rule at all
, and muſt frame the ſenſe, which
alone is the RULE for himſelf. This moſt effential
point, or, to ſpeak more properly, the rule itſelf,
muſt be a determined by wiſdom or folly, as ei-
“ ther of theſe happen to preſide; by enthuſiaſm
“ and blind zeal; by ambition, ſelfiſhneſs, and
craft."---- But this, as well as the reſt, ex-



* Letter to Dr. Stebbing, pogle
* Ibid. p. 55.
ceeds

16
A SECOND LETTER

ceeds your comprehenſion: And yet can any thing
be more intelligible and obvious ?----You yourſelf
ſeem to allow in one place t, that all departing's
from the faith are not hereſy. What kind of de-
parting from the faith is it then? Or how ſhall
we know it, if the Scripture be abſolutely ſilent
about it? Why nothing remains but that we muſt
gueſs at it, and find it out as well as we can. If
it happens, that we have good judgment and fin-
cerity, theſe muſt help us to grope the better in the
dark; otherwiſe ignorance, pafſion, and prejudice
may raiſe a clamour, and ſuggeſt what they pleaſe
to be hereſy.----And is this the rational plan, upon
which the viſible church of Chriſt is to be formed?
Will it perſuade infidels to become members of it?
If the caſe ſtands thus, and the viſible church he
a ſociety held together by we know not what, the
conſequence muſt be, not merely as an acciden-
tal abuſe, but in the nature of things, confuſion
and inconſiſtency. And it muſt be ſuppoſed
moreover, that though Chriſt hath made no pro-
viſion, in his religion, for any tenderneſs and in-
dulgence to be ſhewn to involuntary error; he
it in the power of the ambitious and in-
ſolent, the crafty and hypocritical profeſſors of
his goſpel, to inſult and ſtain the beſt of his dif-
ciples ---- to ſerve their wicked purpoſes. This,
again, is not an accidental abuſe, but ſprings di-
rectly from the nature of the thing itſelf: For if
we are left in the dark as to what that depart-
ing from the faith means, in which hereſy is fup-
poſed to conſiſt, and yet are commanded, with-
out being clearly inſtructed in the nature of he-
+ Second Letter, p. 75. under the ſecond head,
reſy,


hath put


to Dr. STEBBING.
17
refy, to avoid and cenſure heretics ; innumerable
miſtakes and falſe judgments muſt neceſſarily fol-
low; and an handle is directly given to thoſe who
have particular ends to ſerve by it, to impoſe upon
the ignorant, and diſgrace the honeſt and inqui-
fitive, by outcries and alarms of HERESY. This
is the very ſcheme that ſuch perſons, if it had
been left to their diſcretion, would have contrived
for themſelves, as being, of all others, the beſt
adapted to promote their views ; and therefore I
hope, Sir, you will recollect yourſelf, and no
longer inſiſt on its being a part of the doctrine of
Christ, who was an open enemy to all craft and
oppreſion.
Once morė: There is another paſſage in my
Letter, which, as it is entirely dropt, I ſhall be
fo candid as to rank among the things hard to be
underſtood, and that relates to the tendency of your
notion of hereſy, and the views, with which
(without breach of charity) it may be thought to
be advanced and propagated
cc * What chri-
Stian purpoſes your notion of herefy may ſerve,
« I know not; but this appears plainly enough,
«s. that it is directly calculated to eſtabliſh the do-
MINION and INDEPENDENCY of the church.
Every one (according to your account) is a he-
"retic, that departs from the faith---And all thoſe
* [be they KINGS, or PRINCES, or of whatever
RANK Or CHARACTER] that ſhall appear to
" the miniſters of Chriſt to have departed from the
faith, muſt by them be treated as HERETICS ;
* i. e. be EXCOMMUNICATED.
This doc-



* Letter to Dr. Stebbing, p. 66.
D
trine,
18
À SECOND LETTER

65
trine, Sir, has often ſhook the thrones of Kings,
and, in dark and barbarous ages, been the chief
pillar and ſupport of Papal tyranny.------For
5 whenever the people have been brought to re-
vere and ſtand in awe of this hereticating power,
“ and to conceive a proper reſentment againſt HE-
RETICAL and EXCOMMUNICATED Princes ;
« it has been found a matter of no great diffi-
culty to eſtabliſh an ABSOLUTE and INDEPEN-
" DENT authority in the church, oppreffive and
“ fatal to civil government.
I come now to the objections, which you
feem
to think you do underſtand. The firſt is, That,
according to your account of hereſy,
“ it will fol-
« low, that chriſtianity hath preſcribed a rule,
" by which truth and error, the beſt and the
worſt of men, are equally expoſed to church-
« cenſures and excommunications *." The mean-
ing of this I beg leave to explain a little more par-
ticularly----Herefy, you ſay, is an open departure
from the faith: And this departure from the faith
is a looſe indeterminate phraſe, the meaning of
which is not at all fixed in fcripture, but left ab-
ſolutely, without any diſcriminating marksto judge
by, to the opinion and conjecture of particular
churches. If therefore theſe churches are all fal-
lible; if it was quite unreaſonable to expect, and
next to impoſſible, that they ſhould all agree in
one notion of departing from the faith; it muſt
then follow, not by accident, but from the very
nature of the rule itſelf, which you have laid down
for judging of hereſy, “ That truth and error,
" the beſt and the worſt of men, will be equally
* Letter to Dr. Stebbing, p. 50.
expoſed




"

to Dr. STEBBING.
19
«c tions.
32
expoſed to church cenſures and excommunica-
While this rule fubfifts, it is an iniquity
not to be avoided; they are, and will be, and
muſt be treated alike. And can that be an equita-
ble rule, that leaves no room for making a proper
diſtinction between the good and bad, the upright
and the infincere ? ----Can it be the CHRISTIAN
rule ? ----If there be any rule of chriſtian commu-
nion at all, one would think it a firſt and eflen-
tial point, that it ſhould provide effectually againſt
the excluſion of the best of men, and the BEST
of chriſtians; but, on the contrary, the rule you
have propoſed is fo framed in itſelf, as to pro-
vide effectually for their excluſion; and equally
too with the excluſion of others, who are the
greateſt ſcandal to their profeffion. This, Sir, is
the objection enlarged, and more diſtinctly ſtated.
And all the reply you have made to it, is by cl-
lowing the conſequence thus far, as to ſay, That
when churches err in the faith (as they may) thoſe
who are on the ſide of truth will be ſubject to ex-
communications * If when you acknowledge that
churches may, you had added, and frequently do,
and it is highly probable always will err concern-
ing the faith, in ſome point or other which they
judge to be eſential, at leaſt, to chriſtian fellow-
ſhip; the conſequence would then have been plain,
juſt as I have ſtated it. And it muſt have ap-
peared farther, that from the nature of the rule it
felf, a man not only may, but will, be a heretic to
one church, who is not fo to another; and a here.-
tic to both, who is not a heretic to God. So that it

Second Letter, p. 77.
D2
19
20
A SECOND LETTER
CC
is a rule, that hath no more of conſiſtent meaning,
than it hath of equity ; but falfhood and contra-
dictions will neceſſarily follow from it.
My objections proceed thus; That according to
your notion of herefy it will follow, “That chri-
ſtianity hath preſcribed a rule [for cenſuring
« and rejecting heretics] by acting upon which,
« ſo dark and indeterminate as it is, even a wiſe
man might have foreſeen, and the eternal ſource
" of wiſdom could not but foreſee, that the right
s of conſcience would be often violated; an im-
partial ſtudy of the holy ſcriptures diſcouraged;
integrity inſulted, and oppreſſed; and all but
thoſe, who believe as the CHURCH believes, be
“ branded with marks of infamy *.” Here I
muſt again beg the reader to obſerve, that I have
repreſented theſe inconvenienceś not as mere accı.
dental abuſes, but as natural and unavoidable con-
ſequences from the indeterminateneſs and obſcurity
of the rule itſelf ---- conſequences that a wiſe man
might have foreſeen, and which the eternal ſource
of wiſdom could not but foreſee. Let us now ſee
in what manner you have replied to the ſeveral
branches of this objection.
To this, that "the right (or rights) of con-
“ ſcience will be often violated,
thus; The right of conſcience (if by it you mean
thật right, which every man has to ačt accord-
ing to his conſcience) is not violated, but confirm-
ed, by this account.-----This is ſtrange indeed, but
how doth it appear? Why you tell us, that ça
right in the church to act according to her con-
ſcience, does not deſtroy, but fuppoſe a right in
* Letter to Dr. Stebbing, p. 36,
every


you anſwer


to Dr. STEBBING.
21
very fame
every man to act according to his conſcience
Upon which I obſerve firſt, That the
thing might be pleaded, if the church's con-
ſcience lead her to perſecute, viz. that a right in
the church to act according to her conſcience does not
violate, becauſe it ſuppoſes, a right in every man to
act according to his conſcience. If the church per-
ſecutes (or, which comes to the fame, inſtigates the
civil magiſtrate to perſecute) by FINES and PECU-
NIARY MULCT$, a conſcientious man, he may ſtill
act according to his conſcience, as directed by God's
word: i. e. If his conſcience, as directed by God's
word, warns him to recant, he may do it, and by
that means, perhaps, be delivered from the cruelty
of his perſecutors; but if it be directed to ſuffer-
îng, he may arm himſelf with patience, and go
on to ſuffer reſolutely. And, to uſe your own
words, So be ought : For God's word is every man's
rule, and the judgment of the church binds none
but herſelf. The meaning of which ſeemingly
generous and modeſt conceſſion amounts to no
more than this, that a man is not bound indeed
always to approve of the judgment and conduct
of the church, either in excommunicating, or per-
ſecuting, but may, if he pleaſes, proceed in his
own way, and take the conſequences of it; and
being allowed this liberty, he can have no juſt
cauſe to complain that his natural right of act-
ing according to his conſcience is at all viola-
ted, by any hardſhips which he is forced to undergo
for conſcience fake ----I obſerve, fecondly, that the
whole ſtrength of your anſwer lies in theſe words,
That a right in the church to act according to her
* Second Letter, p. 78.
conſcience



A SECOND LETTER
conſcience does not deſtroy, but fuppofe (i, e. does not
deſtroy becauſe it ſuppoſes) a right in every man
to act according to his conſcience. But how does
it fuppoſe a right in every man to act according to
his conſcience? Why only thus : It fuppoſes it
to ſubſiſt in equity, and in the reaſon of things ;
and notwithſtanding this it may in fact be vio-
lated; nay, it may, in fact be deſtroyed. So that
your inſerting the word deſtroy, inſtead of the
word violate (whether it was done through mi-
ſtake, or by deſign) can be of no manner of fer-
yice to you. Your argument is ſtill fallacious,
and has not the leaſt colour of an anſwer to the ob-
jection, which was this, that, upon your ſcheme,
it muſt neceſſarily happen, that the right of con-
ſcience would, in fact, be often violated.----againſt
the nature, reaſon, and truth of things. I ſhall on-
ly add, in the laſt place, That one of the natural
rights of conſcience is, in my judgment, moſt
evidently violated, when a perſon ſuffers for his
opinion wrong fully; becauſe, in every inſtance of
this kind, the conſcientious man has a natural
claim to protection from ſuffering, and to be al-
lowed to exerciſe the right of judging for himſelf,
and acting according to his conſcience, without
impediment, or moleſtation. Or if it ſhould be
thought, that no right of conſcience is hereby vio-
lated, but another of his rights, on account of his
purſuing the dictates of conſcience ; though I think
I have ſtated the matter juſtly, I ſhall not be in-
clined to diſpute this point, fince, my objection
is equally ſtrong either way: For one of theſe you
yourſelf muſt allow. Nor can you deny that a
conſcientious man ſuffers wrongfully, when he is
unjuftly






to Dr. STEBBING.
23
nature
>
unjuſtly excommunicated. But this iniquity will,
not by chance, but unavoidably, happen, and, of
courſe, either one of the rights of conſcience, or
which amounts to much the ſame, another natural
right will be on the account of conſcience una-
voidably violated, by acting upon the rule which
you have propoſed for rejecting heretics; by which,
as has been ſhewn, and that from the
very
of the rule itſelf, “ truth and error, the beſt and
as the worſt of men, are equally ſubjected to church
" cenſures and excommunications.”
It was farther objected, that “ integrity will
" be inſulted and oppreſſed, and an impartial ſtu-
dy of the holy fcriptures diſcouraged.” To
this you anſwer; Integrity inſulted, and oppreſſed!
By what, or by wom? Not by the church, wbicb
by declaring her ſentence neither infults or oppreſſes.
Bad men may inſult thoſe whom the church rejects,
but with this neither the church, nor my account
of the powers of the church, are juſtly chargeable.
Where alſo is the oppreſion? The church, we
will ſuppoſe, is in an error, and excludes you un-
worthily : How are you hurt? Not in your body,
or in your goods; For the church hath nothing to
do with either of them : Her ſentence affects them
not, but only your ſtate with reſpect to outward
and viſible communion. Are you hurt then as to
your ſpiritual concerns? Nor this; For the ſentence
of the church can be no bar to God's favour *
I cannot but ſay, Sir, that you have here made
very great and noble conceffions, which excite in
me an agreeable mixture of pleaſure and ſu


