THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 GIFT OF 
 
 Charles Perm


 
 THE 
 
 SCHOLAR ARMED 
 
 AGAINST THE 
 
 rcors of t^e Cime; 
 
 OR, A 
 
 COLLECTION OF TRACTS 
 
 i 
 
 ON THE v 
 
 PRINCIPLES AND EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY, 
 
 THE 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH, 
 
 AND THE 
 
 AUTHORITY OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 
 
 TN TWO VOLUMES. 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 THE WHOLE INTENDED FOR THE INFORMATION AN*D ASSISTANCB 
 OF YOUNG STUDENTS IN OUR SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES J 
 AND PUBLISHED BY A 
 
 SOCIETY FOR THE REFORMATION OF PRINCIPLES. 
 THE THIRD EDITION. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED FOR F. C. AND J. R1VINGTON, NO. 62, ST. P 
 CHURCH-YARD ; 
 
 By Laif and Gilfyei-t, St. John's Syuart, C. 
 
 181&
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 tions; not looking for such as are perfect in virtue and 
 wisdom, for there are no such persons; and if we were 
 *o wait for them, no business could go forward. The 
 best author in the world, from the imperfect view we 
 have of some things, may be wanting in some of his 
 reasonings: but if it be neither his interest nor his in- 
 clination to deceive, we may safely admit him as a 
 teacher. If his principles are good and true, they are 
 sufficient for our purpose; and he that follows them 
 may v be able to improve them, and carry them on to 
 greater effect. We think it proper thus far to explain 
 our intention, in order to obviate any objections which 
 may be raised against'particulars, with design to depre- 
 ciate the present collection. 
 
 We begin with an excellent sketch of the Christian 
 plan, by the masterly hand of the great Lord Chancellor 
 Bacon; who, with his other high qualifications, was one 
 of the best divines of the age in which he flourished. 
 
 This is succeeded by the Rev. Charles Leslie's Short 
 Method with the Deists; a tract which has gone through 
 many editions, and contains an unanswerable proof of 
 Christianity from the evidence of its facts *. 
 
 Human reason, under the specious name of philosophy, 
 having been magnified, to the detriment of the Chris- 
 tian religion, and of late to the total overthrow 7 of its 
 doctrines and worship, it is necessary to see that matter 
 truly stated. The late Dr. Ellis, of Dublin, who saw 
 how. fast the encroachments of reason and nature were 
 
 * Pricsdey is a witness *o the value oi this work. In his late Ad-> 
 dress to the |.fidels of France, he took his arguments fiom it, without 
 jm'.ntioniny; a word of the author. It is probable he did not know to 
 vvhcm they belonged: but borrowed them from somebody who ha<i 
 them before.
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 advanced, composed a learned and elaborate treatise on 
 the Knowledge of divine Things from Revelation, not 
 from Reason and Nature. The treatise itself is too long 
 to be inserted in this Collection; but the author after- 
 wards threw the substance of it into a single discourse, 
 which is here published ; and we beg the reader to con- 
 sider it with attention and impartiality. To this we add ? 
 as an auxiliary, a sermon on the true sense of the famous 
 text of Rom. ii. 14. so often turned against us by the 
 Deists, in favour of a Religion without Revelation. 
 
 To obviate the errors of the time concerning the origin 
 
 o o 
 
 and use of civil government, we have given the prefer- 
 ence to two Discourses ; of which the first is extracted 
 from the works of Roger Norlk, Esq. and the second 
 from the late Bishop Home; who has treated this subject 
 as it ought always to be treated by Christian writers. 
 
 The use of the church, with the sin. and danger of 
 schism, ought to be better understood by the learned, and 
 more diligently taught among the people, than hath been 
 
 the custom of late years. Nothing can be more effec- 
 j 
 
 tual for this purpose than the three Letters of the Rev. 
 William Law against Bishop Hoadley : which, though 
 incomparable for truth of argument, brightness of wit, 
 and purity of English, and honoured with the highest 
 admiration at their first appearance, are now in a manner 
 forgotten*. In what was called the Bangorian Contro- 
 
 O O 
 
 r crsy, (Hoadley being then Bishop of Banger} the cause 
 of the church was defended by Mr. Law. and other emi- 
 nent men, against the Sectaries and Socinians, of whom 
 
 * We know, and lament, that the excellent Mr. La\v afterwards 
 adulterated his Christian doctrines with many novel and unsound spe- 
 culations; but when he composed these Letters his iniud was in its - 
 purest state; and they have no tincture of the errors he afterwards 
 fell into, during a life of too much abstraction and solitude.
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 Dr. Hoadhy then stood forward as the patron and cham- 
 pion ; and he is the oracle of that party to fhis day. To 
 these letters is added a later Essay on the Nature and 
 Constitution of the Church : and as it is necessary to see 
 what arguments the Sectaries make use of against the 
 establishment of the church of England, they are col- 
 lected and stated at the end of this work. The Reader 
 \\ill also find, in the course of the compilation, some 
 valuable extracts from Mr. Leslie on the same subject. 
 
 Sodnianism, under the name of Unitarianism, denies 
 the doctrines of the incarnation, redemption, &c. and is 
 endeavouring daily to increase the number of its pro- 
 selytes. The Rev. Mr. tforris struck at the root of these 
 errors, in a decisive treatise on the true Distinction be- 
 tween Faith and Reason ; of which he has given the sum 
 and substance in the last chapter of the work, which we 
 here present to the Reader, and wish he may be tempted 
 to make himself better acquainted with the whole book. 
 To this we subjoin two tracts adopted by the Society 
 for promoting Christian Knowledge: the first a Preser- 
 vative against the Publications of the Socinians ; the 
 second the Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity; of which 
 this is the eighth edition. 
 
 In the last century, when fanatical Christianity was 
 the pestilence of the age, it was little suspected that we 
 of the present century should be witnesses to such an 
 alarming approach towards the doctrines and ways of 
 Heathen idolatry. It should make us more earnest to 
 guard against false religion, when we see how soon it 
 ends in infidelity. The folly of this increasing partiality 
 to Heathenism was boldly censured in an anonymous pub- 
 lication, intitled, Remarks on the Growth oj Heathenism 
 among Modern Christians; which we have inserted in the
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 Collection, and recommend it to the consideration of 
 every Christian scholar. 
 
 No divine of this church ever studied his profession 
 with better opportunities, or with more diligence and 
 stfccess than the late Dr. Home, Bishop of Norwich; of 
 whose mind the superior powers and abilities are abun- 
 dantly witnessed by his printed works; and whose mild 
 and excellent spirit shone forth in his manners and con- 
 versation. In the many papers he has left behind him 
 some of those rules and directions are found, which ap- 
 pear by their effects to have been of eminent service to 
 himself at an early period of his life; and which cannot 
 fail to be of like service to all young students in divinity, 
 who have entered on the same course, and wish to be fol- 
 lowers of so bright an example. Of these a specimen is 
 extracted; and we have obtained permission to publish 
 it. The pieces, short as they are, will be found to com- 
 prehend more matter than many large volumes. We do 
 not enquire how far what we have printed was his own, 
 or how far it was taken from others, to be applied to his 
 own use. The improvement to be derived from it, is 
 still the same. But as he is not now alive to explain to 
 us the meaning of some of his notes, we are obliged to 
 take things as we find them, and to bespeak the candour 
 of the Reader on that account. Had we been aware 
 of it sooner, we might have taken advantage of a very 
 interesting note in the second volume of his Sermons, 
 and have added the piece there spoken of, which cannot 
 be extolled beyond its merits *. If this work should be 
 
 * The note is as follows: " Bishop TAYLOR's Moral Demonstration 
 of theTruth of Christianity, republished since this Discourse was written, 
 by a learned and amiable prelate of our church, (Bishtp Hurd). May 
 it meet with the .success it deserves ; for no tract ever came from the 
 penof man, better calculated te dispel those doubts and difficulties whicU
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 carried on farther, no tract can be more worthy of a 
 place in a subsequent volume. 
 
 We have nothing farther to say, but that we humbly 
 and earnestly entreat all lovers of Christian truth and 
 useful learning, who wish to see this church and nation 
 preserved under the dangers and temptations which now 
 threaten it, to give their kind encouragement, and use 
 their influence, in behalf of the present well-intended 
 compilation : assuring them they will here find a great 
 store of valuable truth, and perhaps also a fund of enter- 
 tainment, at a very reasonable price. If the work should 
 happily be found to answer the intention of the SOCIETY^ 
 one or more volumes may hereafter be added. But if 
 any evil habits of the age, or the influence of the ene- 
 mies of this Church, and of the truth which it main- 
 tains, should so far prevail as to render such a season- 
 able undertaking abortive, corruption must in that case 
 be farther advanced than we are willing to believe. 
 Be it more or less, may the great Physician of souls assist 
 and prosper us in thus contributing to the cure of it I 
 
 may arise in the mind of a believer, or to work conviction and conver- 
 sion in that of an unbeliever, who can bring himself to give it a fair and 
 attentive perusal. This has ever appeared to me to be its true character, 
 since the hour when, with equal surprize and pleasure, I first met with 
 it, where it so long lay hidden from the fashionable world, i 
 Dubitantium" Home's Sermons, Vol. II. p. 3, 3d edit.
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 THE TRACTS mentioned in the Preface being com- 
 prehended within fewer Pages than was expected, the 
 EDITOR has determined, with the Advice of a MEMBER 
 of the SOCIETY, to add to the Second Volume " Dr. 
 JEREMY TAYLOR'S MORAL DEMONSTRATION," already 
 recommended by two Bishops in the Preface ; a Work 
 whose Value is without Exception, and which every 
 Purchaser of these Volumes will be glad to read. 
 
 IT has also been thought adviseable to prefix to the 
 Collection, the PROPOSALS the SOCIETY have at dif- 
 ferent Times published.
 
 N I. 
 A PROPOSAI/ 
 
 FOR THE 
 
 REFORMATION OF PRINCIPLES^ 
 
 A HE late institution of Sunday Schools having been so well sup- 
 ported by the rich and honourable of this kingdom, and so 
 well received by the poor, we are encouraged to hope that some 
 similar plan will be adopted for preventing the corruption which 
 prevails among scholars, and persons of the higher orders of life, 
 from evil principles, and what may be called a monopoly of the 
 press. We have long been witnesses to the artifices and assiduity 
 of sectaries, republicans, socinians, and infidels. These may differ 
 very much from one another in their opinions : but if any mischief 
 is to be aimed at the church or its doctrines; if any popular lure 
 is to be thrown out for the raising of a party, and promoting some 
 public disturbance, they never fail to ma'ke a common cause of it ; 
 and a large body of men, animated by one spirit, and acting in 
 one direction, must necessarily act with weight and effect. Let 
 us observe what they do, and it will hence appear what we ought 
 to do. 
 
 About forty years ago, when some promising schemes had failed, 
 a Monthly Review of religion and literature was set on foot ; the 
 object of ^yvhich was to lessen the influence of all sucii works as 
 should be written in defence of the doctrine and discipline of the 
 Church of England, by defaming either the abilities or the in- 
 tegrity of their authors, omitting their arguments, and exhi- 
 biting unconnected scraps, from which the public must form a% 
 4
 
 unjust idea : and, on the other hand, hy praising the parts and 
 literature of loose, dangerous, and fanatical writers, blanching 
 their bigotry, and presenting their productions to the best ad- 
 vantage. 
 
 This undertaking, contrived by some out of malignity, and en- 
 couraged by others through inadvertence and curiosity, must in so 
 long a time, by possessing itself of the avenues to public opinion, 
 have had a pernicious effect on the Principles and Learning of the 
 age. By Another like artifice, some useful works, of established 
 reputation, have been taken up, and re-published by insidious 
 Editors, with omissions and interpolations of their own, for the 
 purpose of misrepresenting public characters, and dispersing un- 
 sound opinions. Many readers are apprized of what hath hap- 
 pened to the . Biographia Britannica t under the management of an 
 Editor, who is a person of influence among the Dissenters; and it 
 hath. been hinted, that a plan is in embryo* of setting forth the 
 English language after the manner of the great wwrk de la Crusca, 
 by dissenting Editors ; in which case, such authorities will be ad- 
 mitted as are proper to insinuate into students the new doctrines 
 and dangerous opinions of the conventicle. This would be a. 
 great stroke, and therefore the alarm should be given in time. For 
 which purpose, we request the readers of this pa;)er to peruse Mr. 
 jBttrle's account of that literary cabal in France, which, by poi- 
 soning the fountains of literature, of late effected the destruction of 
 their church and government. See Reflections, p. 165, &c. The 
 same practices, and with the same views, are now carrying on 
 in this country ; and the party have been heard to boast, that their 
 purposes will be accomplished without force of arms, by the ef- 
 fect of the press, in giving new fights to the people *. A re- 
 verend and learned Divine, now the head of a College in Oxford, 
 in a sermon lately preached before that University, observed of the 
 same party, that " they command almost every channel of in- 
 " formation, and have the direction of almost every periodical 
 " publication." 
 
 That no opportunity may be lost, novels have been written, to 
 insinuate under that disguise the errors of heresy and infidelity ; as 
 people, if they were to poison children, would mix arsenic with 
 their sugar plums. 
 
 * We have heard it reported, thut the sum of jOjOCO 1 . was subscribed, for dispersing 
 that mischievous and worthless piece of Tfamas Puittt j which in virtue of this liberal 
 support, was found in pot-licuses and petty assemblies ia all parts of the country.
 
 Many pious and learned, and some great men, dispersed about 
 the kingdom, as well laity as clergy, have long seen and lamented 
 the evils here complained of, and wished for a remedy. The first 
 object, therefore, of this Proposal is, to bring some of these to- 
 gether into small parties, as time and place will admit, and pro- 
 mote a farther consultation, by a correspondence between them. All 
 particulars will dispose them under the three following questions : 
 1. What is to be done ? 2. With what support ? and 3. By what 
 persons ? 
 
 If it be asked what is to be done; we have an answer ready, 
 while we observe xhat the adversary is doing. If false accounts 
 are given of authors and their works, to deceive the public, let a 
 true account be given, to undeceive them. If some old books arc 
 re-published in a spurious form, to mislead the readers of them, 
 let other good and useful pieces be either re-published, or brought 
 out to the light : and let students in divinity be furnished, at a 
 cheap rate, with such compilations as they may read without danger 
 to their principles. Little cheap pamphlets might also be dispersed 
 among the common people : and such might be found, as would be 
 of great effect, though little known. ' 
 
 If it should farther be asked, by what means, and by what 
 persons, all this is to be effected? We answer: as all other things 
 of the kind are ; by the counsel of the wise ; the money of the 
 opulent ; and the activity of men who are fit for business : of 
 whom, we presume, many will be found in our Universities, and 
 among the parochial clergy, and in the Inns of Court : when they 
 shall be enquired after by their friends, and encouraged by their su- 
 periors. 
 
 We add nothing farther to alarm or allure our readers. With 
 the blessing of God, the design will grow and prosper, even to the 
 surprise of those who are the first feeble instruments. To him, 
 therefore, we recommend it an, 1 ourselves, under an assurance, that 
 all they who are zealous for his honour, and would rescue their 
 country from the prevailing tyranny of a self-erected literary cabal 
 over our minds, which is worse than any that can be over our 
 persons and estates, will take this Proposal into consideration. 
 And let it not be urged, as it probably will, that what can be done for 
 the purpose in view, is already done by the Society for promoting 
 Christian Knowledge. We are sensible of, and thankful for, the 
 good which accrues daily to the religious interest of this kingdom, 
 
 i
 
 from the pious and extensive efforts of that respectable body ; and 
 have good reason to expect the hearty concurrence of many of its 
 members in their private capacity ; but it must have appeared from 
 what has been said, that such a Proposal as the present cannot be 
 brought to effect, but by due recourse to several expedients, which 
 lo not lie within the limits of their general plan. 
 LONDON, \7an. 1, 1792. 
 
 tT Something farther will be laid before the Public, when the 
 Centlemen who now hav this business under their consideration, 
 shall be ready to offer it.
 
 C - 3 
 
 N II. 
 
 A SEQUEL to the Proposal for a Reformation of 
 
 Principles. 
 
 Gentlemen, who are undoubted friends to our civil and 
 ecclesiastical Constitution as by Law established, having farther 
 considered the state of things, as set forth in a late Proposal for a, 
 Reformation of Principles ; and seeing how many ill-affected and 
 seditious associations are formed and forming amongst us, to the 
 corruption of Religion, Learning, and good Manners; the disturbing 
 of the public peace, the endangering of life and property, and of 
 every thing that can be dear to Englishmen and Christians, do re- 
 solve, to the utmost of their power, to take such measures, in a lite- 
 rary way only, as shall be thought most conducive to the preserva- 
 tion of our Religion, Government, and Laws. And they do most 
 earnestly and affectionately call upon all persons, who are disposed as 
 they are, to assist them herein ; as conceiving that there is not, at this 
 time, an object of greater importance than that which they are now 
 recommending to the attention and support of their countrymen. 
 
 For the promoting of which, they judge it necessary, in the first 
 place, to provide that a just and impartial account be given of all 
 considerable works in Divinity, Literature and Politics ; with a 
 faithful history of facts and occurrences in Europe, as well literary 
 as civil, military and political. For the compiling of which, under 
 the form of a Periodical Review, Gentlemen of the first Character 
 have offered their services, with no view but that of acting faith- 
 fully for the benefit of their c*ountry ; duly considering how grossly 
 it hath been abused and imposed upon by false and interested re- 
 ports of things and persons: insomuch that we have reason to 
 wonder and be thankful, that the times have not thereby been ren- 
 dered even worse than we find them. 
 
 They judge it another necessary measure to publish and disperse 
 works of such good principles as may enlighten those who are un- 
 informed, or rectify those who have been falsely taught ; and of 
 such excellence, as may deservedly engage their attention: of 
 which a Collection is already forming, to be approved and adopted
 
 [ vi 3 
 
 by this Society : who will repeatedly have recourse to the same ex- 
 pedient on every future occasion. 
 
 This Society will consist of three Classes, all uniting their powers 
 and employing their interest tp the same great and laudable effect, 
 under the patronage and inspection of a Committee: that is to say ; 
 
 1. Of Acting Members, who will be responsible for the monthly 
 publication of a Review, &c. and of their occasional Assistants. 
 
 2. Of a Committee, who will meet at regular times for the 
 transaction of business, and to superintend such publications as the 
 Society shall direct. 
 
 3. Of Annual Subscribers, at not less than one Guinea each, to 
 be paid at the time of subscribing. Which money so collected will 
 be applied, under the direction of the Committee, to the general 
 purposes of the Society : and when the subscribers shall amount to 
 a sufficient number, and a competent sum shall be subscribed, the 
 Society will begin io act. 
 
 All persons of the Nobility, Gentry, and Clergy, who wish to 
 concur in the design of this Society, are requested to direct their let- 
 ters to Messrs. Riving tons, St. Paul's Church-yard^ to be laid be- 
 fore the next meeting ; and the said Messrs. Rivmgtons are also 
 empowered to receive subscriptions and benefactions, and to register 
 the na.mes of the subscribers. 
 
 The members present at this meeting have the satisfaction of 
 being informed, that similar meetings will be held at Oxford, and 
 JBath ; and we trust, when this plan shall have been farther made 
 known, at many other considerable places in Great Britain and 
 Ireland: and they observe with pleasure how nearly their design, 
 started by a few private persons about six months ago, accords with 
 his Majesty's most gracious intention for promoting the peace and 
 prosperity of this kingdom in his late proclamation. 
 
 LONDON, June 11, 11U2.
 
 L vii 3 
 
 ( No. TIL ) 
 
 Wi 
 
 HEN the two preceding Numbers of this Proposal v*ere 
 offered to the Public, it was justly apprehended, that a more im- 
 partial account of Literary Publications, though essential to the 
 plan of the Society, would give more trouble than any other ob- 
 ject that they had in view J but that difficulty is now in a great 
 measure removed : and though the British Critic doth not pretend 
 to perfection, or so near an approach to perfection, as it may 2r> 
 tain hereafter, its claim to candour and impartiality has never been 
 disputed. 
 
 But there are other objects in view, which should by no means 
 be neglected. When the principles of a nation are changed, as 
 hath been too much the case in this nation within the present 
 century, it is a certain sign that there hath been some change in 
 the studies of those persons, who are educated to learned profes- 
 sions : and if so, there can be no prospect of any amendment till 
 a new and better course of study shall take place. Of this the 
 Society being fully persuaded, have determined to collect, and 
 with the assistance and interest of all good men, whom they con- 
 jure to give attention -to the case, will recommend to young stu- 
 dents (especially students in divinky) such Tracts as may furnish 
 their minds with good principles, and with such sober and strong 
 reasons as may (with the Div ine Blessing) enabje them not only to 
 maintain their own ground for themselves, but to recover to the 
 truth those who have departed from it. They apprehend, that 
 without this step, all the good that may be done by other means 
 \vill be slow and precarious. Sermons upon single texts are found 
 to do little good to those, who never learned their Cater.hism . 
 such persons having no rule of judgment in their minds to distin- 
 guish between good and evil. The British Critk, if honestly and 
 impartially conducted, may serve in its department to keep us 
 from growing worse ; but it cannot reach to the root of the evil. 
 Learned as we are in the present age, there are many and great 
 subjects in which we are to begin again. Arui though corruption 
 VOL. i. a
 
 t *K ] 
 
 is powerful and infectious, and falsehood is overbearing ; let $ 
 hope the opportunity is not lost. None of us can say how soon 
 it may he : and therefore we should work while some day-light is 
 left, lest the night overtake us. By some such expedient as that 
 now proposed, we may be furnished with a new generation of 
 skilful Critics, who may prevail to the preservation of the age in 
 which they shall live ; unless the time is come, when the Light we 
 have so long neglected and abused shall be removed from us : which 
 may God, in his infinite mercy, avert '! 
 
 The first thing wanting is, a general and correct Idea of the 
 Christian Plan ; which is furnished in an incomparable piece by 
 "the great Lord Verulam. We would next attend to the Truth of 
 Revelation, as proved by its proper Evidences which have never 
 been laid down more clearly and briefly, than by that eminent con- 
 troversialist Mr. G. Leslie, in his Short Method with the Deists t 
 and his Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 Errors concerning the nature of Civil Government endanger 
 the peace of mankind, and were never more current than at pre- 
 sent : that subject, therefore, demands our attention ; and for this 
 purpose we prefer a Discourse on the English Government, ex- 
 tractcd from the late Roger North, Esq; an eminent writer of the 
 Guildfoul family; who goes through the subject in a clear and 
 masterly way ; and, having been a Lawyer by profession, his judg- 
 ment may be liable to less exception.' The late Soame Jenyns 
 having well exposed the absurdity of some modern false Ideas of 
 civil Government ; we would extract this piece from his works, 
 if it may be permitted: and to this we mean to add a Sermon 
 from the works of the late Bishop Home, on the Origin of Civil 
 Government; who has considered the subject, as it ought always 
 to be considered, by Divines of the Church of England. A wild 
 sectarian spirit would not prevail so much as it does if the sin and 
 danger of schism were better understood by the learned, and more 
 diligently taught among the people. Nothing can be more excel- 
 lent upon the subject than the three Letters of the Rev. W. La-& 
 against Bishop Boadtej/, in what was called the Bangorian Contro- 
 versy : which is now in a manner forgotten, though every Clergy- 
 man ought to be acquainted with it ; for it was an occurrence of 
 great concern, not to the peace of this church only, but to the 
 very being and subsistence of Christianity in the world. To these 
 . Letters we would add an ss(jy on the Nature and Constitution of
 
 C I 
 
 the Church ; with some extracts from Mr. Leslie, on <he same, 
 subject. 
 
 We shall speak a great and interesting truth, if we affirm, that; 
 no man will understand rightly the nature of God, unless he has a 
 proper knowledge of himself, that is, of the real state of human 
 nature, and the limitation of its poweis. This subject was never- 
 treated to better effect, than by the late Dr. Ellis of Dublin. His 
 Book on the Knowledge of Divine Things from Revelation, not 
 from Reascn and Nature, liath happily convinced many readers ; 
 who knew not how to think justly of God or themselves, till they 
 were taught by this author. His work being too large and diffuse, 
 for this collection, an abridgment of it has lon-g been ardently wished 
 for : and it is now happily discovered, that his principles were 
 laid down by himself in two Senrfons, the substance of which he 
 contracted into one discourse ; of which we have been favoured 
 with a copy ; and to this we would add another discourse on the 
 same subject, which rectifies a text of the Scriptures, a false in- 
 terpretation of which has given cotmtenance and currency to most 
 of the modern Deistical mistakes about Nature and Reason. 
 
 Infidelity having been very busy of late years, under the new 
 name of Uiiitarianism, the people should be properly infoimed 
 upon ibis subject, and the arguments in favour of the fundamental 
 doctrines of the Church of England should be well understood 
 in opposition to such gainsayers. For this end we shall" add from, 
 the Rev. Mr. Norris's decisive Treatise on Faith and Reason, the 
 last chapter ; in which the argument is summed up : and shall 
 subjoin to it, two Treatises adopted by the Society for Promoting 
 Christian Knowledge ; the first, A Presewative against (he Publi- 
 cations of the Socmians ; the second, The Catholic Doctrine of the 
 Irinity : which is now out of print,- except in the small edition, 
 distributed by the Society. It was little suspected in the last cen- 
 tury, that the time woukl come, when the fabulous Idolairy of 
 Heathens should be openly preferred to the Gospel in a Christian 
 country. But it hath now actually been done in this country by 
 individual authors, and is done by the nation itself in another. 
 It will not be superfluous nor impertinent if we subjoin some 
 anonymous Remarks on the Growth of Heathenism among 
 modern Christians. 
 
 No Divine of this Church ever studied his profession with 
 better opportunities* nor with more diligence and success, thaa 
 
 a 2
 
 [ * ] 
 
 the late excellent and amiable Bishop Home : we are informed, that 
 in the papers he has left behind him, there are such Rules and 
 Directions in many separate pieces, for the study of Divinity, 
 with such an Apparatus of Theological Matter, collected from 
 all the sources of learning, as would of themselves, if put toge- 
 ther, form an inestimable treasure for the improvement of young 
 Students in Diviniry. Some of these we propose to add, if it 
 may be permit red. 
 
 It is our intention to publish the whole Collection, with the 
 * names of the subscribers prefixed ; and we trust it will appear, 
 that the times, bad as they are, can still exhibit a large and re- 
 spectable association of Gentlemen and Clergy, who will shew by 
 their pa ronage of this publication, that they are desirous and ready, 
 o to think, and so to teach, and so to live, as to draw down the 
 protection of heaven, for the preservation and increase of true 
 learning and true religion. 
 
 * The Society, on further consideration,- deeme4 it not necessary to solicit a sub- 
 icripuon for this Collection.
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 THE Reader of these three papers should be informed, that 
 the first draught of the plan laid clown in them, has received 
 some considerable alterations ; partly from choice, and partly 
 from necessity : but it was thought better to reprint the Papers, 
 as they were published, than to give new trouble by such an- 
 notations and explanations, as are not necessary to the main 
 design. 
 
 1795.

 
 - . . . 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 VOLUME t 
 
 PREFACE, KC. 
 
 Lord Bacon's Confession of Faith - - Page 
 
 Mr. Charles Leslie's Short and Easy Method with the Deists 
 His Letter on Creation 
 
 Providence - 
 
 . i Revelation - 
 
 . the Holy Trinity 
 
 . Differences among Christians 
 
 ' ; the Doctrine of Satisfaction - 
 
 i the Socinians 
 
 . the Church of Rome and the Dissenters 49, 
 
 the true Notion of the Church * 
 
 of an Universal Bishop - 
 
 ' Infallibility in the Church 
 
 . , Episcopacy - 
 
 an Infallible Demonstration of Episcopacy 
 
 His discourse on the Qualifications necessary to administer 
 
 the Sacraments - 
 
 Dr. Ellis'.? Enquiry, tffience cometh Wisdom ? 
 Mr. Willats on the Law of Nature .
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Leslie's Truth of Christianity Demonstrated - Page 153 
 
 Roger North, Esq. on the English Constitution - 247 
 
 Dr. Home on the Origin of Civil Government - 267 
 Mr. William Law's First Letter to the Bishop of Bangor 
 
 (Dr. Benjamin Hoadley) - - 279 
 
 His Second Letter 305 
 
 His Third Letter 365
 
 CONFESSION 
 
 o t 
 
 FAITH. 
 
 BY THE RIGHT HONOURABLE 
 
 FRANCIS BACON, LORD VERULAM. 
 
 VOL. I.
 
 or 
 
 FAITH. 
 
 JL BELIEVE that nothing is without beginning but God; 
 no nature, no matter, no spirit, but one only, and the same God. 
 That God, as he is eternally almighty, only wise, only good in 
 his nature ; so he is eternally Father, Son, and Spirit in persons. 
 
 I believe that God is so holy, pure, and jealous, as it is im- 
 possible for him to be pleased in any creature, though the work 
 of his own hands; so that neither angel, man, nor world, could 
 stand, or can stand, one moment in his eyes, without beholding 
 the same in the face of a mediator; and therefore, that before 
 him, with whom all things are present, the Lamb of God was 
 slain before all worlds ; without which eternal counsel of his, 
 it was impossible for him to have descended to any work of creation; 
 but he should have enjoyed the blessed and individual society of 
 three persons in godhead for ever. 
 
 But that, out of his eternal and infinite goodness and love, pur- 
 posing to become a creator, and to communicate to his creatures, 
 he ordained in his eternal counsel, that one person of the godhead 
 should be united to one nature, and to one particular of his crea- 
 tures ; that so, in the person of the mediator, the true ladder 
 might be fixed, whereby God might descend to his creatures, and 
 his creatures might ascend to God: so that God, by the recon- 
 cilement of the Mediator, turning his countenance towards his 
 creatures (though not in equal light and degree) made way unto 
 the dispensation of his most holy and secret will; whereby some 
 of his creatures might stand, and keep their state; others might
 
 . Lord Bacon's Confession of Faith. 3 
 
 possibly fall and be restored ; and others might fall and not be re- 
 stored to their estate, but yet remain in being, though under wrath 
 and corruption; all with respect to the Mediator; which is the 
 great mystery, and perfect center of all God's ways with his crea- 
 tures ; and unto which, all his other works and wonders do but serve 
 and refer. 
 
 That he chose (according to his good pleasure) man to be that 
 creature, to whose nature, the person of the eternal Son of God 
 shou!4 be united; and amongst the generations of men, elected a 
 small flock, in whom (by the participation of himself) he pur- 
 posed to express the riches of his glory, all the ministration of 
 angels, damnation of devils and reprobates, and universal admi- 
 nistration of all creatures, and dispensation of all times , having no 
 other end but as the ways and ambages of God, to be further glo- 
 rified in his saints, who are one with their head the Mediator, who 
 is one with God. 
 
 That by the virtue of this his eternal counsel, he condescended 
 of his own good pleasure, and according to the times and seasons 
 to himself known, to become a Creator; and by his eternal word 
 created all things; and by his eternal spirit doth coinfort and pre- 
 serve them. 
 
 That he made all things in their first estate good, and removed 
 from himself the beginning of all evil and vanity into the liberty 
 of the creature ; but reserved in himself the beginning of all 
 restitution to the liberty of his grace; using nevertheless, and 
 turning the falling and defection of the creature (which to his 
 prescience was eternally knoww) to make way to his eternal coun- 
 sel, touching a Mediator, and the work he purposed to accomplish 
 in him. 
 
 That God created spirits, whereof some kept their-standing, 
 and others fell ; he created heaven and earth, and all their armies 
 and generations ; and gave unto them constant and everlasting 
 laws, which we call nature ; which is nothing but the laws of 
 creation; which laws, nevertheless, have had three changes or 
 times, and are to have a fourth or last. The first, when the 
 matter of heaven and earth was created without form : the second, 
 the interim of perfection of every day's work: the third, by the 
 curse, which, notwithstanding, was no new creation : aad the 
 last, at the end of the world, the manner whereof is not yet fully 
 revealed; so as the laws of nature which now remain and govern 
 inviolably till the end of the world, began to be in force when
 
 4 Lord Bacon'j Confession of Faith. 
 
 God first rested from his works, and ceased to create ; but received 
 a revocation, in part, by the curse, since which time they 
 change not. 
 
 That notwithstanding God hath rested and ceased from creating 
 since the first sabbath, yet, nevertheless, he doth accomplish and 
 fulfil his divine will in all things, great and small, singular and 
 general ; as fully and exactly by providence, as he could by miracle 
 and new creation, though his working be not immediate and direct, 
 but by compass; not violating nature, which is his own law upon 
 the creature. 
 
 That at the first, the soul of man was not produced by heaven or 
 earth, but was breathed immediately from God; so that the 
 ways and proceedings of God with spirits, are not included in 
 nature ; that is, in the laws of heaven and earth : but are reserved 
 to the law of his secret will and grace : wherein God worketh 
 still, and restech not from the work of redemption, as he resteth 
 from the work of creation ; but continueth working till the end 
 of the world : wha 1 ! time that work also shall be accomplished ; 
 and an eternal sabbath shall ensue. Likewise, that whensoever 
 God doth transcend the law of nature by miracles, (which 
 may ever seem as new creations) he never cometh to that point or 
 pass, but in regard of the work of redemption, which is the greater, 
 and where all God's signs and miracles do refer. 
 
 That God created man in his own image, in a reasonable soul, 
 in innocency, in free-will, and in sovereignty : that he gave him 
 a law and a commandment, which was in his power to keep, but 
 he kept it not : that man made a total defection from God, pre- 
 suming to imagine, that the commandments and prohibitions of 
 God, were not the rules of good and evil ; but that good and evil 
 had their own principles and beginnings, and lusted after the 
 knowledge of those imagined beginnings ; to the end, to depend no 
 more upon God's will revealed, but upon himself and his own 
 light, as a God: than the which there could not be a sin more 
 opposite to the whole law of God : that yet, nevertheless, 
 this great sin was not originally moved by the malice of man, but 
 was insinuated by the suggestion and instigation of the devil, who 
 was the first defected creature, and fell of malice, and not by 
 temptation. 
 
 That upon the fall of man, death and vanity entered by the 
 justice of God; and the image of God in man was defaced; and 
 heaven and earth, which were made for man's use, were subdued
 
 Lord Bacon'*' Confession of Faith. 5 
 
 to corruption by his fall ; but then that instantly, and without inter- 
 mission of time, after the word of God's law, became through the 
 fall of man, frustrate as to obedience, there succeeded the greater 
 word of the promise, that the righteousness of God might be 
 wrought by faith. 
 
 That as well the law of God, as the word of his promise, endure 
 the same for ever : but that they have been revealed in several man- 
 ners, according to the dispensation of times. For the law was first 
 imprinted in that remnant of light of nature, which was left 
 after the fall, being sufficient to accuse: then it was more ma- 
 nifestly expressed in the written law; and was yet more opened by 
 the prophets : and lastly, expounded in the true perfection by the 
 Son of God, the great prophet and perfect interpreter ; as also 
 fulnller of the law. That likewise, -the word of the promise was 
 manifested and revealed: first, by immediate revelation and inspira- 
 tion; after, by figures; which were of two natures; the one, 
 the rites and ceremonies of the law ; the other, the continual 
 history of the old world, and church of the Jews ; which, though 
 it be literally true, yet it is pregnant of a perpetual allegory and 
 shadow, of the work of the redemption to follow. The same pro- 
 mise or evangile was more clearly revealed and declared by the pro- 
 phets, and then by the Son himself; and lastly by the Holy Ghost, 
 which illuminated! the church to the end af the world. 
 
 That in the fulness of time, according to the promise and oath, 
 of a chosen lineage, descended the blessed Seed of the woman, 
 Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and Saviour of the 
 , world ; who was conceived by the power and overshadowing 
 of the Holy Ghost, and took flesh of the Virgin Mary : that the 
 Word did not only take flesh, or was joined to flesh, but was 
 made flesh, though without confusion of substance or nature : so 
 as the eternal Son of God, and the ever blessed Son of Mary, was 
 one person ; so one, as the. blessed Virgin may be truly and catho- 
 lically called, Deipara, the mother of God : so one, as there is 
 no unity in universal nature, not that of the soul and body of mao, 
 so perfect ; for the three heavenly unities (whereof that is the se- 
 cond) exceed all natwral unities : that is to say, the unity of the 
 three persons in godhead; the unity of God and man in Christ, and 
 the unity of Christ and the church, the Holy Ghost being the 
 worker of both these latter unities ; for by the Holy Ghost was 
 Christ incarnate and quickened in flesh ; and by the Holy Ghost is 
 man regenerate and quickened ia spirit.
 
 6 Lord Bacon's ConfeJJion of Faith, 
 
 That Jesus, the Lord, became in the flesh a sacrificer, and 
 sacrifice for sin ; a satisfaction arrd price to the justice of God; a 
 meriter of glory and the kingdom ; a pattern of all righteousness ; 
 a preacher of the word which himself was; a finisher of the ce- 
 remony ; a corner stone to remove the separation between Jew 
 and Gentile ; an intercessor for the church ; a Lord of nature in 
 his miracles ; a conqueror of death and the power of darkness in 
 his resurrection ; and that he fulfilled the whole counsel of God ; 
 performing all his sacred offices, and anointing on earth ; accom- 
 plished the whole work of the redemption and restitution of man, 
 to a state superiour to the angels ; (whereas the state of man by- 
 creation was inferior) and reconciled and established all things 
 according to the eternal will of the Father. 
 
 That in time, Jesus the Lord was born in the days of Herod, 
 and suffered under the government of Pontius Pilate, being deputy 
 of the Romans, and under the high-priesthood of Caiaphas, and 
 was betrayed by Judas, one of the twelve apostles, and was cruci- 
 fied at Jerusalem ; and after a true and natural death, and his body 
 laid in the sepulchre, the third day he raised himself from the 
 bonds ef death, and arose and shewed himself to many chosen 
 witnesses, by the space of divers days ; and at the end of those 
 days, in the sight of many, ascended into heaven ; where he con-. 
 tinueth his intercession, and shall from thence, at the day ap- 
 pointed, come in the greatest glory to judge the world. 
 
 That the sufferings and merits of Christ, as they are sufficient 
 to do away the sins of the whole world, so they are only effectual 
 to those which are regenerate. by the Holy Ghost, who breatheth 
 where he will of free grace ; which grace, as a seed incorruptible, 
 quickeneth the spirit of man, and conceiveth him anew, a son of 
 God, and member of Christ ; so that Christ having man's flesh, 
 and man having Christ's spirit, there is an open passage, and m'u- 
 tual imputation ; whereby sin and wrath was conveyed to Christ 
 from man, and merit and life is conveyed to man from Christ : 
 \vhich seed of the Holy Ghost first figureth in us the image of 
 Christ, slain or crucified, through a lively faith ; and then re- 
 neweth in us the image of God in holiness and charity ; though 
 both imperfectly, and in degrees far differing, even in God's elect ; 
 as well in regard of- the fire of the Spirit, as of the illumination 
 thereof; which is mere or less in a large proportion : as namely, 
 in the church before Christ; which yet, nevertheless, was par-
 
 Lord Bacon's Confession of Faith. 7 
 
 taker of one and the same salvation with us, and of one and the 
 same means of salvation with us. 
 
 That the work of the Spirit, though it be not tied to any means 
 Jn heaven or earth, yet it is ordinarily dispensed by the preaching 
 of the word, and administration of the sacraments ; the covenants 
 of the fathers upon the children ; prayer, reading ; the censures 
 of the church ; the society of the godly ; the cross and afflictions ; 
 God's benefits ; his judgments upon others ; miracles ; the con- 
 templation or. his creatures ; all which (though some be more 
 principal) God useth, as the means of vocation and conversion of 
 his elect ; not derogating from his power, to call immediately by 
 his grace ; and at all hours and moments of the day (that is, of 
 man's life) according to his good pleasure. 
 
 That the word of God, whereby his will is revealed, continued 
 in revelation and tradition until Moses, and that the scriptures 
 were from Moses's time to the times of the apostles and evangelists; 
 in whose age, after the coming of the Holy Ghost, the teacher of 
 all truth, the book of the scriptures was shut and closed, so as 
 not to receive any new addition ; and that the church hath no 
 power over the scriptures to teach or command any thing contrary 
 to the written word ; but it is as the ark, wherein the tables of 
 the first testament were kept and preserved : that is to say, the 
 church hath only the custody and delivery over of the scriptures 
 committed unto the same ; together with the interpretations of 
 them, but such only as is conceived from themselves. 
 
 That there is an universal or catholic church of God, dispersed 
 over the face of the earth, which is Christ's spouse, and Christ's 
 body ; being gathered of the fathers of the old world, of the 
 church of the Jews, of the spirits of the faithful dissolved, and 
 the spirits of the faithful militant, and of the names yet to be 
 born, which are already written in the book of life. That there 
 is also a visible church, distinguished by the outward works of 
 God ? s covenant, and the receiving of the holy doctrine, with the 
 use of the mysteries of God, and the invocation and sanctification of 
 his holy name. That there is also an holy succession in the 
 prophets of the new testament and fathers of the church, from 
 the time of the apostles and disciples, which saw our Saviour in 
 the flesh unto the consummation of the work of the ministry ; 
 which persons are called from God by gift, or inward anointing; 
 and the vocation of God followed by an outward calling, and or- 
 dination of the church.
 
 . Lord Bacon's Confession of Faith. 
 
 I believe, that the souls of such as die in the Lord, are blessed, 
 and rest from their labours, aad enjoy the sight of God ; yet so 
 as they are in expectation of a farther revelation of their glory in 
 the last day. At which time all flesh of man shall arise and be 
 changed, and shall appear and receive from Jesus Christ his eternal 
 judgment ; and the glory of the saints shall then be full ; and the 
 kingdom shall be given up to God the Father ; from which time 
 all things shall continue for ever in that being and state which then 
 they shall receive : so there are three times (if times they may be 
 called) or parts of eternity. The first, the time before begin- 
 nings, when the Godhead was only, without the being of any 
 creature : the second, the time of the mystery, which continueth 
 from the creation to the dissolution of the world : and the third, 
 the time of the revelation of the sons of God ; which time is the 
 last, and is everlasting without change.
 
 LESLIE ON DEISM 
 
 AND OX 
 
 THE QUALIFICATIONS REQUISITE TO 
 ADMINISTER THE SACRAMENT.
 
 SHORT AND EASY METHOD 
 
 TTITH THE 
 
 DEISTS. 
 
 S.IR, 
 
 I. -IN answer to yours.of the third instant, I much condole with 
 you your unhappy circumstances, of being placed amongst 
 such company, where, as you say, you continually hear -the sacred 
 scriptures, and the histories therein contained, particularly of 
 Moses, and of Christ, and all revealed religion turned into ridi- 
 cule, by Men who set up for sense and reason. And they say 
 that there is no greater ground to believe in Christ, than in Ma- 
 horfiet ; that all these pretences to revelation are cheats, and ever 
 have been among Pagans, Jews, Mahometans, and Christians; 
 that they are all alike impositions of cunning and designing men, 
 upon the credulity, at first, of simple and unthinking people, till, 
 their numbers encreasing, their delusions grew popular, came at 
 last to be established by laws ; and then the force of education and 
 custom gives a bias to the judgments of after ages, till such de- 
 ceits come really to be believed, being received upon trust from 
 the ages foregoing, without examining into the original and bottom 
 of them. Which these our modern men of sense, (as they desire 
 to be esteemed) say that they only do, that they only have their 
 judgments freed from the slavish authority of precedents and laws, 
 in matters of truth, which, they say, ought only to be decided 
 by reason ; though by a prudent compliance with popularity and 
 laws, they preserve themselves from outrage, and legal penalties ; 
 for none of their complexion are addicted to sufferings or martyr- 
 dom.
 
 Leslie on Deism. 1 1 
 
 Now, Sir, that which you desire from me, is some short topic 
 of reason, if such can be found, whereby, without running to 
 authorities, and the intricate mazes of learning, which breed 
 long disputes, x and which these men of reason deny by wholesale, 
 though they can give no reason for it, only suppose that authors 
 have been trumped upon us, interpolated and corrupted, so that 
 no stress can be laid upon them, though it cannot be shewn wherein 
 they are so corrupted; which, in reason, ought to lie upon them 
 to prove, who alledge it ; otherwise it is not only a precarious, 
 but a guilty plea : And the more, that they refrain not to quote 
 books on their side, for whose authority there are no better, or 
 not so good grounds. However, you say, it makes your disputes 
 endless, and they go away with noise and clamour, and a boast, 
 that there is nothing, at least nothing certain, to be said on the 
 Christian side. Therefore you are desirous to find some one topic 
 of reason, \vhich should demonstrate the truth of the Christian 
 religion, and at the same time, distinguish it from the impostures 
 of Mahomet, and the old Pagan world : That our Deists may be 
 brought to this test, and be obliged either to renounce their reason, 
 and the common reason of mankind, or to submit to the clear 
 proof, from reason, of the Christian religion ; which must be such 
 a proof, as no imposture can pretend to, otherwise it cannot prove 
 the Christian religion not to be an imposture. And, whether such 
 a proof, one single proof (to avoid confusion) is not to be found 
 out, you desire to know from me. 
 
 And you say, that you cannot imagine but there must be such 
 a proof, because every truth is in itself clear, a,nd one ; and there- 
 fore that one reason for it, if it be the true reason, must be suffi- 
 cient ; and if sufficient, it is better than many ; for multiplicity 
 confounds, especially to weak judgments. 
 
 Sir, you have imposed an hard task upon me, I wish 1 could 
 perform it. For though every truth is one, yet our sight is so 
 feeble, that we cannot (always) come to it directly, but by many 
 inferences, and laying of things together. 
 
 But I think, that in the case before us, there is such a proof 
 as you require, and I will set it down as short and plain as I can. 
 
 II. First, then, 1 suppose, that the truth of the doctrine of 
 Christ will be sufficiently evinced, if the matters of fact, which 
 are recorded of him in the gospels, be true; for his miracles, if 
 true, do vouch the truth of what he delivered.
 
 12 Leslie on Deism. 
 
 The same is to be said as to Moses. If he brought the chil- 
 dren of Israel through the Red Sea in that miraculous manner 
 which is related in Exodus, and did such other wonderful things 
 as are there told of him, it must necessarily follow, that he was 
 sent from God : These being the strongest proofs we can desire, 
 and which every Deist will confess he would acquiesce in, if he 
 saw them with his eyes. Therefore the stress of this cause will 
 depend upon the proof of these matters of fact. 
 
 1. And the method I will take is, first, to lay down such, 
 rules, as to the truth of matters of fact in general, that where 
 they all meet, such matters of fact cannot be false. And then, 
 secondly, to shew that all these rules do meet in the matters of 
 fact, of Moses, and of Christ ; and that they do not meet in the 
 matters of fact of Mahomet, and the heathen deities, or can pos- 
 sibly meet in any imposture whatsoever. 
 
 2. The rules are these, 1st. That the matters of fact be such 
 as that men's outward senses, their eyes and ears, may be judges 
 of it. 2. That it be done publicly in the face of the world. 
 3. That not only public monuments be kept up in memory of 
 it, but some outward actions to be performed. 4. That such 
 monuments, and such actions or observances be instituted, and do 
 commence from the time that the matter of fact was done. 
 
 3. The two first rules make it impossible for any such matter 
 of fact to be imposed upon men, at the time when such matter 
 of fact was said to be done, because every man's eyes and senses 
 would contradict it. For example : Suppese any man should pre- 
 tend, that yesterday he divided the Thames, in presence of all the 
 people of London, and carried the whole city, men, women, 
 and children, over to Sonthwark, on dry land, the waters standing 
 like walls on both sides: I say, it is morally, impossible that he 
 could persuade the people of London that th'is was true, when 
 every man, woman, and child could contradict him, and say, 
 that this was a notorious falshood, for that they had not seen the 
 Thames so divided, or had gone over on dry land. Therefore I 
 take it for granted (and I suppose, with the allowance of all the 
 Deists in the world) that no such imposition could be put upon 
 men, at the time when such public matter of fact was said to be 
 done. 
 
 4. Therefore it only remains that such matter of fact might 
 be invented some time after, when the men of that generation,
 
 Leslie on Deism. 1 3 
 
 wherein the thing was said to be done, are all past and gone; and 
 the credulity of after ages might be imposed upon, to believe that 
 things were done in former ages, which were not. 
 
 And for this, the two last rules secure us as much as the two 
 first rules, in the former case; for whenever such a matter of 
 fact came to be invented, if not only monuments were said to 
 remain of itj but likewise that public actions and observances 
 were constantly used ever since the matter of fact was said to be 
 done, the deceit must be detected, by no such monuments ap- 
 pearing, and by the experience of every man, woman, and child, 
 who must know that no such actions or observances were ever 
 used by them. For example : Suppose I should now invent a 
 sto.ry of such a thing, done a thousand years ago, I might perhaps 
 get some to believe it; but if I say, that not only such a thing 
 was done, but that, from that day to this, every man, at the age 
 of twelve years, had a joint of his little finger cut off; and that 
 every man in the nation did want a joint of such a finger; and that 
 this institution was said to be part of the matter of 'fact done so 
 many years ago, and vouched as a proof and confirmation of it, 
 and as having descended, without interruption, and been con- 
 stantly practised, in memory of such matter of fact, all along, 
 from the time that such matter of fact was done : I say, it is im- 
 possible I should be believed in such a case, because every one 
 could contradict me, as to the mark of cutting off a joint of the 
 finger ; and that being part of my original matter of fact, must 
 demonstrate the whole to be false. 
 
 III. Let us now come to the seeond point, to shew that the mat- 
 ters of fact of Moses, and of Christ, have all these rules or markg 
 before mentioned ; and that neither the matters of fact of Mahomet, 
 or what is reported of the heathen deities, have the like; and that 
 no impostor can have them all. 
 
 1. As to Moses, I Suppose it will be allowed me, that he could 
 not have persuaded 600,000 men, that he had brought them out 
 of Egypt, through the Red Sea; fed them forty years, without 
 bread, by miraculous manna, and the other matters of fact re- 
 corded in his books, if they had not been true. Because every 
 man's senses that were then alive, must have contradicted it. And 
 therefore he must have imposed upon all their senses, if he could 
 have made them believe it, when it was false, and no such things 
 done. So that here are the first and second of the above-mentioned 
 four marks.
 
 14 Leslie on Deism 
 
 For the same reason, it was equally impossible for him to have 
 made them receive his five books, as truth, and not to have re- 
 jected them, as a manifest imposture; which told of all these 
 things as done before their eyes, if they had not been so done. 
 See how posir-ively he speaks to them, Deut. xi. 2, to verse 8. 
 " And know you this day, for I speak not with your children, 
 '* which* have not known; and which have not seen the chaftise- 
 ' ment of the Lord your God, his greatness, his mighty hand, 
 " and his ftretched-out arm, and his miracles, and his acts, 
 " which he did in the midst of Egypt, unto Pharaoh the king of 
 " Egypt, and unto all his land, and what he did unto the army of 
 " Egypt, unto their horses, and to their chariots ; how he made 
 '* the water of the Red Sea to overflow them as they pursued 
 *' after you ; and how the Lord hath destroyed them unto this 
 " day: And what he did unto you in the wilderness, until ye 
 *' came into this place; and what he did untoDathan andAbiram, 
 " the sns of Eliah, the son of Reuben, how the earth opened 
 " her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their housholds, and 
 " their tents, and all the substance that was in their possession, ia 
 " the midst of all Israel. But your eyes have seen all the great 
 " acts of the Lord, which he did, &c." 
 
 From hence we must suppose it impossible that these books of 
 Moses (if an imposture) could have bsen invented and put upon 
 the people who were then alive, when all these things were said 
 to be done. 
 
 The utmost therefore that even a suppose can stretch to, is, 
 that these books were wrote in some age after Moses, and put out 
 in his name. 
 
 And to this, I say, that if it was so, it was impossible that those 
 books should have been received as the books of Moses, in that 
 age wherein they may have been supposed to have been first in- 
 vented. Why ? Because they speak of themselves as delivered by 
 Moses, and kept in the ark from his time. " And it came to 
 " pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of 
 " this law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses com- 
 " manded the Levites who bare the ark of the covenant of the 
 " Lord, saying, take this book of the law, and put it in the side 
 * of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may 
 41 be there for a witness against thee," Deut. xxxi. 24, 25, 26. 
 And there was a copy of this book to be left likewise with the 
 king. " And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his 
 4
 
 Leslie on Deism. 15 
 
 " kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book, 
 " out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it 
 " shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his 
 life: That he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all 
 " the words of this law and these statutes to do them." Deut. xvii, 
 38, 19. 
 
 Here you see that this book of the law speaks of itself, not only 
 as an history or relation of what things were then done, but as the 
 standing and municipal law and statutes of the nation of the Jews, 
 binding the king as well as the people. 
 
 Now, in whatever age after Moses you will suppose this book 
 to have been forged, it was impossible it could be received as truth ; 
 because it was not then to be found, either in the ark, or with 
 the king, or any where else: For when first invented, every body 
 must know, that they had never heard of it before. 
 
 And therefore they could less believe it to be the book of their 
 statutes, and the standing law of the land, which they had all along 
 received, and by which they had been governed. 
 
 Could any man, now at this day, invent a book of statutes or 
 acts of parliament for England, and make it pass upon the nation 
 as the only book of statutes that ever they had known ? ' As im- 
 possible was it for the books of Moses (if they were invented in 
 any age after Moses) to have been received for what they declare 
 themselves 10 be, viz. The statutes and municipal law of the na- 
 tion of the Jews : And to have persuaded the Jews, that they Lad 
 owned and acknowledged these books, all along from the days of 
 Moses, to that day in which they were first invented; that is, that 
 they had owned them before they had even so much as heard of 
 them. Nay, more, the whole nation must, hi an instant, forget 
 their former laws and .government, if they could receive these books 
 as being their former laws. And they could not otherwise receive 
 them, because they vouched themselves so to be. Let me ask 
 the Deists but one short question : Was there ever a book of sham- 
 laws, which were not the laws of the nation, palmed upon any 
 people, since tke world began ? If not, with what face can they 
 say this of the book of the laws of the Jews ! Why will they 
 say that of them, which they confess impossible in any nation, or 
 among any people ? 
 
 But they must be yet more unreasonable. For the books of 
 Moses have a further demonstration of their truth than even other 
 law-books have: For they not only contain the laws, but give an
 
 16 Leslie on Deism. 
 
 historical account of their institution, and the practice of them 
 from that time': As of the passover in memory of the death of the 
 first-born in Egypt * : And that the same day, all the first-born of 
 Israel, both of man and beast, were, by a perpetual law, dedicated 
 to God: And the Levites taken for all the firft-born of the child- 
 dren of Israel. That Aaron's rod which budded, was kept in the 
 ark, in memory of the rebellion, and wonderful destruction of 
 Korah, Dathan, and Abiram ; and for the confirmation of the 
 priesthood to the tribe of Levi. As likewise the pot of manna, 
 in memory of their having been fed with it forty years in the 
 wilderness. That the brazen serpent was kept (which remained 
 to the days of Hezekiah, 2 Kings xviii. 4.) in memory of that 
 wonderful deliverance, by only looking upon it, from the biting 
 of the fiery serpents, Num. xxi. 9. The feast of Pentecost, in 
 memory of the dreadful appearance of God upon Mount Ho- 
 reb, &c. 
 
 And besides these remembrances of particular actions and oc- 
 currences, there were other solemn institutions in memory of 
 their deliverance out of Egypt, in the general, which included all 
 the particulars. As of the Sabbath, Deut. v. 15. Their daily 
 sacrifices, and yearly expiation ; their new moons, and several 
 feasts and fasts. So that there were yearly, monthly, weekly, daily 
 remembrances and recognitions of these things. 
 
 And nst only so, but the books of the same Moses tell us, that 
 a particular tribe (of Levi) was appointed and consecrated by God, 
 as his priests; by whose hands, and none other, the sacrifices of 
 the people were to be offered, and these solemn institutions to be 
 celebrated. That it was death for any other to approach the altar. 
 That their high priest wore a glorious mitre, and magnificent 
 robes of God's own contrivance, with the miraculous Urim and 
 Thummim in his breast-plate, whence the divine responses were 
 given, t That at his word, the king and all the people were to 
 go out, and to come in. That these Levites were likewise the 
 chief judges, even in all civil causes, and that it was death to resist 
 their sentence J. Now whenever it can be supposed that these 
 books of Moses were forged in some ages after Moses, it is im- 
 possible they could have been received as true, unless the forgers 
 could have made the whole nation believe, that they had received 
 
 * Numbers viii. 17, 18. t Numbers xxvii. 21. 
 
 * Deut. xvii. 8 to 13 I Chr. niii, 4.
 
 Leslie on Deism. 17 
 
 these books from their fathers, had been instructed in them when 
 they were children, and had taught them to their children ; more- 
 over, that they had all been circumcised, and did circumcise their 
 children, in pursuance to what was commanded in these books, 
 that they had observed the yearly passover, the weekly sabbath, 
 the new moons, and all these several feasts, fasts, and ceremonies 
 commanded in these books : That they had never eaten any swines 
 flesh, or other meats prohibited in these books : That they had a 
 magnificent tabernacle, with a visible priesthood to administer in 
 it, which was confined to the tribe of Levi ; over whom was 
 placed a glorious high-priest, cloathed with great and mighty pre- 
 rogatives ; whose death only could deliver those that were fled to 
 the cities of refuge *. And that these priests were their ordinary 
 judges, even in civil matters : I say, was it possible to have per- 
 suaded a whole nation of men, that they had known and practised 
 all these things, if they had not done it ? or, secondly, to hare 
 received a book for truth, which said they had practised them, 
 and appealed to that practice ? So that here are the third and fourth 
 of the marks above-mentioned. 
 
 But now let us descend to the utmost degree of supposition, 
 viz. That these things were practised, before these books of 
 Moses were forged ; and that those books did only impose upon 
 the nation, in making them believe, that they had kept these ob- 
 servances in memory of such and such things, as were inserted in 
 those books. 
 
 Well then, let us proceed upon this supposition, (however 
 groundless) and now, will not the same impossibilities occur, as 
 in the former case? For, first, this must suppose that the Jews 
 kept all these observances in memory of nothing, or without 
 knowing any thing of their original, or the reason why they 
 kept them. Whereas these very observances did express the 
 ground and reason of their being kept, as the Passover, in memory 
 of God's passing over the children of the Israelites, in that night 
 wherein he slew all the first-born of Egypt, and so of the rest. 
 
 But, secondly, let us suppose, contrary both to reason and 
 matter of fact, that the Jews did not know any reason at all why 
 they kept these observances ; yet was it possible to put it upon 
 them. That they had kept these observances in memory of what 
 they had never heard of before that day, whensoever you will 
 
 Numbers xxxr. 25, 28. 
 VOL. I. C
 
 18 Leslie on Deism. 
 
 suppose that these books of Moses were first forged? For exam- 
 ple, suppose I should now forge some romantic story, of ftrange 
 things done a thousand years ago, and in confirmation of this, 
 should endeavour to persuade the Christian world, that they had 
 all along, from that day to this, kept the first day of the week in 
 memory of such an hero, an Apollonius, a Barcoshas, or a Ma- 
 'homet ; and had all been baptized in his name ; and swore by 
 his name, and upon that very book, (which I htd then forged, 
 and which they never saw before) in'their public judicatures ; that 
 this book was their gospel and law, which they had ever since that 
 time, these thousand years past, universally received and owned, 
 and none other. I would ask any Deift, whether he thinks it 
 possible thai such a cheat could pass, or such a legend be received 
 as the gospel of Christians ; and that they could be made believe 
 that they never had any other gospel ? The same reason is as to 
 the books of Moses; and must be, as to every matter of fact, 
 which has all the four marks before, mentioned ; and these marks 
 secure any such matter of fact as much from being invented and 
 imposed in any after ages, as at the time when such matters of face 
 were said to be done. 
 
 Let me give one very familiar example more in this case. 
 There is the Stonehenge in Salisbury. plain, every body knows it ; 
 and yet none knows the reason why those great stones were set 
 there, or by whom, or in memory of what. 
 
 Now suppose I should write a book to-morrow, and tell there. 
 That these stones were set up by Hercules, Polyphemus, or Ga- 
 ragantua, in memory of such and such of their actions. And for 
 a further confirmation of this, should say in this book, that it 
 was wrote at the time when such actions were done, and by the 
 very actors themseWes, or eye witnesses. And that this book had 
 been received as truth, and quoted by authors of the greatest repu- 
 tation in all, ages since. Moreover that this book was well known 
 in 1 England, and enjoined by act of parliament to be taught our 
 children, and that we did teach it to our children, and had been 
 taught it ourselves when we were children. I ask any Deist, whe- 
 ther he thinks this could pass upon England ? And whether, if I, 
 or any other should insist upon it, we should not, instead of being 
 believed, be sent to Bedkm ? 
 
 Now let us compare this with the Stonehenge, as I may call it, 
 or twelve great stones set up at Gilgal, which is told in the fourth 
 chapter of Joshua. There it is said, verse 6, that the reasoa
 
 Leslie on Deisin. 19 
 
 tvhy they were set up, was, that when their children, in after 
 ages, should ask the meaning of it, it should be told them. 
 
 And the thing in memory of which they were set up, was such 
 as could not possihly be imposed upon that nation, at that time 
 when it was said to be done, it was as wonderful and miraculous 
 as their passage through the Red Sea. 
 
 And withal, free from a very poor objection, which the Deists 
 have advanced against that miracle of the Red Sea : thinking to 
 salve it by a spring tide, with the concurrence- of a strong wind, 
 happening at the same time ; which left the sand so dry, as that 
 the Israelites being all foot, might pass through the oozy places 
 and holes, which it must be supposed the sea left behind it : but 
 that the Egyptians, being all horse a'nd chariots, stuck in those 
 holes, and were entangled, so as that they could" not march so fast 
 as the Israelites : and that this was all the meaning of its being 
 said, that God took oft" their (the Egyptians) chariot wheels, that 
 they drove them heavily. So that they would make nothing ex- 
 traordinary, at least, nothing miraculous, in all this action. 
 
 This is advanced in Le Clerc's Dissertations upon Genesis, 
 lately printed in Holland, and that part with others of the like 
 tendency, endeavouring to resolve other miracles, as that of Sodom 
 and Gomorrah, &c. into the mere natural causes, are put into 
 English by the well-known T. Brown, for the edification of the 
 Deists in England. 
 
 But these gentlemen have forgot, that the Israelites had great 
 herds of many thousand cattle with them ; which would be apter 
 to stray, and fall into those holes and oozy places in the strand, 
 than horses with riders, who might direct them. 
 
 But such precarious and silly supposes arc not worth the an- 
 swering. If there had been no more in this passage through the 
 Red Sea than that of a Spring tide, &c. it had been impossible for 
 Moses to have made the Israelites believe that relation given of rt 
 in Exodus, with so many particulars, which themselves saw to be 
 true. 
 
 And all those scriptures -which magnify this action, and appeal 
 to it as a full demonstration of the miraculous power of God ^ 
 rnust be reputed as romance or legend. 
 
 I say this, for the sake of some Christians, who think it no 
 prejudice to the truth of the Holy Bible, but rather an advantage, 
 as rendering it more easy to be believed, if they can solve what- 
 ever seems miraculous in it, by the power of second causes : and 
 
 c 2
 
 20 Leslie on Deism, 
 
 so to make all, as they speak, natural and easy. Wherein, if 
 they could prevail, the natural and easy result would be, not to 
 believe one word in all those sacred oracles. For if things be 
 not as they are told in any relation, that relation must be false. 
 And if false in part, we cannot truft to it, either in whole or in 
 part. 
 
 Here are to be excepted, mis-translations and errors, either in 
 copy or in press. But where there is no room for supposing of 
 these, as where all copies do agree ; they must either receive all, 
 or reject all. I mean in any book that pretends to be written 
 from the mouth of God. For in other common histories, we may 
 believe part, and reject part, as we see cause. 
 
 But to return. The passage of the Israelites over Jordan, in 
 memory of which those stones at Gilgal were set up, is free from 
 all those little carpings before- mentioned, that are made as to the 
 passage through the Red Sea. For notice was given to the Israelites 
 the day before, of this great miracle to be done. Josh. iii. 5. It 
 was done at noon-day, before the whole nation. And when the 
 waters of Jordan were divided, it was not at any low ebb, but at 
 the time when that river overflowed all his banks, ver. 15. And 
 it was done, not by winds, or in length of time, which winds 
 must take to do it : but all on the sudden, as soon as the " feet of 
 " the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the 
 " water, then the waters which came down from above, stood 
 " and rose up upon an heap, very far from the city Adam, that 
 ** is beside Zaretan : and those that came down toward the sea of 
 " the plain, even the salt sea, failed, and were cut off: and the 
 '* people passed over, right against Jericho. The priests stood in 
 " the midst of Jordan, till all the armies of Israel had passed 
 " over. And it came to pass, when the priests that bare the ark 
 " of the covenant of the Lord were come up, out of* the midst 
 " of Jordan, and the soles of the priests' feet were lift up upon 
 ** the dry land, that the waters of Jordan returned unto their 
 " place, and flowed over all his banks as they did before. And 
 " the people came out of Jordan, on the tenth day of the first 
 " month, and encamped in Gilgal on the east border of Jericho, 
 '* and those twelve stones which they took out of Jordan, did 
 " Joshua pitch in Gilgal. And he spake unto the children of 
 " Israel, saying, When your children shall ask their fathers in 
 " time to come, saying, what mean these stones ? Then shall 
 ** ye let your children know, saying, Israel came over this Jordan
 
 Leslie on Deism. 3. 1 
 
 " on dry land. For the Lord your God dried up the waters of 
 Jordan from before you, until ye were passed over ; as the Lord 
 '* your God did to the Red Sea, which he dried up from before 
 " us, until we were gone over. That all the people of the earth 
 ** might know the hand ef the Lord, that it is mighty : that ye 
 " might fear the Lord your God for ever." Chap. iv. from 
 ver. 15. 
 
 If the passage over the Red Sea, had been only taking ad- 
 vantage of a spring tide, or the like, how would this teach all the 
 people of the earth, that the hand of the Lord was mighty ? How 
 would a thing no more remarkable have been taken notice of 
 through all the world ? How would it have taught Israel to fear 
 the Lord, when they must know, that notwithstanding of all these 
 big words, there was so little in it ! How could they have believed, 
 or received a book, as truth, which they knew, told the matter so 
 far otherwise from what it was ? 
 
 Bur, as I said, this passage over Jordan, which is here com- 
 pared to that of the Red Sta, is free from all those cavils that are 
 made, as to that of the Red Sea, and is a further attestation to it, 
 being said to be done in the same manner as was that of the Red 
 Sea. 
 
 Now, to form our argument, let us suppose that there never 
 was any such thing as that passage over Jordan. That these stones 
 at Giigal were set up upon some other occasion, in some after age. 
 And then, that some designing man invented this book of Joshua, 
 and said, that it was wrote by Joshua at that time. And gave 
 this stemage at Giigal for a testimony of the trurh of it. Would 
 not every body say to him, we know the stonage at Giigal : but 
 we never heard before of this reason for it ? Nor of this book of 
 Joshua ? Where has it been all this while ? And where, and how 
 came youi after so many ages, to find it ! Besides, this book tells 
 us, that this passage^ovet Jordan was ordained io be taught our 
 children, from age to age : and therefore, that they were always 
 to be instructed in the meaning of that stonage at Giigal, as a 
 memorial of it. But we were never taught it, when we were 
 children; nor did ever teach our children any such thing. And it 
 is not likely that could have been forgotten, while so remarkable a 
 stonage did continue, which was set up for that and no other end ! 
 
 And if, for the reasons before given, no such imposition could 
 be put upon us as to the stonage in Salisbury-plain : how much 
 Jess could it be to the ftonage at Giigal ?
 
 22 Leslie on Dtisni. 
 
 And if where we know not the reason of a bare naked njonu- 
 ment, such a sham reason cannot be imposed, how much more is 
 it impossible to impose upon us in actions and observances, which 
 we celebrate in memory of particular passages? Mow impossible 
 to make us forget those passages which we daily commemorate j 
 and persuade us, that we had always kept such institutions in me- 
 mory of what we never heard of before ; that is, that we knew 
 it, before we knew it. 
 
 And if we find it ihus impossible for an imposition to be put 
 upon us, even in some things which have not all the four marks 
 before-mentioned ; how much more impossible is it, that any de- 
 ceit should be in that thing where all the four marks do meet ! 
 
 This has been shewed in the first place, as to the matters of fact 
 of Moses. 
 
 2. Therefore I come now (secondly) to shew, that as in the 
 matters of fact of Moses, so likewise all these four marks do 
 meet in the matters of fact, which are. recorded in the Gospel of 
 pur blessed Saviour. And rhy work herein will be the shorter, 
 because all that is said before of Moses and his book?, is every way 
 as applicable to Christ and his Gospel. His worjcs and his mi- 
 racles are there said to be done publicly in the face of the world, 
 as he argued to his accusers, *' I spake openly to the world, and 
 " in secret have I said nothing," John xviii. 20. Tt is told^ 
 A&s ii. 41, that three thousand at one time; and, Acts iv. 4, 
 that above five thwusand at another time, were converted, upon 
 conviction of what themselves had seen, what had been done pub- 
 licly before their eyes, wherein it was impossible to have imposed 
 upon them. Therefore here were the two first of the rules be- 
 fore-mentioned. 
 
 Then for the two second : Baptism and the Lord's Supper were 
 instituted as perpetual memorials of these things ; and they were 
 not instituted in after ages, but at the very time when these things 
 were said to be done ; and have been observed without interrup- 
 ruption, in all ages through the whole Christian world, down all the 
 way from that time to this. And Christ himself did ordain 
 apostles and other ministers of his Gospel, to preach and admi- 
 nister the sacraments ; and to govern his church : and that always, 
 even unto the end of the world*. Accordingly they have conti- 
 nued, by regular succession, to this day : and, no doubt, ever 
 
 * Matthew xviii. 20-
 
 Leslie on Deism 23 
 
 shall, while the earth shall last. So that the Christian clergy are 
 as notorious a matter of fact, as the tribe of Levi among the 
 Jews. And the Gospel is as much a law to the Christians, as 
 the book of Moses to the Jews : and it being part of the matters 
 of fact related in the Gospel, that such an order of men were ap- 
 pointed by Christ, and to continue to the end of the world; con- 
 sequently, if the Gospel was a fiction, and invented fas it must 
 be) in some ages after Christ; then, at that time when it was first 
 invented, there could be no such order of clergy, as derived 
 themselves from the institution of Christ ; which must give the 
 lye to the Gospel, and demonstrate the whole to be false. And 
 the matters of fact of Christ being pressed to be true, no other- 
 wise than as there was at that time (whenever the Deists will sup- 
 pose the Gospel to be forged) not only public sacraments of 
 Christ's institution, but an order of clergy, likewise of his ap* 
 pointment to administer them : and it being impossible there could 
 be any such things before they were invented, it is as impossible 
 that they should be received when invented. And therefore, by 
 what was said above, it was as impossible to have imposed upon 
 mankind in this matter, by inventing of it in after-ages, as at the 
 time when those things were said to be done. 
 
 3. The matters of fact of Mahomet, or what is fabled of the 
 deities, do all want some of the aforesaid four rules, whereby 
 the certainty of matters of fact is demonstrated. First, for 
 Mahomet, he pretended to no miracles, as he tells us in his Al- 
 coran, c. 6, &c. and those which are commonly told of him pass 
 among the Mahometans themselves, but as legendary fables : and, 
 as such, pre rejected by the wise and learned among them ; as the 
 legends of their saints are in the church of Rome. See Dr. Pri- 
 deaux his Life of Mahomet, page 34. 
 
 But, in the next place, those which are told of him, do all 
 want the two first rules before-mentioned. For his pretended 
 converse with the moon : his mersa, or night journey from Mecca 
 to Jerusalem, and thence to heaven, &c. were not performed 
 before any body. We have only his own word for them. Ami 
 they are as groundless as the delusions of the Fox or Muggleton 
 amcng ourselves. The same is to be said (in the second place) 
 of the fables of the heathen gods, of Mercury's stealing sheep, 
 Jupiter's turning himself into a bull, and the like; besides the 
 folly and unworthiness of such senseless pretended miracles. And 
 jnoreover the wise among the heathen did reckon no otherwise <(
 
 24* Leslie on Deism. 
 
 these but as fables, which had a mythology, or mystical meaning 
 in them, of which several of them have given us the rationale or 
 explication. And it is plain enough that Ovid meant no other 
 by all his Metamorphoses. 
 
 It is true, the heathen deities had their priests : they had like- 
 wise feasts, games and other public institutions in memory of 
 diem. But all these want the fourth mark, viz. that such priest- 
 hood and institutions should commence from the time that such 
 things as they commemorate were said to be done ; otherwise they 
 cannot secure after ages from the imposture, by detecting it, at 
 the time when first invented, as hath been argued before. But 
 the Bacchanalia, and other heathen feasts, were instituted many 
 ages after what was reported of these gods was said to be done, 
 and therefore can be no proof. And the priests of Bacchus, 
 Apollo, &c. were not ordained by these supposed geds : but were 
 appointed by others, in after ages, only in honour to them. And 
 therefore these orders of priests are no evidence to the matters of 
 fact which are reported of their gods. 
 
 IV. Now to apply what has been said. You may challenge all 
 the Deists in the world to shew any action that is fabulous, which 
 has all the four rules or marks before-mentioned. No, it is im- 
 possible. And (to resume a little what is spoke to before) 
 the histories of Exodus and the gospel never could have been re- 
 ceived, if they had been true ; because the institution of the 
 priesthood ef Levi, and of Christ ; of the Sabbath, the Passover, 
 of Circumcision, of Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, &c. are 
 there related, as descending all the way down from those times, 
 without interruption. And it is full as impossible to persuade 
 men that they had been circumcised or baptizeJ, had circumcised 
 or baptized their children, celebrated passovers, sabbaths, sacra- 
 ments, &c. under the government and administration of a certain 
 order or priests, if they had done none of these things, as ro 
 make them believe that they had gone through seas upon dry 
 land, seen the dead raised, &c. And without believing these, it 
 was impossible that either the law or the gospel could have been 
 received. 
 
 And the truth of the matters of fact of Exodus and the gospel, 
 being no otherwise pressed upon men, than as they have practised 
 such public institutions, it is appealing to the senses of mankind 
 for the truth of them ; and makes it impossible for any to have 
 invented sueh stories in after ages, without a* palpable detection of
 
 Leslie on Deism. 25 
 
 t 
 
 the cheat when first invented ; as impoffible as to have imposed 
 upon the senses of mankind, at the time when such public matters 
 of fact were said to be done. 
 
 V. I do not say, that every thing which wants these four marks 
 is false : Bur, that nothing can be false, which has them all. 
 
 I have no manner of doubt that there was such a man as Julius 
 Caesar, that he fought at Pharsalia, was killed in the senate-house, 
 and many other matters of fact of ancient times, though we keep 
 no public observances in memory of them. 
 
 But this shews that the matters of fact of Moses and of Chrift, 
 have come down to us better guarded than any other matters of 
 fact, how true soever. 
 
 And yet our Deifts, who would laugh any man out of the 
 world as an irrational brute, that fhould offer to deny Csesar or 
 Alexander, Homer or Virgil, their public works, and actions, 
 do, at the same time, value themselves as the only men of wit 
 and sense, of free, generous and unbiafled judgments for ridi- 
 culing the hiftories of Moses and Chrift, that are infinitely 
 better attefted, and guarded with infallible marks, which the 
 others want. 
 
 VI. Befides that the importance of the subjeft would oblige 
 all men to enquire more narrowly into the one than the ether : For 
 what consequence is it to me, or to the world, whether there was 
 such a man as Caesar, whether he beat, or was beaten at Phar- 
 salia, whether Homer or Virgil wrote such books, and whether 
 what is related in the Iliads or ^Eneids be true or false ? It is not 
 two-pence up or down to any man in the world. And therefore 
 it is worth no man's while to enquire into it, either to oppose or 
 juftify the truth of these relations. 
 
 But our very souls and bodies, both this life and eternity are 
 concerned in the truth of what is related in the holy scriptures ; 
 and therefore men would be more inquisitive to search into the 
 truth of these, than or" any other matters of fact ; examine and 
 gift them narrowly ; and find out the deceit, if any such could be 
 found: For it concerned them nearly, and was of the lad im- 
 portance to them. 
 
 How unreasonable then it is to reject these matters of fact, so 
 sifted, so examined, and so attefted as no other matters of fact in 
 the world ever were ; and yet to think it the mod highly unrea- 
 sonable, even to madness, to deny other matters of fact, which
 
 26 Leslie on Deism. 
 
 have not the thousandth part of their evidence, and are of no con- 
 sequence at all to us whether true or false ! 
 
 VII. There are several other topics, from whence the truth of 
 the Chriftian religion is evinced to all who will judge by reason, 
 and give themselves leave to consider. As 'the improbability that 
 ten or twelve poor illiterate fimermen fhould form a defign of 
 converting the whole world to believe their delufions; and the 
 impossibility of their effecting it, without force of arms, learning, 
 oratory, or any one vifible thing that could recommend them ! 
 And to impose a doctrine quite oppofite to the lusts and pleasures of 
 men, and all worldly advantages or enjoyments ! And this in an 
 age of so great learning and sagacity as that wherein the Gospel 
 was first preached ! That the apostles should not only undergo all 
 the scorn and contempt, but the severest persecutions and most 
 truel deaths that could be inflicted, in attestation to what them- 
 selves knew to be a mere deceit and forgery of their own con- 
 triving ! Some have suffered for errors which they thought to b e 
 truth, but never any for what themselves knew to be lies. And 
 the Apostles must know what they taught to be lies, if it was so 
 because they spoke of those things which they said they had 
 both seen and heard, had looked upon and handled with their 
 hands, &c. * 
 
 Neither can it be, that they, perhaps, might have proposed 
 some temporal advantages to themselves, but miffed of them, and 
 met with sufferings instead of them : For, if it had been so, it is 
 more than probable, that when they saw their disappointment, 
 they would have discovered their conspiracy ; especially when they 
 might not have only saved their lives, but got great rewards for 
 doing of it. That not one of them mould ever have been brought 
 to do this. 
 