* Second Letter, p. 79.
prize.
24
A SECOND LÈTTER

.
nor
prize. I count it a ſort of victory to have drawn
them from you; and think myſelf amply recom-
penced for all the pains I have taken; or may here,
after take, in this controverſy. Let me have the
fatisfaction to review, and recapitulate, and pre-
fent theſe conceſſions to the reader in form.
None but bad men will inſult thoſe, whom the
church rejects as heretics---The church has nothing
to do with your body, or with your goods----Her
fentence only affects your ſtate, with reſpect to
outward and viſible communion-:--But it hurts
you not at all as to your ſpiritual concerns
can be any bar to God's favour ----All this
Dr. STEBBING himſelf either directly allows, or
clearly and ſtrongly intimates : And by fo doing,
he has ſtripped the excommunicating ſentence of
the church of all its real terror, and repreſented
it as a thing ſo entirely harmleſs and innocent, that
an honeſt man, following the directions of his
conſcience, muſt be either weak or ſuperſtitious
to a high degree if he is much ſcared and
daunted by it. But yet, Sir, be pleaſed to re-
flect a little. Is the opprobrious name of he-
retic, and the being ſtigmatized by an undeſerved
mark of infamy, no inſult? If chriſtian commu-
nion be a privilege, muſt not the debarring truly
conſcientious and upright chriſtians from it, and
treating them publickly as if they were perſons
unworthy of it, be both a high inſult, and a
grievous act of opprefion? Or is no man oppreſſed,
who is not hurt in his BODY or in his GOODS ?
Is he not hurt, when he is wrongfully cenſured,
and openly diſgraced, and deprived of privileges
to which he has the juſteſt claim? Are theſe things





to Dr. STEBBING.
25
no diſcouragement to the impartial ſtudy of the
holy ſcriptures ? Are they not calculated to cramp
free enquiries, and to terrify and biaſs the mind?
Do not all our knowledge and experience of hu-
man nature, and the hiſtory of mankind in all
ages teach us, that they have a general and very
prevailing influence? Or can you really think,
that nothing is a diſcouragement, but the ſecular
arm's interpofing to ſupport the cenſures of the
church? I am very glad to find, indeed, that you
ſpeak of excommunication as in its original fim-
plicity, when it is ſtripped of theſè appendages,
i.e. the terrors of the ſecular arm; but I want
ſtill to be informed, whether you ſuppoſe PECU-
NIARY MULCTS of ſixpence in the pound, or any
other ſum the magiſtrate likes better*, to be one of
t' eſe appendages, or ſuch a hurting a perſon in
his goods, as is an act of OPPRESSION. And I
muſt tell you moreover, that tho' all profeffions
of moderation, and of a zeal for liberty, are very
good, and ought to be encouraged; yet they muſt
appear to come but awkardly from your pen, till
you have renounced the doctrine of MAHOMET«f,
with reſpect to the levying a fine, proportioned as
it ought to be, on every one that diſſents from the
eſtabliſhed religion, as a compoſition----TRIBUTE
for his liberty.
Obj. 3. Good men may (my words are," all
« but thoſe, who believe as the church believes
will) be branded with marks of infamy I.”
* Theſe are recommended by Dr. Stebbing, in his Polemical Tracts:
† Compare Dr. Stebbing's Polemical Tracts, Eſſay concerning Civil
Government, p. 84, 85, 93. with the Alchoran, tranſlated by Mr.
Sale, chap. ix. p. 152.
Letter to Dr. Stebbing, p. 56.
E
Here


26
A SECOND LETTER
manners.
Here your anſwer
anſwer is not directly to the objection,
but what there is of it is extremely abrupt and
ſpirited.----So they may; and if they be good men,
they will know how to bear it. Bad ones deſerve
diſgrace, and it may help to mend their manners
But becauſe good men will know how to bear it,
does it follow, that they may be righteouſly brand-
ed with marks of infamy ? Or is this
any
vindi-
cation of a rule, by which they are unavoidably
ſubjected to brands of infamy? An inquiſitor may
in the ſame dogmatical ſtrain defend the rack.
Good men will know how to bear it; bad ones de-
ferve puniſhment, and it may help to mend their
And inſtead of adding, Note that man
----that he may be aſhamed (which text, though
you have brought it more than once into this con-
troverſy, as a warrant for rejecting all as heretics
who depart from the faith, relates only to a caſe
of immorality) inſtead of adding this, he need but
fubjoin, to render his argument altogether as good,
and, I think, as ſpecious as yours, the following
paſſage: Deliver ſuch a one unto Satan, for the
deſtru&tion of the fleſh,---that the ſpirit may be ſaved
in the day of the Lord Jejus.
To my fourth and fifth objections you have ſaid
nothing, except it be to the laſt clauſe.
« That
" the faith and conſciences of chriſtians will be ſub-
jected to an eccleſiaſtical tyranny and inquiſi-
« tion.” And here your anſwer is(what a man may
eaſily give to any bad conſequences urged againſt
an opinion, when he ſees himſelf likely to be en-
barraf d by them) Hard words and nothing elſe.---




* Dr. Stebbing's Letter, þ. 79.
1

to Dr. STEBBING.
27.
I ſhall not preſume, Sir, to reply to ſuch peremp-
tory and deciſive arguments as theſe; but ſhall
fubmit it to the reader, whether if this be a juſt
conſequence from your account of herefy (and I
think it a moſt certain and indiſputable one) it be
not a TERRIBLE THING too (harder than Egyp-
tian or Turkiſh ſlavery) againſt which the chri-
ſtian laity have the higheſt reaſon to be upon
their guard.
You may, if you pleafe, continue to ſay, that
in all this I am obječting not againſi you, but again
the goſpel. Others, before you, have fathered
upon the goſpel notions that are both abſurd and
unſcriptural. And therefore I ſhall give myſelf
no concern about ſuch ſtale and worn-out devices
as theſe, but leave them to the public cenſure.
The laſt objection that I made againſt your no-
tion of herefy is this, That hereſy, i. e. The
herefy condemned in the New Teſtament, and
for which perſons are to be rejected from the ſo-
ciety and fellowſhip of chriſtians, is, according to
St. Paul, a work of the fleſh, which he that does
ſhall not inherit the kingdom of God*. To this
you reply, That every character is not a definition.
It is one thing to ſay that heretics are, another to
Say what they muſt be. If hereſy is a work of
the fleſh, ſo is idolatry. But is a carnal mind of
ſential to the notion of an idolater of, &c. As this
whole pafiage is very curious and extraordinary, I
ſhall conſider it diſtinctly and fully. And,
Firſt, it is a great ſatisfaction to me to obſerve
that you are not ſo much oppoſing me, as directly


* Gal. v, 20, 21.
+ Second Letter, p. 73.
E 2
con
28
A SECOND LETTER
contradicting St. Paul, who exprefly ſays, that
HERESY is a work of the fleſh: Whereas you inſi-
nuate, that this is not an account of what hereſy
is, but of what heretics were. Another perſon,
after your laudable example, may be tempted to
take the ſame liberty with reſpect to adultery, and
fay, every character is not a definition ; it is one
thing to ſay what adulterers are, another to ſay
what they muſt be: For hereſy, in the text itſelf,
is affirmed to be a work of the fleſh, for any thing
that appears to the contrary, in the ſame ſenſe that
adultery is; and the Apoſtle has made no man-
ner of difference between them. If he had in-
tended, ever ſo much, to repreſent the matter ac-
cording to my notion of it, he could not poſſibly
have uſed ſtronger terms; which, if he wrote
with a deſign to be underſtood, is next to a demon-
ſtration that this was his real ſenſe, and, of con-
ſequence, that your account of hereſy is falſe and
unfcriptural. But,
Secondly, you muſt allow me to inform the
reader, that you have either miſtaken, or artfully
changed, the ſubječt of the propofition, which is
HEREST"; and not, as your anſwer requires to
make it any thing plauſible, HERETICS. Had
the apoſtle expreſſed himſelf thus, HERETICS
walk after the fleſh, it might perhaps have looked
ſomewhat ſpecious to perfons of little reflection to
ſay, every character is not a definition; and that
this was only a deſcription of what heretics were,
and not of what they muſt be. But when it is
affirmed, that hereſy abſolutely, i. e. the offence it
felf, is a work of the fleſh; there is no room for
ſuch an evaſion: And to endeavour to obtrude
this




از مهر و

to Dr. STEBBING,
29
this upon any as an HISTORICAL paſſage only,
and not a deſcription of the nature and quality of
the crime itſelf, is a groſs affront to his under-
ſtanding. However,
Thirdly, I ſhall endeavour to ſhew from the
context, that what you inſinuate cannot be St.
Paul's meaning. In the 16th and 17th verſes,
he mentions two principles, the ſpirit, and the
Melh; the one as the principle of piety and good-
neſs, the other of irreligion and immorality.
He then proceeds firſt to give a catalogue of the
works of the fleſh, or works that ſpring from the
evil principle, which is repugnant to virtue and
true religion. Now the works of the fleſh are ma-
nifeſt, which are, adultery, fornication ---- idola-
try----berefes, envyings, murders, drunkenneſs,
revelling and ſuch like.----But of ſuch things as
may not be, and ſometimes are not, works of the
fleſh, the Apoſtle could not ſurely ſay abſolutely---
The works of the fleſh are manifeſt, which are fo
and fo, ſpecifying theſe very things particularly,
and including them among other things that are
neceſſarily and at all times works of the fleſh,
without any mark of diſtinction, or intimating the
leaſt exception; becauſe this is writing with great
impropriety at leaſt. He goes on to inform the
Galatians what is the fruit of the ſpirit, and tells
them, that it is love, joy, peace, long-ſuffering, &c.
Now what would be thought of the man that
Thould ſay with reſpect to theſe, every character
is not a definition : 'Tis one thing to ſay what the
charitable and peaceable were, another to ſay what
they muſt be. Do you believe in your own con-
ſcience, Sir, that he would not be juſtly regarded





as
30
A SECOND LETTER
as a very trifling and evaſive writer? And yet this
ſtrange licence is allowable in both the inſtances, or
in neither. But in truth, as I hinted before, here
is nothing at all ſaid of MEN, but only of VIR-
TUES and vices conſidered in themſelves; the
latter of which are repreſented ABSOLUTELY as
works of the fleſh, and the former as the fruit of

the ſpirit.
Fourthly, whereas you are pleas’d to ask me,
whether a carnal mind be eſſential to the notion
of an idolater? I anſwer ; That 'tis one thing,
what principles an idolater may, in fact, be in-
fluenced by, and another, what idolatry is in it-
ſelf: And it is the laſt of theſe only that St. Paul
is ſpeaking of. Idolatry, you yourſelf muſt al-
low, is a heinous offence againſt the law of na-
ture, and of conſequence, being a ſcandalous im-
morality, and directly contrary to what the apo-
ſtle has affirm'd to be the principle of religion and
virtue, it is juſtly mention'd as, in itſelf, one of
the works of the fleſh. And do but allow, what
I think you cannot deny without being a direct
oppugner of the doctrine of an inſpired apoſtle,
that herefy likewiſe is abſolutely, and in itſelf, à
work of the fleſh, and you will effectually over-
turn your whole ſcheme. I ſhall apply it to this
uſe immediately---But, in the mean time, muſt
take ſome notice of what you ſeem to think the
main ſtrength of your Anſwer, and have given
in the following words. Go on, if you pleaſe,
and ſay, as you do (i. e. with St. Paul) that he-
retics (i
. e. they who do, or are guilty of, here-
fy) ſhall not inherit the kingdom of God. You
will get nothing more. For neither ſhall idolaters;
neither





to Dr. STEBBING.

neither ſhall unbelievers : For he that believeth not
ſhall be damn'd. But will you allow of no excep-
tions to general rules? Will you ſay, that every
idolater, and every unbeliever, is wilfully ſo, and
conſequently in a fiate of damnation * Here, Sir,
I muſt acknowledge myſelf to be at a loſs in
what manner to apprehend you. If you intended
only to draw me into a fnare, and do not your-
ſelf believe, that ſome idolaters and unbelievers
may be ſaved, you have offer'd that as an anſwer,
which, however your adverſary may happen to
be embarraſſed by it, can, in your own judgment,
be no real anſwer to the difficulty; which is a
method of arguing, that has more of artifice, than
of fairneſs and ingenuity in it. But if you
de-
figned to intimate it as your real opinion, that
every idolatēr, and every unbeliever, is not ab,
ſolutely in a ſtate of damnation ; you might ſurely
have ſpared this ſentence, that when I have ſaid
they are, I ſhall meet with anſwerers enough (per-
haps) among my FRIENDS. For why, I ask you,
among my friends? Will not ſuch anſwerers be
more properly ranked among your friends, fince
it is with you (upon the ſuppoſition now made)
that they agree in ſentiment, than among mine,
whoſe opinion they muſt directly oppoſe? Your
expreſſing yourſelf thus, Sir, makes me doubt
whether you are really in earneſt; or only look-
ing out for a ſhift. Or, if you deſigned to infi-
nuate, that idolaters or unbelievers are (perhaps)
my friends ; beſides that you have put a caſe, of
my pronouncing the abſolute damnation of my




* Second Letter, p. 73.
friends,
32
A SECOND LETTER
friends
, which contradicts and deſtroys itſelf, it
is a moſt mean and unchriſtian reflection, that de
ſerves nothing but pity and contempt. But be
your views and intentions what they will, I ſhall
endeavour to ſet this matter, according to my ap-
prehenſion of it, in a clear and juſt light.---By
the fleſh, as it ſtands here in oppoſition to the
Spirit, St. Paul evidently means the principle and
ſource of moral evil: When he ſpeaks of the
lufts of the fleſh, he means inordinate affections
and evil habits, affections and habits in their own
nature evil and irregular: And by the works of
the fleſh, evil deeds, and immoral practices, prac-
tices that are in themſelves evil. When therefore
he ſays, that they who do theſe evil works ſhall
not inherit the kingdom of God, he muſt be al-
lowed to intend ſomething by the expreſſion, and
ſomething certain and determinate too; or elſe,
his meaning, with reſpect to the very terms of
ſalvation themſelves, is impoſſible to be fixed.
And what can this ſomething be, if we reduce it
to the loweſt and ſofteſt ſenſe that the words will
admit of, but this ; that they who do the works of
the fleſh, either adultery which is a work of the
fleſh, or idolatry, or murders, or hereſies (which
are all indiſcriminately, and, in the ſame ſtile, af-
firmed to be works of the fleſh) ſhall not, accord-
ing to the general rule of God's moral govern-
ment, and the declared conſtitution of the goſpel,
inherit the kingdom of God. What allowances
the merciful judge of the world may make for
the unhappy circumſtances and almoſt invincible
prejudices of ſome idolaters, and unbelievers,
nothing at all to the purpoſe: For if the cir-
cumſtances







to Dr. STEBBING.
33
cumſtances of other offenders are equally unhap-
py, and their prejudices as invincible, there muſt,
in ſtrict equity, be the ſame allowances made for
them, as in the caſe of idolatry. But what con-
cluſion ſhall we draw from hence? Will this ex-
tenuate the guilt of theſe crimes, confider'd in
themſelves ? Or will it prove that the general and
declared conſtitution of the goſpel is not as I
have ſtated it, that they who do ſuch things ſhall
not inherit the kingdom of God? What inference
then will it yield, that can be of any advantage
to you in this controverſy? Can it be of ſervice to
you to ſay only, that there may be ſome exceptions
from this general rule? Not in the leaſt: For
ſhould this be allowed, yet if (as has been proved)
herely abſolutely, and itſelf, be a work of the fleſh;
and if they who do this work, according to the ge-
neral conſtitution of the goſpel declared by St.
Paul, ſhall not inherit the kingdom of God; it
muſt then follow, if your notion of hereſy be true,
that departing from the faith, even when it is a
mere involuntary error, and conſiſtent with ſin-
cerity, is in itſelf a work of the fleſh; which ac-
cording to the general conſtitution of the goſpel
declared by St. Paul, will exclude from ſalvation,
And, of courſe, it muſt follow, that mere human
frailty, though it be joined with moſt pious and
upright intentions, is juſtly ranked, without any
diſtinction, or the leaſt alleviating circumſtance,
with adultery, murder, idolatry, and other capital
offences againſt the law of nature, as what, in an
ordinary way, puts men equally with any of theſe,
in a ſtate of damnation.