 But this is not all : For they tell us that their Matter bid them 
 expect nothing but sufferings in this world. This is the tenure of 
 all that Gospel which they taught; and they told the same to a\\ 
 whom they converted. So that here was no disappointment. 
 
 For all that were converted by them, were converted upon the 
 certain expectation of sufferings, and bidden prepare for it. 
 Christ commanded his disciples to take up their cross daily, and 
 follow him ; and told them, that in the world they should have 
 tribulation; tint whoever did not forsake father, mother, wife, 
 
 * Acts iv. 2O. I John L I,
 
 Leslie on Deism. 37< 
 
 children, lands, and their very lives, could not be his disciples ; 
 that he who sought to save his life in this world, Ihould lose it in 
 the next. 
 
 Now that this despised doctrine of the cross should prevail so 
 universally againft the- allurements of flefh and hlood, and ail the 
 blandishments of this world ; againft the rage and persecution of 
 all the kings and powers of the earth, must shew its original to he 
 divine, and its protector almighty. What is it else could conquer 
 without arms ; persuade without rhetoric ; overcome enemies ; 
 disarm tyrants; and subdue empires without opposition ! 
 
 VIII. We may add to all this, the teftimonies of the most 
 bitter enemies and persecutors of Christianity, both Jews and 
 Gentiles, to the truth of the matter of fact of Chrift, such as 
 Josephus and Tacitus ; of which the first flourished about forty 
 years after the death of Christ, and the other about seventy years 
 after: so that they were capable of examining into the truth, and 
 \vanted not prejudice and malice sufficient to have inclined them 
 to deny the matter of fact itself of Christ : but their confessing 
 to it, as likewise Lucian, Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian the apos- 
 tate ; the Mahometans since, and all other enemies of Christianity 
 that have arisen in the world, is an undeniable attei>..tion to the 
 truth of the matter of fact. 
 
 IX. But there is another argument more ftrong and convincing 
 than even this matter of fact : more than the certainty of what I 
 see with my eyes ; and which the apoflle Peter calls a more sure 
 word, that is proof, than what he saw and heard upon the Holy 
 Mount, when our blessed Saviour was transfigured before him and 
 two other of the apostles ; for having repeated that passage as a 
 proof that whereof they were eye witnesses, and heard the voice 
 from heaven giving attestation to our Lord Christ, 2 Pet. i. 16, 
 V 17, 18. he says, ver. 19, " We have also a more sure word of 
 " prophecy," for the proof of this Jesus being the Messiah, that 
 is, the prophecies which had gone before of him from the begin- 
 ning of the world, and all exactly fulfilled in him. 
 
 Men may dispute an imposition or delusion upon our outward 
 senses. But how that can be false, which has been so long, even 
 from the beginning of the world, and so often by all the prophets 
 in several ages foretold ; how can this be an imposition or a for,- 
 gery ? 
 
 This is particularly insisted on in the Method with the Jews. 
 And even the Deists must confess, that that book we call the Old 
 
 4
 
 28 Leslie on Deism. 
 
 Testament, was in being in the hands ef the Jews long before 
 our Saviour came into the world. And if they will be at the 
 pains to compare the prophecies that are there of the Messiah 
 with the fulfilling of them, as to time, place, and all other cir- 
 cumstances in the person, birth, life, death, resurrection and 
 ascension of our blessed Saviour, will rind this proof what our 
 apostle here calls it, " a light shining in a dark place, until the 
 *' day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts." Which God 
 grant. Here is no possibility of deceit or imposture. 
 
 Old prophecies (and all so agreeing) could not have been con- 
 trived to countenance a new cheat : and nothing could be a cheat, 
 that could fulfil all these. 
 
 For this therefore I refer the Deists to the Method with the 
 Jews. 
 
 I desire them likewise to look there, sect. xi. and consider the 
 prophecies given so long ago, of which they see the fulfilling at 
 this day with their own eyes, of the state of the Jews for many 
 ages past and at present, without a king or priest, or temple, or 
 sacrifice, scattered to the four winds, sifted as with a sieve, among 
 all nations ; yet preserved, and always so to be, a distinct people 
 from all others of the whole earth. Whereas those mighty mo- 
 narchies which oppressed the Jews, and which commanded the 
 world in their turns, and had the greatest human prospect of per- 
 petuity, were to be extinguished, as they have been, even that 
 their names should be blotted out from under heaven. 
 
 As likewise, that as remarkable of our blessed Saviour, con- 
 cerning the preservation and progress of the Christian church, 
 when in her swaddling clothes, consisting only of a few poor 
 fishermen. Not by the sword, as that of Mahomet, but under 
 all the persecution of men and hell ; which yet should not prevail 
 against her. 
 
 But though I offer these, as not to be slighted by the Deists, to 
 which they can shew nothing equal in all prophane history, and 
 in which it is impossible any cheat can lie ; yet I put them not 
 upon the same foot as the prophecies before-mentioned of the 
 marks and coming of the Messiah, which have been since the 
 \vorld began. 
 
 And that general expectation of the whole earth, at the time 
 of his coming, insisted upon in the Method with the Jews, sect. 5, 
 is greatly to be noticed.
 
 Leslie on Deism. 29 
 
 But, I say, the foregoing prophecies of our Saviour are so 
 strong a proof, as even miracles would not be sufficient to break 
 their authority. 
 
 I mean, if it were possible that a true miracle could be wrought, 
 in contradiction to them : for that would be for God to contradict 
 himself. 
 
 But no sign or wonder, that could possibly be solved, fliould 
 fhake this evidence. 
 
 It is this that keeps the Jews in their obstinacy ; though they 
 cannot deny the matters of fact done by our blessed Saviour to be 
 truly miracles, if so done as said. Nor can they deny that they 
 were so done, because they have all the four marks before-mea- 
 tioned. Yet they cannot yield ! Why ? Because they think that 
 the gospel is in contradiction to the law ; which, if it were, the 
 consequence would be unavoidable, that beth could not be true. 
 To solve this, is the business of the Method with the Jews. But 
 the contradiction which they suppose, is in their comments that 
 they put upon the law ; especially they expect a literal fulfilling 
 of those promises of the restoration of Jerusalem, and outward 
 glories of the church, of which there is such frequent mention 
 in the books of Moses, the Psalms, and all the Prophets. And 
 many Christians do expect the same, and take those texts as iite 
 rally as the Jews do. We do believe and pray for the conversion 
 of the Jews. For this end they have been so miraculously pre- 
 served, according to the prophecies so long before of it. And 
 when that time fhall come, as they are the most honourable and 
 ancient of all the nations on the earth, so will their church return 
 to be the mother Christian church as she was at first ; and Rome 
 must surrender to Jerusalem. Then all nations will flow thither ; 
 and even Ezekiel's temple may be literally built there, in the 
 metropolis of the whole earth; which Jerusalem must be, when 
 the fulness of the Gentiles shall meet with the conversion of the 
 Jews. For no nation will then contend with the Jews, nor church 
 with Jerusalem for supremacy. All nations will be ambitious to 
 draw their original from the Jews, whose are the fathers, and from 
 whom, as concerning the flefh, Christ came. 
 
 Then will be fulfilled that outward grandeur and restoration of 
 the Jews and of Jerusalem, which they expect, pursuant to the 
 prophecies. 
 
 They pretend not that this is limited to any particular time of 
 the reign of the Messiah. They are sure it will not be at the
 
 30 Leslie on Dclsni. 
 
 beginning; for they expect to go through great conflicts and 
 trials with their Messiah (as the Christian church has clone) before 
 his final conquest, and that they come to reign with him. So 
 that this is no obstruction to their embracing of Christianity. They 
 see the same things fulfilled in us, which they expect themselves ; 
 and we expect the same things they do. 
 
 I tell this to the Deists, lest they may think that the Jews have 
 some stronger arguments than they know of, that they are not 
 persuaded by the miracles of our blessed Saviour, and by the ful- 
 filling of all the prophecies in him, that were made concerning the 
 Messiah. 
 
 As J said before, I would not plead even miracles against these. 
 And if this is sufficient to persuade a Jew, it is much more so 
 to a Deist, who labours not under these objections. 
 
 Besides, I would not seem to clash with that fin a sound sense) 
 reasonable caution used by Christian writers, not to put the issue 
 of the truth wholly uppn miracles, without this addition, when 
 not done in contradiction to the revelations already given in the 
 holy scriptures. 
 
 And they do it upon this consideration, that though it is im- 
 possible to suppose, that God would work a real miracle, in con- 
 tradiction to what he has already revealed ; yet, men may be im- 
 posed upon by false and seeming miracles, and pretended revela- 
 tions, (as there are many examples, especially in the church of 
 Rome) and so may be shaken in the faith, if they keep not to the 
 Holy Scriptures as their rule. 
 
 We are told, 2 Thess. 5i. 9, " of him whose coming is after 
 '* the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying 
 " wonders." And Rev. xiii. 14, xvi. 14, and xix. 20, of the 
 devil, and false prophets working miracles. But the word, in 
 all these places, is only S^eTa, Signs, that is, as it is rendered, 
 Matt. xxv. 24, which, though sometimes it may be used to signify 
 real miracles, yet not always, not in these places. For though 
 every miracle be a sign and a wonder, yet every sign or wonder is 
 not a miracle. 
 
 X. Here it may be proper to consider a common topic of the 
 Deists, who when they are not able td stand out against the evi- 
 dence of fact, that such and such miracles have been done, then 
 turn about, and deny such things to be miracles, at least that 
 we can never be sure whether any wonderful thing that is shewn 
 to us be a true or a. false miracle.
 
 Leslie on Deism* . 31 
 
 And the great argument they go upon is this, that a miracle 
 being that which exceeds the power of nature, we cannot know 
 what exceeds it, unless we knew the utmost extent of the power 
 of nature; and no man pretends to know that, therefore that no 
 man can certainly know whether any event be miraculous ; and, 
 consequently, he may be cheated in his judgment betwixt true and 
 false miracles. 
 
 To which I answer, that men may be so cheated, and there are 
 many examples of it. 
 
 But that though we may not always know when we are cheated, 
 yet we can certainly tell, in many cases, when we are not cheated. 
 For though we do not know the utmost extent of the power of 
 nature, perhaps in any one thing ; yet it does not follow that we 
 know not the nature of any thing in some measure; and that 
 certainly too. For example, though I do not know the utmost 
 extent of the power of fire, yet I certainly know that it is the 
 nature of fire to burn ; and that when proper fuel is administered 
 to it, it is contrary to the nature of fire not to consume it. There- 
 fore, if T see three men taken off the street, in their common 
 wearing apparel, and without any preparation cast into the midst 
 of a burning fiery furnace, and that the flame was so fierce th'at it 
 burnt up those men that threw them in, and yet that these who 
 were thrown in fhould walk up and down in the bottom of the 
 furnace, and I fhould see a fourth person with them of glorious 
 appearance, like the Son of God : and that .these men should 
 come up again out of the furnace, without any harm, or so much 
 as the smell of fire upon themselves, or their clothes, I could not 
 be deceived in thinking that there was a stop put to the nature of 
 fire, as to these men ; and that it had its effect upon the men whom 
 it burned, at the same time. 
 
 Again : Though I cannot tell how wonderful and sudden an 
 
 ' increase of corn might be produced by the concurrence of many 
 
 causes, as a warm climate, the fertility of the soil, &c. vet this 
 
 I can certainly know, that there is not that natural force in the 
 
 breath of two or three words, spoken to multiply one small loaf of 
 
 bread so fast, in the breaking of it, as truly and really, not only in 
 
 ' ' appearance and shew to the eye, but to fill the bellies of several 
 
 thousand hungry persons ; and that the fragments should be much 
 
 more than the bread was at first. 
 
 So neither in a word spoken, to raise the dead, cure dis- 
 eases, Sec.
 
 32 Leslie on Deism. 
 
 Therefore, though we know not the utmost extent of the power 
 of nature; yet we can certainly know what is contrary to the na- 
 ture of several such things as we do know. 
 
 And therefore, though we may he cheated, and itr.posed upon 
 in many seeming miracles and wonders ; yet there are some things 
 wherein we may he certain. 
 
 But further, the Deists acknowledge a God of an Almighty 
 power, who made all things. 
 
 Yet they would put it out of his power, to make any revela- 
 tion of his will to mankind. For if we cannot be certain of any 
 miracle, how should we know wken God sent any thing extraordi- 
 nary to us ? 
 
 Nay, how should we know the ordinary power of nature, if 
 we knew not what exceeded it ? If we know not what is natural, 
 how do we know there is such a thing as nature ? That all is not 
 supernatural, all miracles, and so disputable, till we come to 
 downright scepticism, and doubt the certainty of our fc outward 
 senses, whether we see, hear, or feel ; or all be not a miraculous 
 illusion ! 
 
 Which, because I know the Deists are not inclined to do, 
 therefore I will return to pursue my argument upon the conviction 
 of our outward senses, desiring only this, that they would allow 
 the senses of other men to be as certain as their own ; which they 
 eannot refuse, since without this they can have no certainty of 
 their own. 
 
 XL Therefore, from what has been said, the cause is summed 
 up shortly in this ; that though we cannot see what was done be- 
 fore our time, yet by the marks which I have laid down con- 
 cerning the certainty of matters of fact done before our time, we 
 may be as much assured of the truth of them, as if we saw them 
 with our eyes ; because whatever matter of fact has all the four 
 marks before-mentioned, could never have been invented and re- 
 ceived but upon the conviction of the outward senses of all those 
 who did receive it, as before is demonstrated. And therefore this 
 topic which I have chosen, does stand upon the conviction even 
 of men's outward senses. And since you have confined me to 
 one topic, I have not insisted upon the other, which I have only 
 named. 
 
 XII. And now it lies upon the Deists, if they would appear as 
 men of reason, to shew some matter of fact of former ages, 
 which they allow to be true, that has greater evidence of its truth,
 
 Leslie en Deism. 33 
 
 than the matters of fact of Meses and of Christ ; otherwise they 
 cannot, with any shew of reason, reject the one, and yet admil 
 of the other. 
 
 But I have given them greater latitude than this, for I have 
 shewn such marks of the truth of the matters of fact of Moses 
 and of Christ, as no other matters of fact of those times, how- 
 ever true, have, but these only : and I put it upon them to shew 
 any forgery that has all these marks. 
 
 This is a short issue. Keep them close to this. This deter- 
 mines the cause all at once. 
 
 Let them produce their Apollonius Tyanzeus, whose life was 
 put into English by the execrable Charles Blount *, and compared 
 with all the wit and malice he was master of, to the life and mi- 
 racles of our blessed Saviour. 
 
 Let them take aid from all the legends of the church of Rome, 
 those pious cheats, the sorest disgraces of Christianity ; and which 
 have bid the fairest of any one contrivance, to overturn the cer- 
 tainty of the miracles of Christ and his apostles, and whole truth 
 of the Gospel, by putting them all upon the same foot ; at least 
 they are so understood by the generality of their devotees, though 
 disowned and laughed at by the learned, and men of sense among 
 them. 
 
 Let them pick and choose the most probable of all the fables of 
 the heathen deities, and see if they can find in any of these, the 
 four marks before-mentioned. 
 
 Otherwise let them submit to the irrefragable certainty of the 
 Christian religion. 
 
 XIII. But if, notwitkstancling all that is said, the Deists will 
 still contend that all is but a priest-craft, the invention of priests 
 for their own profit, &c. then they will give us an idea of priests, 
 far different from what they intend : for then we must look upon 
 these priests, not only as the cunningest and wisest of mankind, 
 
 * The hand of that scorner, which durst write such outrageous blasphemy against 
 his Maker, the Divine Vengeance has made his own executipner. Which I would 
 not have mentioned (becaufe the like judgment has befallen others) but that the 
 Theistical Club have set this up as a principle, and printed a vindication of this same 
 Blount for murdering of himself, by way of justification of self-murder ; which some 
 of them have since, as well as formerly, horridly practised upen themselves. There- 
 fore this is no common judgment to which they are delivered, but a visible mark set 
 upon them, to shew how far God has forsaken them ; and as a caution to all Chris- 
 tians, to beware of them, and not to come near the tents of these wicked men, lest 
 they perish in their destruction, both of soul and body. 
 
 VOL. 1. D
 
 3* Leslie en Deism. 
 
 but we shall he tempted to adore them as Deities, who have such 
 power as to impose at their pleasure, upon the senses of mankind, 
 to make ihem helieve that they had practised such public institu- 
 tions, enacted them by laws, taught them to their children, &c, 
 when they had never done any of these things, or ever so much 
 as heard of them before : and then, upon the credit of their be- 
 lieving that they had done such things as they never did, to make 
 them further believe, upon, the same foundation, whatever they 
 pleased to impose upon them as to former ages : I say, such a 
 power as this must exceed all that is human ; and consequently 
 make us rank these priests far above the condition of mortals. 
 
 2. Nay, this were to make them outdo all that has ever been 
 related of the infernal powers : for though their legerdemain has 
 extended to deceive some unwary beholders ; and their power of 
 working some seeming miracles has been great, yet it never 
 reached nor ever was supposed to reach so far, as to deceive the 
 senses of all mankind, in matters of such public and notorious 
 nature as those of which we now speak, to make them believe, 
 that they had enacted laws for such public observances, conti- 
 nually practised them, taught them to their children, and had 
 been instructed in them themselves, from their childhood, if they 
 had never enacted, practised, taught, or been taught such things. 
 
 3. And as this exceeds all the power of hell and devils, so it is 
 more than ever God Almighty has done since the foundation of 
 the world. None of the miracles that he has shewn, or belief 
 which he has required to any thing that he has revealed, has ever 
 contradicted the outward senses of any one man in the world, 
 much less of all mankind together. For miracles being appeals 
 to our outward senses, if they should overthrow the certainty of 
 our outward senses, must destroy with it all their own certainty as 
 to us ; since we have no other way to judge of a miracle exhibited 
 to our senses, than upon the supposition of the certainty of our 
 senses, upon which we give credit to a miracle, that is shewn to 
 our senses. 
 
 4. This, by the way, is a yet unanswered argument against the 
 miracle of rransubstantiation, and shews the weakness of the de- 
 fence which the 'church of Rome offers for it, (from whom the 
 Socinians have licked it up, and have of late gloried much in it 
 amongst us) that the doctrines of the Trinity or Incarnation con- 
 tain as great seeming absurdities as that of Transubstantiation : 
 for I would ask, which of our senses it is which the doctrines of
 
 Leslie on Deism. 35 
 
 the Trihity or incarnation do contradict ? Is it our seeing, hearing, 
 feeling, taste or smell ? Whereas Transubstantiation does contradict 
 all of these. Therefore the comparison is exceedingly short, and 
 out of purpose. But to return. 
 
 If the Christian religion be a cheat, and nothing else but the 
 invention of priests ; and carried on by their craft, it makes their 
 power and wisdom greater than that of men, angels, or devils ; 
 and more than God himself ever yet shewed or expressed, to de- 
 ceive and impose upon the senses of mankind, in such public and 
 notorious matters or" fact. 
 
 XIV. And this miracle, which the Deists must run into to 
 avoid these recorded of Moses arid Christ, is much greater and 
 more astonishing than all the Scriptures tell of them. 
 
 So that these men who laugh at all miracles are now obliged 
 to account for the greatest of all. how the Senses of mankind! 
 
 O \ 
 
 could be imposed upon in such public matters of fact. 
 
 And how can they, make the priests the most contemptible 
 of all mankind, since they make them the sde authors of this the 
 greatest of miracles. 
 
 XV. And since the Deists (these men of sense and reason) 
 have so vile and mean an idea of the priests of all religions, why 
 do they not recover the world out of the possession and govern- 
 ment of such blockheads ? Why do they suffer kings and states 
 to be led by them ; to establish their deceits by laws, and inflict 
 penalties upon the imposers of them ? Let the Deists try theif 
 hands ; they have been trying and are now busy about it. And 
 free liberty they have. Yet have they not prevailed, nor ever yet 
 did prevail in any civilized or generous nation. And though they 
 have some inroads amongst the Hottentots, and some other the most 
 brutal part of mankind, yet are they still exploded, and priests 
 have and do prevail against them, among not only the greatest, 
 but best part of the world, and the most glorious for arts, learn- 
 ing and war. 
 
 XVI. For as the devil does ape GOD, in his institutions of 
 religion, his feasts, sacrifices, &c. so likewise in his priests, 
 without whom no religion, whether true or false, can stand. 
 False religion is but a corruption of the true. The true was be- 
 fore it, though it be followed close upon the heels. 
 
 The revelation made to Moses is elder than any history extant 
 in the heathen world. The heathens, in imitation of him, pre- 
 tended likewise to their revelations : but I have given those mark* 
 
 * 2
 
 36 Leslie on Deism. 
 
 which distinguish them from the true : none of them have those 
 four marks before-mentioned. 
 
 Now the Deists think all revelations to be equally pretended, 
 and a cheat ; and the priests of all religions to be the same con- 
 trivers and jugglers ; and therefore they proclaim war equally 
 against all, and are equally engaged to bear the brunt of all. 
 
 And if the contest be only betwixt the Deists and the priests, 
 which of them are the men of the gieatest parts and sense, let 
 the effects determine it ; aod let the Deists yield the victory to 
 their conquerors, who by their own confession carry all the world 
 before them. 
 
 XVII. If the Deists say, that this is because all the world are 
 blockheads, as well as those priests who govern them ; that all 
 are blockheads, except the Deists, who vote themselves only to 
 be men of sense; this (besides the modesty of it) will spoil their 
 great and beloved topic, in behalf of what they call Natural Re- 
 ligion, against the Revealed, viz. appealing to the common rea- 
 son of mankind : thk they set up against revelation; think this 
 to be sufficient for all the uses of men, here or hereafter, (if there 
 be any after state) and therefore that there is no use of revelation : 
 This common reason they advance as infallible, at least as the 
 surest guide, yet now cry out upon it, when it turns against them; 
 when this common reason runs after revelation, (as it always has 
 done) then common reason is a beast, and we must look for reason 
 not from the common sentiments of mankind, but only among 
 the beaux, the Deists. 
 
 XVIII. Therefore, if the Deists would avoid the mortification 
 (which will be very .uneasy to them) to yield and submit to be sub- 
 dued and hewed down before the priests, whom of all mankind 
 they hate and despise ; if they would avoid this, let them confess, 
 as -the truth is, that religion is no invention of priests, but of 
 divine original ; that priests were instituted by the same Author of 
 religion ; and that their order is a perpetual and living monument 
 of the matters of fact of their religion, instituted from the time 
 that such matters of fact were said to be done, as the Levites from 
 Moses, the Apostles and succeeding Clergy from Christ, to this 
 day ; that no heathen priests can say the same ; they were not ap- 
 pointed by the gods whom they served, but by others in after 
 .ages ; they cannot stand the test of the four rules before-men- 
 tioned, which the Christian priests can do, and they only. Now 
 the Christian priesthood, as instituted by Christ himself, and con-
 
 Leslie on De.ism.' 37 
 
 tinued by succession to this day, being as impregnable and flagrant 
 a testimony to the truth of the matters of fact of Christ, as the 
 sacraments, or any other public institutions : besides that, if the 
 priesthood were taken away, the sacraments and other public insti- 
 tutions, which are administered by their hands, must fall with 
 them ; therefore the devil has been most busy and bent his 
 greatest force in all ages against the priesthood, knowing that if 
 that goes down all goes with it. 
 
 XIX. With the Deists, in this cause, are joined the Quakers 
 and other of our Dissenters, who throw off the succession of our 
 priesthood, (by which only it can be demonstrated) together with 
 the sacraments and public festivals. And if the devil could have 
 prevailed to have these dropt, the Christian religion would lose 
 the most undeniable and demonstrative proof for the truth of the 
 matter of fact of our Saviour, upon which the truth of his doc- 
 trine does depend. Therefore we may see the artifice and malice 
 of the devil, in all these attempts. And let those wretched instru- 
 ments whom he ignorantly (and some by a misguided zeal) has 
 deluded thus to undermine Christianity, now at last look back 
 and see the snare in which they have been taken : for if they had 
 prevailed, or ever should, Christianity dies with them. At least 
 it will be rendered precarious, as a thing of which no certain 
 proof can be given. Therefore let those of them who have any 
 zeal for the truth, bless God that they have not prevailed ; and 
 quickly leave them ; and let all others be aware of them. 
 
 And let MS consider and honour the priesthood, sacraments, and 
 other public institutions of Christ, not only as means of grace 
 and helps to devotion, but as the great evidences of the Christian 
 religion. 
 
 Such evidences as no pretended revelation ever had, or can have. 
 Such as do plainly distinguish it from all foolish legends and im- 
 postures whatsoever. 
 
 XX. And now, last of all, if one word of advice would not 
 be lost upon men who think so unmeasurably of themselves as the 
 Deists, you may represent to them what a condition they are in, 
 who spend that life and sense which God has given them, in ridi- 
 culing the greatest of his blessings, his revelations of Christ, and 
 by Christ, to redeem those from eternal misery, who shall believe 
 in him, and oHey his laws. And that God, in his. wonderful 
 mercy and wisdom, has so guarded his revelations, as that it is 
 past the power f men or devils to counterfeit; and that there is no 
 
 4
 
 3$ ILeslIe on Deism. 
 
 denying of them, unless we will be so absurd as to deny not only 
 the reason but the certainty of the outward senses, not only of 
 one, or two, or three, but of mankind in general. That this 
 case is so very plain, that nothing but want of thought can hinder 
 ?ny to discover it. That they must yield it to be so plain, unless 
 they cap shew some forgery which has all the four marks before 
 St down. But jf they cannot do this, they must quit their cause, 
 and yield a happy victory over themselves j or else sit down under 
 all that ignominy, with which they have loaded the priests ; of 
 being, not only the most pernicious, but (what will gall them 
 more) the most inconsiderate and inconsiderable of mankind. 
 
 Therefore, let them not think, it an undervaluing of their wor- 
 thiness, that their whole cause is comprised within so narrow a 
 compass : and no more time bestowed upon it than it is worth. 
 
 But let them rather reflect how far they have been all this time 
 from Christianity ; whose rudiments they have yet to learn ! How 
 far from the way of salvation ! How far the race of their lives is 
 run before they have set one step in the road to heaven. And 
 therefore, how much diligence they ought to use, to redeem all 
 jthat time they have lost, lest they lose themselves for ever ; and 
 be convinced, by a dreadful experience, when it is too late, 
 the Gospel is a truth, and of the last consequence.
 
 [ 39 ] 
 
 t 
 A.* 
 
 LETTER 
 
 FHOM TH* 
 
 AUTHOR OF THE SHORT METHOD 
 WITH THE DEISTS AND JEWS. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 I 
 
 HAVE read over your papers with great satisfaction, and I 
 heartily bless God with you, and for you, that he has had mercy 
 upon you, and opened your eyes, to see the wonderous things 
 of his law, to convince you of those irrefragable proofs he has 
 afforded for the truth and authority of the Holy Scriptures, such 
 as no other writing upon earth can pretend to, and which are 
 incompatible with any forgery or deceit. He has given you 
 likewise that true spirit of repentance to bring forth the fruits 
 thereof; that is, to make what satisfaction you can for the inju- 
 ries you have done to religion, by answering what has been pub- 
 lished formerly by yourself against it ; and being converted, you 
 endeavour to strengthen your brethren. 
 
 I. CREATION. 
 
 You have laid the true foundation of the being of God, against 
 the Atheist; of his creation of the world, and providence, against 
 the asserters of blind chance. If all be chance, then their 
 thoughts are so too; and there's no reasoning or argument in the 
 world. 
 
 Others, because they know not what to say,, suppose the world 
 and all things in it to have been from eternity, and to have gone 
 on, as now, in a constant succession of men begetting men, trees 
 springing from trees, &cc. without any beginning.
 
 40 A Letter from the same Author. 
 
 But if it was always as it is now, then every thing had a be- 
 ginning, every man, bird, beast, tree, &c. And what has a begin- 
 ning, cannot be without a beginning. 
 
 Therefore as it is evident that nothing can make itself, it is 
 equally evident that a succession of things made must have a begin- 
 ning. A succession of beginnings cannot be without a begin- 
 ning; for that would be literally a beginning without a beginning, 
 which is a contradiction in terms. 
 
 II. PROVIDENCE. 
 
 As to deriy Providence in the first cause, is the denying of a 
 God : Whence had we our providence ? For we find we have a 
 providence to forecast and contrive how to preserve and govern 
 that which we ipake or acquire: therefore there must be a provi- 
 dence much more eminently in God, to preserve and govern all 
 the works which he has made. He that made the eye, does he 
 not see ? And he who put providence into the heart of man, has 
 he none himself? 
 
 And the glory of his wisdom and power seems greater to us in 
 the acts of his providence than even in those of creation, espe- 
 cially in his governing the actions of free agents, without taking 
 from them the freedom of their will to do as they list, and turning 
 their very evil into good by the almightiness of his wisdom. We 
 see great part of this every day before our eyes, in his turning the 
 counsels of the wise into foolishness, and trapping the wicked in 
 the works of their own hands. This strikes us more sensibly, 
 and is nearer to us than the making of a tree or a star ; and we 
 feel that over-ruling power in his providence which we contem- 
 plate in his creation. 
 
 When the sins of men are increased to provoke God to take 
 vengeance, he permits the spirit of fury to incline their wills to 
 war and destruction of each other, and nation rises up against na- 
 tion; and when in his mercy he thinks the punishment is suffi- 
 cient, he calms their rage like the roaring of the sea, and there is 
 peace. And they are so free agents in all this, that they thfnk 
 it is all their own doing ; and so really it is, though under the 
 unseen direction of a superior power. 
 
 But not only in the public transactions of the world his provi- 
 dence is observable ; there is no man who has taken notice of his 
 own life, but must find it as to his very private affairs, a thought 
 sometimes darting into his mind to rid him out of a difficulty, or
 
 A Letter from the same Author. 41 
 
 shew him an advantage, which he could not find in much consi- 
 dering before. At other times a man's mind is so clouded as if 
 his eyes were shut, that he cannot see his way. Again, several 
 events, which he thought most funest, and his utter ruin, he finds 
 afterwards to be much for the best, and that he had been undone 
 if that had not happened which he feared. On the other hand, 
 many things which he thought for his great benefit, he has found 
 to be for his hurt. This shews a providence which sees further 
 than we can, and disposes all our actions, theugh done in the full 
 freedom of our own will, to what events, either good or bad for 
 us, as he pleases. 
 
 III. REVELATION. 
 
 But these considerations from the creation and providence, 
 though admirable and glorious, are within the oracles of reason, 
 and are but earthly things, in comparison of those heavenly things 
 which God has revealed to man at sundry times, and in divers 
 manners, and are recorded in the Holy Scriptures, and which 
 otherwise it was impossible for man to have known. " For 
 " what man is he that can know the counsel of God ? Or who 
 " can think what the will of the Lord is ? For the thoughts of 
 " mortal men are miserable, and our devices are but uncertain ; 
 " for the corruptible body presseth down the soul, and the earthly 
 " tabernacle weigheth down the mind that museth upon many 
 " things ; and hardly do we guess aright at things that are upon 
 " earth, and with labour do we find the things that are before us: 
 " but the things that are in heaven, who hath searched out * ?" 
 
 This then must be purely the subject of revelation; but when 
 the Deist is come thus far, he is entered into a wide field; for all 
 religions, Jewish, Heathen, Christian and Mahometan, pretend 
 to revelation for their original. 
 
 To clear this point was the design of the Short Method with 
 the Deists, which gave the first opportunity to our conversation. 
 
 The Heathen and Mahometan religions not only want those 
 marks (there set down) which ascertain the truth of fact, but their 
 morals and worship are impure, and inconsistent with the attri- 
 butes of God ; as the indulgence of fornication and uncleanness 
 among the Heathen, and their human sacrifices (most abhorrent to 
 the God of holiness and mercy) and the filthy obscenity of their 
 
 * \Visdoznix. 13, 14, 15, 16.
 
 42 A "Letter from the same Author. 
 
 very sacra; besides the great defect of their morals which knew 
 no such thing as humility, forgiveness of injuries, loving their 
 enemies, and returning good for evil. Some of their philosophers 
 spoke against revenging of injuries, as bringing greater injury to 
 ourselves, or not worth the while ; but not upon the account of 
 humanity and love to our brethren, and doing them good, though 
 they did evil to us ; and by the word humilitas, they meant only a 
 lowness and dejection of mind, which is a vice ; but they had no 
 notion of it as a virtue, in having a low opinion of one's self, and 
 in honour preferring others before us : this they thought a vice 
 and abjection of spirits. You may see pride and self-conceit run 
 through all their philosophy, besides their principle of increasing 
 their empire, by conquering other countries who did them no 
 harm, whom they called barbarians. 
 
 Into this class comes likewise the Sensual Paradise proposed by 
 Mahomet, and his principle of propagating his religion by the 
 sword. * 
 
 The Jewish religion has all the certainty of fact, and its morals 
 are good ; but because of the hardness of their hearts, they came 
 not up to the primitive purity, as in case of polygamy and divorce, 
 wherein our blessed Saviour reduces them to the original, that 
 from the beginning it was not so ; and in several other cases men- 
 tioned in his Sermon upon the Mount; 
 
 Therefore the perfection of morals, and of the true knowledge 
 of God, was reserved for the Christian religion, which has, in 
 more abundant manner than even the Jewish, the infallible marks 
 of the truth of the facts, in the multitude and notoriety of the 
 miracles wrought by our blessed Saviour beyond those of Moses. 
 Which fully answers the objection of the Jews, that Christ 
 wrought his miracles by Beelzebub: for then, as he said to them, 
 41 By whom do your children cast out devils ?" Was it by the 
 spirit of God or Beelzebub, that Moses and the prophets wrought 
 their miracles ? 
 
 . Then from the purity and heavenliness of his doctrines, all 
 levelled to destroy the kingdom of Satan, those wicked principles 
 and idolatrous worship which he had set up in the world; the 
 other answer of our blessed Saviour concludes demonstratively, of 
 a kingdom divided against itself; that if Satan cast out Satan to 
 promote that doctrine which Christ taught, we must alter our 
 notion of the devil, and suppose him to be good, and his kingdom
 
 A Letter from the same Author. 43 
 
 must then be at an end ; which we see not yet done, for wicked- 
 ness still reigns in the world. 
 
 IV. OBJECT. AS TO THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 Against these things reason has nothing to object, but then pre- 
 judices are raised up against what is revealed, as being of things 
 that ars above our reason, ami out of its reach ; as chiefly the 
 doctrine of the blessed Trinity. 
 
 In answer to which we may consider, that if such things were 
 not above our reason, there needed no revelatien of them, but 
 only a bare proposal of them to our reason, made by any body 
 xvithout any authority, and their own evidence would carry them 
 through. 
 
 In the next place, we must acknowledge that there are many 
 things in the divine nature far out of the reach of our reason. 
 That it must be so : for how can finite comprehend infinite ? Who 
 can think what eternity is ? A duration without beginning, or 
 succession of parrs or time ! Who can so much as imagine or 
 frame any idea of a being, neither made by itself, nor by any 
 other? Of omnipresence? Of a boundless immensity? &c. 
 
 Yet all this reason obliges us to allow, as the necessary conse- 
 quences of a first cause. 
 
 And where any thing is eftablished upon the full proof of rea- 
 son, there ten thousand objections or difficulties, though we can- 
 not answer them, are of no force at air to overthrow it. No- 
 thing can do that, but to refute those reasons upon which it is 
 established ; till when the truth and certainty of the thing remains 
 unshaken, though we cannot explain it, nor solve, the difficulties 
 that arise from it. 
 
 And if it is so, upon the point of reason, much more upon that 
 cf revelation, where the subject matter is above our reason, and 
 could never have been found out by it. 
 
 All to be done in that case is, to satisfy ourselves of the truth 
 of the fact, that such things were revealed of God, and are no 
 imposture. This is done, as to the Holy Scriptures, by the four 
 marks before-mentioned. 
 
 And as to the contradiction alledged in three being one, it is 
 no contradiction, unless it be said, that three are one, in the self- 
 same respect : for in divers respects there is no sort of difficulty, 
 that one may be three, or three thousand ; as one army may con- 
 sist of many thousands, and yet it is but one army : there is but 
 3
 
 44- A Letter from the same Author. 
 
 one human nature, and yet there are multitudes of persons who 
 partake of that nature. 
 
 Now it is not said that the three persons in the divine nature are 
 one person, that would be a contradiction : but it is said, that the 
 three persone are One nature. They are not three and one in the 
 same respect ; they are three as to persons, and one as to nature. 
 Here is no contradiction. 
 
 Again, that may be a contradiction in one nature, which is not 
 so in another : for example ; it is a contradiction that a man can go 
 twe yards or miles as soon as one, because two is but one and 
 another one : yet this is no contradiction to sight, which can reach 
 a star as soon as the top of a chimney; and the sun darts his rays in 
 one instant from heaven to earth : but more than all these is the 
 motion of thought, to which no distance of place is any interrup- 
 tion; which can arrive at Japan as soon as at a yard's distance; 
 and can run into the immensity of possibilities. 
 
 Now there are no words possible, whereby to give any nation 
 or idea of sight or light to a man born blind : and consequently 
 to reconcile the progress of sight or light to, him from being an 
 absolute contradiction ; because he can measure it no otherwise 
 than according to the motion of legs or arms, for he knows none 
 other : therefore we cannot charge that as a contradiction in one 
 nature, which is so in another, unless we understand both natures 
 perfectly well : and therefore we cannot charge that as a contra- 
 diction in the incomprehensible nature of being three in one, 
 though we found it to be so in our nature ; -which we do not, 
 because, as before said, they are not three and one in the same 
 respect. 
 
 Now, let us further consider, that though there is no compari- 
 son between finite and infinite, yet we have nearer resemblances of 
 the three and one in God, than there is of sight to a man born 
 blind. For there is nothing in any of the other four senses that 
 has any resemblance at all to that of seeing, or that can give such a 
 man any notion whatever of it. 
 
 But we find in our own nature, which is said to be made after 
 the image of God, a very near resemblance of his Holy Trinity, 
 and of the different operations of each of the Divine Persons. 
 
 For example ; to know a thing present, and to remember what 
 'is past, and to love or hate, are different operations of our mind, 
 and performed by different faculties of it. Of these, the under- 
 standing is the father faculty, and gives being to things, as to us j
 
 A Letter from the same Author, 45 
 
 for what we know not, is to us as if it were not. This answers to 
 creation. From this faculty proceeds the second, that of me- 
 mory, which is a preserving of what the understanding has 
 created to us. Then the third faculty, that of die will, which 
 loves or hates, proceeds from both the other ; for we cannot love or 
 hate what is not first created by the understanding, and preserved to 
 us by the memory. 
 
 And though these are different faculties, and their operations 
 different, that the second proceeds from the first, or is begotten by 
 it ; and the third proceeds from the first and second in conjunction, 
 so that one is before the other in order of nature, yet not in time ; 
 for they are all congenial, and one is as soon in the soul as the other ; 
 and yet they make not three souls, but one soul. And though their 
 operations are different, and the one proceeds from the other, yet 
 no one can act without the other, and they all concur to every act 
 of each ; for in understanding and remembering, there is a concur- 
 rent act of the will to consent to such understanding or remember- 
 ing, so that no one can act without the other; in which sense none 
 is before or after the other, nor can any of them be or exist without 
 the other. 
 