F
Let
34
A SECOND LETTER
Let me add, that whatever offenders may, in
fome ſpecial caſes, be ſuppoſed to be excepted from
the apoſtle's general rule, the beretic can be no
exception ; nor hope to be ſaved, as you would have
it thought idolaters and unbelievers may, even by
the uncovenanted mercies of God; if the deſcrip-
tion elſewhere given of him, by the ſame writer,
be interpreted in its moſt natural and obvious
meaning, viz. that he finneth, and is condemned
of himſelf
, or, in other words, fins
directly againſt
the conviction of his own mind. My ſentiment, I
beg the reader to obſerve, agrees ſtrictly with the
account given of hereſy in both theſe paſſages-
Yours, on the contrary, renders it jejune, and
felf-contradi&tory. I now proceed to defend what
I have advanced, as the true and ſcriptural no-
tion of herefy.
There are only two branches of the heretic's
character, as it is deſcribed by St. Paul, about
which there hath, hitherto, been a controverſy
between us; viz. he finneth, and is condemned of
himſelf.
1. He finneth. And what have I endeavoured
to prove from hence? Why, if your account
may be truſted, I have argued merely from the
word pnneth, that by a heretic St. Paul means
him only who maintains wrong opinions, knowing
them to be ſuch. And upon this you obſerve, that
to draw any argument from bence to my purpoſe
it will be neceſſary to ſay, that no man finneth,
but be who acts directly againſt conviction *
What you allege, as the foundation of this falfe




* Second Letter, p. 21.
charge,

to Dr. STEBBING.
35
charge, is contained in the following words.
*. According to St. Paul's account, a heretic----
finneth, i. e, maintains wrong ſentiments of
chriſtianity wilfully, and with an ill intention---
“ The perſons, deſcribed by the apoſtle as finners,
“ muſt be wilful corrupters and oppoſers of the
cc chriſtian religion.” But to your perverſion of
my true meaning, I have already given a diſtinct
and full anſwer. And I muſt deſire the reader to
be at the pains of conſulting the paſſage at large *
becauſe it will not only clear the point from the
confuſion in which you have involved it, but may
ſerve as a warning and direction to him for the
future----by enabling him, from your conduct,
to judge of your views and deſign in writing.
From the paſſage here referred to, it muſt evi-
dently appear; Firſt, That I endeavoured, as I
have directly told you, to eſtabliſh my notion
of a heretic by degrees as the text in the epiſtle to
Titus ſuggeſted it; and not to deduce the whole
of his character from every ſingle branch of his
character. Secondly, That I ſuppoſed there may
be ſeveral degrees of wilful error, and that it does
not conſiſt in an abſolute point the acting di-
reetly againſt conviction. And thirdly, That by
wilful error, I meant no more than voluntary er-
ror : Which it is very ſurprizing you yourſelf
ihould not know from another paragraph in my
firſt Letter of, where the word occurs, and can be
taken in no other fenfe.
Let me add, That I can fee no reaſon, why
the words voluntary and wilful may not be uſed
* Letter to Dr. Stebbing, p. 23, 24, 25.
+ Page 63.
F 2
pro-


36
A SECOND LETTER
ز
promiſcuouſly, as well as the words legal and law-
ful
. But if a man's embraceing errors, or doc-
trines contrary to chriſtianity, may be voluntary,
or which is the ſame according to my notion of
the term, wilful; his maintaining them, may,
and muſt, be ſo likewiſe : Since they both reſult
originally from the ſame cauſe ; i. e. not from a
mere error of the underſtanding, or mere human
frailty, but from fome fault of the will. It is
therefore no abſurdity at all to ſay,
cs that he who
" is convinced in his own mind, maintains that
" whereof he is convinced wilfully* ;” i. e. volun-
tarily, or from fome fault of the will.----Nor
am I fingular in the language I have uſed; but
have on my fide very diſtinguiſhed authors of the
firſt character for judgment and great abilities. It
will, I preſume, be thought ſufficient, if I name
only Archbiſhop Tillotſon, who ſpeaks thus :
“ An error which proceeds from want of ordi-
nary human care, and due government of a
“ man's felf, is in a great degree WILFUL.” Of
theſe he enumerates particular inſtances, not one
of which ſuppoſes the erroneous perſon to act di-
restly againſt conviction : “ As when it proceeds
• from an unreaſonable and obſtinate prejudice,
“ from great pride and ſelf-conceit, and con-
tempt of counſel and inſtruction, or from a vi-
“ fible biaſs of ſelf-intereſt, &c.” And a little
after this, he adds another paſſage, under the ſame
head of diſcourſe, which ſhews, that by wilful
and voluntary he meant the ſame thing, and uſed
them as ſynonymous terms: “ So that it highly cor
cerns men to conſider what opinions they em-
* Dr. Stebbing's Second Letter, Þ. 23.
« brace




to Dr. STEBBING.
37
"
es brace in order to practice, and not to ſuffer
“ themſelves to be hurried away by an unrea-
“ fonable prejudice, and a heady paſſion, with-
« out a due and calm examination of things ;
not to be overborn by pride, or humour, or
“ partiality, or intereſt, &c. becauſe proportionably
to the VOLUNTARINESS of our error," (which
he had ſtiled before, for the very fame reaſons,
an error that is WILFUL in a great degree]
" will
« be the guilt of our practice purſuant to that
error *
But you will ſtill aſk, May a man maintain
doctrines contrary to chriſtianity with an ill in-
tention of likewiſe, and yet not know them to be
ſuch? Undoubtedly he may. He may maintain,
Sir (as all the world beſides yourſelf will allow)
doctrines that are agreeable to chriſtianity, and
which he firmly believes to be true, with an ill
intention ; i. e. either to gratify his ambition and
vanity, or from a view to private intereſt. What
then ſhould hinder, but that he may maintain
wrong ſentiments with an ill intention, though he
does not know them to be wrong? He that
eſpouſes right principles with an ill intention while
he believes them to be right, may, ſurely, eſpouſe
wrong principles likewiſe with an ill intention,
notwithſtanding he believes them to be right: And
’tis your imagination only that has raiſed this
frightful bugbear, with which you ſeem to be ſo
much confounded.
The diſpute between us is at length brought
to this; What may be juſtly inferred from that

* Tillotſon's Sermons, Vol. I. Þ. 355, 356,
# See Dr Stebbing's Second Letter; p. 23.
part

38
A SECOND LETTER
part of St. Paul's deſcription of a heretic He
finneth? I declared it as my opinion, that the
Apoſtle muſt mean, that the heretic's “
error is
voluntary, and ſprings either from corrupt prin--
ciples, or an ill intention, becauſe fin, in the
very nature of it implies ſome fault in the will;
«c and errors of the underſtanding, conſidered in
themſelves, are not criminal *."
To which you
anfwer, That the Greek words cépe aptia and dipede pas
Teveiv carry with them no ſuch determinate mean-
ing ----but oftentimes hgnify no more than a ſimple
error or tranſgreſſion; according to which notion
men are ſaid to fin, or be finners, only with reſpect
to the adi materially confidered: Thus John viii. 46.
τις εξ υμών ελένχει με σερί “Αμαρτίας ; which of
you convinceth me of SIN? By which our Saviour
did not mean to aſk, whether any of them could
convince him of wilful trangreſſion, but (ſimply) of
tranfgreſſion. So Acts xxv. 8. St. Paul ſays, neither
againſt the law of the fews, neither againſt the
temple, neither againſt Cæſar, ti ne ceplov, have
I (not wilfully offended, but fimply ) offended.
But moſt remarkable to ous purpoſe is, I Tim. i.
15. where St. Paul calls bimſelf the Chief of fin-
ners, becauſe he had aforetimes been a blaſphemer,
a perſecutor, and injurious. But I obtained mercy
(ſays he) becauſe I did it ignorantly. And in his
defence before the Jewiſh council he ſays, be bad
lived in all good conſcience before God, Acts xxiii. I.
A finner nevertheleſs he might be (and no doubt he
was) in your ſenſe of ſinning; but the chief of
finners he could not be any otherwiſe than with rem



* Letter to Dr. Stebbing, p. 68.
Spect

to Dr. STEBBING.
39
***
Spect to the act materially conſidered. More In-
ſtances might be produced; but theſe are fuf-
ficient to ſhew, that when the Apoſtle Jays of a he-
retic, that he ſinneth, he might mean the ſame
thing as if he had ſaid, he is gone out of the
way
Before I conſider this matter diſtinctly, I would
juſt obſerve, That when Chriſt ſays, which of you
convinceth me of sin; he probably means, which
of you convinceth me of deceit and impoſture, in
pretending to be a prophet fent from God, and the
true Meſiah, when I really am not ſo. To this
ſenſe the context plainly leads us, which ſtands
thus : ß And becauſe I tell you the truth, ye be-
lieve me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin;
i. e. (as the connection requires it ſhould be ex-
plained) of not telling you the truth; of falſely af-
ſuming the prophetic character ? And if you are
not able to do this, if you cannot prove me to be
an impoſtor, if, on the contrary, I ſay the truth,
why do ye not believe me? This, I think, is the
moſt natural paraphraſe that can be given of the
And I ſubmit it to the judicious reader,
whether our Saviour could ſuppoſe himſelf to be
thus convicted, and proved to be ſuch a falſe de-
ceiver, without thinking that he muſt be a wil-
FUL finner ; or whether any of the Jews could
underſtand him thus. A deluded enthuſiaſt he
could not be, becauſe ſuch a long pretence of mi-
racles could not be ſupported by mere enthuſiaſm.
He muſt have known, in ſeveral cafes at leaſt,
that the miracles he pretended to were not really



text.
* Second Letter, Þ.71.
+ John viii. 45, 46.
per-

40
A SECOND LETTER
Cæfar, as?
performed: Nor was it poſſible, that the people
İhould have been ſo grolly impoſed upon for a
conſiderable time, without ſome WILFUL and
concerted fraud----In like manner, if St. Paul
had ſuch an exact knowledge of the law of the
Fews, and of the reſpect due to the temple,
not offended againſt them (vi) in any one inſtance,
or any thing at all; 'tis ſcarce poſſible he ſhould
have offended without being a voluntary offender,
or that he could imagine this of himſelf. In
both theſe paſſages, therefore, the offence, and
tranſgreſſion ſpoken of, plainly includes in it the
idea of VOLUNTARY tranſgreſſion.
But to ſhew that the whole of what
you
have
obſerved is very little to the purpoſe, I offer the
following remarks. ---- Firſt, If the meaning of
theſe words a heretic finneth be no more than this,
He is gone out of the way, the Apoſtle hath al-
ferted nothing here but what he had expreſſed as
fully before, and you make him write after this
manner : A heretic geçecemo is fubverted, i. e.
is
gone out of the way, and finneth, i. e. again the
fame, is gone out of the way. Whereas if we ſup-
poſe St. Paul to ſay firſt in general, that he is
perverted, and then that he errs, and is gone out
of the way, voluntarily, there is a propriety in
bath the expreſſions.----The whole queſtion then
is in ſhort this, whether we ſhall admit an inter-
pretation in which the fenſe is diftinet, and riſes;
or one, in which a different word conveys no idea
that is at all different, but is a flat and inſipid tau-
tology.---If the tautological interpretation were the
only one that the word is capable of, we muſt of
courſe




مع 2


to Dr. STEBBING.
41
courſe have acquieſced in it; but when there is
another that avoids this difficulty, and is withal
more natural and ſignificant, common ſenſe will di-
tect us which to chufe. Secondly, When St.
Paul ſpeaks of a heretic as one that finneth, I took
it for granted, that he uſed the word in its moſt
obvious and uſual ſenſe, and ſpoke of fin for which
the heretic is ACCOUNTABLE.
And I believe
there is not one perſon in the world would under-
ſtand him otherwiſe, if he was not biaſſed in fa-
vour of ſome hypotheſis
. But this, which is the
general and moſt natural acceptation of the term,
will by no means ſuit your notion of hereſy; and
cannot be the caſe in the reaſon of the thing, unleſs
his offence be VOLUNTARY.----It follows there-
fore, Thirdly, That in all thoſe paſſages which
you have produced to ſhew, that men are ſaid to
be finners only with reſpect to the act materially
conſidered, it follows, I ſay, that if it be an act
for which the finner is ACCOUNTABLE, it muſt
neceſſarily include in it the idea of voLUNTARY
tranſgreſſion. And the reaſon why men are de-
bed as finners, in all ſuch paffages, is evidently
this, that when any action is either directly re-
pugnant to the law of nature, or a plain violation
of a poſitive law, it is always preſumed, that the
perſons offending either had, or might have bad,
a knowledge of the law, and confequently that
they ſinned from ſome fault of their wills.
I may proceed one ſtep farther, and add, Fourthly,
That in none of the inſtances which you have al-
leged, could a man be ſaid to be a finner with re-
ſpect to the act materially conſidered, but upon
this fuppoſition only, that he was a voLUNTARY
G
agent,



1

42
A SECOND LETTER
agent. Neither St. Paul, I preſume, nor any other
moral writer, would have repreſented an idiot or
a madman *, who was a blaſphemer and injurious,
as a finner, purely on account of the material acts.
And what reaſon can be affigned for this, but that
theſe acts, in ſuch perſons, are entirely INVO-
LUNTARY, and that any beaſt of prey, that hurts
an innocent traveller, may be ftiled a finner with
equal propriety? But he juftly calls himſelf a fin-
ner, becauſe, as you allow, there is no doubt but
he was ſo in my ſenſe of ſinning ; i. e. a volun-
TARY tranfgreffor. And, farther, he ſpeaks of
himſelf as the chief of finners only for this reaſon,
becauſe the blaſphemy, injuſtice, and perſecutions
which he committed, and which are juſtly ranked
amongſt the blackeſt of crimes, were all voLUN-
TARY actions. But he could not "properly have
faid ſo much as that he was a ſinner, and much
leſs that he was the chief of finners, if he had ei-
ther been invincibly ignorant of the malignity and
guilt of theſe crimes, or his WILL had no concern
in the commiſſion of them.
To proceed: Another thing that I obſerved was
this, « That the crime of the heretic, whom St.
Paul ſpeaks of, was of ſuch a nature, as required
“ not inſtruction, but admonition; from whence, I
apprehended, it evidently follows, that the fault
lay in the will, and in the underſtanding 4.” And
the argument, thus rightly ſtated, I am ready to de-
fend, becauſe I ſtill think it to be very ſtrong and
concluſive. The anſwer you gave to it in your firſt
Letter I was, That as St. Paul was now giving
* N. B. I ſuppoſe the misfortune of theſe perſons to be natural and
† Letter to Dr. Stebbing, p. 26. $ Page 15
direc-
1
unavoidable.

to Dr. STEBBING.
43
directions to a Biſhop, it was natural for him to
mention ſuch particulars only, as ſpecially con-
cerned the office of a Biſhop, ſuch, you ſay, were
admonition and rejection: For as to inſtruction,
That lay in common among all the paſtors of the
church. To which I replied, That “ the deſign
“ of my argument was to thew, that to admoniſh
for mere errors of the underſtanding is abſurd
« in itſelf.”----And if ſo, will the character of
" the admoniſher make it wiſe and rational? If it
s be abſurd in a preſbyter, in all mankind, in the
very nature of the thing, muſt it not alſo be
" abfurd in a Biſhop * ?” Upon this you ſay,
I ſtand corrected, Siropa---and add ſomething to
excuſe your having given ſuch a remote and tri-
fling anſwer; which if the reader underſtands, and
judges it to be a ſufficient excuſe, I am very well
contented to let it paſs, as having now no concern
in it; becauſe you have given up the anſwer itfelf.
It only remains to be conſidered, what you
have
replied to the argument, as it ſtands at preſent.
And really, Sir, you muſt allow me to ſay,
that you have barrangued upon it fo looſely,
that I find it extremely difficult to reduce what
you have offered to any general heads: However,
Í ſhall do it in the beſt manner I can. You tell
me, that I have ſet forth all heretics as complete
knaves----whom you think much fitter for the Gal-
lows, than to be dealt with in any reaſonable way I.
This I mention not as bearing of the leaſt fimi-
litude of argument; but to thew how forward
you




* Letter to Dr. Stebbing, p. 26.
+ Second Letter, p. 25.
# Ibid. p. 26.
G2
are,

44
A SECOND LETTER
are, on all occaſions, to expreſs your zeal for
wholeſome ſeverities. The Gallows is the pro-
per diſcipline for all who are in the higheſt claſs of
the wilfully erroneous, who make religion a cloak
for their immoralities, and have reſolved to facri-
fice truth and virtue to the gratification of their
fenfual depres. And for the
fimply, the ſincerely,
erroneous, for ſuch as diſſent, even from a princi-
ple of conſcience, from the eſtabliſhed religion,
you have provided PECUNIARY MULCTS, after
the laudable example of MAHOMET; and have
taken due care, by leaving the ſum to the diſcre-
tion * of the magiſtrate, that they may exceed,
if occaſion requires, any Mahometan taxations
merely on account of religion.----Are theſe, Sir,
your principles of liberty? Is this your tender
chriſtian ſpirit ?----But not to inſiſt farther on
this: You tell me, That inſtruction ſuppoſed,
admonition may always properly follow up By
which you ſhould mean, to make this remark at all
pertinent, inſtruction after the perſon is become
erroneous, and has departed from the faith: For
otherwiſe, the erroneous perſon, conſidered as ſuch,
will have no inſtruction at all, but only be ad-
moniſhed; which, in caſes of mere involuntary
error, I have fhewn to be abſurd. And yet this,
which is the only thing that could be to your
purpoſe, ſeems, from the following paſſage, not
to have been your real meaning. Thoſe, you ſay,
whom the ſtanding inſtructions of the church could
not preſerve from corruptions in the faith, might
* Six-pence in the pound, or ANY OTHER SUM you like better. Dr.
Stebbing's Polemical Tracts.
| Second Letter, p.2$.
be


to Dr. STEBBING,
45
MONITION.
be reformed by admonitions *. Here you plainly
intimate, that by the inſtruction ſuppoſed, you in-
tended nothing more than the ſtanding inſtructions
of the church: And that when any err from the
faith, who have had the advantage of theſe ſtand-
ing inſtructions, be they ever ſo ſincere, and their
error ever ſo involuntary, there is no farther in-
STRUCTION required ; and nothing to be done
but for the Biſhop, forthwith, to proceed to AD-
But this, you may eaſily fee, is
only aſſerting your own opinion, and no anſwer
at all to my argument, that in caſes of mere in-
voluntary error openly eſpouſed (which in your no-
tion is hereſy) admonition is frivolous and imper-
tinent; and that inſtruction is the only fit means to
recover thoſe from their miſtakes, who err fincere-
ly, and think it their duty to propagate their errors.
And whereas you ſay, That there is ſuch a
thing, ſurely, as rebuking in the ſpirit of meek-
neſs ; by which no one underſtands merely telling
men that they are in the wrong, but applying to
offenders in a way proper to reform them; and ask,
Who is ſo much a ſtranger to common life as not to
know, that the admonitions of wiſe and grave men
are apt to work upon moſt tempers; to awaken the
careleſs, as well as to curb the ſelf-willed and
perverſe uf? All this has very little relation to the
point we are inquiring about, which is ſolely
this, which is the proper way of rectifying a
miſtaken judgment, inſtruction, or admonition.
I ſay, in concurrence with the reaſon and expe-
rience of all mankind, inſtruction; and that if
St. Paul had imagined, that the eſpouſing mere
* Second Letter, p. 27.
+ Ibid. p. 26.
in-




46
A SECOND LETTER
involuntary error was the juſt idea of herefy, he
would, as a wiſe man that underſtood human
nature, and much more as an inſpired Apoſtle,
have preſcribed inſtruction, and not admonition ;
and for this reaſon likewiſe, that church-cenſures,
after admonition only, muſt have a direct ten-
dency (in all ſuch caſes) to create a diſguſt
both againſt the church, and the doctrines the
maintains; and, conſequently, to ſtrengthen pre-
judice, and render error more incurable, instead
of enlightening and correcting the judgment. Nay,
I think it a thing not to be ſuppoſed, that the
Apoſtle would have order'd thoſe, who err in-
voluntarily, and are ſincere in their miſtakes, to
be rejected even after the firſt and ſecond in-
STRUCTION : For why ſhould the inſtructions
be limited to ſo ſmall a number? Why ſhould an
honeſt man, after one or two tryals be given up,
and abandon's as irreclaimable? The gentle and
compaſſionate ſpirit of the goſpel muſt certainly
require, that greater tenderneſs ſhould be ſhewn
to a perſon of this character, before he is ſolemn-
ly ſeparated from the ſociety and fellowhip of
Chriſtians; fince, after many repeated experi-
ments, his miſtakes may at length be happily
rectify’d only by ſetting the truth in a particular
light, that is adapted to his underſtanding and
peculiar train of thinking. But that St. Paul in
caſes of ſincere involuntary error, where inſtruc-
tion alone is wanted, ſhould either direct Titus
(not to inſtruct but) to admoniſh; or to reject, after
the firſt and fecond admonition; is utterly incon-
ceivable. And therefore the natural conſequence
from the whole is this----That the fault of the
heretic,

to Dr. STEBBING.
47
heretic, which required admonition, lay in the
will, and not in the underſtanding.
I come now to the laſt branch of the heretic's
character, as it is deſcribed by St. Paul, he is culo-
rolereila, ſelf-condemned : Which I have inter-
preted thus, that he really, in his own mind,
condemns and paſſeth ſentence againſt, himſelf. And
I offered a general argument, from the derivation
and conſtruction of the word itſelf, to ſhew, that
this is, at leaſt, its moſt natural and probable
ſenſe ; which, as you have entirely paſſed it by,
and doubtleſs had your reaſons for it, I preſume
once more to recommend to the reader's, confi
deration. The paſſage you may remember i
this. " You allow, Sir, when you call other
"fenſes of the word indire&t or more remote,
" that sceler elvev properly ſignifies to condemn or
paſs fentence againſt a perſon, as a judge doth.
« And hence it follows, that reccléseim denotes
a condemned perſon, one againſt whom ſentence
“ hath been given. Which word, though it be
not found in the New Teſtament, yet the
« ſenſe of is evident from its oppoſite cerealcere et
I@ uncondemned, which we meet with, Afts
« xvi. 37. They have beaten us openly uncondemned,
direclaxeitous. Theſe perſons had been AC-
CUSED before the magiſtrates, and WITNES-
SES enough appeared againſt them, as is plain
s from ver. 19----22. but as they had not been
as heard in their own defence, nor any legal ſen-
“ tence was paſſed upon them, they are ſtiled
ακαθακρίτοι. Now when αυτος is joined with
any other word, which thus compounded de-
notes an action, it always intimates that the
6s perſon,






48 A SECOND LETTER
“ perſon, of whom that word is ſpoken, does
himſelf perform the action expreſſed by it.
« Thus culofidarla is one who inſtructs him-
ſelf, culorivn@ one who moves himſelf, culo-
" Odval one who kills himſelf; and ſo duloxa-
Idézeslos muſt fignify one condemned of himſelf,
“ or who paſſeth ſentence againſt himſelf *.
From hence it plainly appears, that you
had
no refuge to fly to but ſome improper and remote
ſenſe of the word realareiveiv. And therefore
you have obſerv'd, that thoſe are frequently ſaid
necelax elvev, not only who do themſelves
, as Judges,
determine or paſs ſentence of condemnation upon
any man, 'but thoſe alſo who do indirectly, or more
remotely, condemn a man, by being in ſome reſpect
or other the inſtrument, in virtue whereof con-
demnation is pronounced; i. e. (as you explain it
afterwards) by appearing as witneſſes againſt him.
And thus culonałcereila may fignify only SELF-
ACCUSED, or one that is a witneſs againſt him-
felf. To ſupport this obſervation, you produced
ſeveral texts of ſcripture: Theſe I have confi-
dered, in order to ſhew that they were not to
your purpoſe ; and ſhall now endeavour to defend
my remarks, againſt the objections which you
have made to them,
The firſt paſſage is Heb. xi. 7. where it ſaid of
Noah, that (se celéx qeve) he condemned the world.
And to thew that you have taken an unwarrant-
able licence, and that there could be no reaſon
for departing from the original and proper ſenſe
of kalareivev, I give the following interpretation
* Letter to Dr. Stebbing, p. 304
of

to Dr. STEBBING.
49
CC
of the words: That Noah's " building an ark,
as a proof of his own belief of the warnings he
gave thoſe people of the approaching deluge,
was a virtual condemnation of their impiety in
not hearkening to him, and a pronouncing
“ their puniſhment to be juſt. &c.*” You object
to this account as imperfect, and bid me mind the
oppoſition. Noah ſaved himſelf, and condemned
the world. From what did be ſave himſelf? Why
from the judgment of God: He ſubječted the world
therefore to the judgment of God; and this he did
by leaving them without excuſe, in the fame ſenſe
in which our Saviour ſays he did részev tov
zoomov, CONVINCE the world of fin; John xvi.
8. y To which it will be ſufficient to anſwer,
That the oppoſition is altogether as clear in my
fenſe of the words as in this; though I thought
it enough to explain only the latter part of them,
in order to fix the meaning of the word relérelve.
But the whole may ſtand thus: Noah, by build-
ing an ark in confequence of his faith, that God
would, as he had threatened, deſtroy the old
world, both faved his own houſe from that judg-
ment, and virtually condemned all thoſe who fell
under it, as righteouſly puniſhed for their unbe-
lief. This fenfe, I think, is natural, the oppo-
ſition clear, and no force is put (as there is in
your interpretation) upon the word r.celéx elve.
Eraſmus's note, which you ſubjoin here, is very
conſiſtent with this ſenſe, and both are true: Noah's
building the ark had doubtleſs that effect, as to
cut off all excuſe ; but that is not the meaning of
* Letter to Dr. Stebbing, p. 31.
+ Second Letter, Þ. 32.
the
H