 But what we call faculties in the soul, we call persons in the 
 Godhead ; because there are personal actions attributed to each of 
 them ; as that of sending, and being sent ; to take flesh, and be 
 born, &c. 
 
 And we have no other word whereby to express it ; we speak it 
 afcer the manner of men ; nor could we understand, if we heard 
 any of those unspeakable words, which express the Divine Na- 
 ture in iis proper essence ; therefore we must make allowances, 
 and great ones, when we apply words of our nature to the infi- 
 nite and eternal Being. We must not argue strictly and philoso- 
 phically from them, more than from God's being said to repent, 
 to be angry, &c. They are words ad capfum, in condescension 
 to our weak capacities, and without which we could not under- 
 stand. 
 
 But this I say, that there are nearer resemblances afforded to us 
 of this ineffable mystery of the Holy Trinity, than there is be- 
 twixt one of our outward senses and another, than there is to a 
 blind man of colours, or of the motion of light or sight: and a con- 
 tradiction in the one will not infer a contradiction in the other : 
 though it is impossible to be solved, as in the instance before given 
 of a man born blind, till we come to know both natures distinctly.
 
 46 A Letter from the same Author. 
 
 And If we had not the experience of the different faculties of our 
 mind, the contradiction would appear irreconcileable to all our phi- 
 losophy, how three could be one, each distinct from the other, yet 
 but one soul : one proceeding from, or being begot by the other; 
 and yet all coeval, and none before or after the other : and as to the 
 difference betwixt faculties and persons, substance and subsistence* 
 it is a puzzling piece of philosophy. And though we give not a 
 distinct subsistence to a faculty, it has an existence, and one faculty 
 can no more be another, than one person can be another: so that 
 the case seems to be alike in both, as to what concerns our present 
 difficulty of three and one ; besides what before is said, that by the 
 word person, when applied to God, (for want of a proper word 
 whereby to express it) we must mean something infinitely different 
 from personality among men. And therefore from a contradiction 
 in the one (suppose it granted) we cannot charge a contradiction in 
 the other, unless we understand it as well as the other ; for how else 
 can we draw the parallel ? 
 
 What a vain thing is our philosopky, when we xvould measure 
 the incomprehensible nature by it ! When wetind it non-plust in 
 our own nature, and that in many instances. If I am all in one 
 room, is it not a contradiction that any part of me should be in 
 another room ? Yet it was a common saying among philosophers, 
 that the soul is all in all, and all in every part of the body : how 
 is the same individual soul present, at one and the same time, to 
 actuate the distant members of the body, without either multiplica- 
 tion or division of the soul? Is there any thing in the body can 
 bear any resemblance to this, without a manifest contradiction ? 
 Nay, even as to bodies, is any thing more a self-evident principle, 
 than that the cause must be before the effect ? Yet the light and 
 heat of the sun are as old as the sun ; and supposing the sun to be 
 eternal, they would be as eternal. 
 
 And as light and heat are of the nature of the sun, and as the 
 three faculties before-mentioned are of the nature of the soul, so 
 that the soul could not be a soul if it wanted any of them ; so 
 may we, from small things to great, apprehend without any con- 
 tradiction, that the three persons are of the very nature and essence 
 of the Deity ; and so of the same substance with it; and though 
 one proceeding from the other, (as the faculties of the soul do) 
 yet that all three are consubstantial, co-eternal, and of necessary 
 existence as God is ; for that these three are God, and God is
 
 A Letter from the same Author. 47 
 
 these three. As understanding, memory and will are a soul ; and 
 a soul is understanding, memory and will. 
 
 I intend (God willing) to treat of this subject more largely by it- 
 self ; but I have said thus much here, to clear the way from that 
 objection of rejecting revelation, (though we are infallibly sure of 
 the fact) because of the supposed contradiction to ur reason, in 
 comparing it with our earthly things. 
 
 v. Of the Differences among Christians. 
 
 But now, that from all the proofs of the certainty of the reve- 
 lation we are come to fix in Christianity, our labour is not yet at an 
 end: for here you see multiplicity of sects and divisions, which 
 our blessed Saviour forecold should come, for the probation of the 
 elect : as some Canaanites were left in the land to teach the 
 Israelites the use of war, lest by too profound a peace, they might 
 grow lazy and stupid, and become an easy prey to their enemies. 
 So might Christianity be lost among us ; if we had nothing to do, 
 it would dwindle and decay, and corrupt by degrees, as water 
 stagnates by standing still: but when we are put to contend 
 earnestly for the faith, it quickens our zeal, keeps us upon our 
 guard, trims our lamp, and furbishes the sword of the spirit, 
 which might otherwise rust in its scabbard. And it gives great 
 opportunity to shew us the wonderful providence and protection 
 of God over his church, in preserving her against a visibly un- 
 equal force. And in this contest, to some this high privilege is 
 granted in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also 
 to suffer for his sake*. These go to make up the noble army of 
 martyrs and confessors, for ever triumphant in heaven. Others 
 conquer even here on earth, that God's wonderful doings may be 
 known to the children of men. 
 
 But as he who builds a tower, ought first to compute the ex- 
 pence, and he who goes to war to consider his strength ; so our 
 blessed Saviour has instructed us, that he who will be his disciple^ 
 must resolve beforehand to take up his cross daily, to forsake 
 father and mother, and wife and children, and lands and life 
 itself, when he cannot keep them with the truth and sincerity of 
 the Gospel. Therefore we must put on the " whole armour of 
 " God, that we may be able to stand in the evil day, and having 
 " overcome all, to stand ; for we wrestle not against flesh and 
 
 * Phil. i. 29.
 
 48 A Letter from the same Author, 
 
 * Wood, but against principalities, against powers, against the ru- 
 *' lets of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high 
 " places." 
 
 And what is it we wrestle for ! For the great mystery of god- 
 liness, God manifest in the flesh, &c. 
 
 vi. The Doctrine of SATISFACTION. 
 
 Here is the foundation of the Christian religion, that when man 
 had sinned, and was utterly unable to make any satisfaction for his 
 sin, God sent his own son to take upon him our flesh, and in the 
 same nature that offended, to make full satisfaction for the sins of 
 the whole world, by his perfect obedience, and the sacrifice of him- 
 self upon the cross. 
 
 Some say, What need any satisfaction ? Might not God forgive 
 without it? It would shew greater mercy. But these men con- 
 sider not that God is not only just, hut he is justise itself; justice 
 in the abstract ; he is essential justice. And justice, by its nature, 
 must exact to the utmost farthing, else it were not justice : to 
 remit is mercy, it is not justice : and the attributes of God must 
 not fight and oppose each other; they must all stand infinite and 
 compleat. You may say then, how can God forgive at all? How 
 can infinite mercy and justice stand together ? 
 
 This question could never have been answered, if God himself 
 had not shewed it to us in the wonderful ceconomy of our redemp- 
 tion : for here is his justice satisfied to the least iota, by the per- 
 fect obedience and passion of Christ, (who is God) in the same 
 human nature that offended. Here is infinite wisdom expressed in 
 this means found out for our salvation ; and infinite mercy in afford- 
 ing it to us. Thus all his attributes are satisfied, and filled up to 
 the brim : they contradict not, but exalt each other. His mercy 
 exalts and magnifies his justice : his justice exalts his mercy, and 
 both his infinite wisdom. 
 
 .Here is a view of God, beyond what all the oracles of reason 
 could ever have found out, from his works of creation or common 
 providence ! These shew his works, but this his nature, it is him- 
 self ! The very face of God ! Before which the angels vail their 
 faces, and desire to look into this abyss of goodness and power, 
 and wisdom, which they never will be able to fathom, but still 
 feed upon, and search farther and farther into it, with adoration, 
 to eternit. ! And they worship our manhood thus taken into 
 God i And rejoice to be ministring spirits to us, while upon earth.
 
 A Letter from ths same Author. 49 
 
 This you and I have talked over at large; and this I gave you 
 as the sum and substance, the Alpha and Omega, of the Christian 
 religion. And now I repeat it as the surest criterion to guide a 
 man in the difficulty before us, that is, in the choice of a church, 
 m the midst of all that variety there is among Christians. Who- 
 ever hold not this doctrine, join not with them, nor bid them God 
 speed. 
 
 VII. THE SOCINIANS. 
 
 This will save you from the Socinians, or the Unitarians, as 
 they now call themselves in England, who expressly deny this 
 doctrine : for they deny the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and 
 the Divinity of Christ, upon which it is founded. They consider 
 Christ no otherwise than a mere man ; and propose him only as a 
 teacher and good example to us. But then they are confounded 
 with aM their pretence to wit and reason, to give any account for 
 his death, which was not necessary to teaching, or being an ex- 
 ample: that, an angel, or a prophet might have been. Then 
 they say that he died to confirm the truth of his doctrine. But 
 get this doctrine of Satisfaction aside, and he taught nothing new, 
 except the improvement of some morals: besides, dying does not 
 confirm the truth of any doctrine; it only shews that he who dies 
 for it does himself believe it. Some have died for errors; and 
 the Socinian doctrine affords no comfort, no assurance to us. For 
 if we consider Christ only as, a teacher or example, we have not 
 followed his precepts nor example : here is nothing but matter of 
 condemnation to us. But if we leok upon him as our surety, who 
 has paid our debt, as our sacrifice, atonement, and piopitiation for 
 our sins, and that we are saved by his blood, (which is the lan- 
 guage of the Holy Scriptures, of which the Socinians know no 
 meaning) this is a rock and infallible assurance. 
 
 VIII. THE CHURCH OF ROME. 
 
 As the Socinians have totally rejected this doctrine, so the 
 Church of Rome has greatly vitiated and depressed it, by their 
 doctrine of merit, and their own satisfaction, which they make 
 part of their sacrament of penance. On this is founded their 
 purgatory, wherein souls who had not made full satisfaction upon 
 earth, must compleat it there. They deny not the Satisfaction of 
 Christ, but join their own with it, as if it were not sufficient. 
 
 VOL. i. E
 
 S3 A Letter from the same Author. 
 
 IX, THE DISSENTERS. 
 
 On the other hand, our Dissenters run to the contrary extreme: 
 arid because our good works must have no share in the satisfaction 
 for sin, which they cannot, as being unworthy, and mixed with 
 our infirmities and our sin; therefore they make them not neces- 
 sary, nor of any effect towards our salvation. They say that 
 Christ did not die for any but the elect, in whom he sees no sin, 
 let them live never so wickedly. They damn the far greatest 
 part of the world by irreversible decrees of reprobation, and say, 
 that their good works are hateful to God, and that it is not 
 possibly in their power to be saved, let them believe as they will, 
 and live never so religiously. They take away free-will in man, 
 and make him a peifcct machine. They make God the author of 
 sin, to create men on purpose to damn them ; and to punish them 
 eternally for not doing what was not in their power to do, and for 
 doing what he had made impossible for them not to do. They 
 make his promises and threatnings to be of no effect, nay, to be a 
 sort of burlesquing, and insulting those whom he has made mise- 
 rable ; which is an hideous blasphemy ! 
 
 For a solution in this matter, both as to faith and works, I 
 refer you to the homilies of faith and salvation, and of good 
 wo;ksj where you will fiad the true Christian doctrine set forth 
 clearly and solidly. 
 
 I will not anticipate what you design for your second part, by 
 entering into other dJ3putes there are among Christians ; only 
 these will be exceeding necessary, to settle we'l the notion of the 
 Church of Christ, to which all do pretend in various manners. 
 
 X. THE TRUE NOTION OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 First theiefore, the church must be considered not only as a 
 sect, that is, a company of people believing such and such tenets, 
 like the several sects of the Heathen Philosophers; but as a society 
 under government, with governors appointed by Christ, invested 
 with such powers and authority, to admit into and exclude out of 
 the society, and govern the affairs of the body. 
 
 This power was delegated by Christ to his Apostles and their 
 successors to the end of the world: accordingly the Apostles did 
 ordain Bishops in all the churches which they planted throughout 
 the whole world, as the supreme governors, and center of unity, 
 each in his own church, These were obliged to keep unity and
 
 A letter from the same Author. 5 1 
 
 communion with one another ; which is therefore called Catholic 
 Communion. And all these churches considered together, is the 
 Catholic Church : as the several nations of the earth are called 
 the world. 
 
 XI. OF AN UNIVERSAL BISHOP. 
 
 And Christ appointed no Universal Bishop over his church more 
 than an Universal Monarch over the wbrld. No such thing was 
 known in the primitive church, till it was set up first by John. 
 Bishop of Constantinople, then by the Bishop of Rome, in the 
 seventh century. And as the whole world is one kingdom to 
 God, as it is written, " his kingdom ruleth over all," so th6 
 several churches of the world are one church to Christ. And the 
 Church of Rome's saying that she is that one church, or shew us 
 another, which can dispute it with us, in universality, antiquity, 
 &c. is the same as if France (for example) should say, Who can 
 compare with me ? Therefore I am the Universal or Monarch, 
 shew me another. The thing appears ridiculous at the first pro- 
 posal ; for it must be said to Rome, or to France, that if you 
 were ten times greater than you are, you are yet but a part of the 
 whole. And to say, who else pretends to it ? Why none. And 
 it would be nonsense in any one who did pretend to it. One part 
 may be bigger than another; but one part can never be the whole. 
 And all results in this, whether Christ did appoint an Universal 
 Bishop over all the churches in the world ? And we are willing to 
 leave the issue to that, it it can appear either from the scripture or 
 antiquity. Besides, the reason of the thing; for as Gregery the 
 Great urged against John of Constantinople, if there was an Uni- 
 versal Bishop, the Universal Church must fall, if that one Uni- 
 versal Bishop fell; and so all must come to center in one poor, 
 fallible, mortal man. 
 
 This obliged the Pope to run into another monstrous extreme, 
 and set up for infallibility in his own person, as the only successor 
 of St. Peter, and heir of those promises made to him, super hanc 
 Petram, Kc. This was the current doctrine of the divines in the 
 Church of Rome, in former ages, as you may see in Belhrmin, 
 de Horn. Pontif. I. 4, c. 5. where he carries this so high as to 
 assert, that if the Pope did command the practice of vice, and 
 forbid virtue, the church were bound to believe that virtue 
 was vice, and that vice was virtue. And in his preface he calls 
 this absolute supremacy of the Pope, the summa rei Christiana:^
 
 52 A Letter from the same Author. 
 
 the sum and foundation ef the Christian religion. And that to 
 deny it was not only a simple error, but a pernicious heresy. 
 
 This was old Popery : but now it is generally decried by the 
 papists themselves : yet no Pope has been brought to renounce it, 
 they will not quit claim. 
 
 When they departed from the infallibility of the Pope, they 
 sought to place it in their General Councils: but these are not 
 always in being; and so their infallibility must drop for several 
 ages together; which will not consist with their argument, that 
 God is obliged by his goodness, to afford always an outward and 
 living judge and guide to his church. Besides, that instances are 
 found, where those councils they call general, have contradicted 
 one another. 
 
 For which reasons, others of them place the infallibility in the 
 church diffusive : but this upon their scheme is indefinite, and the 
 judge of controversy must be sought among numberless indivi- 
 duals, of whom no one is the judge or guide. 
 
 XII. OF INFALLIBILITY IN THE CHURCH. 
 
 But there is an infallibility in the church, not personal in anv 
 one or all of Christians put together; for millions of fallibles can 
 never make an infallible. But the infallibility consists in the na- 
 ture of the evidence, which having all the four marks mentioned 
 in the Short Method with the Deists, cannot possibly be false. 
 4-S you and I believe there is such a town as Constantinople, that 
 there was such aVnan as Henry VIII. as much as if we had 
 seen them with our eyes : not from the credit of any historian or 
 traveller, all of whom are fallible ; but from the nature of the 
 evidence, wherein it is impossible for men to have conspired and 
 carried it on without contradiction, if it were false. 
 
 Thus, whatever doctrine has been taught in the church (accord- 
 ing to the rule of Vincentius Lirinenfis) sempei; ubigue, 3 ab 
 omnibus, is the Christian doctrine ; for in this case, such doctrine 
 is a fact, and having the aforesaid marks, must be a true fact, viz. 
 that such doctrine was so taught and received. 
 
 This was the method taken in the council called at Alexandria 
 against Arius ; it was asked by Alexander the Archbishop who 
 presided, " Qm's unquani talia audivit*?" Who ever heard of 
 this doctrine before ? And it being answered by all the Bishops 
 
 * Socrates Hist. 1. 1. c. 5, Gr.
 
 A Letter from the same Author. 53 
 
 there assembled in the negative, it was concluded a novel doctrine* 
 and contrary to what had been universally received in the Chris- 
 tian Church. Thus every doctrine may be reduced to fact ; for it 
 is purely fact, whether such doctrine was received or not. 
 
 And a council assembled upon such an occasion, stand as evi- 
 dences of the fact, not as judges of the faith ; which they cannot 
 alter by their votes or authority. 
 
 A council has authority in matters of discipline in the church ; 
 but in matters of faith, what is called their authority, is their 
 attestation to the truth of fact; which if it has the marks before- 
 mentioned must be infallibly true : not from the infallibility of 
 any or all of the persons, but from the nature of the evidence, as 
 before is said. 
 
 And this is the surest rule, whereby to judge of doctrines, and 
 to know what the Catholic Church has believed and taught, as 
 received from the Apostles. 
 
 And they who refuse to be tried by this rule, who say, we care 
 not what was believed by the Catholic Church, either in former 
 ages or now ; we think our own interpretations or criticisms upon 
 such a text, of as great authority as theirs; these are justly to be 
 suspected, nay, it is evident that they are broaching some novel 
 doctrines, which cannot stand this test. Besides the monstrous 
 arrogance in such a pretence, these overthrow the foundation of 
 that sure and infallible evidence upon which Christianity itself does 
 stand ; and reduce all to a blind enthusiasm. 
 
 XIII. OF EPISCOPACY. 
 
 But further, Sir, in your search afrer a church, you must not 
 only consider the doctrine, but the government; that is, as I said 
 before, you must consider the church, not only as a sect, but as 
 a society : for though every society founded upon the belief of 
 such tenets, may be called a sect, yet every sect is not a society. 
 Now, a society cannot be without government, for it is that 
 which makes a society : and a government cannot be without go- 
 vernors. The Apostles were instituted by Christ the first governors 
 of his church; and with them and their successors he has promised 
 to be to the end of the world. The Apostles did ordain Bishops, 
 as governors in all the churches which they planted throughout 
 the whole world ; and these Bishops were esteemed the successors 
 of the Apostles each in his own church, from the beginning to 
 this day. This was the current notion and language of antiquity.
 
 3-i A Letter from the same Author. 
 
 Cwnes Apostalorum succcswres sunt. That all Bishops were the 
 successors of the Apostles. As St. Jerome speaks, Epist. ad E-vagr. 
 And St. Ignatius, who was constituted by the Apostles Bishop of 
 Antioch, salutes the church of the Trallians, 'Ev ru rs\r t pufj.xri 
 ev 'Atfos-cJ.ix.a; /jxfa.y.rrifi. In the plenitude of the Apostolical cha- 
 racter. Thus it continued from the days of the Apostles to those of 
 John Calvin: in all which time there was not any one church in 
 the whole Christian world, that was not episcopal. But now it is 
 said by our Dissenters, that there is no need of succession from 
 the Apostles, or those Bishops instituted by them ; that they can 
 make governors over themselves whom they list : and what signifies 
 the government of the church, so the doctrine be pure? But this 
 totally dissolves the church as a society, the-governmeHt of which 
 consists in the right and title of the governor. And as the Apostle 
 says, " No man taketh this honour to himself, but he that is 
 " called of God, as was Aaron*." And the dispute betwixt 
 him and Korah was not as to any point either of doctrine or 
 worship, but merely upon that of church government. And St. 
 Jude, verse 1 1, brings down the same case to that of the church. 
 And reason carries it as to all societies. They who will not obey 
 the lawful governor, but set up another in opposi;ion to him, are 
 no longer of the society, but enemies to it, and justly forfeit all 
 the rights and privileges of ir. 
 
 Now considering that ail the promises in the Gospel are made 
 to the church, what a dreadful thing it must be, to be excluded 
 from all these ! 
 
 Besides, the church is called the pillar and ground of the truth, 
 as being a society instituted by Christ, for the support and preser- 
 vation of the faith. Tins no particular church can attribute to 
 itself, otherwise than as being a part of the whole : and therefore, 
 as St. Cyprian says, " Christ made the college of Bishops nu- 
 " merous, that if one proved heretical, or sought to devour the 
 flock, the rest might interpose for the saving of it." This is 
 equally against letting the whole depend upon one Universal 
 Bishop ; and against throwing of the whole episcopate, that is, 
 all the Bishops in the world ; which would be a total dissolution 
 of the church as a society, by leaving no governors in it; or, 
 which is the same, setting up governors of our own head, with- 
 out any authority or succession from the Apostles ; which is ren- 
 
 * He's. v. 4.
 
 A Letter from the same Author. 55 
 
 dering the whole precarious, and without any foundation. And 
 it is a suj^posing that Providence is more obliged to stand by a 
 church set up in direct opposition to his institution, than by that 
 church which Christ himself has founded, and promised to be 
 with it to the end of the world. And though he has permitted 
 errors and heresies to overspread several parts of it, at several 
 times, for the probation of the elect, like the waining of the 
 moon, yet has he not left himself without witness, and has re- 
 stored light to her, pursuant to his promise, that the gates of hell 
 should not prevail against her: and this by the means of his ser- 
 vants and substitutes, the Bishops of his church, whom he IKIS not 
 deserted. AH of whom, through the whole world always did, arid 
 still do maintain and own the Apostolick Creed. And wherein 
 some, as the Arians, have perverted the sense of some articles, that 
 lasted but a short time ; and the truth has been more confirmed by 
 it, in the unanimous consent and testimony of the whole episcopal 
 college, to the primitive doctrine which they had received from the 
 beginning. God healed these heresies in his own way, by the 
 Bishops and Governors of his church, whom he had appointed, and 
 without any infraction upon his own institution. 
 
 And it is observable that these heresies began by infraction, 
 which men made upon his institution of Bishops, as Arius, an am- 
 bitious presbyter, first rose up against his Bishop, before he was 
 given up to that vile heresy, which he vented afterwards by degrees, 
 to gain a party after him, thereby to maintain the opposition which 
 he had made against his Bishop ; and, by a just judgment, he fell 
 from one error to another, till he at last, compleated that detestable 
 heresy which bears his name. 
 
 And in all the annals of the church, whether under the law or 
 the gospel, there is not one instance of a schism against the priest- 
 hood -which Gocl had appointed ; but great errors in doctrine and 
 worship did follow it. Thus the priesthood which Micah set up 
 of his own head, and that which Jeroboam set up in opposition to 
 that of Aaron, both ended in idolatry. Thus the Novations and Do- 
 natists, who made schisms against their Bishops, fell into grievous 
 errors, though they did not renounce the faith, 
 
 And into what gross errors, both as to doctrine and worship, has 
 the church of Rome fallen, since her Bishop set up for universa- 
 lity, and thereby commenced that grand schism against all the 
 Bishops of the earth, whom he sought to depress under him j buC
 
 56 A Letter from the same Author. 
 
 while he would thrust other churches from him, he thrust himself 
 from the Catholic church. 
 
 What hydra heresies, and monstrous sects (fifty or sixty at one 
 time, of which we have the names) flowed like a torrent into Eng- 
 land, in the times of forty-one, after episcopacy was thrown down! 
 
 So evident is that saying, that the church is the pillar and ground 
 of the truth, that we can hardly find any error which has come into 
 the church, but upon an infraction made upon the episcopal autho- 
 rity. 
 
 XIV. AN INFALLIBLE DEMONSTRATION OF EPISCOPACY. 
 
 For which this is to be said, that it has all the four marks before- 
 mentioned, to ascertain any fact, in the concurrent testimony of all 
 churches, at all times ; and therefore must infallibly be the govern- 
 ment which the Apostles left upon the earth. To which we must 
 adhere till a greater authority than theirs shall alter it. 
 
 I doubt not but all this will determine you to the church of 
 England, and keep you firm to episcopacy, as a matter not indif- 
 ferent. 
 
 And I pray God, that " he who hath begun a good work in you, 
 At may perfect it until the day of Jesus Christ. Amen."
 
 DISCOURSE 
 
 ON THE 
 
 QUALIFICATIONS REQUISITE TO 
 ADMINISTER THE SACRAMENTS. 
 
 The Necessity of an outward Commission to the Ministers of the 
 
 Gospel. 
 
 Quakers having perused my discourse of Baptism, think 
 the Quaker arguments against it sufficiently answered ; and they 
 have but one difficulty remaining, that is, who they are (among the 
 various pretenders) that are duly qualified to administer it. 
 
 And if satisfaction can be given to them herein, they promise a 
 perfect compliance to that holy institution. 
 
 The chief thing they seem to stand upon is, the personal holiness 
 of the administrator, thinking that the spiritual effects of baptism, 
 cannot be conveyed by the means of an unsanctified instrument. 
 
 But yet they confess that there is something else necessary besides 
 the personal holiness of the administrator : otherwise they would 
 think themselves as much qualified to administer it as any others ; 
 because, I presume, they suppose themselves to have as great a 
 measure of the Spiiitas other men. 
 
 This requisite which they want is that of lawful ordination. 
 But the Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists do pretend to 
 this ; therefore their title to it is to be examined. 
 
 And, that we may proceed the more clearly in this matter with 
 respect still to that difficulty upon which the Quakers lay the 
 stress, we will enquire concerning those qualifications which are
 
 5S A Discourse on ike Qualifications 
 
 requisite in any person that shall take upon him to administer the 
 sacraments of Christ's institution. And, 
 
 These qualifications are of two sorts, personal or sacerdotal. 
 
 1. Personal ; the holiness of the administrator. And though this 
 is a great qualification to fit and prepare a man for such an holy 
 administration, yet this alone does not sufficiently qualify any man 
 to take upon him such an administration. 
 
 2. But there is moreover required, a sacerdotal qualification ; that 
 is, an outward commission to authorise a man to execute any sacer- 
 dotal or ministerial act of religion: For, " This honour no man, 
 " taketh unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Anron," 
 Heh. v. 4. " So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an 
 " high-priest ; but he that said unto him, Thou art my son Thou 
 " art a priest, &c." 
 
 Accordingly, we find that Christ did not take upon him die 
 office of a preacher, till after that outward commission given to 
 him by a voice from heaven at his baptism ; for it is written, 
 Matt. iv. 11, " From that time Jesus began to preach :" Tliea 
 he began, and he was then " about thirty years of age." Luke 
 iii. 23. Now no man can doubt of Christ's qualifications before 
 * that time, as to holiness, sufficiency, and all personal endow- 
 ments. And if all these were not sufficient to Christ himself 
 xvithout an outward commission, what other man can pretend to it 
 upon the account of any personal excellencies in himself without an 
 outward commission ? 
 
 3. And as Christ was outwardly commissioned by his Father, so 
 did not he leave it to his disciples, to every one's opinion of his own 
 $uf5ciency to thrust himself into the vineyard ; but chose twelve 
 Apostles by name, and after them seventy others of an inferior 
 order, whom he sent to preach. 
 
 4. And as Christ gave outward commissions while he was upon 
 the earth, so we find that his Apostles did proceed in the same me- 
 thod after his ascension. Acts xiv.23. " They ordained them 
 *' elders in every church." 
 
 5. But had they who were thus ordained by the Apostles, power 
 to ordain others ? Yes, Titus i. 5. 1 Tim. v. 22. " For this 
 " cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest ordain elders in. 
 " every city. Lay hands suddenly on no man, &c." St. Cle- 
 ment, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, writing concerning 
 the schism wi.ich was then risen up amongst them, says, parag. 
 44, That the Apostles fpreknowing there would be contests
 
 requisite to administer the Sacraments. 5? 
 
 " concerning the episcopal name, (or office) did themselves ap- 
 " point the persons :" and not only so, lest that might be <aict 
 to be of force only during their time ; but that they " aftenva -Js 
 " established an order how, when those whom they had ordained 
 " should die, others, fit and approved men, should succeed them 
 *' in their ministry." Par. 43. " Tiiat they who were in- 
 " trusted with this work by God in Christ, did constitute these 
 " officers." 
 
 But this matter depends not upon the testimony of him, or many 
 more that might be produced: it is such a public matter of fact, 
 that I might as well go about to quote particular authors to prove 
 that there were Emperors in Rome, as that the Ministers of the 
 church of Christ were ordained to succeed one another, and that 
 they did so succeed. 
 
 The deduction of this commission is continued in the succession of 
 
 Bishops, and not of Presbyters. 
 
 But here is a dispute whet-her this succession was preserved in 
 the order of Bishops or Presbyters ? Or whether both are not the 
 same ? 
 
 1. This is the contest betwixt the Presbyterians and us;- but 
 either way it operates against the Quakers, who allow of no suc- 
 cession derived by outward ordination. 
 
 2. But because the design of this discourse is to shew the suc- 
 cession from the Apostles, I answer that this succession is preserved 
 and derived only in the Bishops; as the continaance of any society 
 is deduced in the succession of the chief governors of the society, 
 not of the inferior officers. Thus in kingdoms we' reckon by the 
 succession of the kings, not of sheriffs or constables ; and in corpo- 
 rations by the succession of the mayors, or other chief officers, not 
 of the inferior bailiffs or scrjeants: so the succession of the churches 
 is computed in the succession of the Bishops, who are the chief 
 governors of the churches; and not of presbyters, who are but infe- 
 rior officers under the Bishops. 
 
 3. And in this the matter of fact is as clear and evident as the 
 succession of any kings or corporations in the world. 
 
 To begin with the Apostles ; we find not only that they consti- 
 tuted Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete, as in the 
 subscriptions of^ St. Paul's epistles to them, but in Eusebius, and 
 other ecclesiastical historians, you have the Bishops named who 
 were constituted by the Apostles themselves over the i\: ..t.nous
 
 A Discourse on the Qualifications 
 
 churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria, ?^4 
 many other churches, and the succession of them down all along. 
 
 St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, was disciple to St. John the 
 Apostle ; and St. Irenseus, \vho was disciple to S:. Polycarp, was 
 constituted Bishop of Lyons in France. 
 
 I mention this because it is so near us ; for in all other churches 
 throughout the whole world wherever Christianity was planted, 
 episcopacy was every where established without one exception as 
 is evident from all their records. 
 
 And so it was with us in England, whither it is generally sup- 
 posed, and with very good grounds, that St. Paul first hrought the 
 Christian faith. Clemens Romanus, in his first epistle to the Co- 
 rinthians, sect. 5, says, that St. Paul went preaching the Gospel 
 to the farthest bounds of the west, ITTI TO rsfi^a, TVS Avszus, by 
 which term Britain was then understood : and Theodoret expressly 
 names the Britons among the nations converted by the Apostles, 
 (torn. 4, serm. 9, page 610) ; and Eusebius in his evangelical 
 demonstration, (1. 3, c. 7, p. 113) names likewise the Britons as 
 then converted. 
 
 But whether St. Paul, or, as some conjecture, Joseph of Ari- 
 mathea, or any other apostolical person was the first who preached 
 Christ in England, it matters not, as to our present purpose, who 
 enquire only concerning episcopacy ; and it is certain by all our 
 histories, that as far up as they give us any account of Christianity 
 in this island, they tell us likewise of Bishops ; and the succession 
 of this Church of England has been deduced in the succession of 
 Bishops, and not of Presbyters ; and particularly in the diocese of 
 London, which was the first achiepiscopal see before Augustine 
 the monk came hither, after which it was established in Canter- 
 bury. And the Saxon writers have transmitted the succession of 
 their Bishops in Canterbury, Rochester, London, &c. 
 
 And in countries so remote and barbarous as Island itself, we 
 find the same care taken ; Ara or Aras, an Islandish priest, sur- 
 named Hinfrode the Learned, who flourished in the eleventh cen- 
 tury, and was twenty-five years old when Christianity was brought 
 thither, in his book of that country written in Islandish, has 
 transmitted to posterity, not only the succession, but the genealo- 
 gies of the Bishops of Skalholt and Hola (the two episcopal sees 
 of Island) as they succeeded one another in his time. I mention 
 this of Island, to fhew that episcopacy has extended itself equally 
 with Christianity, which was carried by it into the remotest cor-
 
 requisite to administer the Sacrament. fl L 
 
 ners of the earth ; upon which account the Bishops of Skalholt 
 and Hola, ami their succession, are as remarkable proofs of epis- 
 copacy, though not so famous as the Bishops of Canterbury and 
 London. 
 
 4. If the Presbyterians will say (because they have nothing left 
 to say) that all London (for example) was but one parish, and that 
 the Presbyter of every other parish was as much a Bishop as the 
 Bishop of London, because the words ETT/TXCTT- and TlfsaGvTsp', 
 Bishop and Presbyter, are sometimes used in the same sense; they 
 may as well prove that Christ was but a Deacon, because he is so 
 called, Romans xv. 8, Ajabco-,^, which we rightly translate a 
 Minister: and Bishop signifies an oveiseer, and Presbyter an an- 
 cient man, or elder man; whence our term of alderman. And 
 this is as good a foundation to prove that the Apostles were alder- 
 men, in the city acceptation of the word, or that our aldermen 
 are all Bishops and Apostles, as to prove that Presbyters and 
 Bishops are all one from- the childish jingle of the words. 
 
 It would be the same thing if one should undertake to confront 
 all antiquity, and prove against all the histories, that the Emperors 
 of Rome were no more than generals of armies, and that every 
 Roman general was Emperor of Rome, because he could find the 
 word Imperator sometimes applied to the general of an army. 
 
 Or as if a commonwealth-man should get up and say, that our 
 former kings were no more than our dukes are now, because the 
 style of giace, which is now given to dukes, was then given to 
 kings. 
 
 And suppose that any one were put under the penance of an- 
 swering to such ridiculous arguments, what method would he 
 take hut to shew that the Emperors of Rome, and former Kings 
 of England, had generals of armies and dukes under them, and 
 exercised authority over them ? 
 
 -Therefore when we find it given in charge to Timothy, the first 
 Bishop of Ephesus, how he was to proceed against his Presbyters 
 when they transgressed, to sit in judgment upon them, examine 
 witnesses against them, and pass censures upon them, it is a most 
 impertinent logomachy to argue from the etymology of the words, 
 that notwithstanding of all this a Bishop and a Presbyter are the 
 same thing : therefore that one text, 1 Timothy v. 19. is suffi- 
 cient to silence this pitiful clamour of the Presbyterians ; our 
 English reads it " against an elder," which is 'the literal transla- 
 tion of the word Presbyter," X&T ifffseGuTipv, against a
 
 62 A Discourse on the Qualifications 
 
 " Presbyter receive not an accusation, but before two or three 
 " witnesses ; and them that sin, rebuke before all a that others 
 " also may fear." Now, upon the Presbyterian hypothesis, we 
 must say that Timothy had no authority or jurisdiction over that 
 Presbyter, against whom he had power to receive accusations, 
 examine witnesses, and pass censures upon him ; and that such a. 
 Presbyter had the same authority over Timothy ; which is so ex- 
 travagant and against common s,ense, that I will not stay longer 
 to confute it, and think this enough to have said concerning the 
 Presbyterian argument from the etymology of the words Bishop 
 and Presbyter. 
 
 And this likewise confutes their other pretence which I have 
 mentioned, that the ancient bishoprics were only single and inde- 
 pendent congregations or parishes. This is a topic they have 
 taken up but of late, being beaten from all their other holds, and 
 launched by Mr. David Clarkson, in a book which he entitles 
 Primitive Episcopacy; which has given occasion to an excellent an- 
 swer by Dr. Henry Maurice, called A Defence of Diocesan Episco- 
 pacy, printed 1691, which I suppose has ended that controversy, 
 and hindered the world from being more troubled on that head. 
 And their other little shift, and as groundless, that the Primitive 
 Bishops were no other than their moderators advanced more lately, 
 by Gilb. Rule, late moderator of the general assembly in Scot- 
 land, has been as learnedly, and with great clearness of reason, 
 confuted by the worthy J. S. in his Principles of the Cypriattic age, 
 printed 1695. 
 
 But as I said, that text, 1 Tim. v. 19. has made all these pre- 
 tences wholly useless to the Presbyterians : for supposing their 
 most notorious false supposition, as if the bishoprics of Jerusalem, 
 Rome, Alexandria, or London, consisted but of one single con- 
 gregation,' arid that such Bishops had no Presbyters under them ; 
 but that all Presbyters were equally Bishops; I say, supposing 
 this, then it must follow from what we read of Timothy, that 
 one Bishop or Presbyter had jurisdiction over other Bishops or 
 Presbyters, which will destroy the Presbyterian claim of parity, 
 as much as their confession to the truth, and plain mutter of fact, 
 that Bishops had Piesbyters under their jurisdiction, and that they 
 were disriiict orders. Notwithstanding that a Bishop may he called 
 Aiaxbvof, a deacon or minister of Christ ; and likewise YlfiaQv-rsfof, 
 an elder or grave man, which is a term of magistracy and dign.ty, 
 and not tied to age : and a Presbyter may likewise in a sound 
 4
 
 requisite to administer the Sacraments. 63 
 
 sense be called a Bishop, that is an overseer or shepherd, which lie 
 truly is over his particular flock, without denying at all his depen- 
 dence upon his Bishop and overseer. 
 
 5. As under the term of Priest the High-priest was included^ 
 without destroying his supremacy over the other Priests, against 
 which Korah and his Preshyters, or inferior Priests arose. And 
 if the Presbyterians will take his word, whom of all the Fathers 
 they most admire, and quote often on their side, that is St. Je- 
 rome, he will tell them in that very Epistle (ad Evagr.) which 
 they boast favours them so much, that what Aaron and his sons, 
 and the Levites were in the temple, that same are Bishop, Pres- 
 byter and Deacon in the church. 
 
 And long before him, Clemens Romanus, in his first epistle to 
 the Corinthians, makes frequent allusion to the episcopacy of the 
 Levitical priesthood, and argues from thence to that of the Chris- 
 tian church. Thus paragraph 40. " To the High-priests, (says 
 " he) were allotted his proper offices : to the Priests their proper 
 '* place was assigned ; and to the Levites their services were ap- 
 *' pointed ; and the laymen were restrained within the precepts to 
 *' laymen." And sect. 42, he applies that scripture, Isa. lx'. 17. 
 to the officers of the Christian church, and renders it thus; " I 
 " will constitute their Bishops in righteousness, and their Deacons 
 *' in faith." The Greek translation of the LXX has it thus. " I 
 *' will give thee rulers (or princes) in peace, and thy bishops in 
 " righteousness." 
 
 It was the frequent method of these Primitive Fathers to reason 
 thus from the parallel betwixt the law and the gospel ; the one 
 being the exact type of the other, and therefore being fulfilled in 
 the other. And in this they followed the example of Christ and 
 the Apostles, who argued in the same manner : as you may see 
 Matt. v. 1 Cor. x. the whole epistle to the Hebrews, and many 
 other places of the New Testament. 
 