50
À SECOND LETTER
the word recélére esve, and, therefore, not what the
author directly ſays. And with reſpect to our
Saviour's words, yohu xvi. 8. it appears to me,
Sir, that you have ſcarce given yourſelf the trou-
ble to look into them: For you have quoted the
paffage itſelf wrong. He ſays not, that he him-
ſelf did, but that, when the Holy Ghoſt came,
he ſhould convince the world of fin. However,
rightly or fallly quoted, they are quite imperti-
nent; becauſe, Firſt, The meaning of the word
inézev can never help us to ſettle the fenfe
of a quite different word, reclaxelvev. And,
Secondly, You ſeem to have miſtaken the true
ſenſe even of the word résxev, when it is ſaid
of the Holy Ghoſt, that he ſhould convince the
world of ſin. For it does not appear, that our
Saviour intended by this expreſſion, that he would
leave the world without excuſe; but only to de-
note the effect, which his miraculous gifts and
powers, hereafter to be conferred, would have
upon their minds. The world was to be con-
vinced of ſin, in the fame manner as it was to
be convinced of righteouſneſs. By righteouſneſs
we are to underſtand the integrity of Chriſt's con-
duct, the juſtice of his pretenſions, the divine
truth and rectitude of his religion. But of this,
ſurely, the world were not to be convinced by
leaving them without excuſe. No; The laſt and
moſt extraordinary effuſion of the ſpirit, of which
this text ſpeaks, was to convince the world, i. e.
make them ſenſible, that Chriſt was a righteous per-
fon, and had maintained a righteous cauſe; by
giving them clear evidence that he was aſcended to
the father. In like manner they were to be con-
vinced,
to Dr. STEBBING.
51

vinced, i. e. made ſenſible, of the greatneſs and hei-
nouſneſs of their fin in diſbelieving and reject-
ing him. This was the direct deſign and ten-
dency of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghoſt
communicated after our Saviour's afcenfion; and
the leaving the world without excuſe was only a
remote and accidental effect. But as 'tis highly
probable, for the reaſon already intimated, that
you never examined the text you have quoted,
ºtis no wonder that you have miſrepreſented the
ſenſe of it. All your objections againſt the inter-
pretation which I have given of Hebrews xi. 7.
being, I think, fully removed, I proceed to the
next paſſage.
Matthew xi. 41. Luke xi. 32. The men of
Niniveh ſhall riſe up in judgment with this gene-
ration (και καlακρινέσιν αυτήν) and hall condemn
it. I had ſaid, this text may be interpreted as
in the inſtance of Noah : " They ſhall pronounce
your condemnation to be juſt; or thus, They
* Thall be your judges, and will condemn you *"
But you aſk, How is it poſſible, that it ſhould be
thus interpreted? Who is to paſs ſentence, or, to
pronounce condemnation, but the judge? Or,
who is judge at the laſt day but God? And add:
The Ninevites therefore could condemn that gene-
ration of men no otherwiſe than as witneſſes t.
But allow me, Sir, in my turn to aſk a few queſ-
tions likewiſe. Of what were theſe Ninevites to
be witneſſes ? Of the conduct of perfonis not in
being, till many ages after they themſelves were
dead? This, ſure, will not be pretended. Of

6C

* Letter to Dr. Stebbing, p. 33.
† Second Letter, p. 33.
their
H2

52 A SECOND LETTER
their own conduct? This ſeems extrajudicial;
and might rather be expected from others, than
from themſelves. How then can they be con-
ſidered as WITNESSES? If you ſay, that they
will not really and directly ſtand forth as witnel-
ſes, but may be ſaid to be witneſſes virtually, as
their conduct will ſtrongly teſtify againſt all thoſe,
who continue impenitent under much greater
advantages : It muſt be evident to every one, that
for the ſame reaſon they may as well be ſaid vir-
tually to judge, paſs ſentence, or pronounce con-
demnation. And thus the paffage will be natu-
rally explained; and (which it cannot be, if your
interpretation be admitted) without ſtraining and
torturing the word reciłcen evãris. And I thought
I had ſufficiently guarded againſt ſuch kind of
objections, as you are here pleaſed to make, by
ſaying, That the expreſſion in this paſſage might
be interpreted as in the inſtance of Noah (preſerv-
ing the ALLUSION to the original and proper fig-
nification of reclovekverv.) For by the explication
in the parentheſis, which you have thought pro-
per to omit, it is plain I could not intend to re-
preſent the Ninevites as proper judges; but only
as afſenting to and approving (which their re-
penting at the preaching of Jonas was a demon-
ftration that they muſt do) the ſentence of the
fupreme judge. The authorities in your margin
from Grotius, out of Cicero and Tacitus, con-
cerning the uſe of the Latin word condemnare,
are liable to two exceptions. Firſt, That although
in ſome other language the ſame word, which
like xalaxexvev in Greek, in its proper ſenſe fig-
nifies to condemn, may by a metonymy be ſome-
times

to Dr. STEBBING.
53
times uſed in the ſenſe of accuſing, or bearing
witneſs; yet there is no reaſoning in ſuch caſes
from one language to another. Beſides, Second-
ly, The authorities you mention are not to your
purpoſe in this place : For they only ſhew, that
condemnare in a few inſtances is put for accufare.
But you conſider the Ninevites not as accuſers in
pleading, but as witneſſes only, which are two
very different ideas. As to the other paſſage in
Matthew xii. 27. and Luke xi. 19. which I brought
to illuſtrate that which ſpeaks of the Ninevites, I
have never ſaid that it refers to the future judgment.
Nothing more may be intended by it than that
they ſhall, or let them, judge, by what they know
of their own conduct, how unrighteouſly you cen-
ſure me and my actions. I ſee nothing of the
notion of a witneſs here, unleſs all who paſs ſen-
tence on another's conduct muſt be ſaid to be wit-
neſſes; and ſo every judge will be a witneſs for,
or againſt, thoſe, whom he clears or condemns by
his ſentence,
With regard to Rom. ii. 1. Wherein thou judgeſt
another, thou condemneft thy felf, I ſaid, “The
“ whole proceſs is in the offender's own breaſt;
« 'tis there he judgeth another, and paſſeth Jerz-
tence upon himſelf ; ſo that he is properly du-
Woreceder ellos, To this you anſwer : You
Say he paſſeth ſentence upon himſelf. What, ac-
tually and directly upon himſelf? I deny it. A
fentence paſſed upon B is not a ſentence paſſed upon
A. Surely, a writer muſt be reduced to moſt
wretched ſhifts, who can prevail with himſelf to





* Letter to Dr. Stebbing, p. 34.
† Second Letter, p. 35.
return

54
A SECOND LETTER
return ſuch an anſwer. Could it be ſuppoſed my
meaning was, that while A actually and directly
paſſeth ſentence upon B, he condemns himſelf
by thoſe expreſs terms by which he condemns B?
No man of common underſtanding, and void of
prejudice, would think this to be my meaning.
But ſtill I ſay, That if A is conſcious to himſelf,
that he is guilty of the like crimes with B, while
he condemns B, he muſt neceffarily alſo condemn
himſelf, tho' not in the fame expreſs form, and ſo be-
come culouceiércio. Nor is there any poſſible room
to conſider him only as a witneſs with regard to
the one, and a judge as to the other; ſince he is re-
preſented as a judge in the text, and muſt, in the
reaſon of the thing, act as a judge, equally to both.
The laſt text is Luke xix. 22. Out of thine
own mouth will I judge, or condemn, thee, xela
νω σε. you
tell me I miſtook your purpoſe,
which was only to ſhew, that the notion or cha-
racter of a ſelf-condemned man is bere preſerved,
where the perſon only ſtood as a witneſs againſt
bimſelf *. But how does it appear, that this is
the true notion of a ſelf-condemned man? Why
we muſt believe it becauſe you have ſaid it: For
you have given no reaſon, only aſſerted poſitively,
that this expreſſion 'Er të çópalos ce neurô os, out
of thine mouth will I judge thee, is equivalent to
ſaying, thou art culorecidreia felf-condemned.
Whereas, I have ſhewn, from the very grammatical
conſtruction of the word duloxazlése petost, that it re-
ſpects the action of aguilty perſon condemning him-

oε. Here

* Second Letter, P: 33.
# See p. 47. the paſſage quoted from my firſt Letter.
ſelf,
to Dr. STEBBING.
55

ſelf, and not the cauſe of a ſentence paſſed on him
by another : And it might reaſonably be expected,
that you ſhould either have proved that this is not
the proper meaning of the word, or cannot be ſo in
the place where it is uſed by the apoſtle Paul ;
before you affixed to it a ſtrange and unheard of
ſenſe, foreign from its derivation, merely to ſerve
an hypotheſis.
To the gift of diſcerning ſpirits, about which
ſo great a part of your anſwer is employed, I
ſhall ſay but little.------You ſtill continue, I find,
to think it ſtrange, that the Apoſtles had it not
(if it was ever exerciſed) when Matthias was
choſen to the apoſtleſhip: Tho' the gifts of the
Holy Ghoſt were not then communicated; and
it does not appear, whatever they had formerly
when they were ſent to execute a particular
commiſſion, that the Apoſtles were poffeffed, at
that time, of any extraordinary and miraculous
powers; but on the contrary, as I hinted to you
before, they were order'd to tarry in the city of
Jerufalem, till they were endued with power from
on high, Luke xxiv. 49. - I obſerve likewiſe,
that you cannot tell what to underſtand by the
διακρίσεις ανευμάτων, the difcerning of /pirits,
expreſſly mentioned as an extraordinary gift of
the Holy Ghoſt, 1 Cor. xii. 10; and yet you are
not inclined (for no other reaſon that I can fee,
but becauſe it will not ſuit your purpoſe) to ad-
mit my interpretation of the phrafe, tho' it be
perfectly eaſy and natural. The reader will
further obſerve, that you ſeem quite confuſed
when you ſpeak about knowing the heart, and
ſearching



56 A SECOND LETTER
ſearching the heart *; which means no more than
this in the preſent argument, that the Apoſtles
had the knowledge of mens inward ſentiments
and intentions convey'd to them, in an extraordi-
nary way, by the Holy Ghoſt. Whether this know-
ledge was communicated by a ſupernatural re-
velation of ſome FACTS which diſcovered the
heart, or by an immediate intuition of it, the caſe,
as every one muſt ſee, amounts to the fame. The
heart is known, by what we call inſpiration, both
ways; and the one may as properly be ſtiled the
gift of diſcerning ſpirits, as the other; though you,
Sir, in your great metaphyſical ſubtilty, have at-
tempted to ſtrike out a diſtinction here of, where
there is no real difference. And as you do not
undertake to determine abſolutely, that the Apoſtles
never had the power of knowing mens hearts I; I
ſhall preſume to add, that you have given up the
whole queſtion when you ſay, that you are not
at all unwilling to admit
, that St. Peter, in the
caſe of Ananias and Sapphira, might know by re-
velation for how much the land was fold; and of
conſequence that he might and did know, by re-
velation, that Ananias and his wife were liars || :
For if this be true, he muſt certainly have known,
by revelation, the bearts of Ananias and Sapphira
in this particular inſtance; which is all I ever con-
tended for. For the queſtion never was between
us, in what particular manner the ſentiments and
intentions of mens hearts were made known;
but only in general, whether they were ever at
* See Dr. Stebbing's Letter, p. 44.
|| Ibid. p. 44, 45.
* Ibid. p. 54
† Ibid.
all

to Dr. STEBBING.
57
all made known by revelation ----And this, you ſay
in effect you are not unwilling to admit in the in-
ſtance of Ananias and Sapphira.----And if by re-
velation likewiſe any fast was diſcovered to Titus,
by which he might and did know, that a heretic
was duloxeceléveicu, i. e. felf-condemned; this will
anſwer my purpoſe full as well, and be as much
the gift of diſcerning ſpirits, as an immediate in-
Spetion of the heart.
o I told you in my firſt Letter, that I fixed on this
way of removing your grand objection againſt my
notion of hereſy for this reaſon only, becauſe I had
feldom heard the gift of diſcerning ſpirits, in the
manner in which I have ſtated it, diſputed, and
therefore thought it was a way that would be ge-
nerally convincing and unexceptionable, and pre-
vent an unneceſſary length of controverſy. But
as it has in fact involved us in a tedious debate,
quite foreign from the point of hereſy (which is
likely for ought I can ſee, if it be continued, to
grow more prolix) I am determined to drop it
here entirely, and let the argument upon this head
reſt as it now ſtands : only deſiring the reader to
review what I have wrote, and compare it with
your anſwers, and then determine on which ſide,
upon the whole, the greater probability lies. Whe-
ther
your opinion or mine about the gift of dif-
cerning ſpirits be admitted, the main controverſy
between us will not be in the leaſt affected by it:
For heretics may be known without this gift; and
I have never once aſſerted the contrary.
I allow, indeed, theſe to be my words---- "How
can we certainly know, in moſt caſes at leaſt,
6 whether a man be a heretic or not? What
I




os rule

58
A SECOND LETTER
rule have we, now extraordinary illuminations
" and aſſiſtances are ceaſed, &c? It is a point
“ of great nicety to judge of herefy in particular
« inſtances.” The meaning of all which expref-
fions, when cònfidered and compared together,
can amount to no more than this, That we may
ſuſpect and preſume, but cannot certainly know,
at leaſt in moſt caſes; That we have in moſt caſes,
or in general, no rule, i. e. no ſure rule : And of
conſequence, That it is a point of great nicety to
determine, in particular inſtances, who is, in the
fenſe of St. Paul's direction to Titus, a heretic.
This, I ſay, is all that my words amount to when
interpreted with the utmoſt rigour. But becauſe
I have not faid the abſurdity you would fain fal-
ten upon me; becauſe I have not given you fome
ground to triumph, by afferting abſolutely, and in
univerſal terms, that, without fupernatural in-
ſpiration, or the gift of diſcerning ſpirits, heretics
cannot be known; therefore the phraſes in moſt
calės at leaſt, and it is a point of great nicety,
which are, in truth, the very phraſes which ſhew
what was my real ſentiment, muſt paſs, in your
polite ſtile, for grimace, and ſhuffling, and ſaving
clauſes. And you ſtill, in your great modeſty,
ſeem refolved to inſiſt upon it, that my opinion
is, that heretics can never be known now extra-
ordinary illuminations are ceaſed, both againſt my
felf, who ſhould beſt underſtand my own ſenti-
ments, and in the face of the world, who have
public evidence of the contrary. Whether any of
the expreſſions abovementioned are too ſtrong, (as
perhaps they are) is a queſtion we are not now
engaged in: Nor is the diſpute about the nature
of

to Dr. STEBBING.
59
of berefy at all concerned in it. 'Tis ſufficient that
not one of them will juſtify the liberties
you
have
taken: And this is evident to a demonſtration,
But you have even exceeded yourſelf, Sir, in
the following ſentence, in which you ſay, that
Į have confeſſed in very ſtrong terms, That none
but thoſe, who are endued with præternatural diſ-
cernment, are fit to decide in caſes of hereſy *
This charge, you muſt pardon the expreſſion, is
abſolutely falſe. The paſſage referred to is in
the ſecond part of my anſwer to the Weekly Mif-
cellany f, where my words are, And if none,
&c. i. e. allowing the objection urged by the au-
thor of the Miſcellany to be rightly ſtated, or,
taking it for granted, that, upon my notion of
hereſy, none but thoſe, who are endued with a pra-
ternatural diſcernment, are fit to decide &c. this
is no reflection on St. Paul, who hath never aſſert-
ed the contrary. I am here vindicating St. Paul's
character, and endeavouring to ſhew, that if this
point was never ſo clear, and admitted on both
ſides, it would be no difparagement to it. But is
not this entirely different from confelling it in ſtrong
terms, or laying it down as my own opinion? Can
things, which are only suppoſed in argument, be
juſtly ſaid to be aſſerted abſolutely? Can what is
not confeſſed at all, or in any terms, be ſaid to
be confeſſed in ſtrong terms ? I repeat it once more,
Sir, that it neither is, nor ever was, my ſenti-
ment, that heretics could not be known without
the gift of diſcerning Spirits : The pallages you
have produced out of my ſermon are plain inti-



* Second Letter, p. 67.
+ Old Wbig, Nº. 15.
mations
I 2

60
A SECOND LETTER
mations of the contrary: And I ſhall now pro-
ceed, for your complete ſatisfaction, to diſcuſs this
point with you upon the reaſon of the thing. In
order to which I ſhall ſtate your objection fairly,
and then ſhew that it is weak and frivolous, and
that, in the main of the argument, you have an-
fwered yourſelf.
Your chief difficulty with reſpect to my no-
tion of herefy is this, That in order to know a
heretic, we muſt know his heart; but it cannot
even be ſuggeſted of uninſpired men, that they can
judge of mens bearts; and therefore, if (as you
fay, I maintain) none are to be rejected as heretics;
but thoſe who deny the faith againſt convi&tion, and
there be no power in Being to diſcriminate ſuch
from the fincere and upright, the conſequence is,
That the right of reječting heretics ceaſed with the
miraculous gifts; and all exerciſe of ſuch power,
from that day to this, muſt be ufurpation. You
add, This conſequence, Sir, was fully laid before
you in my foriner Letter; and it was for the ſake
of this conſequence, that I oppoſed your interpreta-
tión * The objection reſts entirely upon this,
That heretics cannot be known to act with an evil
intention, and againſt the convictions of their own
minds, becauſe the heart cannot be known, now
(as you expreſs it elſewhere) the gifts of inſpiration
are ceaſed up. And yet you contend in another
place. That the inward ſubtilty, deceit, and ma-
lice of the heart of Elymas the ſorcerer, and the
principles and motives by which he was influenced,
might have been known without an immediate
* Second Lecter, p. 61.
+ Ibid. p. 63
divine

to Dr. STEBBING.
6)
divine revelation, and conſequently in an age,
when there were no gifts of inſpiration, for this
reaſon, becauſe every tree is known by its fruits ;
and evil deeds diſcover an evil heart *. Here,
Sir, you are unluckily caught in an irreconcileable
contradiction, and confuted by your own pen.
For if evil deeds diſcover an evil heart, we have
one general rule, at leaſt, by which to know the
heart ; and it may not only be ſuggeſted, but af-
firmed, of uninſpired men, that they can judge of
the heart. And thus, the general ground of your
whole reafoning is entirely deſtroyed.
If you ſhall think fit to ſay, That other trees
may be known by their fruits
, but not an here-
tical tree; That the evil bearts of other men may
be diſcovered by their evil deeds, but not the evil
heart of a beretic; and that the fubtilty, deceit,
and malice of the heart of Elymas the forcerer,
and the principles and motives by which he was
influenced, might be judged of by his conduct,
and from ſtrong circumſtances and facts that ap-
peared againſt him, but that the corrupt inten-
tion and finifter views of the heretic cannot: I need
only take notice, that this is changing the argument
quite; which was not, that the heart of a heretic
alone could not be known, but that the hearts of
men, univerſally, cannot be judged of by perſons
uninſpired. However if you ſhall ſtill inſiſt on this
emendation in your reaſoning, I ſhall leave it to the
mercy of common ſenſe, and think it unworthy a
ſerious anſwer, till you have given ſome marks,
which diſtinguiſh the hearts of beretics from other



* Second Letter, p. 45.
mens

62 A SECOND LETTER
mens hearts; and offered your proofs, that they
are the only hearts in the world, that are not diſ-
coverable by apparent facts and circumſtances.
In truth, Sir, the troubling the world with a
debate of this kind needs an apology. For to
aſſert, that the hearts of men, or, which is the
ſame, that their inward intentions and diſpoſitions,
and the principles and views from which they
act, cannot be known but by divine inſpiration, is
aſſerting a direct contradiction to reaſon and ex-
perience; and arraigns the practice of all courts
of judicature. Apply the ſame reaſoning to the
caſe of malice prepenſe in murder, if you have a
mind to put it in a ſtrong point of ridicule.----
But if the wilfulneſs and evil intention of a mur-
derer may be known, there can be no poſſible
reaſon in the nature of things, why the wilful-
neſs and evil intention of a heretic may not like-
wiſe be known. By being known, I mean judged
of with a great degree of probability : For as to
an infallible knowledge who are heretics, it can-
not be pretended to, without a miraculous illu-
mination, upon any fchenne. Nor is it at all ne-
ceffary: For the word 'Erdas, Knowing, that be
- finneth, and is condemned of himſelf, does not
imply any ſuch ſtrict and abſolute certainty, as
all muſt be fully appriz’d of, who underſtand
Greek.----And let the church but proceed on ſuch
ſtrong probabilities in rejecting heretics, as civil
courts proceed upon in trying and condemning
criminals that are brought before them ; and ſhe
will be much more ſecure from miſtake and raſh-
nefs in her cenſures, than it appears in faet The
has ever yet been, ſince (as you phraſe it) the
gifts of inſpiration ceaſed.
An

to Dr. STEBBING. 63
An immoral life, I grant, is, abſolutely and
in itſelf, no certain proof that a heretic acts as
gainſt conviction. But 'tis fufficient to invalidate
the whole force of this objection, if, in any in-
ſtances, that in conjunction with other circum-
ſtances may amount to ſufficient evidence : For
then it muſt be owned, in direct oppoſition to
what you have ſo ſtrenuouſly inculcated, that not
only the bearts of men may be known, but the
evil intention and ſelf-condemnation of a heretic
judg’d of likewiſe, by thoſe who are not inſpired.
I ſhall therefore diſmiſs this topic for the pre-
ſent, and go on to remark farther on your gene-
ral argument.-----Why, according to you, Sir, is
it a thing not to be known, when, upon my ſcheme,
a man is a heretic ? Becauſe I ſuppoſe him to act
againſt conviction. And why can we not know,
that a man acts againſt conviction? Becauſe un-
inſpired men cannot judge of the heart. This
is your only reaſon, and you have not attempted
the leaſt jhadow of a proof beſides this.-----But
you have renounced this only reaſon, and allowed
that uninſpired men may judge of the heart
and therefore, for any thing that you have yet
alleged, they may judge likewiſe when a heretic
is CONDEMNED BY HIS OWN MIND.
And effectually to prevent your having recourſe
to this ſhift, that might amuſe and look fome-
what plauſible, viz. That tho' in many caſes
the hearts of men may be difcerned, yet it is im-
poſſible to be known, now the gifts of inſpira-
tion are ceaſed, when a man is inwardly con-
demned by himſelf; to prevent, I ſay, your taking
fanctuary here, you have plainly allowed, that

3
we

64 A SECOND LETTER
the wrong
*
we may know, without any extraordinary gift,
that he is inwardly condemned by himſelf, by grant-
ing that I have given an inſtance in which I
may
infallibly be certain, that he knows himſelf to be in
But you ſay, what I have men-
tioned is a caſe of immorality ; but a caſe of he-
refy I have not named. What evaſion and trifling
is here? Hereſy is, and muſt be in my opinion,
a caſe of IMMORALITY. Beſides your argument
was general, that it could not be known without
inſpiration, when men acted againſt conviction.
I have proved the contrary to a demonſtration by
an unconteſtable inſtance, as you yourſelf ac-
knowledge: And could any thing more be necef-
ſary to fhew your argument to be weak and in-
concluſive? You are I ſee, Sir, dreadfully pinched
with this caſe, and would fain get rid of it, but
cannot: For if I may be infallibly certain, with-
out fupernatural illumination, that any immoral
men are felf-condemned; why may I not be ſure
likewiſe in fome caſes, at leaſt, why may I not
in many caſes have your probable proof (which is
all my argument requires) that a heretic is ſelf-con-
demned ? Is the latter the only point that cannot be
known without a miracle? If you had thought ſo,
you
ſhould have ſtated the argument in that form,
and then I might have offered another fort of re-
ply. But as I am firmly perfuaded that you will
not be able to prove, that heretics are the only per-
ſons who cannot be known to act againſt conviction,
and that you have too much regard to your own
reputation ever to attempt it; I conſider your cal-
* Second Letter, p. 65.
ling

to Dr: STEBBING. 65
ling out for a caſe of hereſy only as throwing
duſt, to blind the reader, and perplex the contro-
verfy.
I muſt take the liberty to put you in mind, Sir,
that I have declared it to be my preſent opinion,
that ʼtis not abſolutely eſſential to the character of
a heretic, that he depart from the faith, any other-
wiſe, than as every error in practice may be call-
ed departing from the faith; which is not what
you mean by the expreſſion. The only thing,
therefore, that I am obliged to prove, in order to
ſupport my argument, is this: That when the
leaders and abettors of particular hereſes, or feets,
pretend a zeal for religion, and for the advance-
ment and honour of chriſtianity, we may have
probable evidence in many inſtances, that they in-
tend only their private advantage, or the gratify-
ing their vanity, or ſome other inordinate paſſion.
This, I ſay, is the only thing that I am obliged
to prove: For if they mean not religion, but in-
tereft, it neceſſarily follows, that in pretending
religion they muſt act againſt knowledge and the
inward conviction of their minds; and of conſe-
quence, be in the ſtrict ſenſe of the word Ar-
TOKATAKPITOI, or SELF-CONDEMNED.-----
And if you ſhall think it proper once more to in-
fiſt upon particular caſes, where the point in ge-
neral is ſo plain; I here promiſe, when you have
anſwered what I have already offered, to give you
all the ſatisfaction you can deſire. But I have no
inclination to attempt it before, becauſe it is en-
tirely unneceſſary, and can only ſerve to draw out
the controverſy to an unreaſonable length; ſince
the poſſibility of the thing itſelf muſt be univer-
K
fally




66
A SECOND LETTER
ſally acknowledged, and particular inſtances will
readily occur to every ones reflections.
The reſult of the whole is, that admitting my
notion to be true, heretics may be known, and,
upon good probable evidence rejected, in all ages
of the church.----But how can they be known
upon yours ? ----- How can the heretic's character
be determined with the loweſt degree of probabi-
lity, when it has been clearly proved, That de-
parting from the faith, which upon your ſcheme
is hereſy, is a phraſe of a looſe ambiguous indeter-
minate meaning, of which no diſtinct and uni-
form idea can poſſibly be framed? This objection
therefore, which has been magnified as inſuper-
able, turns directly againſt yourſelf: And I ex-
pect that you will be more impartial, than to con-
tinue to urge it againſt my account of hereſy, un-
leſs
you
endeavour to ſhew at the ſame time,
that your own is not equally, is not more ſtrongly,
preſſed by it.
I muſt not omit to conſider a very ſtrange and
frightful conſequence, which, you tell me, upon
my principles, cannot be avoided. It is this: That
there ought to be no exerciſe of church-diſcipline,
even with reſpect to immoralities; if thoſe who do
them ſhall have confidence enough to juſtify them-
felves * How you came to dream of ſuch an
enthuſiaſtic conſequence I cannot imagine ; and
let every reader judge what real ground there is for
it, from the following juſt repreſentation of the
caſe. St. Paul has deſcribed a heretic as one that
is condemned of himſelf; which I explained in this
* Second Letter, p. 64.
manner,
to Dr. STEBBING.
67

ananner, adhering to the natural and obvious fenfe
of the phraſe, one that acts againſt the judgment
and conviction of his own mind. Now the only
pertinent concluſion that reſults from hence is,
that no man ought to be rejected as St. Paul's he-
retic, and in purſuance of this rule which he pre-
fcribed to Titus, but one that is condemned of bin-
felf, or that acts againſt convi&tion. And what is
the reaſon why he cannot be juſtly cenſured as a
beretic, unleſs he appears to be felf-condemned?
This and this only; that St. Paul hath given that
preciſe deſcription and character of the heretic, who
is to be cenfured and avoided. But can it be ſe-
riouſly believed by any man in his ſenſes, that be-
cauſe I cannot reject him under the name of a
heretic, whoſe character an inſpired apoſtle has
exprefly defined, he may not be rejected under any
immoral character whatever ? The ſelf-condemna-
tion, Sir, you will be pleaſed to obſerve, I never
made neceffary to the rejecting and avoiding the
finner, then indeed you would have drawn your
conſequence like a reaſoner; but only to the cen-
ſuring and avoiding the heretic, a finner of an ex-
preſs and determinate character. Having dif-
patch'd the main branches of the controverſy, I
ſhall examine the texts that relate to the indiffe-
rent uſe of the word herefy.
The firſt paffage is I Cor. xi. 19. For there muſt be
alſo hereſies among you, that they who are approved
may be made manifeft
. The rule upon which I
proceeded in my interpretation of this text is this,
that when words are in themſelves of a general
indefinite ſignification, it muſt be contrary to all
juſt rules of criticiſm to limit their meaning with