 6. Now the Presbyterians are desired to shew any one disparity 
 betwixt their case and that of Korah, who was a Priest of the 
 second order, that is, a Presbyter, and withdrew his obedience 
 from the High-priest, with other mutinous Levites : for there 
 was no matter of doctrine or worship betwixt them and Aaron, 
 nor any other dispute but that of church government. And by 
 the parallel betwixt the Old Testament and the New, Korah was 
 a Presbyterian, who rose up against the episcopacy of Aaron. 
 But this case is brought yet nearer home ; for we are told, (Jude,
 
 64 A Discourse on the Qualifications 
 
 verse 11.) of those under the gospel, " who perish in the gain- 
 " saying of Koran." And in the epistle of Clem. Rom. to the 
 Corinthians before quoted, sect. 43, he plainly applies this case 
 of Korah to the state of the Christian church ; shewing at large, 
 that as Moses by the command of God determined the pretensions 
 of the twelve tribes to the glory of the priesthood, by the mira- 
 culous budding of Aaron's rod, which was after the sehism and 
 punishment of Korah and his company ; so likewise, he says, 
 the Apostles foreknowing by Christ that dissentions would also 
 arise in the Christian church by various pretenders to the evange- 
 lical priesthood, did settle and establish not only the persons them- 
 selves, but gave rules and orders for continuing the succession after 
 their deaths, as I have before quoted his words. So that it is 
 plain from hence, that the evangelical priesthood is as positively 
 and certainly established and determined in the succession of eccle- 
 siastical ordination, as the Levkical law was in the succession of 
 Aaron; and consequently that the rebellion of Presbyters from 
 under the government of their Bishops, is the same case as the 
 rebellion (for so it is called, Numb. xvii. 10.) of Korah and his 
 Levitcs against Aaron ; who had as good a pretence against him 
 from the word Levite, which was common to the whole tribe, 
 as the Presbyterians have against Bishops, from the name Bishop 
 and Presbyter being used sometimes promiscuously, and applied 
 to the clergy in general ; which is a term that includes all the 
 orders of the church, as Levite did among the Jews. 
 
 7. But to leave the fruitless, contest about words, let this matter 
 be determined as other matters of fact are. 
 
 If I pretend to succeed any man in an honour or estate, I 
 must name him who had such an estate or honour before me, 
 and the man who had it before him, and who had it before him ; 
 and so up all the way to him who first had it, and from whom 
 all the vest do derive, and how it was lawfully deduced from one 
 to another. 
 
 This the Bishops have done, as I have shewn, and can name 
 all the wav backward, as far as history goes, from the present 
 Bishop of London, for example, to the first plantation of Chris- 
 tianity in this kingdom ; so from the present Bishop of Lyons up 
 to Irenzeus the disciple of St. Polycarp, as before is told The 
 records are yet more certain in the great bishoprics of Rome, 
 Antioch, Alexandria, and others, while they lasted in the world. 
 And though the records may not be extant of every small bishopric, 
 5
 
 requisite to administer the Sacraments. 65 
 
 which was less taken notice of, as the names of many kings are 
 lost in ohsurc nations, of many mayors or sheriffs, who notwith- 
 standing have as certainly succeeded one another, as where the 
 records arc preserved: I say, though every Bishop in the world 
 cannot tell the names of all his predecessors up to the Apostles, 
 yet their succession is certain : and in most Christians nations there, 
 are Bishops who can do it; which is a sufficient proof for the rest, 
 all standing upon the same bottom, and being derived in the same 
 manner. 
 
 Now to balance this, it is desired that the Presbyterians would 
 shew the succession of any one Presbyter in the world, who was 
 not likewise a Bishop, in our acceptation of the word, in the like 
 manner from the Apostles. 
 
 Till when, their small criticisms upon the etymology of the 
 words Bishop or Presbyter, is as a poor plea, as if I should pretend 
 to be heir to an estate, from the likeness of my name to somebody 
 who once had it. 
 
 And here I cannot chuse but apply the complaint of our Sa.- 
 viour, John v. 43. " If any come in the name of Christ;, that 
 is, by a commission from him, .derived down all the way by re- 
 gular ordination, *' him ye will not receive:" nay, though he be 
 otherwise a man without exception, either as to his life and con- 
 versation, or as to his gifts and sufficiency for the ministry, you 
 make this his commission an objection against him ; for that rea- 
 son alone you will not accept him. But if another come " hi 
 " his own name," that is. with no. commission but what he has 
 from himself, his own opinion of his own worthiness, " giving 
 " out that himself is some great one," (Acts viii. 9.) him ye will 
 receive, and follow and admire him ; " heaping to yourselves 
 " teachers, having itching ears," as it was prophesied of these 
 most degenerate times, 2 Tim. iv. 3. 
 
 But as to those well-disposed Quakers, for whose information 
 chiefly I have written this discourse, I must suppose that their 
 enquiry is wholly concerning the several titles of Bishops, Presby r 
 terians, Independents, &c. to the true succession from the 
 Apostles; that it may thereby be known to which of all these 
 they ought to go for baptism. 
 
 This I have shewn in behalf of episcopacy, and put the Pres- 
 byterians to prove their succession in the form of Presbytery, 
 which they can never do; because, as I have said before, the 
 chronology of the church does not compute from the succession of 
 
 VOL. I. f
 
 66 A Discourse on the Qualifications 
 
 the Presbyters, but only of the Bishops, as being the chief g- 
 vcrnors of the Church. And therefore, though in many Bishop- 
 rics the roll of their Bishops is preserved from the Apostles to 
 this day, yet there is not one bare Presbyter, that is, the minister 
 of a parish and no more, no not in all the world, who can give a 
 roll of his predecessors in that parish, half way to the Apostles, or 
 near it: for from the first plantation of Christianity the church 
 was divided into Bishoprics. This was necessary for the govern- 
 ment of the church ; but it was not so early sub-divided into pa- 
 rishes. The Presbyters at first attending upon the Bishop, were 
 sent out by him to such places, and for such time as he thought 
 fit; and returning, gave account of their stewardships, or were 
 visited, and changed by him as he saw cause: and therefore, 
 though one might come after another in the place where he had 
 ministered before, yet they could not properly be said to succeed 
 one another, as (to speak intelligibly to the Quakers) many of 
 them do preach after G. Fox, yet none of them are said to suc- 
 ceed him. 
 
 I have been thus long upon the Presbyterians, because they 
 only, of all our Dissenters, have any pretence to succession. And 
 what I have said as to them, rmist operate more strongly against 
 the later Independent, Baptist, &c. who have not the face to pre- 
 tend to succession, but set up merely upon their own pretended 
 gifts. 
 
 But what are these gifts which they so highly boast? 
 
 First, an inward and more than ordinary participation of the 
 graces of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Secondly, a fluency and powerfulness in preaching and praying. 
 
 I know of no other gifts that any of our Dissenters pretend to, 
 unless they will set up for miracles, as G. Fox, &c. And other 
 Dissenters did likewise pretend to the same, at their first setting 
 out, to amuse the people; but (as the Quakers) have let it drop 
 afterwards, to stop any farther examination of it, having already 
 served their turn by it. 
 
 But, as to these pretended gifts, if we may trust to our Sa- 
 viour's rule, of knowing the tree by its fruits, we cannot think 
 it the Holy Spirit of which these men did partake, who filled these 
 three nations with blood and slaughter, and whose religion was 
 never otherwise introduced than by rebellion, in any country 
 whithersoever it has yet come.
 
 requisite to administer the Sacraments. 61 
 
 And as to that volubility of tongue, which they boast as the 
 main proof of their mission, we have found it by experience, 
 that a little confidence and custom will improve very slender judg- 
 ment to great readinefs in that sort of talent. 
 
 And the powerfulness which is found in it by some who are 
 affected with a dismal tone, wry faces, and antic gestures, is not 
 more but less, if there be either method or sense in the discourse; 
 which shews their passion to proceed not from reason, but imagi- 
 nation. 
 
 The Scots Presbyterian eloquence affords us mohstrous proofs 
 ef this, but not so many as you may have from eye and ear- 
 witnesses. 
 
 Such coarse, rude, and nasty treatment of God, as they call 
 devotion; as in itself it is the highest affront to the Divine Ma- 
 jesty, so has it contributed in a very great meafure to that wild 
 Atheism which has always attended these sort of inspirations; it 
 seeming to many more reasonable to worship no God at all, than, 
 to set up one on purpose to ridicule him. 
 
 But this sort of enthusiasm presumes upon a familiarity with 
 God, which breeds contempt, and despises the sobriety of religion 
 as a low dispensation. I recommend to the reader that excellent 
 sermon, upon this subject, of Dr. Hicks, called, The Spirit of 
 Enthusiasm exorcised: and I desire those to consider who are most 
 taken with these seeming extraordinary gifts of volubility and 
 nimbleness in prayer, that the most wicked men are capable of 
 this perfection; none more than Oliver Cromwell, especially 
 when he was about some nefarious wickedness : he continued 
 most fluently in this exercise all the time that his cut-throats were 
 murdering his Royal Master; and his gift of prayer was greatly 
 admired. Major Weir of Edinburgh was another great -instance, 
 who was strangely adored for his gifts, especially prayer, by the 
 Presbyterians in Scotland, while at the same time he was wal- 
 lowing in the most unnatural and monstrous sins. See his stu~ 
 pendous story in Ravillac Redivivus. 
 
 There are many examples of this nature, which shew that this 
 gift is attainable by art. Dr. Wilkins (the father of the Latitu- 
 dinarians) has given us the receipt in his Gift of Prayer. 
 
 Yet none of the performances of these gifted men are any ways 
 comparable (as to the wonderful readiness in which they boast) to 
 the extempore verses of Westminster School, which Isaac Vossius 
 could not believe to be extempore till he gave the boys a theme,
 
 68 A Discourse on the Qualifications 
 
 which was Senes his pueri, and lie had no sooner spoke the words, 
 but he was immediately pelted with ingenious epigrams from four 
 or five boys. 
 
 So that this volubility in prayer, which is the gift our Dissenters 
 do most glpry in, may be deduced from an original far short of 
 divine inspiration. 
 
 But suppose that they had really those wonderful gifts which 
 they pretend to, yet were this no ground at all to countenance or 
 warrant their making a schism on that account. 
 
 This case has been ruled in a "famous and most remarkable in- 
 stance of .ir, which God was pleased to permit (for the future in- 
 struction of his church) at the first setting out of the Gospel in 
 the very days of the Apostles. 
 
 Then it was that Christ, having " ascended upon high," gave 
 many and miraculous gifts unto men, which was necessary to- 
 wards the first propagation of his gospel, in opposition to all the 
 established religions and governments then in the world, and under 
 their persecution. 
 
 But these gifts of miracles did not always secure the possessors 
 from vanity, and an high opinion of theinselves, to the dispa- 
 iHgement of others, and even to break the order and peace of the 
 church, by advancing themselves above their superiors, or thinking 
 none superior to themselves. 
 
 The grea,t Apostle of the Gentiles was not freed from the temp- 
 tation of this, whom the " messenger of Satan was sent to buffet, 
 " lest he should be exalted above measure, through the abundance 
 *' of the revelations which were given to him," 2 Cor. xii. 7. ' 
 Nay more, our blessed Saviour tells of those who had miraculo u s 
 gifts bestowed upon them, and yet should be finally rejected, 
 Matt. vii. GO, 23. Therefore he instructs his disciples not to 
 rejoice in those miraculous gilts which he bestowed upon them, 
 but rather " that their names were written in heaven," Luke x. 
 20. which supposes, that they might have such gifts, and yet 
 their names be written in heaven. 
 
 And when he taught them how to pray, he added no petition 
 for such gifts, but only for the remission of their sins, and the 
 sanctifying graces of the Holy Spirit, which are, as most profit- 
 able to us, so most precious in the sight of God. 
 
 Now some who had these miraculous gifts made ill use of them, 
 and occasioned a great schism (the first in the Christian Church) at 
 Corinth; they were exalted above measure in their own gifts,
 
 requisite to administer the Sacraments. 5 
 
 and therefore refused to submit themselves to those who were 
 their superiors in the church (who perhaps had not such gifts as 
 they had) but sot up for themselves, and drew parties after them, 
 who were charmed with their extraordinary gifts, thinking that 
 the participation of the saving graces of the Holy Spirit must 
 there chiefly be communicated, where God had bestowed such 
 wonderful gifts ; and they laid more stress upon the personal qua- 
 lifications of these ministers of God, than upon the observance of 
 that order and constitution which he had commanded; which was 
 in effect preferring men to God, and trusting to the instruments 
 rather than to the Author of their religion; as if through the 
 power and holiness of the administrators of God's institutions, and 
 not from him alone, the graces which were promised to the due 
 observance of them were conveyed. Acts iii. 12. 
 
 And this, as it turned men from God to trust in man, so, as a 
 necessary consequence of it, it begot great emulations among the 
 people for one teacher against another, even (sometimes) when it 
 was not the fault of the teachers : for people being once let loose 
 from government and order to follow the imaginations of their 
 own brain, will run farther than their first seducers did intend, 
 and will care for themselves. 
 
 Thus, in the schiszn of the church of Corinth, one was for 
 Paul, another for Apollos, another for Cephas, &c. much against 
 the minds of these good Apostles ; but having been once unsettled 
 by the piide and ambition of seducers, they " heaped to them- 
 " selves teachers, having itching ears," and made divisions 
 among themselves pretendingly in behalf of Christ and his 
 Apostles, but in effect tending to divide Christ and his Apostles, as 
 also schisms do. 
 
 Against these St. Paul disputes with wonderful force of reason 
 and eloquence, particularly in the xiith chapter of his first epistle 
 to these same Corinthians, wherein, from the parallel of the unity 
 of members in the same body, he admirably illustrates, that the 
 many different and miraculous gifts which were then dispensed all 
 from the same Spirit, couid be no more an argument for any to 
 advance himself beyond his own station in the church, than for 
 one member of the body, though an eye or an hand, the most 
 useful or beautiful, to glory itself against the inferior members, 
 (who are all actuated by the same soul) or not to be content with 
 itt office and station in the body, and due subordination to the 
 head. Thence the Apostle goes on, and makes the application
 
 70 A Discourse on the Qualifications 
 
 in the xiiith chapter, that the most exalted, spiritual, or even 
 miraculous gifts, could not only not excuse any schism to be made 
 in the body, that is, the church ; but that if any who had such 
 gifts did not employ them for the preservation of the unity of the 
 church, which is very properly expressed by charity, i. e. love for 
 the whole body, such gifts would profit him nothing, lose all 
 their virtue and efficacy as to the possessor, and be rather an ag- 
 gravation against him, than any excuse for him, to withdraw his 
 obedience from his lawful superiors, and usurp the office of the 
 head, and so make a schism in the body upon the account of his 
 gifts ; which though they were so great as to speak with the 
 tongues of men and angels, to understand all mysteries and all 
 knowledge, to have all faith, even to remove mountains, and 
 such a zeal as to give all his goods to the poor, and his very body 
 to be burned ; yet, if it be done in schism, out of that love and 
 charity which is due to the body, and to its unity, all is nothing, 
 will profit him nothing at all. 
 
 And no wonder; when all that heavenly glory in which Lucifer 
 was created could avail him nothing, when he kept not his first 
 principality, but aspired higher, and made a schism in the hierarchy 
 of heaven, Jude 6. 
 
 How then shall they who have (as St. Jude expresses it) " left 
 ' their own habitation," or station in the church, and advanced 
 themselves "above their Bishops, their lawful superiors, the heads 
 and principles of unity, next and immediately under Christ in 
 their respective churches, upon pretence of their own personal 
 gifts and qualifications, and thereby make a schism in the terrestrial 
 hierarchy of the church, which is (he body of Christ, the " full- 
 * ness of him who filleth all in all," Eph. i. 23. how shall they 
 be excused for this, whose pretended gifts are in nothing extra- 
 ordinary, except in a furieus zeal without knowledge, and a volu- 
 bility of tongue, which proceeds from a habit of speaking with- 
 out thinking, and an assurance that is never out of countenance 
 for ten thousand blunders, which would dash and confound any man 
 of sense or modesty, or that considered the presence of God in 
 which he spoke? 
 
 If those truly miraculous gifts, -which were made a pretence 
 for the schism at Corinth, were not sufficient to justify that schism; 
 how ridiculous and much more wicked is the pretence of our mo- 
 dern gifted men, who have pleaded their delicate gifts as a suffi-
 
 requisite to administer the Sacraments. 71 
 
 cient ground for all that schism and rebellion which they have raised 
 up amongst us ? 
 
 If the real gifts and inspirations of the Holy Spirit were stinted 
 and limited by the governors of the church to avoid schism and 
 confusion in the church, 1 Cor. xiv. from v. 26. If the profits 
 were confined as to their number to two, or at the most three at 
 a time, some ordered to hold their peace, to give place to others ; 
 others to keep silence for want of an interpreter ; and the women, 
 (though gifted and inspired, as many of them were) totally silenced 
 in the church or public assemblies, 1 Tim. xi. 12. what Spirit 
 has possessed our modern pretenders to gifts, that will not be sub- 
 ject to the prophets, nor to the church, nor to any institutions 
 whether divine or human ? But if their superiors pretend to direct 
 them in any thing, they cry out, What ! will you stint ihe Spirit ! 
 and think this a sufficient cause to break quite loose from their au- 
 thority, and set up an open schism against them upon pretence of 
 their wonderful gifts forsooth ! 
 
 That first schism in the church of these Corinthians was vigor- 
 ously opposed by the Apostles and Bishops of the church at that 
 time : they like good watchmen would not give way to it, knowing 
 the fatal consequences of it. 
 
 This produced two epistles from St. Paul to the Corinthians, 
 and two to them from St. Clement then Bishop of Rome, which 
 are preserved and handed down to us. It was this same occasion 
 of schism which so early began to corrupt the church, that led the 
 holy Ignatius (who flourished in that same age) to press so earnestly 
 in all his epistles to the several churches to whom he wrote, the 
 indispensable obligation of a strict obedience to their respective 
 Bishops; that the laity should submit themselves to the Presbyters 
 and Deacons, as to the apostolical college under Christ ; and that 
 the Presbyters and Deacons, as well as the laity, should obey their 
 Bishop as Christ himself, whose person he did represent: that 
 therefore whoever kept not outward communion with his Bishop 
 did forfeit his inward communion with Christ ; that no sacraments 
 were valid or acceptable to God which were not celebrated in 
 communion with the Bishop ; that nothing in the church should 
 be done, nor any marriage contracted without the Bishop's con- 
 sent, &c. as you will see hereafter. 
 
 These clear testimonies forced the Presbyterians (because they 
 were not in a temper to be convinced) to deny these epistles of 
 Saint Ignatius to be genuine j but they have been so fully vindi-
 
 72 A Discourse on the Qualifications 
 
 cated, particularly by the most learned Bishop of Chester, Dr. 
 Pearson, as to silence that cavil, and leave no pretence remaining 
 against episcopacy in that primitive and apostolical age. 
 
 Objection from the times of Popery in this kingdom, as if that did 
 unchurch) and consequently break the succession of our Bishops. 
 
 I must now account for an objection, which with some seems 
 a mighty one, even enough to overthrow all that I have said con- 
 cerning the succession of our Bishops, and that is the long mid- 
 night of popery which has in old time darkened these nations. 
 
 Well; the succession of which I have been speaking was no 
 part of that darkness, and we have, by God's blessing, recovered 
 ourselves in a great measure from that darkness : but that darkness 
 was such as, with some, to destroy the epispocal succession ; be- 
 cause, as they say, such great errors, especially that of idolatry, 
 does quite unchurch a people, and consequently must break their 
 succession. 
 
 1. This, by the way, is a popish argument, though they that 
 now make it are not aware of it : for the church of Rome argues 
 thus, that idolatry does unchurch, and therefore if she was idola- 
 trous for so long a time as we charge upon her, it will follow that, 
 'or so many ages, there was no visible church, at least in these 
 western parts of the world : and Arianism (which is idolatry) 
 having broke in several -times upon the church, if idolatry did 
 quite unchurch and break the succession, there would not be a 
 Christian church hardly left in the world : the consequence of 
 which would be as fatal to the church of Rome as to us ; there- 
 fore let her look to that position, which she has advanced against 
 us, that idolatry does unchurch. 
 
 2. But that it does not unchurch, I have this to offer against 
 those Papists, Quakers, and others who make the objection. 
 
 I. If it does quite unchurch, then could no Christian be an 
 idolater, because by that he would, ipso facto, cease to be a mem- 
 ber of the Christian Church : but the Scripture does suppose that a 
 Christian may be an idolater, therefore idolatry does not unchurch. 
 The minor is proved, 1 Cor. v. 1 1 , "If any man that is called 
 *' a brother (that is, a Christian) be a fornicator, or covetous, or 
 " an idolater." Nay, Eph. v. 5, a covetous man is called " an 
 " idolater;" and Col. iii. 5. " Covetousness is idolatry:" so 
 that, by this argument, covetousness does unchurch. If it be said 
 that covetOLLsnebS" is called idolatry only by allusion, but that it is
 
 requisite to administer the Sacraments. 73 
 
 not formal idolatry, I know no ground for that distinction ; the 
 scripture calls it idolatry,, and makes no distinction. 
 
 But in the first text quoted, 1 Cor. v. 11. both covetousness 
 and idolatry are named ; so that you have both material and formal, 
 or what other soft of idolatry you please to fancy. 
 
 I grant that in one sense idolatry does unchurch, that is, while 
 we continue in it, it renders us obnoxious to the wrath of God, 
 and forfeits our title to the promises which are made to the church 
 in the Gospel: but so does fornication, covetousness, and every 
 other sin, till \ve repent and return from it. 'But none of these 
 sins do so unchurch us as to exclude our returning to the fold by 
 sincere repentance, or to need a second baptism or admission into 
 the church ; neither does idolatry. Do I then put idolatry upon 
 the level with other common sins ? No, far from it. Every scab 
 is not a leprosy, yet a leper is a man, and may recover his health. 
 Idolatry is a fearful leprosy, but it does not therefore quite un- 
 church, nor throw us out of the covenant; for, if it did, then 
 would not repentance heal it, because repentance is a great part 
 of the covenant ; and therefore, since none can deny repentance 
 to an idolater, it follows that he is not yet quite out of the cove- 
 nant. Some of the ancients have denied repentance to apostacy, 
 yet granted it to idolatry ; which shews that they did not look upon 
 idolatry to be an absolute apostacy ; for every sin is an aposracy in 
 a limited sense. 
 
 2. Let us in this disquisition follow tlic example before-men- 
 tioned of the Apostles and most primitive fathers, to measure the 
 Christian church with its exact type, the church under the law ; 
 which are not two churches, but two states of the same church ; 
 for it is the same Christian church from the first promise of 
 Christ, Gen. iii. 15, to the end of the world : and therefore it is 
 said, Heb. iv. 2, that (he Gospel was preached unto them, as 
 well as unto us. And these two states of the church before and 
 after Christ do answer like a pair of indentures to one another, 
 the one being to an iota fulfilled in the other, Matt. v. 1%. 
 
 Now we find frequent lapses to idolatry in the church of the 
 Jews ; yet did not this unchurch them, no, nor deprive them of a 
 competent measure of God's holy spirit, as it is written, Neh. ix. 
 18,20. ' ** Yea, when they had made them a molten calf, and 
 " said, This is thy God yet thou, in thy manifold mercies, 
 " forsookest them not Thou gavest thy good spirit to instruct 
 " them, &c."
 
 74 A Discourse en the Qualifications 
 
 And let it be here observed, that though God sent many pro- 
 phets to reprove the great wickedness and idolatry, as well of their 
 priests as people, yet none of these holy prophets did separate 
 communion from the wicked priests ; they would not join in their 
 idolatrous worship, but in all other parts they joined with them, 
 and set up no opposite priesthood to them. So little did the pro- 
 phets think that their idolatry had either unchurched them, or 
 broke the succession of the priests; or that it was lawful for 
 any, how holy soever, to usurp upon their priesthood, and supply 
 the deficiencies of it to the people. And apply to this, what I 
 have before shewn in the words of St. Clement, whose name is 
 written in the book of life, that the evangelical priesthood is as 
 surely fixed in the Bishops of the church, and its succession conti- 
 nued in those ordained by them, as the Levitical priesthood was 
 confirmed by the budding of Aaron's rod, and to be continued in 
 that tribe. 
 
 3. And here let our Korahites, of several sizes, take a view of 
 the heinousness of their schism ; and let them not think their 
 crime to be nothing, because they have been taught with their 
 nurses milk to have the utmost abhorrence to the very name of a 
 Bishop, though they, could not tell why : let them rather con- 
 sider seriously the misfortune of their education, which should 
 make them strangers to all the rest of the Christian world but 
 themselves in a corner, and to all the former ages of Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 They have been told that episcopacy is popery, because the 
 Papists have Bishops. 
 
 So have they Presbyters too, that is, Parish priests : they have 
 the Creed likewise, and the Holy Scriptures ; and all these must 
 be Popish, if this be a good argument. 
 
 But are they willing to be undeceived ? Then they must know 
 that episcopacy has none so great an enemy as the papacy, which 
 would engross the whole episcopal power into the single see of 
 Rome, by making all other Bishops absolutely depending upon 
 that, which only they call the Apostolical chair. And no longer 
 since than the council of Trent, the Pope endeavoured, with all 
 his interest, to have episcopacy, except only that of the Bishops 
 of Rome, to be declared not to be Jure Divino ; by which no 
 other Bishops could claim any other power but what they had 
 . from him. But that council was not <juite so degenerated as to 
 suffer this to pass,
 
 requisite to administer the Sacraments. 15 
 
 And the Jesuits and others who disputed there on the Pope's 
 part, used those same arguments against the divine right of epis- 
 copacy, which from them and the Popish canonists and schoolmen, 
 have been licked up by the Presbyterians, and others of our dis- 
 senters : they are the same arguments which are used by Pope and 
 Presbyter against episcopacy. 
 
 When the Pope could not carry his cause against episcopacy in 
 the council of Trent, he took another method ; and that was, to set 
 up a vast number of Presbyterian priests, that is, the regulars, whom 
 he exempted from the jurisdiction of their respective Bishops, and 
 framed them into a method and discipline of their own, accounta- 
 ble only to superiors of his, and their own contriving, which is ex- 
 actly the Ptesbyterian model. 
 
 These usurpations upon the episcopal authority, made the 
 famous Archbishop of Spalato quit his great preferments in the 
 church of Rome, and travel into England in the reign of King 
 James 1. to seek for a more primitive and independent episcopacy. 
 Himself, in his Concilium Profectionis, gives these same reasons 
 for it ; and that this shameful depression and prostitution of episco- 
 pacy in the church of Rome was the cause of his leaving her. 
 
 He observed truly, that the farther we search upward in anti- 
 quity, there is still more to be found of the episcopal, and less of the 
 papal eminence. 
 
 St. Ignatius is full in every line almost of the high authority of 
 the Bishop, next and immediately under Christ, as all the other 
 writers in those primitive times ; but there is a profound silence 
 in them all of that supremacy in the Bishop of Rome, which 
 is now claimed overall the other Bishops of the Catholic church ; 
 which could not be, if it had been then known in the world. 
 This had been a short and effectual method, whereby St. Paul 
 and St. Clement might have quieted the great schism of the Co- 
 rinthians, against which they both wrote in their epistles to them, 
 to bid them refer their differences to the infallible judge of con- 
 troversy, the supreme pastor at Rome, But not a word like this ; 
 especially considering that St. Peter was one for whom some of 
 these Corinthians strove (1 Cor. i. 12) against those who preferred 
 others before him. 
 
 The usurped supremacy of the later Bishops of Rome over their 
 fellow Bishops, has been as fatal to episcopacy, as the rebellion of 
 our yet later Presbyters againsc their respective Bishops.
 
 76 A Discourse on the Qualifications 
 
 And indeed, whoever would write the true history of Presby- 
 terianism, must begin at Rome, and not at Geneva. 
 
 So very groundless as well as malicious, is that popular clamour 
 of episcopacy having any relation to popery. Thoy are so utterly 
 irreconcil cable, that it is impossible they can stand together ; for 
 that moment that episcopacy was restored to its primitive inde- 
 pendency, the papacy, that is, that supremacy which does now dis- 
 tinguish it, must ipso facto cease. But enough of this, for I must 
 not digress into various subjects. 
 
 I have shewn, in answer to the objection of the ages of popery 
 in this kingdom, that all those errors, even idolatry itself, does 
 not unchurch, nor break succession. And secondly, I have ex- 
 emplified this from the parallel of the Jewish church under the 
 law. Then applying this to our case, I have vindicated episco- 
 pacy from the imputation of popery. I will now go on to far- 
 ther reasons, why the succession of our present Bishops is not 
 hurt by that deluge of popery, which once covered the face of 
 this land. 
 
 4. The end of government, as well in the church as state, is 
 to preserve peace, unity and order ; and this cannot be done, if 
 the mal-administrarion of the officers in the government did va- 
 cate their commission, without its being recalled by those who 
 gave such commission to them. For then, first, every man must 
 be judge when such a commission is vacated ; and then no man is 
 bound to obey longer than he pleases. Secondly, one may say 
 it is vacated, another not, whence perpetual contention must 
 arise. 
 
 A man may forfeit his commission, that is, do those things 
 which give just cause to his superiors to take it from him ; but 
 it is not actually vacated till it be actually recalled by those who 
 have lawful power to take it from him : otherwise there could be 
 no peace nor certainty in the world, either in public or in private 
 affairs : no family could subsist ; no man enjoy an estate ; no so- 
 ciety whatever could keep together. And the church being an 
 outward society (as shewn in the Discourse of Water Baptism, 
 sect, iii.) must consequently subsist by those laws which are indis- 
 pensable to every society. And though idolatry does justly forfeit 
 the commission of any church in this sense, that God's promises to 
 her being conditional, he may justly take her commission from 
 her, and remove her candlestick : I say, though her commission 
 be thus forfeitable, yet it still continues, and is not actually va>~
 
 requisite te administer the Sacraments. 77 
 
 cated, till God shall please actually to recal it, or take it away : for 
 no commission is void till it be so declared. Thus, though the Jews 
 did often fall into idolatry, yet (as before has been said) God did 
 bear long with them, and did not unchurch them, though they had 
 justly forfeited. And these wicked husbandmen, who slew those 
 whom the Lord sent for the fruits of his vineyard, yet continued 
 still to be the husbandmen of the vineyard, till their Lord did dis- 
 possess them, and gave their vineyard unto others. 
 
 And natural reason does enforce this: if a steward abuse his trust, 
 and of>presses the tenants, yet are they still obliged to pay their rent 
 to him, and his discharges are sufficient to them against their land, 
 lord, till he shall supersede such a steward. 
 
 If a captain wrong and cheat his soldiers, yet are they obliged to 
 remain under his command, till the King, who gave him his com- 
 mission, or those to whom he has committed such an authority, 
 shall cashier him. 
 
 And thus it is in the sacerdotal commission. Abuses in it do not 
 take it away, till God, or those to whom he has committed such an 
 authority, shall suspend, deprive, or degrade (as the fact requires) 
 such a Bishop or a Priest. 
 
 And there is this higher consideration in the sacerdotal commis- 
 sion, than in those of civil societies, viz. that it is immediately 
 from God ; as none therefore can take this honour to himself but he 
 that is called of God, as was Aaron, so can none take it away, but 
 he that is as expressly and outwardly called thereunto, as Aaron 
 was to be a priest. For this would be to usurp upon God's imme- 
 diate prerogative, which is to constitute his own priests. Upon 
 this foundation I argue : .- 
 
 5. As the necessity of government, and the general commands 
 in scripture of obedience to government, do require our submis- 
 sion to the government in being, where there is no competition 
 concerning the titles, or any that claims a better right than the ' 
 possessor : so where a church once established by God, though 
 suffering many interruptions, does continue, her governors ought 
 to be acknowledged, where there is no better claim set up against 
 them. 
 
 This was the reason why our Saviour and his Apostles did, 
 without scruple, acknowledge the High-Priest an-1 Sanhedrin of 
 the Jews in their time, though from the days of the Maccabees 
 there had been great interruptions and breaches in the due succes- 
 sion of their priests; and before Christ came, and all his :imr,
 
 78 A Discourse on the Qualifications 
 
 the Romans, as conquerors, disposed of the priesthood as they 
 pleased, and made it annual and arbitrary, which God had appointed 
 hereditary and unmoveahle. 
 
 But there was then no competition : the Jews did submit to it , 
 because they were under the subjection of the Romans, and could 
 have no other. No High-Priest claimed against him in possession, 
 but all submitted to him. 
 
 And our Saviour did confirm his authority, and of the Sanhedrin, 
 or inferior Priests with him, (Matth. xxiii. 2.) saying, "The 
 " Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses's seat. All therefore whatso- 
 " ever they bid you observe, that observe and do." And St. Paul 
 owned the authority of the High-Priest, Acts xxiii. 5. 
 
 Many objections might hrve been raised against the deduction of 
 their succession from Moses : but there being none who claimed 
 any better right than they had, therefore their right was uncontro- 
 verted, and by our Saviour's authority was confirmed. 
 
 Now suppose some interruptions had been in the succession, or 
 corruptions in the doctrine and worship of our English Bishops in 
 former ages, yet (as in the case of the Scribes and Pharisees) that 
 could have no effect to invalidate their commission and authority 
 at the present. 
 
 The assurance and consent in the episcopal communion beyond 
 that of any other. 
 
 1. The whole Christian world, as it always has been, so at this 
 present is-episcopal, except a few dissenters, who in less than two 
 hundred years last past have arisen like a wart upon the face of the 
 western church. : for little more proportion to our Dissenters here, 
 the Hugonots in France, the Presbyterians in Holland, Geneva, and 
 thereabouts, bear to the whole body of the Latin church, which is 
 all episcopal. But if you compare them with the Catholic church 
 all over the world, which is all episcopal, they will not appear so big 
 as a mole. 
 
 2. If our Dissenters think it much that the church of Rome 
 should be reckoned in the list against them, \ve will be content to 
 leave them out: nay more; if we should give them all those 
 churches which own the supremacy of Rome to be joined with 
 them, (as they are the nearest to them) it will be so far from casting 
 the balance on their side, that the other episcopal churches will by 
 far out-number them both.
 
 requisite to administer the Sacraments. 79 
 
 Let us then, to these Dissenters against episcopacy, add the 
 churches of Italy and Spain entire, with the popish pait of Ger- 
 many, France, Poland, and Hungary (I think they have no more 
 to reckon upon :) against these we produce the vast empire of 
 Russia (which is greater in extent than all these popish countries 
 before named) England, Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, and all 
 the Lutheran churches in Germany, which will out-number both 
 the Papists and Presbyterians before-mentioned. And this com- 
 parison is only made to the Latin church : but then we have all 
 the rest of the Christian world wholly on the episcopal side, against 
 both the supremacy of Rome and parity of the Presbyterians : the 
 whole Greek church, the Arminians, Georgians, Mingrelians, 
 Jacobites, the Christians of St. Thomas and St. John in the East. 
 Indies, and other oriental churches. Then in Africa, the Cophties 
 in Egypt, and great empire of the Abyssinians in ^Ethiopia. These 
 all are episcopal, and never owned the supremacy of Rome : and 
 over- reckon, out of sight, all that disown the episcopacy, and all 
 that own the supremacy of Rome with them. 
 
 3. Let me add, that among our Dissenters every class of them 
 does condemn all the rest; the Presbyterian damns the Quaker ; 
 the Quaker damns him ; Independent, Baptist, &c. all damn one 
 another, and each denies the others ordination or call. 
 
 So that the ordination of every one of them is disowned by all 
 the rest, and all of them together by the whole Christian world. 
 And if their ordinations are not valid, then they have no more 
 authority to administer the sacrament than any other laymen ; and 
 consequently there can be no security in receiving baptism from any 
 of them. 
 
 4. What allowances God will make to those who think their 
 ordination to be good enough, and that they- are true ministers of 
 the Gospel, and, as such, do receive the sacraments from them, I , 
 will not determine. 
 
 But they have no reason to expect the like allowances who are 
 warned cf it beforehand, and will notwithstanding venture upon 
 it, before these Dissenters have fully and clearly acquitted them- 
 selves of so great and universal a charge laid against them ; such 
 an one as must make the whole Christian world wrong, if they be 
 in the right : not only the present Christian churches, but all the 
 ages of Christianity since Christ: of which the Dissenters are de- 
 sired to produce any one, in any part of the world, that were not 
 episcopal any one constituted church upon the face of the earth, 
 4
 
 80 A Discourse on the Qualifications 
 
 that was not governed by Bishops distinct from, and superior to 
 Presbyters, before the Vaudois in Piedmonr, the Hugonots in 
 France, the Calvinists in Geneva, and the Presbyterians thence 
 transplanted in this last age into Holland, Scotland, and Eng- 
 land. 
 
 5. If it should be retorted, that neither is the church of England 
 without opposers ; for that the church of Rome opposes her, as do 
 likewise our Dissenters. 
 
 Ans. None of them do oppose her in the point we are now 
 upon, that is, the validity of episcopal ordination, which the church 
 of Rome does own ; and the Presbyterians dare not deny it, because 
 they would (thereby) overthrow all their own ordinations , for the 
 Presbyters who reformed (as they call it) from Bishops, received 
 their ordinations from Bishops. 
 
 And therefore, though the episcopal principles do invalidate the 
 ordination by Presbyters, yet ihe Presbyterian principles do not in- 
 validate the ordination by Bishop? ; so that the validity of episcopal 
 ordination stands safe on all sides, even by the confession of those 
 who are enemies to the episcopal order ; and in this the Bishops 
 have no opposers. 
 
 Whereas, on the other hand, the validity of the Presbyterian or-, 
 dinations is owned by none but themselves, and they have all the 
 rest of the world as opposite to them. 
 
 Therefore, to state the case the most impartially, to receive 
 baptism from these Dissenters, is at least a hazard of many thou- 
 sands to one ; as many as all the rest of Christianity are more than 
 they: but to rjeceive it from the Bishops, or episcopal Clergy, has 
 no hazard at all as to its validity, even as owned by the Presbyterians 
 themselves. 
 
 The 'personal sanctity of the administrator of the sacraments, 
 
 though highly requisite on his part, yet not of necessity as t& 
 
 the receivers, to conrey to them the, benefits of the sacraments* 
 
 1. The only objection of those Quakers, who are otherwise 
 
 convinced of the obligation of the sacraments, is the necessity 
 
 they think there is of great personal holiness in the administm- 
 
 to'rs; without which they cannot see how the spiritual effects of 
 
 the sacraments can be conveyed. Bnt I would beseech them to 
 
 consider, how by this, instead of referring the glory to God, and 
 
 lessening the performance of man, which I charitably presume 
 
 (and I am confident as to some of whom I speak) that it is their 
 
 1
 
 requisite to administer the Sacraments. 3 1 
 
 true and sincere intention ; but instead of that, I do in great good- 
 will invite them to reflect whether their well-intentioned zeal has 
 not turned the point of this question even to over-magnify man^ 
 and transfer the glory of God unto his weak instrument, as if any 
 (the least part) of the divine virtue which God has annexed to his 
 sacraments did proceed from his minister. If this be not the mean- 
 ing, (as sure it is not) why so much stress laid upon the sanctity of 
 the ministers ? as if through " their power or holiness" the Holy 
 Ghost was given, Acts iii. 1 2. 
 