K 2
our
68
A SECOND LETTER
out ſome obvious reaſon for it; becauſe if it
may
be limited, i. e. reſtrained to a good or bad ſenſe
without a reaſon, it may be quite altered without
a reaſon.
This was what I intended in my
firſt Letter ; though I allow the thing itſelf was
more looſely expreſſed. And upon this foun-
dation I attempted, as I told you, to give the
meaning of St. Paul's words in the following pa-
raphraſe: That, confidering the various tempers of
men, their different views, paſions, prejudices,
their ſelfiſhneſs
, ambition, vanity and the like ;
'twas natural to expect that they would divide into
parties about religion, as well as about politics, and
the civil affairs of life: And that the providence
of God wiſely permitted this for the trial of their
integrity; that the real friends of truth, perſons of
an honeſt
, inquiſitive, and ingenuous temper, might
be made manifeſt; and diſtinguiſhed from the in-
dolent, careleſs, and inſincere.
You will pleaſe to obſerve, Sir, that my only
deſign in this paraphraſe was to fhew, that the
word herefy may here retain its general meaning ;
and that the underſtanding it thus generally will
completely anſwer the end, for which the apoſtle
ſays, there muſt be hereſes. If this be the caſe,
there neither is, nor can be, the leaſt colour of rea-
ſon for confining it either to a good or bad fenſe.
And no judicious and ſober critic would ever af-
firm, that the limited ſenſe will do full as well,
when it does not appear from any thing in the
paſſage he is explaining, that the author deſigned
his ſenſe ſhould be ſo limited. He would not con-
fine the extent, and conſequently the uſe, of mo-
ral obſervations, only becauſe he fancies they may,
though



to Dr. STEBBING. 69

though he has no ground to believe that they ought
to be, fo confined; nor, if he was a perſon of a
candid and impartial diſpoſition, would he do this
to promote any ſecular purpoſes, or ſupport a fa-
vourite ſcheme.
As an anſwer to all this you tell me, that I
ought to have ſaid, that when a word is capable of
more fenfes than one, the preciſe meaning, be it good,
bad, or indifferent, muſt be determined by the cir-
cumſtances of the place; and if the circumſtances
leave the matter uncertain, to determine either the
one way or the other, is to build upon preſumption
and fancy *. But the truth is, as every reader will
eaſily fee, that though the good and bad, which
are particular ſenſes, ariſe entirely from circum-
ſtances; yet nothing more is neceſſary to fix and
aſcertain the general indefinite ſenſe, but the want
of circumſtances that lead to, and fix, the limited
ſenſe. And no man, furely, will pretend to ſay,
that becauſe a word is ſometimes taken in a bad
ſenſe when circumſtances evidently require it, it
may therefore be taken in a bad ſenſe when no
one circumſtance requires it ; becauſe this is ſay-
ing in effect, that we are equally juſtified in al-
tering the general meaning of words, and confin-
ing them to particular ſenſes, when we have 210
reaſon for it, as when we have one.
And indeed, at length, you ſeem to be fenfi-
ble, that, in order to write pertinently, you muſt
endeavour to Thew, either that the general inde-
finite notion of hereſy will not ſuit the apoſtle's
deſign in the paſage itſelf which we are now con-



* Second Letter, p. 10.
fidering;
nyo A SECOND LETTER
FOTOS
fidering; or that there are ſome other things in
the context and the courſe of his reaſoning, plainly
relating to the ſame point, that oblige us to take
it in a criminal, i.e. a reſtrained, ſenſe. I am
therefore called upon to fee
, whether circumſtances
will not help to fix the notion of hereſy in this place.
And what are theſe circumſtances? Why upon
examination they are all found to dwindle away
into one little particle, which is magnified by
your fancy into a word of that great importance,
as to decide the whole controverſy.----Adigdonai
&c. The rai bere (you ſay) is emphatical *
But you have offered no proof to ſupport your
aſſertion, and the obſervation itſelf deſerves, I
think, but little notice: However, I ſhall make
two or three brief remarks upon it. And Firſt,
Every one that is converſant in the Greek lan-
guage muſt know, that the particle xat, in a
multitude of places, and eſpecially in the New
Teſtament has no ſuch clear and emphatical mean-
ing as you affix to it. Secondly, He muſt know
likewiſe, that when the words gáp xai and xai gép,
are uſed, the rai appears ſometimes to have no ſuch
emphaſis, as either to intimate that a diftin&t ſub-
ject is treated of as you ſuppoſe in the preſent caſe,
or to add any conſiderable weight and ſtrength to
the reaſoning. And it muſt evidently appear to
ſuch a one, that you are hard preſſed, and re-
duced to the neceſſity of catching at every little
prop, when you build your interpretations of
Scripture on nothing elſe but the preciſe and em--





* Second Letter, Þ. II.
pbatical
to Dr. STEBBING.
71

phatical meaning of a ſingle particle, the ſigni-
fication of which fo often varies.
But to come more directly to the point : In
Colof. ii. 5. if the rai has any determinate mean-
ing, yap nei moft probably fignifies the fame
with rai gáp, and becauſe, or becauſe alſo.
The whole paſſage ſtands thus : This, I ſay, left
any man ſhould beguile you with enticing words.
Then immediately follows, as another reaſon,
å gåp rai becauſe alſo, though I be abſent in
the fleſh, yet am I with you in the ſpirit, joying
and beholding your order, and the ſtedfaſtneſs of
your faith in Chrift. And thus I think iť na-
tural (as the words will eaſily bear this ſenſe)
to underſtand 1 Cor. xi. 19. into the ſenſe of
which we are enquiring. Í hear, ſays St. Paul,
that there be diviſions among you, and I partly
believe it ; i. e. upon the report and intelligence
which Ihave received: Δεί γαρ και αιρέσεις and
becauſe, or becauſe alſo, there muſt be hereſies
among you. Which is as if he had ſaid, I am con-
firmed in the belief of the information that has
been given me by the knowledge I have of human
nature, and of the ſtate and circumſtances of the
world : Taking mankind as they really are, ’tis
but reaſonable to expect that they will divide into
bereſies, i. e. fects or parties about religion, as well
as about other matters. According to this ac-
count the Apoſtle's meaning is clear, the propriety
of his reaſoning is preſerved, the particle sai is
allowed all the emphaſis that belongs to it; and yet
the word bereſy, or feet, retains its general mean-
ing. I ſhall only add, that if I now underſtand
you, you appear in your firſt Letter to have en-
tirely





72
A SECOND LETTER
tirely miſtaken the nature of my argument, and
ſtill continue in the miſtake, imagining, that I
took the Apoſtle's Speaking of hereſies, as things
permitted by God for the trial of mens integrity;
to be a proof that bereſy is uſed in an indifferent
ſenſe * Whereas ſo ſtrange a fancy never once
entered into my thoughts, as that nothing could
be permitted for the trial of mens integrity, but
what was of an indifferent nature; or that the
very form and manner of expreſſion, uſed by
St. Paul, could not be made to agree with the
bad ſenſe of hereſy, or neceſſarily required the
indifferent ſenſe. But the ſingle point I had in
view was to ſhew, that there was not the leaſt
ground in the expreſſion itſelf, or the nature of
the thing, nor any ſhadow of reaſon to be aſſign-
ed, for departing from the general ſenſe of the
word, and confining its fignification either to
good or bad ſects. And from hence it follows,
that though I judg'd wrong with reſpect to your
intention in putting the caſe of gluttony and drun-
kenneſs being ſubſtituted in the room of hereſy ;
yet it ſtill appears, that the caſe itſelf is not at all
to your purpoſe, becauſe it is grounded entirely
on the unaccountable miſtake above-mentioned.
Had I indeed argued in the way you have pre-
ſumed, i. e. that the Apoſtle's merely ſpeaking of
herefes, as things permitted by God for the trial of
mens integrity, was an evidence that hereſy is uſed
in an indifferent ſenſe; a more clear and uncon-
teftable proof could not (as you fay) be given,



* Second Letter, p. 8.
that
to Dr. STEBBING.
73
parallel, taken from the uſe of the word party
that this is no evidence, than to them, that if in-
ſtead of mentioning herefies, he had mentioned
ſomething elſe in terms which always carry with
them a bad meaning, the propriety of bis reaſon-
ing would have been exactly the ſame. But as I
never intended the abſurd thing you have ima-
gined for me, your fuppoſition ſtands juſt as it
did before----quite wide from the argument.
I now proceed to conſider briefly Atts xxiv. 5.
where St. Paul is ſaid to be a ringleader of the
feet, or hereſy, of the Nazarenes. As this ſpeech
came from the mouth of Tertullus the Orator, who
was accuhing him before Felix, you thought you
had reaſon to conclude, that the word hereſy was
uſed as a term of reproach, and conſequently in a
bad ſenſe * In anſwer to which I produced a


.
in our own language, in which it would appear
plainly to every reader how ſtrangely a writer
muſt have trifled, that had uſed the ſame kind of
reaſoning. And what reply, Sir, have you made
to this? Have you endeavoured to Thew either
that what I have put is not a parallel caſe ? Or,
that the word party varies from its uſual mean-
ing in the one inſtance, as the word hereſy is fup-
poſed to do in the other? Or have you attempted
to give any one convincing reaſon, why the word
hereſy may not retain its general fignification in
the ſcripture-inſtance, as well as the word party
in the ſuppoſition? This you ought to have done :
But you thought it more prudent to take another
method, and have not ſo much as vouchſafed to

* Second Letter, p. 1l.
L
re

74
A SECOND LETTER
recite the parallel itſelf; on which the ſtreſs of
the argument depends ; and by the help of which
alone, every man of common underſtanding may
eaſily diſcern, that all you have offered is mere
flight and amuſement.
The ſubſtance of your defence is as follows.
iſt, You ask me, Who ever faid, or thought,
that it was the deſign of Tertullus to reproach St.
Paul for adhering to a ſext, i. e. a ſett indefi-
nitely, or at large ? And then you add, He
charges him with being a ringleader of the fect
of the Nazarenes, and ſo I have cited him.
To which I need only anſwer, that by citing
his words - fairly, you have produced evi-
dence againſt yourſelf: For I muſt ſtill inſiſt
upon it, That the feet of the Nazarenes may be
a reproachful phraſe, even though the word
feft, or hereſy, preſerves its general meaning.
They are, as I told you before, the epithets and
characters made uſe of to diſtinguiſh the feet, that
convey all that is ignominious in the idea.------
But you enquire again, How is it poſſible that a
word ſhould retain its general meaning, when it
is diftinguished by circumſtances which limit it to
a particular ſenſe * ?. You would have ſtated the
matter more juſtly, if you had ſaid, How is it
poſſible that a word ſhould retain its general
meaning, when it has ſome bad character or epi-
the joined to it ? This is the queſtion as it ought
to have been put; and can you really think, that
it deſerves a ſerious anſwer ? If you do, I then
ask, by way of reply, How is it poſſible, that
* Second Letter, p. 12.
the

to Dr. STEBBING.
the word party ſhould preſerve its common and
uſual fignification, when it is diftinguished by
ſuch a bad name as Republican ? Or, when we
ſpeak of a ſelfiſh, ambitious, revengeful man,
How is it poſſible, that the term man ſhould re-
tain its general meaning, with ſuch reproachful
epithets annexed to it? To uſe your own words,
with a little variation: You may -
refine, and
Jay, that the bad idea ariſes, not from the word
man, but from the characters which ſtand con-
nected with it. But a cauſe is not worth a pin-
gle ruſh that hangs upon ſuch niceties as theſe.
Let the bad idea ariſe whence it will, I ſay, that
man, thus connected, is always----a term of re-
proach ; i. e. the word man itſelf loſes its general
meaning, and is limited to a particular ſenſe.
And whereas, you
tell me, that you
know not----
what can be meant by ſaying, that hereſy is uſed
in a bad ſenſe, but this, that it is applied parti-
cularly to ſome ſeet, either bad, or eſteemed to
be bad ; I anſwer, that this expreſſion is cer-
tainly capable of ſome other meaning, or of no
juſt meaning at all: For your reaſoning here is
truly admirable, and comes out thus, That no-
thing can be meant, by ſaying, that the word
hereſy, or feet, is uſed in a bad ſenſe but this,
That ſome hereſy, or fect, either bad, or eſteemed to
be bad, is ſtiled a hereſy or ſect. And ſo again,
man, (i... the word itſelf) muft, by this rule, be
uſed in a bad ſenſe, whenever any man, either
bad, or eſteemed to be bad, is ſtiled a man. Nay,
further, the word animal muſt be uſed in a bad
ſenſe likewiſe, whenever any living thing, either
L 2
bad,




26 A SECOND LETTER
bad, or ſuppoſed to be bad, is ſtiled an animal.
But I diſmiſs theſe trifles, and go on
To the laſt text. Afts xxviii. 22. For as con-
cerning this ſect, we know that every where it is
Spoken againſt. Upon which you ſay, that you
thought it ſufficient to ask this ſhort queſtion ; Do
you not conſider that this ſpeech comes from the
mouth of a few * ? Yes, Sir, I have conſidered
this, but ſtill think your queſtion to be very ab-
furd; becauſe it fuppoſes, that no Jew could uſe
the word fe&t with reſpect to Chriſtians in its ge
neral ſenſe. You are pleaſed to tell me, that in
my Anſwer, I have granted fomething; but that
ſomething will be found, upon examination, ta
amount to very little : For what have I granted ?
--Why that if theſe had been prejudiced perfe-
cuting Jews, they might, perhaps, have uſed the
word herefy as a term of reproach. Perhaps
, in-
deed, they might, and perhaps they might not ;
ſince no reaſon can be aſſigned, why even a
prejudiced Few might not ſpeak of Chriſtians as
feet in the general ſenſe of the word, as well
as a friend to Monarchy may, when he is ſpeak-
ing of the Republican party, ſay, that it is a
party generally reproached and ſpoken againſt,
without departing from the common ſignification
of that term.
All therefore that you have offered, againſt the
honeſty, openneſs, and candour of theſe fewes, might
as well have been omitted; and I ſhould have
troubled myſelf no farther about it, if you had
not repreſented the hiſtory itſelf very lamely and


* Second Letter, p. 14,
par-

to Dr. STEBBING. 77
partially. This, I think, muſt
appear
undenia-
bly from the following brief remarks. Firſt,
That thoſe who met St. Paul, when theſe words
were ſpoken, were only the chief of the Jews re-
ſiding at Rome, as is expreſly aſſerted in the 17th
verſe. But, Secondly, When they, i. e. the chief of
the Jews together with St. Paul, had appointed a
day, we are told that MANY came ; which MANY
may very reaſonably and fairly be ſuppoſed to have
conſiſted, not only of all the principal Jews with
whom the apoſtle had before converſed, but of ſeve-
ral others beſides them. If you had not judged it
convenient to conceal this material circumſtance,
That in the firſt meeting the chief of the Jews only
were engag’d, but that all of them, and many more,
might have been preſent at the ſecond conference;
every common reader muſt have immediately ſeen,
that your low criticiſm on the word many (viz.
it jhould therefore ſeem that All did not come) was
entirely groundleis
. Beſides it is well known, that
the word IIacoves fignifies not many in oppoſition
or contradiſtinction to all, but a large number;
and then the fact will ſtand thus, that when the
principal Jews had fixed a time for St. Paul to
give an account of Chriſtianity, a great company
reſorted to his lodging. Thirdly, The Jews who
were firſt called together, and appointed the fê-
cond meeting, might for any thing that appears
from the hiſtory, be but few in number, and as
we are directly informed, that MANY came, all
thoſe chief Jews, and others of the many beſides,
might be among the fome that believed: And there
might ſtill remain a greater number of thoſe who
believed not
which might give St. Paul juſt oc-
cafion



78 A SECOND LETTER
caſion to apply to them in the words of Efaias,
ver. 25, 26, 27. and warn them that the word of
God was taken from them. So that you are not
able to prove, if you confine yourſelf ſtrictly to
the circumſtances which the hiſtorian has related,
that the Jews, who, in the firſt converſation
joined in repreſenting Chriſtians as a ſect, were pre-
judiced Jews; or that they were not, the greateſt
part at leaſt, if not all, of them, perſons of in-
genuity and candour. However, as was intimat-
ed before, it is not very material whether they
were or not; becauſe, upon either fuppofition,
they might uſe the word fect or hereſy, in its ge-
neral ſenſe. To all which I may add, that it is
neither a generous nor an equitable thought, to
imagine concerning perſons, of whom no ill can
be clearly and directly proved, that being deſtitute
of honeſty, and enſlaved to prejudice, they had
condemned the cauſe of Chriſtianity before they
underſtood it; and had done this at that very time,
when they profeſſed a deſire to hear it explained,
and ſhewed a diſpoſition to examine it, ver. 22.
But to proceed: You have ſaid in your firſt
Letter * That though cipsons in the general notion
of it ſignifies a ſečt indefinitely, yet aipelinos (a be-
retic) is evermore pinned down to a bad ſenſe
, as
every common Engliſh reader knows. This I
thought a very ſtrange and myſterious obſerva-
tion, and could ſcarce perſuade myſelf, that any
one of the ſenſes, in which I ſuppoſed it capable
of being underſtood, was the thing you really in-
tended. I therefore out of tenderneſs and com-





* Page 9.
plaiſance

To Dr. STEBBING.
79
plaiſance would fix nothing upon you as your di-
rect and certain meaning, but put ſome queries
to you, that you might have an opportunity of
explaining your own ſenſe. And for nothing elſe,
but this fair and candid method of proceeding, you
have charged me with mean cavilling, and attempt-
ed, by a complaint of ill uſage, to move the com-
paſſion of your readers. At length however you
have cleared up the difficulty, and informed me,
that the purport of this paſage was to ſhew, that
in the uſe of the Greek word aipelexos and the En-
gliſh word a heretic, there is no variation, and
that both are conſtantly uſed in a bad ſenſe *.
And to ſupport this obſervation, you aſk, Does not
a heretic in Engliſh always fignify one who (in the
opinion of the perſon who uſes that expreſſion) holds
fome erroneous doctrine? I believe not; but how-
ever for the preſent it ſhall be allowed. ---- Is not
the Greek word cipelexos (in that ſingle paſſage in
which it occurs in the New Teſtament) uſed in the
Same manner? i. e. to ſignify one likewiſe, who
holds fome erroneous doctrine? Whether it be
really fo or no, let that likewiſe be granted. But
what advantage can be made of all this? If you
aim at nothing more by it (as I imagine is the
caſe) than to ſhew, that the Engliſh word, and
the Greek word when it occurs in St. Paul's
epiſtle to Titus, are both uſed in a bad ſenſe, you
cannot but know, Sir, notwithſtanding the liberty
you have taken to complain, that I actually ſup-
poſed, among other things, that this might be the
intent and ſcope of your reaſoning. You muſt be


* Second Letter, p. 17.
apprized

to A SECOND LETTER
the
apprized alſo, that I put this queſtion to you,
Whether a common Engliſh reader (whom you
determine to be a competent judge of the caſe) or
any reader can know, that becauſe aipeliseos is never
uſed but once in the New Teſtament, and then it
is in a bad ſenſe, it could never have been uſed on
a proper occaſion in an indifferent ſenſe; though
aipeols, from whence it is derived, is confeſſed to
have an indifferent meaning ; and the indifferent
uſe of cipediapxos (an berefiarch) a word of a much
Štronger Jenſe than aipeliños [a heretic] frequently
occurs in Greek authors. But though you have
taken no notice of this, I muſt do you the juf-
tice to own that you have not paſſed by quo-
tation I brought from Suidas, in which he ſtiles
the Pyrrhoniſts heretics, who embraced the opi-
nions of Pyrrho; uſing the word aipelix@in the
ſame indifferent ſenſe with dipois. This paſſage,
which I thought directly to the point, you af-
ſert is not to the purpoſe ; becauſe you never ſaid,
that the word aipelive@w, howſoever coupled with
other words, would not bear an indefinite ſenſe ;
but that aipelixas (abſolutely) a heretic always car-
ries a bad fenfe. To which I anſwer, that the
laft clauſe is not what you aſſerted before, but
ſomething very different : For your firſt paſſage
had not the word abſolutely. But without inquir-
ing farther what was your original meaning, I
ſhall briefly collect the ſum of the argument on
both ſides.---My argument was this only, that
from the general indifferent uſe of the word c-
pedis it plainly follows, that the general notion of
a heretic is no more than this, one that ſets up to
be the head, or chufes to join himſelf to a particu-
lar


to Dr. STEBBING.
81
lar religious feet. I never inſiſted, that the word
aipelizós was uſed thus indifferently in the New
Teſtament; but only, that it is the proper general
ſenſe of the word, in which ſenſe it might have
been uſed. To this you reply, that it happens,
indeed, to be uſed but once in the New Teſta-
ment; and then it has a bad meaning. And from
hence it muſt follow (if your argument concludes
any thing at all againſt what I have aſſerted) ei-
her, that there is no general ſenſe of the word
aipsloveo's, or, if there be, that it could not have
been as properly uſed in a general indefinite ſenſe,
as in a particular bad ſenſe. But the one, or the
other, of theſe, you have not attempted to prove,
and cannot prove. And therefore I fall add no
more, but leave you to make the moſt of this
ingenious obſervation, That aipelinės (a heretic)
is evermore [i. e. Once in the New Teſtament,
and always in Engliſh] pinned down to a bad ſenſe,
as every common Engliſh reader knows. Though,
after all
, the common Engliſh reader can anſwer
only for what relates to his own language, which
is but one part of the remark; and, I believe,
will find himſelf as much at a loſs what applica-
cation to make of the whole; as to ſettle the other
part relating to the Greek word aipelezeds. I ſhall
conclude with adding two things.
Firſt, Whereas you ſeem very follicitous to know,
upon what plan I would deſire the viſible church of
Chriſt to be formed; I anſwer, that it is my opinion,
that no faith ought to be explicitly requir’d in order
to Chriſtian communion, or to the communion
of Chriſtians conſidered as ſuch (and this is the
only communion that is recommended in the New
M
Teſtament)
82 A SECOND LETTER

Teftament) but what is neceſſary to denominate a
man a Chriſtian. If, indeed, we were ſpeaking
of the communion of particular fects and parties,
(whether Athanaħans, Socinians, or Calviniſts)
their diſcriminating fentiments would be the pro-
per qualification; but we ſpeak of the commu-
nion of the Church, i. e. of the Chriſtian Church;
and in this caſe, whatever faith (ſo far as faith
will do it) conſtitutes the Chriſtian character, muſt
of courſe determine the right to communion. And
this I apprehend, to be the only poſſible cen-
tre of unity between the ſeveral parts of the Catho-
lic Church. You have enquired of me, by what, up-
on my ſcheme, the viſible church of Chriſt is to be
held together as a ſociety? And you have now my
anſwer---By a union in the neceſſary faith of Chri-
ſtians, and by charity and mutual forbearance, and
the conſcientious and regular exerciſe of all Chri-
ſtian virtues Not by a unity of opinion, which
is next to impoffible; nor by a uniformity of
profeſſion, which can in many caſes be nothing elſe
but hypocriſy. But it may be objected, that if this
Rule ſhould take place, we ſhall be reduced to
the hard fate (as ſome may eſteem it) of having
CHRISTIAN Churches only. No matter for
that; becauſe by this the intereſt of true Chri-
ftianity muſt undoubtedly be advanced, whatever
other intereſt ſuffers. But you will be apt to aſk,
What then will become of all Religious Settle-
ments * ? I anſwer, that the Chriſtian Church,
conſidered merely as ſuch, will be the more firm-
ly eſtabliſhed; and if you mean any thing by




* Dr. Stebbing's Second Later, p. 83.
Re-

to Dr. STEBBING,
83
1
Religious Settlements, but ſuch Settlements as are
framed upon the expreſs model preſcribed in the
Goſpel ---- I care not what becomes of them. To
this you will likewiſe be inclined to add, what
will become of all confeſſions of faith, whether they
concern clergy, or laity; whether required by na-
tional churches, or ſeparate congregations ? * To
which I anſwer again, that this is a thing which
I am not at all concerned about. ---- And why
[hould you ? ------ Are not the Holy Scriptures
themſelves a fufficient ſtandard and teſt of right
belief ? If we ſay they are not, we reproach and
vilify the Scriptures, and if they are, what need
is there of other teſts? Are the public Articles
and Confeſions of National Churches, or of Sepa,
parate Congregations, of equal authority with the
facred and infallible oracles of divine truth? Or
do they give a more exact and plain account of
the doctrines of Chriſtianity, than the New Tef-
tament itſelf contains ? Is, for inſtance, what is
commonly called the creed of St. Athanafus more
clear and illuminating with reſpect to the doc-
rine of the Holy Trinity, than the writings of
the inſpired Apoſtles ? Or ought it to be deemed
a more proper teſt only for this reaſon becauſe it
is profoundly and tranſcendently myſterious, and,
by any human underſtanding, unfathomable ?----
For my own part I make no fcruple to declare,
that I can ſcarce wiſh for a greater happineſs here
upon earth, than this, to ſee the time, when
all true Chriſtians ſhall unite in one Catholic com-
munion; and when (if any ſubſcription at all be



* Second Lerter, p. 83.
ex-

84
A SECOND LETTER, &C.
expedient) a ſubſcription to the New Teſtament,
joined with credible marks of a ſincere and pious
mind, ſhall be eſteemed a ſufficient purgation
from hereſy.
I think it proper to add in the ſecond place,
that if this controverſy continues, whenever you
ſhall be pleaſed to aſſume the airs of a friend to
liberty, and an enemy to perfecution, I fhall
look upon it as my duty (being deſirous that you
may exhibit a conſiſtent character) to be your faith-
ful monitor, and put you in mind of the 9th chap-
ter of the ALCHORAN*; that, if poſſible, I may
prevail upon you to renounce, publicly, that
vile perfecuting part of MAHOMET's doctrine
which you have heretofore eſpouſed ; and which,
I am perſuaded, you can never prove to be either
agreeable to principles of reaſon, or to the gentle
and beneficent ſpirit of the Goſpel. I am,
SIR,
O&t. 6. 1736.
Yours, &c.
James Foſter
* N. B. Here it is, that the impoſtor Mahomet ordains a pecu-
niary mulet (which Dr. Stebbing alſo has lately recommended in his
Polemical tracts) to be exacted from every one that difſents from the
eſtabliſhed religion, as a compoſition, a tribute, for his liberty.