 2. To obviate this pretence, our Saviour Christ "chose a 
 *' devil" (John vi. 70.) to be one of his Apostles ; and he was 
 sent to baptize and work miracles as well as the rest : and those 
 whom Judas did baptize were no doubt as well baptized, and did 
 partake of the communication of the Spirit (according to their 
 preparation for it) as much as any who were baptized by the other 
 Apostles ; unless you will say that Christ sent him to baptize 
 who had no authority to baptize, and that none should receive 
 benefit by his baptism; which would be to cheat and delude 
 the people ; and is a great blasphemy against Christ ; and a distrust 
 of his power ; as if it were limited by the poor instrument he pleases 
 to make use of; whereas, 
 
 3. His greatness is often most magnified in the meanness of 
 the instruments by which he works. Thus he destroyed Egypt 
 by frogs and lice, and the Philistines by emerods and mice, and 
 sent his armies of flies and hornets to dispossess the Canaanites. 
 Psal. viii. 2. " Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast 
 " thou ordained .strength, because of 'thine enemies ; that thou 
 " mightest still the enemy, and the avenger ;" i. e. that the ene- 
 mies of God might be confounded, when they saw his great 
 power exerted by such weak and contemptible instruments. The 
 walls of Jericho (the type of spiritual wickedness) were thrown 
 down by the blast of seven rams horns, when blown by the 
 priests whom he had commanded : and he rebuked the iniquity of 
 Balaam by the mouth of an ass, to shew that no instruments are 
 ineffectual in his hands ; and made use of the mouth of Balaam to 
 prophesy of Christ. For this cause, says S. Barnabas, in his 
 Catholic epistle, c. 5. did Christ choose men who were " ex- 
 " ceeding great sinners" to be his Apostles, to shew the greatness 
 of his power and grace, and put the inestimable treasure of his gos- 
 pel into earthen vessels, that the praise might be to God, and not t 
 men. 
 
 VOL. i. G
 
 82 A Discourse on the Qualifications 
 
 4. St. Paul rejoiced in Christ being preached, Phil. i. 16. 
 though not sincerely hy those who did it, because God can bring 
 good out of evil, and by wicked instruments propagate his Gos- 
 pel, turning their malice (even of the devil himself) to the fur- 
 therance of the fairh : otherwise the Apostle could have no cause 
 to rejoice in the preaching of wicked men, if none could receive 
 benefit by it. And he plainly supposes, 1 Cor. ix. 27. that a 
 man may save others by his preaching, and yet himself be a cast- 
 away. 
 
 5. And so far as we can know or judge any thing, we see daily 
 experience of this, that God has touched mens hearts upon hearing 
 the truth spoken, though by men who were great hypocrites, and 
 very wicked. And what reason can be given to the contrary ? 
 Truth is truth, whoever speaks it; and if my heart be prepared, 
 the good seed receives no evil tincture of the hand that sowed it ; 
 and who can limit God, that his grace may not go along with me 
 in this ? 
 
 I have heard some of the now separate Quakers confess, that 
 they have formerly felt very sensible operations of the Spirit upon 
 the preaching of some of those whom they have since detected of 
 gross errors and hypocrisies, and they now think it strange: but 
 this were enough to convince them that " the wind bloweth where 
 " it listeth ;" otherwise they must condemn themselves, and con- 
 fess, that in all that time they had no true participation of the 
 Spirit of God, but tliar what they mistook for it was a mere delu- 
 sion; or else confess that by the truths which were spoken by 
 these Ministers of Satan (for they speak some truths) God might 
 work a good effect upon the hearts of some well-disposed, though 
 then ignorant, and much deluded people. If not so, we must 
 judge very severely of all those who live in idolatious and schis- 
 raatical countries ; there were great prophets and good men among 
 the Ten Tribes ; and if the words, nay miracles, of Christ, did 
 render the hearts of many yet more obdurate, even to sin against 
 the Holy Ghost, Matt. xii. from v. 22, to v. 32, which was the 
 reason why he sometimes refused to work miracles among them, 
 because thereby they grew worse and worse; and if the preaching 
 of the Gospel by the mouths of the Apostles became the favour of 
 death to wicked and unprepared hearts, why may not the words 
 of truth have a good effect upon honest and good minds, though 
 spoken from the mouth of an hypocrite, or of persons who in other 
 things are greatly deluded?
 
 requisite to administer the Sacraments. 83 
 
 I have before mentioned the wizard Major Weir, who be- 
 witched the Presbyterians in Scotland since the restoration 1660, 
 as much as Simon Magus did the Samaritans ; and yet I suppose 
 the more moderate of the Quakers will not rashly give all over to 
 destruction who blindly followed him, and admired his gifts ; or 
 will say but that some words of truth he might drop, might have 
 a real good effect upon some well-meaning, though grossly de- 
 luded people who followed him. Two of Winders witches (see 
 the Snake in the Grass, p. 139) were preachers among the Quakers 
 for twenty years together, and thought to be as powerful and af- 
 fecting as any others. 
 
 6. But the argument will hold stronger against them as to the 
 sacraments, than in the office of preaching ; because in preaching 
 much depends upon the qualifications of the person, as to invention, 
 memory, judgment, &c. But in the administration of an outward 
 sacrament nothing is required as of necessity, but the lawfulness of 
 the commissien by which such a person does administer ; and a 
 small measure of natural or acquired parts is sufficient to the admi- 
 nistration. 
 
 Therefore let us lay no stress upon the insrument, (more than 
 was upon the waters of Jordan to heal Naaman) but trust wholly 
 upon the commissien which conveys the virtue from God, and not 
 from his ministers; that all the glory may be to God, and not to 
 man. 
 
 'Tis true, the personal qualifications of the instrument are 
 lovely and desirable, but they become a snare where we expect 
 any part of the success from them. This was the ground of 
 the Corinthian schism, (I Cor. i. 11.) and, though unseen, of ours 
 at this day. 
 
 7. And the consequences of it are of manifold and fatal destruc- 
 tion. 
 
 (1.) This unsettles all the assurance we can have in God's pro- 
 mise to assist his own institution; for if the virtue, or any part of it, 
 lies in the holiness of the instrument, we can never be sure of the 
 effect, as to us ; because we have no certain knowledge of the holi- 
 ness of another : hypocrites deceive even good men. 
 
 (2.) This would quite disappoint the promise Christ had made, 
 Matt.xxviii. 20. to be with his ministers in the execution of his 
 commission ; to baptize, &c. always even uato the end of the 
 world. For if the holiness of the instrument be a necessary quali. 
 fication, this may fail, nay always must fai! 9 so far as we can b^ 
 
 G 2
 
 84- A Discourse on the Qualifications 
 
 sure of it ; and consequently Christ has commanded baptism and 
 his supper to continue to the end of the world, till his coming 
 again, and yet has not afforded means whereby they may be con- 
 tinued ; which he has not done, if the holiness of the admi- 
 nistrator be a necessary qualification ; and that he has not left us a 
 certain rule whereby to judge of the holiness of another; and thus 
 have you rendered the command of Christ of none effect through 
 your tradition. 
 
 (3.) This is contrary to all God's former institutions: the 
 wickedness of the Priests under the law did not excuse any of the 
 people from bringing of their sacrifices to the Priests; the Priests 
 weje to answer for their own sin, but the people were not an- 
 swerable for it, or their offerings the less accepted. 
 
 But we were in a much worse condition under the gospel admi- 
 nistration, if the effect of Christ's institutions did depend either 
 wholly, or in part, upon the personal holiness of his priests. 
 This would put us much more in their power than, it is the intention 
 of these who make this objection to allow to them ; this magnifies 
 them more than is due to them ; therefore I will apply the Apostle's 
 words to this case, 1 Cor. iii. 21. " Let no man glory in men ; 
 *' who is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers? So then, nei- 
 ** ther is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth ; but 
 *' God who giveth the increase." 
 
 (4.) This was, with others, the error of the ancient Donatists, 
 those proud and turbulent schismatics, the great disturbers of the 
 peace of the church, upon an opinion of their own .sanctity above 
 that of other men ; for which reason they rejected all baptisms, 
 except what was performed by themselves, and re-baptized those 
 who came over to them from the church ; for they said that the 
 holiness of the administrator was necessary towards conveying the 
 spiritual graces of baptism : thus they argued, Quinon habet quod 
 dct, quoinodo dal '? i. e. " How shall a man give that to another 
 which he has not himself?" But Optatus answers them, that 
 God was the giver, and not man ; Vidctt f)enm esse datorwn. And 
 he argues that it was preferring themselves before God to think 
 that the virtue of baptism did come from them; that they were 
 nothing but ministers or workmen : and that, as when a cloth was 
 dyed, the change of the cloth came from the colours infused, not 
 from the virtue of the dyer y so that in baptism the change of the 
 baptised came from the virtue of the sacraments, not from the 
 administrator; that it was the water of baptism which dM wash,
 
 requisite to administer the Sacraments. 85 
 
 not the person who applied the water ; that the personal sanctity 
 of the administrator signified nothing to the efficacy of the sacra- 
 ment: therefore, says he, Nos operemur ut ille det>qui sc daturum 
 csse promisit, i. e. " Let us work, lhat God, who has promised it, 
 " may bestow the effect ;" and that when we work, Humana. 
 .Hint opera t sed Dei sunt muncra, i. e. " The work is man's, but 
 " the gift is God's." 
 
 And thence he exposes that ridiculous principle of the Dona- 
 tists, which they advanced to gain glory to themselves, that the 
 gift in baptism was of the administrator, and not of the receiver : 
 but he shews that the gift was conferred by God proportion?.bly to 
 the faith of the receiver, and not according to the holiness of the ad- 
 ministrator. 
 
 The discourse is large to which I refer the reader : I have given 
 this taste of it to let these see to whom I now write, that they hav6 
 (though unaware) stumbled upon the very notion of the Donatists, 
 which divided them from the Catholic Church, and which, with 
 them, has been long since exploded by the whole Christian world ; 
 and I hope this may bring them to a more sober mind, to consider 
 from whence ; and with whom they have fallen; and to return again 
 to the peace of the church, and the participation f the blessed sa- 
 craments of Christ, and the inestimable benefits which he has pro- 
 mised to the worthy receivers of them. 
 
 Lastly, Let me observe that this error of the Donatists and Qua- 
 kers borders near upon popery, nay rather seems to exceed it: for 
 the church of modern Rome makes the validity of the sacraments 
 to depend upon the intention of the priest; but his intention is much 
 more in his own power, and there are more evident signs of it than 
 of his holiness. 
 
 8. 1 would not have the Quakers imagine that any thing I have 
 said was meant in excuse for the ill lives of the clergy of the 
 church of England ; as if the Dissenters were unblamable, but 
 our clergy wholly prostitute to all wickedness; and for this cause 
 we plead against the sanctity of the administrator as essential to the 
 sacrament. 
 
 No, that is far from the reason ; I do not love to make compa- 
 risons, or personal reflexions ; if all men be not as they should 
 be, pray God make them so. But I think there is no modest 
 Dissenter will be offended if I say, that there are of our Bishops 
 and Clergy, men, not only of learning and moral honesty, hut of 
 devotion and spiritual illumination, a.n.4 as much of the sobriety
 
 86 A Discourse on the Qualifications 
 
 of religion, and can give as many signs of it, equally at least, (to 
 speak modestly) as any of our Dissenters of what denomination 
 soever. 
 
 9. And I hope what I have said will at least hinder the 
 succession of the Bishops from the Apostles to be any objection 
 against them : and they being possessed moreover of all the other 
 pretences of our Dissenters, the balance must needs lie on their 
 side, and security can only be with them ; because there is 
 doubt in all the other schemes of the Dissenters, if what I have 
 said can amount but to a doubt. If the want of succession and 
 outward commission, upon which Christ and his Apostles, and 
 the whole Christian church in all ages till the last century ; and in 
 all places, even at this day, except some corners in the west ; 
 and the mosaical institution before them, did, by the express com- 
 mand of God, lay so great a stress ; if all this make but a doubt 
 (it is strange that it should, at least that it should not) in the mind 
 of any considering persons ; then can they not wi:h security com- 
 municate with any of our Dissenters, because, if he that eateth 
 and doubteth is damned, Rom. xiv. 13, much more he that shall 
 ido so in religious matters, wherein chiefly this rule must stand, 
 that " whatsoever is not of faith is sin." 
 
 10. But now to argue a little ad hominem : suppose that the 
 succession of our Bishops were lost ; and suppose what the 
 Quakers and some others would have, that the thread being broke, 
 \ve must cast a new knot, and begin again, and make an establish- 
 ment among ourselves the best we can ; well, when this is done, 
 ought not that establishment to be preserved ? Ought every one to 
 break in upon it without just cause ? Should every one take upon 
 him (or her) to preach or baptize contrary to the rules established ? 
 This I think no society of men will allow ; for the members of 
 a society must be subject to the rules of the society, otherwise it 
 is no society : and the Quakers of Gracechurch-street communion 
 have contended as zealously for this compliance as any. 
 
 Now then, suppose that the conscientious Quakers, to whom 
 I speak, should lay no stress at all upon the succession of our 
 Bishops, and consider our constitution no otherwise than of an 
 establishment by agreement amongst ourselves ; yet even so, by 
 their own confession, while they can find no fault with our doc- 
 trine or worship, they ought not to make a schism in this constitu- 
 tion which they found established, and they ought to return to 
 it ; and if a new knot -was cast upon the broken thread of sue-
 
 requisite to administer the Sacraments. 87 
 
 cession at the reformation from popery, that. knot ought not to 
 be unloosed without apparent and absolute necessity, lest if we 
 cast new knors every day, we shall have no thread left unknotted, 
 and expose ourselves to the derision f the common advetsary. 
 
 11. Consider the grievous sin of schism and division, it is no 
 less than the rending of Christ's body ; and therefore great things 
 ought to be borne, rather than run into it ; even all things, ex- 
 cept only that which is apparently sinful, and that by the express 
 words of scripture, and not from our own imaginations, though 
 never so strong. And though there are some imperfections in our 
 reformation as to discipline, and all the high places are not yet 
 taken away, (t'.ie Lord of his mercy quickly remove them) yet I 
 will be bold to say, that in our doctrine, worship, and hierarchy, 
 nothing can be objected that is contrary to the rule of the holy scrip- 
 ture, or any thing enjoined which is there forbid to be done : and 
 nothing less can warrant any schism against our church. 
 
 12. Now to come to a conclusion upon the whole matter. If 
 you cannot get baptism as you would have it, take it as you can 
 get it. If you cannot find men of such personal excellencies as 
 the Apostles, take those who have the same commission which 
 they had, derived down to them by regular ordination ; who re- 
 formed from popery, and have been the established church of this 
 nation ever^ince; and moreover are as unexceptionable in their 
 lives and conversations as any others. These are all the securities 
 you can have (without new miracles) for receiving the sacraments 
 from proper hands. And therefore there is no doubt but God 
 will accept of your obedience in receiving them from such hands, 
 much rather than your disobedience of his command to be bap- 
 tized, because you are not pleased with tho^e whom his provi- 
 dence has, at this day, left in the execution of his commission 
 to baptize : as if the weakness of his minister could obstruct the 
 operations of his Spirit, in making good his part of the covenant, 
 which he has promised. 
 
 13. There is an objection against, baptism which is not Worth 
 an answer ; but that I would condescend to the meanest, and 
 leave nothing behind which might be a stumbling block to any. 
 
 I have heard it urged, that there is no visible effects seen by 
 our baptisms ; that men remain wicked and loose notwith- 
 standing ; and therefore some do conclude that there is no virtue 
 in baptism.
 
 8$ A Discourse on the Qualifications 
 
 Ans. To make this argument of any force, it must be proved 
 that none do receive any benefit by it : for if some do receive 
 benefit by it, and others do not, this must be charged upon the 
 disposition of the recipient, according to the known rule, that 
 " whatsoever is received, is received according, to the known dis- 
 " position of the receiver." Thus the same meat is turned into 
 good nourishment in an healthy, and into noxious humours in a 
 vitiated stomach. Simon Magus received no benefit by his bap- 
 tism ; and after the sop the devil entered into Judas ; yet the other 
 Apostles received great benefit by it. To some it is the savour of 
 life, even the communion of Christ's body and blood ; to others 
 of condemnation, who " discern not the Lord's body" in it, but 
 receive it as a common thing, 1 Cor. x. 16. xi- 2.9, Therefore 
 we are commanded, v. 23. to examine ourselves, to prepare our 
 hearts for the worthy receiving of it. 
 
 But some say, as the Jews to Christ, " shew us a sign j" they 
 would have some miraculous effects immediately to appear. 
 These are ignorant of the operations of the Spirit ; and to these 
 I say in the words of Christ, John iii. 8. " The wind bloweth 
 '* where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but cannot 
 " tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth ; so is every one that 
 *' is born of the Spirit :" it woiks silently, but powerfully; and 
 its progress, like the growing of our bodies, is not all at once, 
 but by degrees, whose motion is imperceptible to human eyes. 
 
 The true use that is to be made of this objection, that so few 
 (and yet they are not few who) receive the inestimable benefits 
 which are conveyed in the sacraments of Christ's institution, is 
 this, to take the greater care, and the more earnestly to beg the 
 assistance of God's grace to fit and prepare us for the worthy re- 
 ceiving of them, but by no means to neglect them ; for those 
 who refused to come to the supper were rejected, as well as he 
 who came without a wedding garment. 
 
 A SUPPLEMENT. 
 
 JL HE stress of this discourse being founded upon episcopacy, 
 and long quotations being improper in so short a method of 
 argument as 1 have taken ; to supply that defect, and at the same
 
 requisite to administer the Sacraments. Sffr 
 
 time to make it easier to the reader, I have added by way of sup- 
 plement a short index or collection of authorities in the first four 
 hundred ar.d fifty years after Christ for episcopacy, with respect 
 to the Preshyterian pretences, of making a Bishop all one with a 
 Presbyter, at least with one of their Moderators: and, in the next 
 place, I have shewn the sense of the reformation, as to episcopacy. 
 Take them as follows. 
 
 Some Authorities for Episcopacy, as distinct from and superior 
 to Presbytery, taken out of the Fathers and Councils in the 
 first four hundred and fifty Years after Christ. 
 
 Anno Domini 70. St Clement, Bishop of Rome and Martyr,, 
 of whom mention is made, Phil. iv. 3. in his first epistle to the 
 Corinthians, sect. 42. p. 89, of the edition at Oxford, 1677. 
 
 " The Apostles having preached the gospel through regions and- 
 cities, did constitute the first fruits of them, having proved them 
 by the Spirit, to be Bishops and Deacons of those who should 
 believe ; and this, not as a new thing, for many ages before' it 
 was written concerning Bishops and Deacons ; for thus saith the 
 scripture, in a certain place, " I will constitute their Bishops iff 
 " righteousness, and their Deacons in faith." Isaiah Ix. 17. 
 
 " What wonder is it then those who were instructed by God 
 in Christ with this commission should constitute those before spoke 
 of?" 
 
 Ibid. sect. 44. " And the Apostles knew by the Lord Jesus 
 Christ that contests would arise concerning the episcopal name (or 
 order ;) and for this cause, having perfect foreknowledge (of these 
 things) they did ordain those whom we have mentioned before; 
 and moreover did establish the constitution, that other /approved 
 men should succeed those who died in their office and ministry. 
 
 " Therefore those that were constituted by them, or after- 
 wards by other approved men, with the consent of all the church, 
 and have administered to the flock of Christ unblameably* with 
 humility and quietness, without all stain of filth and naughtiness, 
 and have carried a good report of a long time from all men, I 
 think cannot, without great injustice, be turned out of their 
 office : for it will be no small sin to us if we thrust those from: 
 their bishoprics who have holily and without blame offered out? 
 gifts (and prayers to God.) Blessed are those Priests who are hap- 
 pily dead, for they are not afraid of being ejected out of the places 
 in which they are constituted : for I understand that you have
 
 9O A Dicourse on the Qualifications 
 
 deprived some from their ministry, who behaved themselves unre- 
 provable amongst you. 
 
 Sect. 40. " To the High-priest his proper offices were ap- 
 pointed ; the Priests had their proper order, and the Levites their 
 peculiar services, or deaconships; and the laymen what was 
 proper for laymen. 
 
 This, as before shewn, St. Clement applied to the distribution 
 of orders in the Christian Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. 
 And the office of the Levites is here called by the word Ai*xovor, 
 i. e. the office of Deacons. 
 
 A.D. 71. St. Ignatius, a glorious martyr of Christ, was con- 
 stituted by the Apostles Bishop of Antioch, and did thereby think 
 that he succeeded them (as all other Bishops do) in their full 
 apostolical office : thence he salutes the church of the Trallians 
 in the fulness of the apostolical character ; and in his epistle he 
 says to them, 
 
 " Be subject to your Bishops as to the Lord 
 
 " And to the Presbyters, as to the Apostles of Christ Like- 
 wise the Deacons also, being ministers of the mysteries of Christ, 
 ought to please in all things Without these there is no church 
 of the elect He is without who does any thing without the 
 Bishop, and Presbyters, and Deacons ; and such a one is defiled 
 in his conscience." 
 
 In his epistle to the Magnesians he tells them, " That they 
 ought not to despise their Bishop for his youth, but to pay him all 
 manner of reverence,, according to the commandment of God the 
 Father ; as, I know that your holy Presbyters do - 
 
 " Therefore as Christ did nothing without the Father, so nei- 
 ther do ye, whether Presbyter, Deacon, or laick, any thing 
 without the Bishop. 
 
 " Some indeed call him Bishop, yet do all things without him ; 
 but these seem not to me to have a good conscience, but rather 
 to be hypocrites and scorners. 
 
 " I exhort you to do all things in the same mind of God, 
 the Bishop presiding in the place of God, and the Presbyters in 
 room of the college of the Apostles ; and the Deacons, most 
 beloved to me, who are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus 
 Christ." 
 
 He directs his epistle to the church at Philadelphia, " to 
 those who were in unity with their Bishop and Presbyters an4 
 Deacons."
 
 requisite to administer the Sacraments. 91 
 
 And says to them in his epistle, " That as many as are of 
 Christ, these are with the Bishop ; and those who shall repent, 
 and return to unity of the Church, being made worthy of 
 Jesus Christ, shall partake of eternal salvation in the kingdom of 
 Christ. 
 
 " My brethren, be not deceived; if any shall follow him that 
 makes a schism, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 
 
 " I exhort you to partake of the one eucharist ; for there is one 
 body of the Lord Jesus, and one blood of his, which was shed for 
 us; and one cup and one altar; so there is one Bishop with his 
 Presbytery, and the Deacons, my fellow servants. 
 
 " Give heed to the Bishop, and to the Presbytery, and to the 
 Deacons Without the Bishop do nothing." 
 
 In his epistle to the Smyrnsans, he says, " Flee divisions as the 
 beginning of evils : all of you follow your Bishops, as Jesus Christ 
 the Father ; and the Presbyters as the Apostles ; and reverence the 
 Deacons as the institution of God. Let no man do any thing of 
 what appertains to the church without the Bishop : let that sacra- 
 ment be judged effectual and firm which is dispensed by the Bi- 
 shop, or him to whom the Bishop has committed it. Wherever 
 the Bishop is, there let the people be; as where Christ is, there 
 the heavenly host is gathered together. It is not lawful without 
 the Bishop either to baptize or celebrate the offices; but what he 
 approves of, according to the good pleasure of God, that is firm 
 and safe, and so we do every thing securely. 
 
 '* I salute your most worthy Bishop, your venerable Presbytery, 
 and the Deacons my fellow servants." 
 
 In his epistle to St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna and Martyr, 
 who, together with himself, was disciple to St. John the Apostle 
 and Evangelist, he gives these directions. 
 
 " If any can remain in chastity, to the glory of the body of the 
 Lord, lei him remain without boasting; if he boasts, he perishes; 
 and if he pretends to know more than the Bishop, he is corrupted* 
 It is die duty both of men and women that marry to be joined to- 
 gether by the approbation of the Bishop, that the marriage may be 
 in the i*ord, and not according to our own lusts. Let all things be 
 done to the glory of God. 
 
 " Give heed to your B.ishop, that God may hearken unto you : 
 my soul for theirs, who subject themselves under the obedience 
 of their Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons ; and let me take ray 
 lot with them in the Lord."
 
 92 A Discourse on the Qualifications 
 
 And he says to Bishop Polycarp, " Let nothing be done without 
 thy sentence and approbation." 
 
 A.D. 180. St. Irenieus, Bishop of Lyons, in France, who was' 
 disciple of St. Polycarp; he flourished about the year of Christ 
 180. 
 
 shivers. Her&s. 1. 3. c. 3. " We can reckon those Bishops who 
 have been constituted by the Apostles, and their successors, all the 1 
 way to our times. And if the Apostles knew hidden mysteries; they 
 would certainly have delivered them chiefly to those to whom they 
 committed the churches themselves, and whom they left their own 
 successors, and in the same place of government as themselves. 
 We have the successions of the Bishops to whom the apostolic 
 church in every place was committed. All these (heretics) arer 
 much later than the Bishops, to whom the Apostles did deliver the 
 churches. 
 
 L. 4. c. 6. " The true knowledge is the doctrine of the 
 Apostles, and the ancient state of the church throughout the 
 whole world, and the character of the body of Christ according 
 to the succession of the Bishops, to whom they committed the 
 church that is in every place, and whicli has descended even 
 unto us." 
 
 Tertullian, A. D. 203. c. 32. of the prescription of heretics, c. 34. 
 '* Let them produce the original of their churches; let them shew 
 the order of their Bishops, that by their succession, deduced from the 
 beginning, we may see whether their first Bishop had any of the 
 Apostles or apostolical men, who did likewise persevere with the 
 Apostles, for his founder and predecessor : for thus the apostolical 
 churches do derive their succession ; as the church of Smyrna from 
 Polycarp, whom John (the Apostle} placed there ; the church of 
 Rome from Clement, who was in like manner ordained by Peter : 
 and so the other churches can produce those constituted in their 
 bishoprics by the Apostles." 
 
 C. 36. " Reckon over the apostolical churches, where the very 
 chairs of the Apostles do yet preside in their own places ; at Co- 
 rinth, Philippi, Ephesus, Thessalonica, &c." 
 
 Of baptism, c. 17. " The High-priesr, who is the Bishop, 
 has the power of conferring baptism, and under him the Pres- 
 byters and Deacons ; but not without thq authority of ins 
 Bishop.'* 
 
 I
 
 requisite to administer the Sacraments. $$ 
 
 A. D. 220. Origenis Comment, in Matt. Rothomagi, 1688, 
 Gr. Lat. p. 255. names the distinct order of Bishop, Presbyter, 
 and Deacon. " Such a Bishop, (says he, speaking of one who 
 sought vain glory, &c.) doth not desire a good work and the 
 same is to be said of Presbyters and Deacons The Bishops and 
 Presbyters who have the chief place among the people The Bi- 
 shop is called prince in the churches. And speaking of the irre- 
 ligious clergy, he directs it to them, whether Bishops, Presbyters, 
 01 Deacons." 
 
 Saint Cyprian, Archbishop of Carthage, A. D. 240. Edit. 
 Oxon. Epist. xxxiii. Lapsis. " Our Lord, whose commands we 
 ought to reverence and obey, being about to constitute the epis- 
 copal honour, and the frame of his church, said to Peter, " Thou 
 art Peter," &c. From thence the order of Bishops and constitution 
 of the church does descend, by the line of succession, through all 
 times and ages, that the church should be build upon the Bishops 
 It is established by the divine law that every act of the church 
 should be governed by the Bishop." 
 
 Ep. xlv. Cornelio. " We ought chiefly (my brother) to en- 
 deavour to keep that unity which was enjoined by our Lord 
 and his Apostles to us their successors to be carefully observed 
 by us." 
 
 Ep. iii. Rogatiano. " The Deacons ought to remember that it 
 was the Lord who chose the Apostles, that is, the Bishops." 
 
 Ep. Ixvi. Florentio. Christ said to the Apostles, and by that 
 to all Bishops or governors of his church, who succeed the Apostles, 
 by vicarious ordination, and are in their stead, " He that heareth 
 you, heareth me." 
 
 Ibid. " For from hence do schisms and heresies arise, and have 
 arisen, while the Bishop, who is one, and governor of the church, 
 by a proud presumption is despised; and that man who is honourei 
 as worthy by God, is accounted unworthy by man." 
 
 Epist. lix. Cornelio. " Nor are heresies sprung up, or schisms 
 arisen from any other fountain than frora hence, that obedience is 
 not paid to the priest of God, and that there is not one priest at a 
 time in the church, and one judge for the time in the place of 
 Christ ; to whom if the whole fraternity did obey, according to 
 the divine ceconomy, none would dare to move any thing against 
 the sacerdotal college. It is necessary that the Bishops should exert 
 their authority with full vigour. But if it is so, that we are afraid 
 of the boldness of the most profligate, and that which these wicked
 
 94 A Discourse on the Qualifications 
 
 men cannot compass by the methods of truth and equity, if they 
 can accomplish by their rashness and despair, then is there an end 
 of the episcopal authority, and of their sublime and divine power 
 in governing of the church. Nor can we remain Christians any 
 longer, if it is come to this, that we should be afraid of the threats 
 and snares of the wicked. 
 
 " The adversary of Christ, and enemy of his church, for this 
 end strikes at the Bishop or Ruler of the church with all his malice, 
 that the governor being taken away, he might ravage the more vio- 
 lently and cruelly upon the shipwreck of the church. 
 
 " Is honour then given to God, when the divine majesty and 
 censure is so despised, that these sacrilegious persons say, do not 
 think of the wrath of God, be not afraid of his judgment, do not 
 knock at the door of the church; but without any repentance or 
 confession of their crime, despising the authority of their Bishops, 
 and trampling it under their feet, a false peace is preached to be 
 had from the Presbyters," viz. in their taking upon them to admit 
 those that were fallen into communion, or the peace of the church, 
 without the allowance of the Bishop. 
 
 ** They imitate the coming of Antichrist now approaching." 
 
 Ep. Ixxx. Successio. " Valerian (the Emperor) wrote to the 
 senate, that the Bishops, and the Presbyters, and the Deacons 
 should be prosecuted." 
 
 Firmilianus Cypriano. Ep. Ixxv. p. 225* " The power of re- 
 mitting sins was given to the Apostles, and to the Bishops, who have 
 succeeded them by a vicarious ordination." 
 
 Ep. xvi. p. 36, Cyprianus Presbyteris et Diaconibus. " What 
 danger ought we to fearfrom^he displeasure of God, when some 
 Presbyters, neither mindful of the Gospel, nor of their own station 
 in the church, neither regarding the future judgment of God, nor 
 the Bishop who is set over them, which was never done under our 
 predecessors, with the contempt and neglect of their Bishop, do 
 arrogate all unto themselves ? I could bear with the contempt of 
 our episcopal authority, but there is now no room left for dis- 
 sembling, &c." 
 
 A. D. 365. Optatus Milevitanus, Bishop of Mileve, or Mela, 
 in Numidia in Africa. 
 
 L. 2. Contra Farmenianum, ** The church has her several 
 members, Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and the company of 
 the faithful.
 
 requisite to administer ih& Sacraments. 35 
 
 Yeu found in the church Deacons, Presbyters, Bishops ; you 
 have made them laymen ; acknowledge that you have subverted 
 souls." 
 
 A. D. 370. St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, upon Eph. iv. 11, 
 speaking of the several orders of the church ; " And he gave some 
 " Apostles, and some Prophets and Evangelists," &c. says, "That 
 by the Apostles there were meant the Bishops ; by Prophets, the 
 expounders of the Scriptures ; and by the Evangelists, the Deacons. 
 But says that they all met in the Bishop, for that he was the chief 
 Priest ; that is (says he) the Prince of the Priests, and both Prophet 
 and Evangelist, to supply all the offices of the church for the mi- 
 nistry of the faithful." 
 
 And upon 1 Cor. xii. 28, says, " That Christ constituted 
 the Apostles head in the church; and that these are the Bi- 
 shops." 
 
 And upon verse 29. " Are all Apostles ?" i. e. all are not 
 Apostles. " This is true, (says he) because in the church there is 
 but one Bishop. 
 
 " And because all things are from one God the Father, there- 
 fore hath he appointed that one Bishop should preside over each 
 church." 
 
 In his book of the Dignity of the Priesthood, c, 3, he says, 
 " That there is nothing in this world to be found more excellent 
 than the Priests, nothing more sublime than theBihops." 
 
 And, speaking of what was incumbent upon the several orders 
 of the church, he does plainly distinguish them ; for, says he, in 
 die same place, 
 
 *' God does require one thing from a Bishop, another from a 
 Presbyter, another from a Deacon, another from a layman." 
 
 St. Jerome, A. D. 380, in his comment upon the Ep. to 
 Titus. " When it began to be said, lam of Paul, I of Apollos, 
 &c. and every one thought that those whom he baptized be- 
 longed to himself, and not to Christ, it was decreed through 
 the whole earth, that one chosen from among the Presbyters 
 should be set over the rest, that the seeds of schism might be taken 
 away." 
 
 In his epist. to Evagrius. " From Mark the Evangelist to 
 Heraclas and Dionysius the Bishops, the Presbyters of Egypt 
 have always chosen out one from among themselves, whom 
 having placed in an higher degree than the rest, they called.their 
 Bishop.
 
 ?6 A Discourse on the Qualifications 
 
 '* He that is advanced, is advanced from less to greater. 
 
 ** The greatness of riches, or the humility of poverty, does not 
 make a Bishop greater or less, seeing all of them are the successors 
 of the Apostles. 
 
 " That we may know the apostolical ceconomy to be taken 
 from the pattern of the Old Testament, the same that Aaron and 
 his sons, and the Levites were in the temple, the Bishops, Pres- 
 byters, and Deacons are in the church of Christ." 
 
 And Nepotianum. " Be subject to your Bishop or chief Priest, 
 and receive him as the father of your soul." 
 
 Advers. Luciferianes. " The safety of the church depends upon 
 the dignity of the High-Priest, to whom unless a sort of absolute 
 and eminent power be given above all, there will be as many 
 schisms in the church as there are Priests. Thence it is, that with- 
 out the command of the Bishop, neither a Presbyter, nor a Deacon, 
 have power to baptize And the Bishop is to impose his hands 
 upon those who are baptized by Presbyters or Deacons, for the 
 invocation of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 And comforting Heliodorus, a Bishop, unpon the death of Ne. 
 potian, his presbyter and his nephew, he commends Nepotian in 
 that he reverenced his Bishop. " He honoured Heliodorus in public 
 as his Bishop, at home as his father: but among his Presbyters 
 and co-equals he was the first in his vocation, &c." 
 Upon the Ixth of Isaiah he calls the future Bishops " Princes of 
 the church." 
 
 Inscript. EccLesiast. de Jacobo. " James, after the passion, 
 of our Lord, was immediately by the Apostles ordained Bi- 
 shop of Jerusalem." The like he tells of the first Bishops of other 
 places. 
 
 Ep. 54. contra Montanum. " With us the Bishops hold the 
 place of the Apostles." 
 
 A. D. 420. St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in Africa, epist. 42. 
 " The root of the Christian Society is diffused throughout the 
 world, in a sure propagation, by the seats of the Apostles, and the 
 succession of the Bishops." 
 
 QuaeSt. Veter. et Novi Test. sect. 97. " There is none but 
 knows that our Saviour did constitute Bishops in the churches; for 
 before he ascended into heaven he laid his hands upon the Apostles, 
 and ordained them Bishops." 
 
 L. 7, c. 43. " The sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ is clear, 
 who sent his Apostles, and gave to them alone that power which
 
 , requisite to administer the Sacraments. 97 
 
 he had received from his Father ; to whom we have succeeded, go- 
 verning the church of God by the same power." 
 
 Ep. 132, speaking of the Bishops being called angels, Rev. ii. 
 he says, *' By the voice of God the governor of the church is 
 praised, under the name of an angel." 
 
 De verbis Domini, Serin. 24, " If he said to the Apostles alone, 
 " He that despiseth you, despiseth me," then despise us : but if 
 those words of his come down even unto us, and that he has called 
 us, and constituted us in their place, see that you do not despise 
 us." 
 
 Contra Faust, lib. 33, cap. ulr. " We embrace the Holy 
 Seripture, which from the times of , the presence of Christ him- 
 self, by the disposition of the Apostles, and the successions of 
 other Bishops from their seats, even to these times, has come down 
 to us, safely kept, commended, and honoured through the whole 
 earth." 
 
 Lib. 2, contra Literas Petiliani, c. 51. " What has the chair 
 of the church of Rome done to thee, in which Peter sat, and 
 in which at this day Anastasius sits ; or of the church of Je- 
 rusalem, in which James did sit, and in which John does now 
 sit r" 
 
 Contra Julianum, 1. 2, cap. uit. " Irenseus, Cyprian, Reticius, 
 Olympics, Hilary, Gregory, Basil, John, Ambrose these were 
 Bishops, grave, learned, &c.' ' 
 
 Quest, ex Vet. Test. qu. 35. " The King bears the image 
 of God, as the Bishop of Christ. Therefore while he is in 
 that station he is to be honoured, if not for himself, yet for 
 his order." 
 
 Let this suffice as to the testimonies of particular fathers of the 
 church, though many more may be produced in that compass of 
 time to which I have confined our present enquiry. And now 
 (that no conviction might be wanting) I will set down some of the 
 canons of the councils in those times, to the same purpose ; whereby 
 it will appear that episcopacy, as distinct from and superior to 
 Presbytery, was not only the judgment of the first glorious saints 
 and martyrs of Christ, but the current doctrine and government of 
 the church, both Greek and Latin, in those early ages of Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 In the canons of the Apostles, the distinction of Bishop, Presby- 
 ter, and Deacon, is so frequent, that it is almost in vain to give 
 
 VOL. I. H
 
 98 A Discourse on the Qualifications 
 
 citations. The first and second canons shew the difference to b 
 observed in the ordaining of them. 
 
 " Let a Bishop be consecrated by two or three Bishops. 
 
 " Let a Presbyter and Deacon be ordained by one Bishop." 
 
 See the same distinction of these orders, can. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 
 17, 18,25,27, 28,29,32,33, 36, 4J2, 44, 45,51,52, 53, 63, 68, 
 69, 70, 83. Can. 15, shews the jurisdiction of the" Bishops over 
 the Presbyters and Deacons. 
 
 " If any Presbyter or Deacon, or any of the clerical order, shall 
 leave his own parish, and go to another, without the Bishop's leave, 
 he shall officiate no longer, especially if he bey not the Bishop, 
 when he exhorts him to return, persisting in his insolence and dis- 
 orderly behaviour, but he shall be reduced there to communicate 
 only as a layman." 
 
 And can. 31, " If any Presbyter, despising his own Bishop, shall 
 gather congregations apart, and erect another altar, his Bishop not 
 being convict of wickedness or irreligion, let him be deposed 
 as an ambitious person, for he is a tyrant ; as likewise such other 
 clergy, and as many as shall join with him ; but the laymen shall 
 be excommunicated : but let this be after the first, second, and 
 third admonition of the Bishop." 
 
 Can. 39. *' Let the Presbyters and Deacons do nothing without 
 the consent of the Bishop ; for it is he f.o whom the people of the 
 Lord are committed, and from whom an account of their souls will 
 be required." 
 
 Can. 41. " We ordain the Bishop to kave power over the goods 
 of the church And to administer to those who want by the hands 
 of the Presbyters and Deacons." 
 
 Can. 55. " If any clergyman shall reproach his Bishop, let him 
 be deposed ; for " thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of the peo. 
 pie." 
 
 After the canons of the Apostles, I produce next a great council 
 of eighty-seven Bishops, held at Carthage, in the year of Christ 
 256, under St. Cyprian, Archbishop of that place, which is pub- 
 lished in Sr. Cyprian's works before quoted, p. 229, where he tells 
 us, 
 
 " That besides the Bishops, there met there both Presbyters and 
 Deacons, and great numbers of the laity." 
 
 The council of Eliberis in Spain about the year of Christ 305, 
 cap. 18 and t9. " Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons are named
 
 requisite to administer the Sacraments. 99 
 
 distinct." And in c. 32, " Presbyters and Deacons are forbid to 
 give the communion to those who had grievously offended, without 
 the command of the Bishop." 
 
 C. 75. " Of those who shall falsly accuse a Bishop, Presbyter, 
 or Deacon." 
 
 C. 11. " It is ordained that those who are baptized by a Dea- 
 con, without the Bishop or Presbyter, shall afterwards be confirm- 
 ed by the Bishop." 
 
 The council of Aries in France, about the year of Christ 309, c. 
 18, It is ordained that the Deacons should be subject to the Presby- 
 ters. And c. 19. 
 
 " That the Presbyters should be subject to their Bishop, and do 
 nothing without his consent." 
 
 The council of Ancyra, A. A. 315, c. 2, and 8, having pro- 
 hibited those Presbyters and Deacons who had, in times of perse- 
 cution, offered to idols, from the execution of their office, says, 
 " That notwithstanding the Bishop may dispense with them, if he 
 sees their repentance sincere ; for that this power is lodged in the 
 Bishop." 
 
 The council of Laodicea, A. D. 321, can. 41, " That no clergy- 
 man ought to travel without the consent of his Bishop." 
 
 Can. 56. " That the Presbyters ought not to go into the church, 
 and sit in their stalls, till the Bishop come, and to go in with the 
 Bishop." 
 
 The first and great council of Nice, A.D. 325, can. 16, 
 " That if any Presbyters or Deacons leave their own churches, 
 they ought not to be received into another church : and that if any 
 shall erdain such in his church as belong to another, without the 
 consent of his proper Bishop, let such ordination be void." 
 
 The council of Gangra, A.D. 326, can. 6. " If any have pri- 
 vate meetings out of the church, without their Presbyter, let them, 
 be anathematized by the sentence of the Bishop. 
 
 Can. ". " If any will take or give of the fruits offered to the 
 church, out of the church, without leave of the Bishop, let him be 
 anathema." 
 
 The council of Antioch, A.D. 341, can. 3. " If any Presby- 
 ter or Deacon, leaving his own parish, shall go to others, and refuse 
 to return when his own Bishop shall summon him, let him be de- 
 posed." 
 
 Can. 4. " If any Bishop being deposed by a synod, or a Pres- 
 byter or Deacon being deposed by his own proper Bishop, shall 
 
 H 2
 
 
 1OO A Discourse on the Qualifications 
 
 presume to exercise his function, let no room be left them either for 
 restoration or apology." 
 
 Can. 5. " If any Presbyter or Deacon, despising his own Bishop, 
 shall separate himself fiom the church, and gather a congregation 
 of his own, and set up a different altar, and shall refuse to submit 
 himself to his Bishop, calling him the first and second time, let him 
 be absolutely deposed." 
 
 Can. 12. "If any Presbyter or Deacon, being deposed by his 
 own proper Bishop, or a Bishop by the synod, dare appeal to the 
 King, seeing his appeal lies to a greater synod of more Bishops, 
 where he is to expect the examination of his cause, and to refer the 
 decision to them : but if, making light of these, he trouble the King 
 with it, such an one is worthy of no pardon, nor ought to be ad- 
 mitted to make any sort of apology, or to have hopes of his being 
 ever restored any more." 
 
 Can. 22. " That a Bishop ought not to ordain Presbyters or 
 Deacons in another Bishop's diocese, without his leave." v 
 
 In the Council of Carthage, A. D. 348, can. 11, the cause 
 is put where a Deacon being accused, " shall be tried by three 
 neighbouring Bishops, a Presbyter by six, and a Bishop by 
 twelve." 
 
 The second cecunumical council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, 
 can. 6, ranks those with heretics, " who, though they profess the 
 true faith, yet run into schism, and gather congregations apart 
 from, and in opposition to our canonical Bishops." 
 
 The Council of Canhage, A. D. 419, can. 3, mentions the three 
 distinct orders of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon ; and compares 
 them to the High-Priests, Priests and Levites. 
 
 In the same manner they are as distinctly mentioned, can. 4, 
 Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon; and their powers distinct ; For, 
 
 Can. 6. It is declared not to be lawful for Presbyters to conse- 
 crate churches, or reconcile penitents ; but if any be in great 
 danger, and desirous to be reconciled in the absence of the 
 Bishop, 
 
 " The Presbyter ought to consult the Bishop, and receive his 
 orders in it ;" as is declared in the 7th can. 
 
 Can. 10. " If any Presbyter, being fpuffed up with pride, 
 shall make a schism against his own proper Bishop, let him be 
 anathema." 
 
 Can. 1 1. Gives leave to a Presbyter, who is condemned by 
 his Bishop, to appeal to the neighbouring Bishops ; but if, with-
 
 requisite to administer the Sacraments. 101 
 
 out this, lie flies off, and makes a schism from his Bishop, it con- 
 firms the anathema upon him. 
 
 Can. K'. Orders what is before recited out of can. 1 1, of the 
 council of Carthage, " That a Bishop who is accused shall be 
 tried by twelve Bishops, if more may not be had ; a Presbyter by 
 six Bishops, with his own Bishop; and a Deacon by three." 
 
 Can. 14, orders, " That in Tripoli, because of the smaller 
 number of Bishops in those parts, a Presbyter shall be judged 
 by five Bishops, and a Deacon by three, his own proper Bishop 
 presiding." 
 
 Can. 46. " That a Presbyter shall not reconcile a penitent with- 
 out the knowledge of the Bishop, unless upon necessity, in the 
 absence of the Bishop." 
 
 Can. 59. " That one Bishop may ordain many Presbyters ; 
 but that it was hard to find a Presbyter who was fit to be made 
 a Bishop." 
 
 Can. 65. " That a Clergyman, being condemned by the Bishops, 
 cannot be delivered by that church to which he did belong, or by 
 any man whatsoever." 
 
 Can. 106. " That Presbyters and Deacons may appeal from 
 their own Bishop to the neighbouring Bishops, chosen by consent 
 of their own Bishop, and from them to the primate or provincial 
 synod ; but not to any transmarine or foreign jurisdiction, under 
 pain of excommunication." 
 
 The council of Chalcedon, being the fourth general council, 
 A. D. 451, can, 9. " If any Clergyman have a cause ofcomplaint 
 against another Clergyman, let him not leave his own proper 
 Bishop, and have recourse to the secular courts Whoever does 
 otherwise, shall be put under the canonical censures." 
 
 Can. 13. " That a foreign Clergyman, and not known, shall 
 not officiate in another city, without commendatory letters from 
 his own Bishop." 
 
 Can. 18. If any of the Clergy shall be found conspiring, or 
 joining in fraternities, or contriving any thing against the Bishops, 
 they shall fall from their own degree. 
 
 Can. 29. "To reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter, 
 is sacrilege." 
 
 These authorities are so plain and full, as to prevent any appli- 
 cation, or multiplying of farther quotations, which might easily 
 be done : for if these can be answered, so may all that can possibly 
 be produced, or framed in words.
 
 102 A Discourse on the Qualifications 
 
 And there is no remedy left to the Presbyterians, and other dis- 
 senters from episcopacy, but to deny all these by wholesale, to throw 
 off all antiquity, as well the first ages of Christianity, even that 
 wherein the Apostles themselves lived and taught, as all since ; and 
 to stand upon anew foundation of their own invention. 
 
 But this only shews the desperatencss of their cause, and the 
 impregnable bulwark of episcopacy, which (I must say it) stands 
 upon so many clear and authentic evidences, as can never be over- 
 thrown, but by such topicks as must render Christianity itself 
 precarious. 
 
 And if from the etymology of the words Bishop and Presbyter, 
 any argument can be drawn (against all the authorities produced) 
 to prove them the same, we may by this way of reasoning, prove 
 Cyrus to be Christ, for so he is called, Isaiah Ixv. 1. 
 
 Or if the Presbyterians will have their moderator to be a Bishop, 
 we will not quarrel with them about a word. Let us then have a 
 moderator, such as the Bishops before described, viz. a mode- 
 rator, as a standing officer, during life, to whom all the Presby- 
 ters are to be obedient, as to Christ, i. e. to the moderator, as 
 representing the person of Christ ; that nothing be done in the 
 church without him ; that he be understood as the principle of 
 unity in his church, so that they who unjustly break off from his 
 communion, are thereby in a schism ; that he shew his succession 
 by regular ordination conveyed down from the Apostles : in short, 
 that he have all that character and authority which we see to 
 have beenrecognized in the Bishops in the very age of the Apos- 
 tles, and all the succeeding ages of Christianity ; and then call him 
 moderator, superintendent, or Bishop ; for the contest is not about 
 the name, but the thing. 
 
 And if we go only upon the etymology of the word, how shall 
 we prove Presbyters to be an order in the church more than Bishops ? 
 
 As Athanasius said to Dracontius of those who persuaded him not 
 
 to accept of a bishoprick. 
 
 " Why do they persuade you not to be a Bishop, when they 
 
 themselves will have Presbyters ?" 
 
 1 will end this head with the advice of this great father to this 
 
 same Dracontius. 
 
 Athanas. Epist. ad Dracont. " If the government cf the 
 
 churches do not please you, and that you think the office of a 
 
 Bishop has no reward, thereby making yourself a despiser of our 
 
 Saviour, who did institute it ; I beseech you surmise not any
 
 requisite to administer the Sacraments. 103 
 
 such things as these, nor do you entertain any who advise such 
 things ; for that is not worthy of Dracontius : for what things 
 the Lord did institute by his Apostles, those things remain both 
 good and sure." 
 
 2. Having thus explained those texts of scripture which speak 
 f episcopacy, by the concurrent sense of those who lived with 
 the Apostles, and were taught the faith from their mouths, who 
 Jived zealous confessors, and died glorious martyrs of Christ, and 
 who succeeded the Apostles in those very churches where them- 
 selves had sat Bishops ; and having deduced their testimonies, and 
 of those who succeeded them down for four hundred and fifty 
 years after Christ, (from which time there is no doubt raised 
 against the universal reception of episcopacy) and this not only 
 from their writings apart, but by their canons and laws when 
 assembled together in council ; which one would think sufficient 
 evidence against none at all en the other side, that is, for the N 
 succession of churches in tbe Presbyterian form, of which no one 
 instance can be given, so much as of any one church in the 
 world so deduced, not only from the days of the Apostles, (as is 
 shewn for episcopacy) but before Calvin, and those who reformed 
 with him, about one hundred and sixty years last past: I say, 
 though what is done is sufficient to satisfy any indifferent and un- 
 biassed judgment ; yet is there one topic left behind, which, with 
 our Dissenters, weighs more than all fathers and councils, and 
 that is the late reformation, from whence some date their very 
 Christianity. And if even by this, too, episcopacy should be 
 witnessed and approved, then is there nothing at all in the world 
 left to the opposers of episcopacy, nothing of antiquity, prece- 
 dent, or any authority, but their own wilful will against all ages 
 of the whole Catholic church, even that of the reformation, as 
 well as all the rest. 
 
 Let us then examine : first, for the church of England ; that is 
 thrown off clearly by our Dissenters, for that was reformed under 
 episcopacy, and continues so to this day. 
 
 And as to our neighbour nation of Scotland, where the Presby- 
 terians do boast that the reformation was made by Presbyters ; 
 that is most clearly and authentically confuted by a late learned 
 and worthy author (already mentioned) in his fundamental charter 
 of Presbytery, printed 1695, so as to stop the mouths of the 
 most perverse, whs? will not be persuaded, though they are per- 
 suaded.
 
 104 A Discourse on the Qualifications 
 
 Go we then abroad, and see the state of the reformed churches 
 there. 
 
 The Lutherans are all cut off, as the church of England ; for 
 they still retain episcopacy, as in Denmark, Sweden, &c. 
 
 There remains now only the Calvinists : here it is the Presbyte- 
 rians set up their rest: this \t> their strong foundation. 
 
 And this will fail them as much as all the other; for, be it 
 known unto them, (however they will receive it) that Calvin him- 
 self, and Beza, and the rest of the learned reformers of their parr, 
 did give their testimony for episcopacy as much as any. They 
 counted it a most unjust reproach upon them to think that they 
 condemned episcopacy, \vhich they say they did not throw off, 
 but could not have it there, in Geneva, without coming tinder the 
 Papal hierarchy : they highly applauded and congratulate;! the 
 episcopal hierarchy of the church of England, as in their several 
 letters to Queen Elizabeth, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 and others of our English Bishops : they prayed heartily to God 
 for the continuance and preservation of it ; bemoaned their own 
 unhappy circumstances, that they could not have the like, because 
 they had no magistrate to protect them ; and wished for episco- 
 pacy in their churches, the want of which they owned as a great 
 defect ; but called it their misfortune, rather than their fault : 35 
 the learned of the French Hugonots have likewise pleaded on their 
 behalf. 
 
 As for their excuse, I do not now meddle with it, for I think 
 it was not a good one. They might have had Bishops from other 
 places, though there were none among themselves, but those who 
 were popish : and they might as well have had Bishops as Presby- 
 ters without the countenance of the civil magistrate. It might 
 have raised a greater persecution against them ; but that is nothing 
 as to the tiuth of the thing ; and if they thought it a truth, they 
 ought to have suffered for it. 
 
 But whatever becomes of their excuse, here it is plain, that 
 they gave their suffrage for episcopacy ; which who so pleases 
 may see at large in Dr. Durel's View of the Goveinnent and 
 Worship in the reformed Churches beyond the Seas, (who was 
 himself one of them) printed 1662. 
 
 So that our modern Presbyterians have departed from Calvin as 
 well as from Luther, in their abhorrence of episcopacy, from all 
 the Christian world in all ages, and particularly from ail our latg 
 reformers both of one sort and other,
 
 requisite to administer the Sacraments. 105 
 
 Calvin would have anathemized all of them, had he lived in our 
 times. He says there were none such to be found in his time, 
 who opposed the episcopal hierarchy, but only the papal, which 
 aspired to an universal supremacy in the see of Rome over the 
 whole Catholic church, which is the prerogative of Christ alone. 
 But, says he, 
 
 '* If ;hey would g;ive us such an hierarchy, in which the Bishops 
 should so excel, as that they did not refuse to be subject to Christ, 
 and to depend upon him as their only head, and refer all to him, 
 then I will confess that they are worthy of all anathemas, if any 
 sucli shall be found, who will not reverence it, and submit them- 
 selves to it with the utmost obedience." 
 
 See, he says, si yui enint, if there shall beany such, which sup- 
 poses that he knew none such, and that he owned none such 
 .amongst his reformers ; and that if ever any such should arise, he 
 thought there were no anathemas which they did not deserve who 
 should refuse to submit to the episcopal hierarchy, without such 
 an universal head as excludes Christ from being the only universal 
 head ; for if there be another, (though substitute) he is not only. 
 7"hus he is called the chief Bishop, but never the only Bishop, be- 
 cause there are others deputed under him: but he calls no Bishop 
 the universal Bishop, or head of the Catholic church, because he 
 has appointed no substitute in that supreme office; as not of uni- 
 versal King, so neither of universal Bishop. 
 
 And Beza supposes as positively as Calvin had done, that there 
 were none who did oppose the episcopal hierarchy without such an 
 universal head now upon earth, or that opposed the order of epis- 
 copacy, and condemns them as madmen if any such could be found. 
 For thus says he, 
 
 " If there be any (which you shall hardly persuade me to be- 
 lieve) who reject the whole order of episcopacy, God forbid that 
 any man in his wits should assent to the madness of such men !" 
 
 And particularly as to the church of England, and her hierarchy 
 of Archbishops and Bishops, he says that he never meant to oppugn 
 any thing of that, but calls it a singular blessing of God, and wishes 
 that she may ever enjoy it. 
 
 $o that our modern Presbyterians are disarmed of the precedent 
 of Calvin, Beza, and all the reformers abroad, by whose sentence 
 they are anathematized, and counted as madmen. 
 
 Here then, let us consider and beware of the fatal progress of 
 error I Calvin, and the reformers with him, set up Presbyterian 
 5
 
 106 A Discourse on the Qualifications, Xc. 
 
 government, as they pretended by necessity, but still kept up and 
 professed the highest regard to the episcopal character and autho- 
 rity : but those who pretend to follow their example, have utterly 
 abdicated the whole order of episcopacy as anti-christian, and an 
 insupportable grievance ; while at the same time they would seem 
 to pay the greatest reverence to these reformers, and much more to 
 the authority of the first and purest ages of Christianity, whose fa- 
 thers and councils spoke all the high things before quoted in behalf 
 f episcopacy far beyond the language of our later apologists for 
 that hierarchy, or what durst now be repeated, except from such 
 unquestionable authority. 
 
 In this they imitate the hardness of the Jews, who built the 
 sepulchre of those prophets whom their fathers slew, while at the 
 same time they adhered to, and outdid the wickedness of their fa- 
 thers in persecuting the successors of those prophets. 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 WHEREAS I have placed the apostolical canons in the front 
 of the councils before quoted, I thought fit (to prevent needless 
 cavil) to give this advertisement, that I do not contend they were 
 inade by the Apostles themselves, but by the holy fathers of the 
 church, about the end of the second and beginning of the third 
 century, as a summary of that discipline, which had been trans, 
 jnitted to them by uninterrupted tradition from the Apostles, 
 whence they have justly obtained the name of The Apostolical 
 Canons ; and, as such, have been received and reverenced in the 
 succeeding ages of Christianity. 
 
 The councils quoted after these canons bear their proper dates, 
 and there can be no contest about them. 
 
 And what is quoted of St. Ignatius and the other fathers, is from 
 the most uncontroverted parts of their works, to obviate the ob- 
 jection of interpolations and additions, by the noise of which our 
 adversaries endeavour to throw off, or enervate their whole autho- 
 rity, and quite to disarm us of all that light which we have from 
 the primitive ages of the church, because it makes all against them, 
 and that they can no otherwise struggle from under the weight of 
 their authority. 
 
 8
 
 ENQUIRY 
 
 WHENCE COMETH WISDOM AND 
 UNDERSTANDING TO MAN? 
 
 > 
 
 ITS WHICH IT IS ATTEMPTED TO SHEW, 
 
 I. That Religion entered the World by Revelation, and that 
 
 Language was from the same Original. 
 
 II. That without the Aid of Revelation, Man had not been a 
 
 rational, or a religious Creature. 
 
 III. That nothing can oblige the Conscience, but the revealed 
 
 Word of God, 
 
 IV. That a State Religion, or Law of Nature, never existed but 
 
 in the human Imagination. 
 
 BEING THE bUBSTANCE OP 
 
 TWO SERMONS, 
 
 PREACHED SOME YEARS AGO BEFORE A LEARNED AUDIENCE, 
 
 BY JOHN ELLIS, D.D. 
 VICAR OF ST. CATHERINE'S DUBLIN : 
 
 AND AUTHOR OF A BOOK ENTITLED, 
 
 Iht Knevledgt of divine Things from Revelation, not from Reastn, or Nature*
 
 [ 108 
 
 THE 
 
 J.Thas ever been accounted laudable to attempt opening new 
 paths to knowledge; and if that which follows be hitherto 
 almost untrodden, we may hope, the better it is known, the 
 more it will be frequented : there is, at least, no obstacle in the 
 way, to prevent a candid enquirer after truth, from entering into, 
 and making a trial of it. Its only objects are, the honour of 
 God, the dignity of man, and the just excellence of reason. Nor 
 is any thing offered, for the promotion of these great ends, but 
 what rests on the authority of Scripture, the frame of human 
 nature, the capacity of our rational faculties, and the experience 
 of all ages : to them is the appeal made, without disguise, art, or 
 sophistry. 
 
 And if simplicity be a recommendation, it has a just claim 
 thereto ; being throughout strait, regular, and consistent. There 
 are no turnings to the right hand, or to the left ; no doubts, en- 
 tanglements, or metaphysical delusions, to contend wi h : all is 
 plain nature, so that a wayfaring man, of the lowest, if honest, 
 apprehensions amongst us, cannot err therein. 
 
 Another advantage is, that it stands not in need of making, at 
 some times those bold advances, at others as hasty retreats ; which 
 perpetually involve learned men in contradictions, or incoherencies, 
 who endeavour to incorporate natural religion with that which is 
 revealed. 
 
 We all know with what reluctance the mind is brought to give 
 up principles it was early taught to receive as true. But if human 
 knowledge be still capable of improvement, whatever is candidly 
 offered to such purpose, deserves an examination, before it be 
 rejected. With this view the following sheets are submitted to 
 the learned world ; not out of love to novelty, but from a long 
 and serious conviction, that no other hypothesis can give that true 
 obligation to religion, without which it is of little worth ; -this 
 therefore merits not censure, though it misses approbation.
 
 The Preface. 109 
 
 If what is said on Language seems, at first, remote ; it is, be- 
 cause no subject, that deserves so much attention, has received so 
 little' or it has been my misfortune not to meet with any author, 
 who thoroughly considered the origin or extent of it. Had Mr. 
 Locke indeed taken it into his original plan, the necessity of 
 which he afterwards saw, but too late; ideas of sensation and 
 reflexion would certainly have been restrained within closer limits 
 than they now are : and an essay so framed under his masterly 
 hand, been one of the most finished pieces among human produc- 
 tions. 
 
 Mr. Locke, however, is not infallible : and if any dissent from 
 him on this, or other account, they have a right to say, as he did, 
 in his Reasonableness of Christianity, " The makers of systems, 
 and their followers, may invent and use what distinctions they 
 please, and call things by what names they think fit ; but I can- 
 not allow to them, or to any man, an authority to make a religion 
 for me, or to alter that which God hath revealed." 
 
 The other heads, for ease and method sake thrown into sections, 
 would bear a much fuller explanation than the brevity of a dis- 
 course allows (being indeed abstracts from larger works, intended 
 for a continuation to the hist volume on divine knowledge, but 
 will now, probably, never see the light) yet may serve as hints, 
 for minds of greater abilities to improve, and raise a fairer super- 
 structure on: most of them being supported by names of allowed 
 eminence, though no friends to the cause before us j and all judged 
 capable of a strict and proper demonstration.
 
 "a 1 
 
 AN 
 
 ENQUIRY, &c. 
 
 ROM. x. 17. 
 
 SO THEN, FAITH COMETH BY HEARING, AND HEARING BY 
 THE WORD OF GOD. 
 
 JLlLFTER the knowledge of God, the most excellent and valu- 
 able man, is that of himself. And as reason gives him the pre- 
 eminence above other sublunary creatures, it must be an enquiry of 
 great importance for directing ihe mind in its search after truth, 
 WHENCE COMETH WISDOM AND UNDERSTANDING TO MAN ? 
 For with the royal preacher, it was a point of wisdom to know 
 *' whose gift she is." Wisd. viii. 21. 
 
 To this the Scripture was a plain solution (1st.) in general, 
 ** it is God that reacheth man knowledge, and the inspiration of 
 " the Almighty giveth him understanding," Ps. xciv. 10. which 
 Job also teaches in the same words, ch. xxxii. 8. (2dly,) With 
 regard to divine and spiritual matters, they particularly inform us, 
 Heb. xi. 1. that " faith," or an assent of the understanding, 
 grounded solely on the attestation of God, " is the evidence," the 
 only assurance and proof " of things not seen," or of whatever 
 does not fall under the cognisance of the senses. 
 
 This shews whence the impossibility, noted in the context, 
 arises, of mens any way acknowledging the true God, Jehovah 
 (for such is tiie original word in the prophet Joel) without a supe- 
 rior assistance. " For how shall they believe in him, of whom they 
 " have not heard; and how shall they hear without a preacher?" 
 (Joel ii. 3'2.) or one to instruct them in such knowledge. For 
 the Gentiles were " of the olive tret, which is wild by nature,"
 
 An Enquiry whence cometh Wisdom, Kc. Ill 
 
 (Rom. xi. 24.) and without fresh grafting and cultivation, could 
 not produce fruit; on which account, " in times past they had 
 " not believed God." Rom. v. 30. Because they had not heard 
 of him. " If so," then says the Apostle, the inference from these 
 premises is, " that faith cometh by hearing," or instruction 
 through the vehicle of language, " and hearing," the canal of 
 such knowledge supplied, " by the word of God." 
 
 It seems then incontestibly plain from the inspired writings, that 
 men neither did, nor could, know the true God, but from external 
 information ; and that the only knowledge of invisibilities, as to 
 their existence or nature, is from Revelation. And if this foun- 
 dation be of God, it standeth sure ; " for other no man can lay.'* 
 1 Cor. iii. 11. ' 
 
 But how then comes it to pass, that Revelation, if the sole con- 
 veyor of divine knowledge, has so long hung down its head ; and 
 reason been placed among Christians, in the chair of infallibility, 
 as the inventor, arbiter, and judge of things, both human and di- 
 vine ? This, among other causes, may have been greatly owing to 
 the strange prepossession, long handed down, which the world had 
 conceived, in favour of common notions, innate ideas, and the 
 like; as if the mind could in them, as in a minor, behold the re- 
 flexion of all truths. 
 
 Mr. Locke indeed totally overthrew these unphilosophical and 
 absurd non-entities. But as natural religion was then, and still is, 
 with the MANY, the catholic one; few treatises on that subject 
 appear, without having constant recourse to " inward signatures 
 congenite impressions, inbred opinions, notions grafted in, and 
 written upon the heart, interwoven with our very nature, spring- 
 ing up from the natural faecundity of the mind, &c. &c." for no 
 visibly good reason, but that such a religion cannot be supported 
 but by such proofs ; though they neither can, nor ought to be 
 relied en, since, as our excellent Pearson observes, " we are as- 
 sured, God never chargeth us with the knowledge of him upon that 
 account." In Art. 1. 
 
 It is however the voice of the pulpit and the schools : That 
 man has faculties sufficient to furnish him with all necessary truths. 
 That he not only could, but did, discover all the duties he owes to 
 God, his neighbour, or himself, before any revelation was made 
 to the world. That God never gave a law to mankind before the 
 days of Moses. That a general declaration of his will was never 
 made to the world before the preaching of the Gospel. That na-
 
 1 1 2 An Enquiry whence cometh Wisdom 
 
 tural religion must be pre-supposcd, as the foundation of that which 
 is revealed; and that it could not subsist without it. With many 
 other positions of the like kind. 
 
 Were reason indeed able to do all this, revelation would cer- 
 tainly be useless, as they would have it : nor would it be easy to 
 justify the wisdom of God in giving one ; since it could answer no 
 end, which man was not well qualified to attain without it. But a 
 FEW, on the contrary, are of opinion, that reason is no way de- 
 based, by saying, that man stood in need of a superior light to dis- 
 cover all the intellectual truths, necessary to his perfection, in this 
 world, and the other: and that these were communicated to him 
 bv immediate instruction from God himself. 
 
 To confirm this hypothesis, is the intent of the following dis- 
 course ; or to prove that religion entered the world by revelation. 
 Which being a. subject of the most interesting nature, as an en- 
 quiry into the truth, and obligation, of that religion we profess ; if 
 the arguments brought in support of it do not convince, they should 
 not offend. And to answer both views, shall rest the whole on 
 these principles. 
 
 That the Scriptures, as received by us, are the word of 
 God. 
 
 That the word of God is infallibly true. 
 
 *' That the veracity of God, is as capable of making us know 
 a proposition to be true, as any other way of proof can be ; 
 and, therefore, we do not, in such a case, barely believe, 
 but know, such a proposition to be true, and attain cer- 
 tainty." Locke's 2d Reply to Bp. of Wore. p. 49S. Dublin 
 edit. 
 
 . 1st. The first thing to be considered, as the foundation of 
 our enquiry, is the nature of REVELATION. Which, in its 
 primary meaning, is only to make something known that before 
 was secret. Now, the possibility of this cannot be questioned of 
 God, who has infinite methods of discovering himself; nor of 
 man's being capable of receiving it, because he that made the soul, 
 can operate upon it, in any manner suitable to its faculties. And 
 as to matter ; could God communicate nothing, in whole, or in 
 part, but what man already knew, or could comprehend the extent
 
 and Understanding to Man. 113 
 
 of his knowledge must be finite as man's, or man's infinite as 
 God's. 
 
 And as the Almighty worketh nothing in vain, those per- 
 sons, to whom he revealed himself, did, by virtue of such re- 
 velation, perceive, know, and assure themselves, that he who 
 spake to them was God : so that at the same time they clearly- 
 understood both what was delivered, and by whom. See Pearson, 
 Art. ]. 
 
 As to the frequency of such revelations, the Scriptures assure 
 us, (Heb. i. 1.) " that God, at sundry times, and in diverse 
 " manners, spake in time past to the fathers." Before the flood, 
 to Adara, Abel, Enoch, Noah, &c. After it, to Abraham, Jacob, 
 Moses, and all the prophets, who spake as they were moved by the 
 Holy Ghost. 
 
 Particularly, God conversed with Adam, immediately after his 
 creation. The first words of the serpent to Eve, prove her know, 
 ledge of him. As it is also evident of Cain, when he contended 
 with, and went out from the presence of the Lord. 
 
 Now, if God had no end in creating man, but to know and 
 serve his Maker, it seems as consistent with the divine goodness 
 to. instruct him in all things necessary to those great purposes, as 
 to make him such a creature as he did : nor can such a constant 
 intercourse be accounted fo in any other manner, so becoming of 
 God, or perfective of man. And had he been intended for a self- 
 taught, self-sufficient creature, the whole transaction of God with 
 him, must have been entirely useless, or frustrated the very end of 
 sending him into the world; neither of which can be admitted. 
 But Adam had wants both in body and mind ; and if God planted 
 a garden for food and delight, we cannot conceive him less mindful 
 of the intellectual part, created after his own image. 
 
 2d. It appears that God had frequent converse with man, 
 therefore,' to advance him in the highest wisdom, the knowledge 
 and service of his Maker, or, the whole of what is called RELI- 
 GION ; consequently it must, at this time, and in this manner, 
 have entered the world. Or, if we define it to be doing whatever 
 we are obliged to by God, it will include both faith and practice ; 
 aright knowledge of his nature and promises; and a service agree- 
 able to his will. If then right apprehensions of the divine attri- 
 butes be, confessedly, the ground of all religion, they must have 
 
 VOL. I. I
 
 114 An Enquiry whence cmneth Wisdom 
 
 been well known, before there could be any such thing, or mart 
 have speculated about it. 
 
 We are, again, assured on all hands, that " man by nature is 
 tinder an impossibility of knowing the will of God," (Pearson 
 Creed, art. 8. p. 327.) " and unavoidably ignorant of it," (Dr. 
 Clarke, Boyle Lect. pt. 2d.) as what none could declare but God 
 himself. Therefore must have made a revelation of it, before man 
 could be under any obligation to observe it, or capable of giving a 
 service well-pleasing to him. 
 
 If then, the first men, as Scripture assures us, walked " with 
 " God, before him, pleased, and were accepted of him;" we 
 must believe they had a revelation of the divine will : because 
 without a rule, there can be no demand of obedience; no subjec- 
 tion to pleasure, or displeasure ; rewards or punishments. 
 
 The first, and most eminent part of worship, was sacrifice, in- 
 stituted from the beginning, appointed for the expiation of sin ; 
 and which for ever ceased when the great oblation was offered. 
 What then should prevent our looking upon it as a federal rite of 
 the new covenant, and coeval with it, as that was with the sin of 
 man ? for there could be no acceptance without remission, no re- 
 mission without blood, no faith without promises, nor promises 
 without a covenant. Therefore, if God regards not will-worship, 
 Abel's faith, in that act, must have been a firm trust of receiving 
 pardon, and an eternal inheritance through the promised Mes- 
 siah, whereby he " obtained witness that he was righteous." 
 Heb. xi. 4. 
 
 So awful and irresistible is the force of truth, as to have induced 
 many learned assertors of natural religion, from considering the 
 first state of man, to acknowledge the necessity of a revelation be- 
 ing then given. Because the counsels, and free determinations of 
 God concerning man ; his present duty, or future existence, are 
 secrets, which all flesh is excluded from. Without it, he could 
 not possibly have known the will, or intentions of his Maker to- 
 wards him: whence his original, whither his end, what was re- 
 quired, or upon what terms God would proceed with him in 
 justice, or in mercy. 
 
 They therefore confess, " that religion must have entered the 
 world by revelation." (Butler's Analogy.) For, " what only 
 could make the first men so enlightened, as Scripture represents 
 them, was revelation ; and, that allowed, dispute is at an end." 
 (Wai burton Divine Legai.) And another, " If God had not
 
 and Understanding fo Man. 115 
 
 vouchsafed to teach mankind what they ought to know, and do, 
 both before and since the fall, we must have been in perfect ig- 
 norance of God, and all religion, from the beginning of the world, 
 till now.'* 
 
 3d. But thirdly, as the Apostle twice mentions this convey- 
 ance of knowledge, by HEARING; it certainly includes more than 
 is commonly imagined, and coming from such authority merits a 
 due consideration, in what manner it is applicable tOj or con- 
 sistent with the human frame. In which enquiry, there is no 
 flying from the will, to the power of God : we are not to examine, 
 what he can do, but what he has done; not what he might have 
 made man, but what he did. And if we judge from Scripture, ex- 
 perience, and self-consciousness ; his truest definition will perhaps 
 be found, to be an animal capable of speech; and, through that 
 medium, of reason, and religion. 
 
 For there is a wide difference between a Capacity of acting, and 
 the act itself. A watch, or other machine, fitted up with ad- 
 mirable skill, and perfect in all its parts, cannot put itself in mo- 
 tion; neither can the mind: yet one is a real watch without mea- 
 suring of time; the other has a real capacity for thinking, but 
 without thought. Both remain potentially so, till put into actual 
 motion, by some external agency. 
 
 Thus, the intellectual faculties have a power to work, when sup- 
 plied with materials to work upon, and not before; the mind is 
 then carried into action, its secret springs exert their proper ac- 
 tivity, and the rational frame enabled to think and reason. 
 
 If we consider the nature of speech, something so supernaturally 
 divine appears to all who have duly weighed it, Heathens, Jews, 
 Christians, orthodox, and Atheists *, that they pronounce it to 
 surpass the invention of men. Learned Whitby was so far con- 
 vinced of language being the immediate gift of God, as to think 
 it a clear demonstration, that the Original of mankind was as 
 Moses delivered it ; from the impossibility of giving any other to- 
 lerable account of the origin of language. Attributes, V. 2. 
 Serm. 2. p. 28. 
 
 And indeed every article in those short memorials of the first 
 passages after the creation, imply an instruction by this means ; it 
 
 * Even Hsbbes could say, God taught Adam this useful invention. Leviathan, 
 c. 4. 
 
 I 2
 
 1 16 An Enquiry whence cometh Wisdom 
 
 being inconceivable that man should understand the words of God, 
 before he was taught them. Whence it is generally allowed by all 
 writers, " that though Adam hud a capacity, and organs admirably 
 contrived for speech, yet in his case, there was a necessity of his 
 being immediately instructed by God, because it was impossible 
 he should have invented speech, and words to be spoken, so soon 
 as his necessities required." See Bp. Williams, Boyle Lect. 
 
 But there is still in this subject, a mine of rich ore, hitherto 
 little known, or sought for ; which wants some abler hand to search 
 into, sifr, and purify it. Let us however break the ground, by 
 offering a few hints to shew, that till man had language given him 
 he could not be a rational creature : which will amount to a de- 
 monstration, if it appears, that he can no more think than speak 
 without words ; but that these are as necessarily prior to both, as 
 causes to their effects. 
 
 Let us then briefly observe -in this procedure ; that the mind 
 cannot think upon nothing ; that thiogs themselves cannot enter the 
 mind, but the signs of them may ; that words are the marks of es- 
 6ense, by which it distinguishes things, one from another; and till 
 furnished with them, is incapable of acting. This Mr. Wollaston, 
 ( 5. p. 122.) proves at large, and appeals for the truth of what 
 he advances, or, that a man cannot think without words, to every 
 one's observation of what passeth within himself. Nor is it possible 
 to be otherwisej because words are the only bodies, or vehicles, by 
 which the sense and meaning of all propositions are conveyed ; so 
 that till the mind is stored with them, it has nothing to judge by, 
 think, or reason upon. 
 
 Mr. Locke must have given great light into this remote and de- 
 licate subject, had he taken language into his original plan. He 
 saw the defect, but too late, yet grants enough for our purpose, 
 " That the mind is as white paper, void of all characters." 
 Ess. \afL c. 1. 2. has no writings, signatures, or impressions, 
 which are the corner stone of natural religion. Whence then has 
 it the materials of knowledge ? not altogether from ideas of sen- 
 sation and reflexion. But, " as all men, in ttair thinking and 
 reasoning, make use of words," L. 4. c. 5. 4. that is, can 
 neither think or reason without them ; therefore, " God fur- 
 nished man with language ; and altho' he had by nature his or- 
 gans so fashioned, as to be fit to frame articulate sounds, which we 
 call words, this was not sufficient to produce language ;" L. 3. 
 c. 1. 1. that was not to be attained, but by a supernatural aid, 
 4
 
 and Understanding to Man. 1 17 
 
 which shews the weakness of our minute philosophers, who, on 
 this subject, are always supposing that men did, and an hord of sa- 
 vages now may, invent a language. 
 
 It was also " farther necessary, that he should be able to use 
 these sounds, as signs of internal conceptions, and to make them 
 stand as marks for the idea* within his own mind, whereby they 
 might be made known to others, and the thoughts of men's minds 
 be conveyed from one to another." (Ib. 2.J So that without 
 words, men could not understand, learn, or teach, any thing that 
 was said. 
 
 And as " the mind makes words to stand for the real essences 
 of things," L. 3. c. 10. 18. it could not, in the absence of 
 things, without words, distinguish, judge of, think, or reason 
 upon them ; having no marks whereby they could be recollected, 
 or presented to the intellectual faculties. Whence, " the extent 
 and certainty of knowledge has so near a connexion with words, 
 that unless their force and manner of signification be first well 
 observed, there can be very little said clearly and pertinently con- 
 cerning knowledge;" L. 3. c. 9. 21. that is, we could know 
 nothing, be certain of nothing. " And were language, as the 
 instrument of knowledge, more thoroughly weighed, the way to 
 knowledge would lie a great deal opener than it does." Ib. 
 
 Certainly, for knowledge is not to be had, without the proper 
 instrument and means of attaining it. And language being the 
 only path, or avenue, to wisdom, shews the force of our Apostle's 
 divine philosophy, *' That faith cometh by hearing, and hearing 
 " by the word of God;" that being the only conduit in receiving 
 or conveying truth. For all we learn is by words, all we think 
 is in words, and without them, .could neither learn, think, or 
 teach, much less have the most distant conception of " things not 
 " seen." 
 
 The illation seems very plain. Language cannot be contrived 
 xvithotit thought and knowledge : but the mind cannot have thought 
 or knowledge till it has language: therefore language must be pre- 
 viously taught, before man could become a rational creature : and 
 none could teach him but God *. 
 
 * We think it may be useful here to note, that though Mr. Locke allows to -words 
 no other use but that of recording our own thoughts, or communicating them to 
 ethers; we understand from Divine Revelation, that the first use of words was to 
 communicate the thoughts of God j which could not be done but in the words of 
 Co*.
 
 118 An Enquiry whence come th Wisdom 
 
 An additional light may be cast on this subject, from observing 
 the prodigious use of NAMES, in acquiring, and retaining know- 
 ledge : for they being the objects of thoughr, the mind can neither 
 describe, define, or even conceive any substance, till acquainted 
 with the name, and meaning of it : as that not only distinguishes 
 substances from each other, but is (as some speak) the mark both 
 of essence and union ; the bond which ties together the several 
 properties peculiar to ea<h, and that constitutes things what they 
 are. For the qualities and poweis of substances, which make up 
 the complex idea of them, are images too subtile and fleeting for 
 the mind to decain, without some mark of essence whereunto it can 
 annex them. 
 
 On what other account, but to have a rigjn knowledge of the 
 creatures, over which a dominion was given, did God bring be- 
 fore -Adam every beast of the field, and fowl of the air, to 
 see what he would call them? and " whatsoever Adam called every 
 *' living creature, that was the name thereof." Gen.ii. 19. Nor 
 is it reasonable to imagine, that God should thus miraculously 
 instruct him in the knowledge of his fellow-creatures, before that 
 of his Creator. On the contrary, we find the words God, and 
 Lord God, used upwards of forty times, in the two first chapters 
 of Genesis, which were names, and marks, not only of existence, 
 but of all the glorious perfections revealed of the nature. Hence, 
 the name of God, in numberless passages of Scripture, stands for 
 God himself. 
 
 For as a name cannot be given to what we have no notion of; 
 and man is invincibly ignorant of " things not seen:" so neither 
 could he discover, understand, or apply, any attribute or property, 
 till he knew the name of the substance, to which alone they apper- 
 tained ; and no information of them could be had, but from the 
 w.)rd of God, that is, revelation *. 
 
 The subject is inexhaustible. It however appears, that the 
 jnind can have no other objects of thought, but words, and 
 names; which therefore must be prior to recollection, reflexion, 
 or any mode of thinking. And it is as great an absurdity to say, 
 that a man without reason, could create language for the instru- 
 ment of reason ; as that he could create a world for himself, before 
 he was in being. 
 
 * Some of the Greek Fathers say, that God mnst be unnameable, but by himself, 
 because there was none other before him, to give him a name. l*!W W Jia Jr/x 
 *$-iv avri. Farmenid.
 
 and Uiidarstanding to Man. 119 
 
 For the rational faculty consists in a power to exert its several 
 operations, on the materials it receives and understands ; to record, 
 or dispose of them in their proper cells ; to call forth, and separately 
 consider them ; to divide, compare, and judge of their agreement 
 or disagreement ; and thereby becomes able to form propositions, 
 and draw conclusions ; that is, to think and reason. 
 
 But the instrumental cause of reason must be previous to it. 
 What was previous to reason must be taught by some intelligent 
 agent. No such agent was prior to the first man, but God (or 
 spiritual beings at his appointment.) What he taught, was by re- 
 velation. Consequently, revelation was (or there can be no error 
 in believing so) the first principle of all knowledge, and the means 
 whereby the Creator intended man should become both a rational 
 and religious creature. (Set APPENDIX A.) 
 
 4th. That revelation was the origin of religion, as well as of 
 speech and reason, will appear from considering the true state of 
 man at his first entrance into the world. 
 
 The endowments which distinguished him from other animals, 
 were the capacity of reason, and a freedom of will ; one to under- 
 stand the law, which was to be his rule of action ; the other, to de- 
 termine his will, when at perfect liberty, whether to obey, or not. 
 For the law must be known before it can be a rule ; and when 
 known, it is the choice of intelligent beings which makes an action 
 their own, so as thereby to become accountable creatures, or capa- 
 ble of rewards and punishments, to which nothing subjects them 
 but voluntary, chosen actions. 
 
 The proper state to exercise these peculiar faculties must be that 
 of probation, and without a law given they could neither be tried 
 or proved ; nor could that have any force without sanctions annex- 
 ed. God therefore entered into a covenant with man, wherein it 
 was stipulated, that obedience should entitle him to the rewards, 
 disobedience subject him to the penalty of the law. 
 
 Such was the first state of man : God gave him a perfect declara- 
 tion of his will, or, of whatever was required of him to know cr do. 
 The covenant then entered into was that of WORKS : the condition ; 
 ' do this, and live." Luke x. 28. A sinless obedience was de- 
 manded. The reward, a translation to the presence and enjoyment 
 of God in heaven, without a separation of soul and body. The 
 punishment, death, temporal and eternal.
 
 1 20 An Enquiry whence cometh Wisdom 
 
 Two things must here he carefully noted. (1st.) That none 
 could declare, promise, or confer, an eternal life, but the eternal 
 God. (2dly.) That where a sinless obedience was required, the 
 law must be full and perfect, an exact measure of acting, not the 
 least part defective, no duty to he observed, or that could possibly 
 be broken, which was not plainly propounded and understood. 
 For as without a law, there can be neither obedience .or transgres- 
 sion ; so an imperfect law is a contradiction, as being a rule that 
 cannot regulate. 
 
 We may add ; its seems no way incongruous with the divine wis- 
 dom, to have given man a consistent scheme of religion, the best 
 adapted, and most suitable to his faculties, which should oblige the 
 whole race of mankind, then virtually in Adam. 
 
 Such, there is great reason to believe, was the law in paradise ; 
 that it began with time, and shall not end but when eternity com- 
 mences, without having the least tittle altered, whilst human nature, 
 and the present frame of things endure. 
 
 5th. On the breach of the first covenant, God vouchsafed to 
 admit man into a second, or that of Grace. And if revelation 
 was necessary in his state of innocence, much more so must it be 
 in that of apostacy, to preserve him from an utter desperation ; since 
 on forfeiting the divine favour, he had no further claim to it, nor 
 could have the least certainty of his Creator's goodness, or will, re- 
 lating to his eternal welfare ; nor any hopes of escaping that dread*- 
 ful punishment he had incurred. 
 
 Every thing here is so far beyond the reach of human reason, 
 that, when declared, it is the most astonishing event that falls with- 
 in t'he compass of it. So that to reveal a design of mercy, .and a 
 promise of forgiveness, through a Messiah, was a stupendous in- 
 stance of divine benignity ; and as necrssary to man's present com- 
 fort, as redemption was to his future happiness. 
 
 In this amazing transaction, we must look higher than any deal- 
 ings had with man, viz. to the eternal purposes of God concerning 
 his restoration ; wherein " the Lamb was slain from the foun- 
 " elation of the world." Rev. xiii. 8. And " the hope of 
 *' eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the 
 " world began." Titus i. 2. As also "grace," at the same time 
 " given." 2 Tim. i. 9. 
 
 Is it then possible to believe, that a covenant should be esta- 
 blished, a promise made, and a grace given to obtain it ; yet the
 
 find Understanding to Man. 121 
 
 person, for whose benefit alone they were intended, should have 
 no knowledge or assurance of them ? This is what neither reason, 
 nor religion, can suppose. 
 
 Here it must also be remembered, (1st.) that there was no 
 change in the original law, but only in the conditions of the co- 
 venanr ; instead of a perfect obedience, a sincere one, with faith 
 and repentance, was now required ; whereby a deliverance from 
 penal ry, and a new way to immortality, were opened. (2dly.) 
 That sinners should be saved ; by what method, or on what terms, 
 re-admitted into favour ; yet the law satisfied, and the truth of an 
 immutable decree preserved ; where secrets hid in God, what no 
 created intelligence could discover, or comprehend. The angels 
 still " desire to look into" this mystery, but cannot fathom it; for 
 the " love of Christ passeth knowledge." 
 
 Thus was a Redeemer ordained in heaven, revealed in paradise, 
 believed by the patriarchs, spoken of by the prophets, and relied 
 on by all. The inference then is just, that the essentials of true 
 piety were from the beginning: for what is religion, but first to 
 know the true God, and then, by faith and obedience, through 
 the merits of the Messiah, to hope for remission of sins, and 
 eternal life ? every article of which entered the world by reve- 
 lation. 
 
 It has also been said by learned men, that supposing the history 
 of our first parents, as Moses relates it, to be true, we have a 
 plain argument, that our Maker, from the beginning, designed, 
 and appointed, all that the Gospel requires of us*. And who, but 
 an atheist, or deist, can suppose it not to be true ? 
 
 6th. The whole of religion consists in this ; " If thou wilt 
 " enter into life, keep the commandments." Matt. xv. 16, 18. 
 Let us then further enquire, when the commands of God were at 
 first given, and in what manner continued. 
 
 Grottos tells us, " that God three several times gave a law, 
 f( which obliged all mankind, to whom the knowledge of it came, 
 " after the creation, after the flood, and by Christ f." 
 
 The father of the first world received the commands imme- 
 diately from God. These were handed down with purity, to 
 the parent of the second, a preacher of righteousness, who drew 
 
 Bishop Bradford, Boyle Lect. 
 
 f De Jur. Bel. & P. L. i. c. i. \ 16, 17.
 
 122 An Enquiry whence cometh Wisdom 
 
 up a summary of them, ever after called, the statutes of Adam, 
 as derived from him ; or the precepts of the sons of Noah, who 
 transmitted them to succeeding generations. Of these, Moses 
 speaks, before he came to Sinai, as his rule of judging between 
 the people ; " I do make them know the statutes of God and his 
 " laws." Exod. xviii. 16. 
 
 The Jews also ever allowed, that the Gentiles who observed 
 them, were entitled to the kingdom of heaven, as being the only 
 essential duties which bound all mankind, and what no place or 
 age could dispense with. For the decalogue was not a new set of 
 laws, but a repetition of the former, and in substance the very- 
 same. 
 
 Our Saviour also repeats every commandment, as said of old, 
 in ancient times, or from the beginning ; and neither added to, 
 nor diminished from them *. They contained the love of God, 
 and of our neighbour, on which hang all the law and the prophets : 
 these Christ came to fulfil, and declared, that not a tittle thereof 
 should fail, till heaven and earth pass away. 
 
 Let it also be observed, that as the 10th commandment is the 
 seal to, and a fence round all the rest, by forbidding evil thoughts, 
 as v/ell as outward acts, not to commit adultery with the eye, or 
 murder in the heart ; it necessarily follows, that the revealed will 
 of God not only commands, but determines the fitness and obli- 
 gation of, what are called, moral actions. For if no human tri- 
 bunal can prescribe rules to men's thoughts or desires, how they 
 shall think, and what they shall love ; it is impossible that reason 
 should have framed these commands, because none but an all-wise 
 God, who knows the heart* of men, can take hold of what no 
 eye sees ; give laws to, bind, and subject to punishment, the most 
 secret irregularities. 
 
 So that if truth, and purity of heart, be any part of morality, 
 it must depend on the revealed will of God, and is the same with 
 religion. Jf they are not, whatever nature or reason may ba said 
 
 * Dr. Clarke grants that the commandments were originally delivered by God, and 
 as expounded to us by Christ, are still in substance the same. Catec. p. 149. Dr. 
 Whitby denies that our Saviour added one precept not virtually cantained therein. 
 Append, in Mat. 5. Mr. Locke affirms, that the rule of the covenant of works was 
 never abolished, though the rigour were abated. The duties enjoined in it, are duties 
 still ; their obligation had never ceased, nor a wilful neglect of them ever dispensed 
 yith. Reason, of Christianity, p. 216, 455.
 
 and Under standing to Man. 125 
 
 to advance, will prove of little worth or comfort to a serious 
 Christian *. 
 
 Another observation is, that the duties of both tables are equally 
 positive, enjoined by special revelation, before men could specu- 
 late about them. And as God never established a covenant, with- 
 out appointing some outward signs, or memorials, as pledges of 
 his promises, and man's obedience; the truest distinction of 
 duties perhaps may be, into legal and federal precepts of the law, 
 and precepts of the covenant. Both aie positively commanded, 
 by the same divine authority : and let men call them what they 
 please, where Goes does not remit the obligation, no human de- 
 vices can. 
 
 7th. The next step in our enquiry is, whether, and in what 
 manner such a body of laws, or religion, were known to the 
 world. And after premising the necessity of carrying in our 
 thought the vast difference between the patriarchal and mosaical 
 law, the confounding of which has produced great errors and 
 mistakes, we may leave the decision of the present question to 
 the learned Bishop Cumberland, who allows, and fully proves, 
 that the patriarchs, both before and after the flood, had laws re- 
 vealed, and promulged, by the supreme authority, directing their 
 voluntary actions to the chief happiness of man, armed with the 
 sanctions of eternal rewards and punishments, and which extended 
 to all mankind t. 
 
 * Bishop Burnet says, "the foundation of morality is religion; and that the sense 
 of God, that he is, and that he is a rewarder and punisher, is a foundation of reli- 
 gion," in Art. 7, p. 102. Whence it will follow, that if such future sanctions are not 
 knowaMe by natural reason, it could not infer any obligation (which is founded in 
 them) on moral duties. So others affirm, that the fitness of virtue to the nature of 
 things, is far from superinducing any ebligation, or laying any foundation for natural 
 conscience. See Dr. Handcock, Boyle Lect. Therefore duties so derived, are neither 
 law, ner gospel, nor any thing worth contending for. 
 
 t De leg. Patriarchal, p. 401, Sec. This he explains at large ; and shews front 
 many undeniable instances, that the patriarchs had diligently observed all the great 
 commands which respect Cod or man, long before the tables were given at Sinai, 
 (p. 443.) And remarks, that Moses seems to have wrote the whole history preceding 
 the decalogue, for prudent readers to learn, that one God, the creator and preserver 
 of men, had governed them (as servants of one God, and sons of one man, whether 
 Adam or Noah, p. 401.) by laws agreeable to those he was about to give his peculiar 
 people, p. 412. Fqr the ten commandments were only the chief heads of the law- 
 given of old to the patriarchs, p. 447. And our own great Selden has shewn, it 
 was the opinion of all the primitive Christians, as well as his own, that God declared 
 to mankind, from the very beginning of things, that he would be a rewarder of the 
 goad, and rsaicr to tterv nua according t,o hit works. I. N. & G. L. i. c. z. ^ f>.
 
 
 An Enquiry whence cometh Wisdom 
 
 So clearly does this illustrious defender of nature not only con- 
 firm our main position, but also what has been suggested, that as 
 there is an unity of design through all the works of God, and the 
 whole material system is directed, by some never-ceasing princi- 
 ple, to its appointed end, so it is not unreasonable to suppose the 
 rational part of this lower creation should have some standing law 
 whereby to live here, and be judged hereafter. 
 
 That such a rule did subsist from the beginning, appears unde- 
 niable, from the many patriarchs who walked with God, and 
 were found righteous before him. The signal instances of faith, 
 and immoveable expectations of a life to come, also demonstrate 
 a preceding revelation of the divine promises. " For as to eter- 
 * nal rewards and punishments, natural law knows nothing of 
 them*." 
 
 St. Paul indeed says, 2 Tim. i. 10, " that Christ brought life 
 ' and immortality to light." But the word qouri&vT*, properly 
 signifies to illustrate, cast greater light on, and more clearly dis- 
 cover, what was known before : no other exposition is recon- 
 cilable with scripture ; and the same Apostle confirms it, Heb. xi. 
 that " the fathers died in faith, not having received the promises ; 
 " but having seen them afar off, were persuaded f them, and em- 
 " braced them, plainly declaring that they desire a better country, 
 " that is, an heavenly ; wherefore God is not ashamed to be 
 " called their God." And the hope of all good men, was to 
 enjoy " the pleasures which are at God's right hand, for ever- 
 * more." Psal. xvi. 11. Our Saviour says, " Search the scrip- 
 " tures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life ;" John v. 89. 
 which proves their belief of that article, and their agreement that 
 it was revealed in the holy writings. 
 
 So our own church teaches, (Art. 7.) " that both in the Old 
 ** and New Testament, everlasting life is offered to mankind by 
 ' Christ." For it was a standing revelation ; part of the " ever- 
 " lasting Gospel preached unto them that dwell upon the earth, 
 *' and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people t." 
 Rev. xiv. 6. 
 
 * Cumberland, ib. p. 407. 
 
 + And though some object, that the words everlasting life, are not to be found in the 
 books of Moses; yet even Bishop Burnet allows, " that it is clear Moses did all along 
 suppose the being of God, the creation of the world, the promise of the Messiah, and 
 i future state, as things, well known, and cairied down by tradition to bis days," in 
 Art. 7.
 
 and Understanding to Man. 125 
 
 Particulars of the pious and holy men of old, are needless ; when 
 the Apostle, after the list of heroes recorded, adds, " that time 
 " would fail him to enumerate all who wrought righteousness, 
 " obtained the promises, &c." Heb. xi. They are noble in- 
 stances of an amazing fortitude, and unshaken zeal, by which in 
 all things they became more than conquerors ; and by having re- 
 spect to a future recompence, obtained a good report, and are set 
 forth as ensamplcs to us. Ensamples equalled by few, excelled by 
 none ! 
 
 And in what do the prophetick writings differ from the Gospel? 
 both preach repentance for the remission of sins, persuade men to 
 forsake their evil ways, and then promise that God would re- 
 member their iniquities no more. In consequence of which, no 
 humiliations can be deeper, no sorrow for guilt more afflicting, no 
 conversion more sincere, or supplications for pardon and accept- 
 ance more earnest, than what every where occur in the patriarchal 
 and succeeding ages. 
 
 It is also observable, that as their religion and hopes chiefly- 
 centred in the Messiah, their notices of him, from the earliest 
 times, were so frequent, that every prophet who arose in Israd, 
 spake plainly of him. " Receive (says St. Peter) the salvation of 
 " your souls ; of which salvation (through Christ) the .prophets 
 '* have enquired and searched diligently, &c." 1 Ep. i. 19. So 
 that every age had its evangelists. The passion and resurrection 
 of Christ, (through which alone salvation could be had) with the 
 glory that should follow, were articles of the prophets, as well as 
 of the Apostles Creed. 
 
 If then " the grace of God which bringeth salvation, hath ap- 
 '* peared to all men," Tit. ii. 11. and the patriarchs were saved 
 by it, what difference is there between their law and ours ? for, 
 when all is said, to believe in the true God and his Messiah,; a re- 
 mission of sins through him, on a sincere obedience and re- 
 pentance : a resurrection ; the soul's survivance ; and a future 
 state of rewards and punishments ; evarr were, and will be, the sum 
 of all religion. 
 
 This they did : but. there could be no knowledge of the co- 
 venant, or its conditions, till declared ; no faith irj a Messiah, till 
 revealed ; no proof of obedience, without a .law ; no subjection 
 to rewards or punishments, without a freedom of choice ; no 
 power to do what is well pleasing to God, without the aid of his 
 holy Spirit. Hence the judicious Mede owns that the Gospel, or
 
 J26 An Enquiry whence comcth Wisdom 
 
 glad tidings of salvation, to be attained by Christ, were as ancient 
 as the time of man's sin, and afterwards repeated and continued, 
 p. 110. 
 
 8th. Of the Mosakal law, little need be said, as being of a 
 la'.e date, and narrow extent. The patriarchal was from the be- 
 ginning, and renewed to many : thus, " God preached, before, 
 " the Gospel t Abraham." Gal. iii. 8. That is, before his cir- 
 cumcision ; and this notice of justification by a Messiah was re- 
 vealed to him, who had been bred in idolatry 430 years before the 
 law of Closes. Nor was the decalogue any part of this law : 
 Moses plainly distinguishes them ; " The Lord delivered unto you 
 " his covenant, even the ten commandments.'* Deut. iv. 13. 
 They had been long under both ; and Moses was only the mes- 
 senger, not the lawgiver. 
 
 God delivered one ; the other was wrote by Moses in a book, 
 after their falling into idolatry, Exod. xxiv. 1. and laid upon 
 them as a punishment, or burthen, rather than a religion, having 
 nothing of true piety in it. God himself says, " I gave them 
 '* my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man 
 " do, he shall even live in them." Ezek. xx. 11. These were 
 the precepts of old, renewed at Sinai, and had the promise of life : 
 '* notwithstanding they rebelled against me," " wherefore I gave 
 " them statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they 
 " should not live." Ezek. xx. 21. v. 25. As the commands of 
 God, they were bound to observe them ; but the strictest obedience 
 thereto did not entitle to life. 
 
 Many were the essential differences between these laws. The 
 patriarchal wa~s to endure for ever : the mosaical but for a time. 
 That obliged all mankind : this only a small colony, to whom it 
 was a separate municipal constitution ; as charters to a body of 
 "citizens, who are nevertheless bound by the common law of the 
 land. 
 
 The observation then that arises, is, that if the pious Jews were 
 (saved under it, they were not saved by it. It could punish or remit 
 offences, committed against its own ordinances according as the 
 case was ; but " not purge the conscience from dead works, to 
 serve the living God." Heb. ix. 14. Eternal life and death 
 were no part of it ; but still remained in force, as sanctions of the 
 original law and covenant.
 
 and Understanding to Man. 127 
 
 Hence the frequent assurances, that sins were not remitted, nor 
 justification to be had from the observance of it : yet the Hebrews 
 never doubted that the most presumptuous sins, idolatry, murder, 
 injustice, sr oppression, for which no mercy could be found by the 
 law of Moses, would, on a sincere repentance, be fully pardoned ; 
 consequently by the terms of another covenant, and so well known, 
 that their hopes of eternity rested upon it. 
 
 The sins of David were irremissible in the court of Israel, yet 
 he knew forgiveness was to be had in that of heaven. On this 
 ground, he confessed, supplicated for, and obtained absolution. 
 " Against thee only have I sinned ; deliver me from blood- 
 * guiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation." This must be 
 only through the Messiah, for there " never was any name, given 
 " under heaven, whereby men could be saved, but that of Christ 
 " Jesus." 
 
 9th. As law is the rule of life, and measure of action, it will 
 be necessary, for a further confirmation of the subject before us, 
 to consider some peculiarities essential to it. 
 
 Now, law in its primary notion implies a restraint of liberty, 
 whereby a free agent is directed to act, or not to act, in such a 
 manner, as before he was not obliged to ; and that under the pain 
 of guilt and punishment. 
 
 Whence a noble author lays it down for an unquestionable truth, 
 ' that no actions are good or bad, honest or vile, till made so by 
 " some law ; it being certain, that antecedently to the imposition 
 " of any law, all actions must be esteemed indifferent." PufFen- 
 dorff, L. N, 1. 2. c. 3. . 4. 
 
 And Mr. Locke, " that what duty is, cannot be known, with- 
 4 out a law." L. 2. c. 28. &c. 
 
 " And by referring their actions to the divine law, men judge 
 * c whether they are duties or sins." Ib. . 7. 
 
 For as God created man a free agent, no one had right or 
 power to fetter his liberty, but the Lord of nature; which he 
 super-induced, by giving a revelation of what he required : nor 
 could this have the force of a law, till signified to man after the 
 manner of men ; that is, by discourse and communication ; by 
 something that taught him, and obliged him. See Duct. Dub. 
 L. 2. c. 1. 
 
 From these principles it wiH follow, that all duties were of ex- 
 ternal institution, not reasoned out, but absolutely positive, before
 
 128 An Enquiry whence Cometh Wisdom 
 
 any act of obedience or sin could be performed ; for law being 
 the standard of actions, by that they must he deemed lawful or un- 
 lawful ; and being also the measure of them, must contain every 
 particular to be done or avoided. All which must be duly pro- 
 mulged, because law cannot bind, till declared, and known to be 
 such. 
 
 This obtained from the beginning. God was the lawgiver, re- 
 velation the publisher; and thence arose such difference in the 
 actions of men : " The divine law being the only measure of duty 
 or sin," Locke, Ib. 8. 
 
 10th. From the same authority proceeds another essential of 
 law, vie. its Obligation, without which it could not operate, but 
 remain a dead letter, of none effect. This arises on two accounts, 
 (1st.) from restraint of liberty, with respect to actions, which else 
 were at our choice ; and (2dly,) from annexing rewards or punish- 
 ments, to the use or abuse of our freedom ; which is the most ra- 
 tional obligation to determine the human will. These sanctions 
 are the great enforcement of law, as drawing good or evil upon us, 
 from our observance or breach of ir, by the decree of the law- 
 maker : " without them a law cannot be supposed ; since it would 
 be in vain -for one intelligent being to set a rule to the actions of 
 another, if he had it not in his power to reward the compliance 
 with, and punish deviation from his rule." Locke L. 2. c. 28. 
 6. &c. See Appendix B. 
 
 For as actions cannot be said to he good or bad, where there is 
 nothing to direct or determine the will, so none are subject to 
 the sanctions of law, but the voluntary and chosen ; and the being 
 convinced of these sanctions, induces a bond or tie, to act, or not 
 to act ; as it subjects to that happiness or misery, which the law 
 has annexed to the free choice of such or such actions. 
 , Law, then, is the will of a rightful superior, commanding, or 
 forbidding ; who has a just authority over him that is commanded, 
 wisdom to observe how his will is obeyed, and power to reward or 
 punish accordingly. This is the prerogative of God alone^ as 
 creator he has supreme authority over the creature. He is lord of 
 the soul, can take notice of its inward transactions, and most secret 
 faults, and inflict punishment equal to transgression. Therefore he 
 oly can command and bind the conscience, because none other can 
 judge of it, and whatever does not so oblige, can be neither re- 
 ligion, nor law.
 
 and Understanding to Man. \ 29 
 
 ' Again ; the sanctions of law must be commensurate to the whole 
 of their beings who are subjected to them, or the obligation would 
 be, bat in part. If then man is intended for immortality, such 
 must be the sanctions of the law he is bound by ; and he the 
 only law-giver who has authority to enact them, and power to 
 reward with everlasting life, or punish with eternal damnation. 
 These could not be set before us, but by revelation : therefore 
 the revealed word, which will be the rule of judgment here- 
 after, must be at present, the only principle and measure of human 
 actions. 
 
 For as every thing blameable, or commendable, must, have some 
 rule to try its goodness by, " hence the divine law is the only 
 true touchstone, even of morel i^c^i'iae^ since hv comparing their 
 actions to that, it is, that men judge of their most considerable 
 moral good, or evil; that is, whether as duties or sins, they are 
 likely to procure them happiness or misery from the hands of the 
 Almighty." Locke, ib. 8; 
 
 ilth. If no authority but the supreme, can induce an obliga- 
 tion, the most sacred regard must be had, not to admit any bond 
 on conscience, but what has a manifest and divine fight tf it. 
 
 This will convince us, that no judicature ori earth has such 
 enacting or compulsive power, but what is virtually, or formally, 
 derived from the law of God That human precepts may advise 1 , 
 or persuade, but cannot controul That reason may gain assent, 
 but not be a rule of obedience, till it has some unerring method of 
 knowing what is reasonable or unreasonable; which it is plain 
 the heathens never had, since it ever failed them in the particular 
 applications of good and evil That no single person can oblige 
 another, having no right to it, or sovereign jurisdiction over himj 
 in matters of duty and sin That laws entered into, by a combi- 
 nation of men, in society, can be of force no longer than the 
 agreement lasts, which every one may retire from at pleasure. 
 Nor during such compact, can any force of human command 
 invest such precepts wi;h the power of obligation ; they must 
 have this before they can be received as rightful laws, and that 
 only depends on their being the will of a rightful superior, that is^ 
 God *. 
 
 * This Plato allows, that God> and no mortal, is the first anil original cause of all 
 JAW. De Leg. I. 
 
 VOL. I. 1C
 
 'ISO An Enquiry whence cometh Wisdom 
 
 Nor are moderns less inconsistent, or contradictory, in fixing 
 this tie of obligation. There is the confused cry of a multitude, 
 lo here, and lo there. But if one system be right, all the rest are 
 wrong ; and which is right, has not been hitherto agreed ; which 
 proves they have no unquestionable principles to go upon. Even 
 their beloved subject, of drawing obligation from the eternal reason 
 and fitness of things, lately imported from some unknown ideal 
 region, is set forth in so many different lights, that it may serve 
 to amuse, but not to instruct, or convince. 
 
 The scriptures constantly direct us, for the learning of truth 
 and righteousness, to the will, the word, the law, and command- 
 ment of God, as being perfect, sure, what endures for evr, en- 
 lightens the eye, converts the soul, gives understanding to the 
 simple, a,nd is able to make all men wise unto salvation : but 
 never sends us to proportions or congruities, for any such purpose; 
 therefore whatever names * shall teach them, we are sure that 
 doctrine is not from heaven. And the visible effect of it, whether 
 intended or not, has been, to set the minds of men loose from any 
 obligations of religion ; which is a sure way, first to render it weak 
 and contemptible, and then to banish it out of the world t. So 
 that if natural religion was urged by some to oppose atheism ; the 
 concessions and arguments of their successors laid a sure foundation 
 for, and are now the very citadel of infidelity : a strange chaos of 
 divinity has been introduced; but, from their principles, Tindal 
 neither has been, nor can be, answered. 
 
 * i. e. persons. 
 
 + The later and more candid writer! on natural religion, abate somewhat of 5t3 
 rigour, in defining obedience to be doing that which God commands, because he dil 
 command it. Butler Analogy, pt. i. c. 5. p. 99. Which therefore must be prior to 
 obedience or obligation. Others allow, " that the law of nature does not receive its 
 obliging force, barely from the fitness or agreeableness of things as such, but from the 
 will of tJod, who only has both right and power to oblige us; yet suppose them de- 
 clarative of "the will of God, and a means of proznulging. it to us." Cockman Serm. 
 Oxford-, 17^1. But where has God acquainted us, with an intent of declaring his will 
 by such method? if no where, it is only a device of men. We are agnin told, " that 
 this perfect law was obligatory upon mao as soon as created, so as to behave himself 
 according to the fitness of things, and the dignity of his nature." They should also 
 explain the possibility of this, without inspiration, that is, being revealed. Or were it 
 possible; yet after the fall, the relations between God and man were totally changed ; 
 and if the terms of divine justice and mercy were free, man must be invincibly ignorant 
 of them.. Though for the sake of opposing revelation, it has, with equal folly and 
 profaneness, been asserted, that reason could determine, what God could do,, and wa 
 obliged to do.
 
 arid Understanding to Man. 131 
 
 If God created things after the counsel of his own pleasure* 
 and rectitude of will (as to act otherwise would be a denial o 
 himself) all their proportions, relations, and fitnesses, are of his 
 appointment; creatures, which, of themselves, cannot oblige ; nor 
 have the force of law, till a delegation of divine power to them is 
 undeniably manifested. 
 
 If their reasons were eternal, obligatory in themselves, ante- 
 cedent to the commands of Gd, or any way independent of his 
 \vill : then infinite freedom was restrained by them, and infinite 
 power necessitated to act as it did, and not otherwise. Which must 
 lead us up to some archetype or principle, external to, coeval with,, 
 and, indeed, superior to God, since he was obliged to command 
 them, in the form, as they pre-existed. 
 
 Or, allowing God to be the first cause, it seems very unconse- 
 quential, that the relations of things should, when produced into 
 being out of nothing, become of eternal necessity, absolute, unal- 
 terable, and indcpendant of that cause, to which their very exist- 
 ence is owing. 
 
 To modest minds, it is sufficient to say with Scripture, " God 
 " saw every thing that he had made, and behold it was very good :" 
 good in itself, as made by him, from whom no evil can come ; 
 and fitted, by him, for its appointed station,' in the visible or in- 
 tellectual world ; therefore must be agreeable to the purest reason; 
 as God, who cannot lie, was the author of both. But it is the 
 creative, revealed word, not nature, teaches that the fitness of 
 things to virtue, leads to everlasting happiness. 
 
 And that God has an absolute right, over all their fitnesses, and 
 relations, appears hence : that though no human power can dis- 
 pense with the least of them ; yet he has suspended the weightiest 
 parts of the law, even justice and mercy ; as in the case of Abra- 
 ham, the Israelites in Egypt, and many others. He can enact or 
 repeal, perpetuate, change, or abrogate his own laws at pleasure : 
 and wheia he interposes they cease to oblige, therefore can have no 
 obligation, but from him. 
 
 12. Among other peculiarities of law, we must not omit 
 the scriptural acceptation of it. And there we meet with none 
 universally binding, but the divine law, as a" revealed distribution 
 of the divine mind ; the authority, extent, and obligation of which 
 are summed up in this short sentence, " fear God, and keep his 
 " commandments, for this is the whole of man," all that is nu- 
 
 K2
 
 ]32 An Enquiry whence cometh Wisdom 
 
 Cessary to attain the utmost perfection of his being. But the com- 
 mand must he given, hefore it can be kept; nor can there be sin 
 or duty, but from a voluntary omission or performance of what 
 that enjoins. 
 
 In this the Scriptures are every where express. " That we 
 ** had not known sin but by the law." Rom. vii. 1. For, 
 " where there is no law, there is no transgression." II). iv. 5. 
 Consequently nothing good or evil, r o as to be matter of reward or 
 punishment, but by some law ; for as much as " sin without the' 
 44 law is dead." Ib. vii. 8. Has not the nature of ir, which con- 
 sists in guilt, and subjection to the legal penalty. Because, " sin 
 44 is not imputed, where there is no law," (Ib. v. 2.3.) so as to 
 condemn to death. But as " the sting of death," what makes it 
 so embittering and dreadful, is sin ; so " the strength of sin is the 
 "law;" (I Cor. xv. 56.) without which it could not hurt, or 
 bring guilt and death upon us : but where the law subsists, its con- 
 demning power is in full force. 
 
 So it was from the beginning. " If thou do well," says the 
 Almighty to Cain, (Gen. iv. 7 ) " shah thou not be accepted ? 
 " and if thou dost not well, sin lieth at the door," or punishment 
 ready to be executed. 
 
 Place matters in what light we will, to make man the inventor, 
 and author of law, will be found contrary to reason, and experi- 
 ence, as well as Scripture. To reason, because it has ever failed ; 
 has no power to reward or punish ; and the lawgiver who binds, 
 must be greater than he that is bound. To experience, as that shews 
 what little advancements the wisest ages made, in the knowledge of 
 God, and true religion. Their solemnest worship was abominable, 
 their allowed morals most infamous, without any distinction of 
 good and* evil, but what custom made. Nor in all the volumes of 
 antiquity, is a complete table of duties and sins, or a perfect rule 
 of action, founded on just principles, and deduced by proper me- 
 dium*, to be met with. 
 
 13th. A great variety of arguments, supported by our ablest 
 reasoners, have l-^en oftered. And if it shall in any measure ap- 
 pear fion-r them, that religion entered the world at the creation ; 
 and that no law can be a rule of action, or oblige, but that of 
 God, the inference sought for will be true ; that no state, or re- 
 ligion, could be prior to revelation j and as none were subsequent 
 thereto, but what might, and did, receive benefit therefrom ; no
 
 and Understanding to Man. 133 
 
 place, or use, can he found, fora state, law, or religion of nature; 
 being altogether incompatible with an antecedently given re- 
 velation. 
 
 Consequently, all that has been, or can be said, in favour of 
 them, ameunts to no more than this ; that men found out, what 
 Cod had made known before. Or if it be argued, that reason 
 could have discovered these things, without the aid of revelation ; 
 it is begging the question, incapable of proof, and a vain pre-' 
 sumption, in ascribing to the human faculties a power which they 
 never exercised, nor from any judgment to be formed of them, 
 were able to do. 
 
 Nor does it carry the least probability of truth ; since the wiser 
 heathens always ascribed religion to the gods, and acknowledged 
 the necessity of a light from them. And every age is a demon- 
 stration, that the further men dispersed from the patriarchal seats, 
 where revelation was never extinguished, and came the nearer to 
 an uninstructed state, which is properly that of nature, the deeper 
 they sunk in ignorance and brutality. 
 
 But this matter may be referred to a short issue. Such great and 
 glorious things have been spoken by learned men, of this blessed 
 state ; when reason was a Gospel, and nature a sufficient guide to 
 final happiness ; when men had perfect knowledge, untainted in- 
 nocence, right notions of God, knew his voice, and were so in- 
 timate, that one might almost say, they had a personal acquaint- 
 ance with him. Now if there be any tiling more than a dream in 
 all this, let them vouchsafe to tell, but likewise prove, when and 
 where, this charming scene was exhibited ; whether in Egypt or 
 Greece, in Hudson's Bay, or the mountains of the moon ; and dis- 
 pute is at an end. 
 
 If they cannot shew one tittle of this; not a single fjct, among 
 the many advanced, lhat has the least truth or reality in it ; they 
 must pardon others, for not joining in their fairy dance, the amuse- 
 ment of luxuriant fancies, a phantom raised up to exercise the 
 wit of men, and exalt their own understandings above measure. 
 For what contradictions or absurdities can be greater, than an eter- 
 nally existing religion and law, for an eiernally non existing 
 state ? the whole is alike visionary, and never subsisted Tout of J J a 
 radise) but in the hunun imagination. 
 
 J-K But the strongest plea for natural religion is siill behind. 
 A right knowledge of God is, on all bands, allowed to be the
 
 134 An Enquiry whence comet fi ffisdom 
 
 foundation of religion ; it is therefore assumed as a postulatum, 
 that men, by the use of their faculties, might, and that the 
 Heathens did, discover the true God, without the help of revela- 
 tion; whence it is inferred, that they who had just apprehensions 
 of the divine attributes, could not be ignorant of a service proper, 
 and agreeable thereto. 
 
 But this position, the very corner stone of Deism, may not only 
 be dissented from ; but must be denied, as absolutely false. Bc- 
 cattse Scripture tells us, ' that faith is the evidence of things not 
 " seen ;" the only assurance of the certainty or reality of what is 
 spiritual, invisible, and future, even the divine existence as well 
 as attributes. This is so plainly the Apostle's intent, Heb. xi. 6. 
 that Dr. Clarke acknowledges it. " What these things are, say? 
 he, which being not seen by sense, nor yet manifest by faith, the 
 Apostle here declares : " they are, the being of God, and the re- 
 wards of the life to come." Serm. l.p. 1. Both are invisible, 
 and equally restrained to the same method of knowledge : if future 
 rewards are not knowable but by revelation, neither is the divine 
 existence. 
 
 The only question before us, is, whether we shall believe God 
 or man? Men say, the Heathens djd know God. Scripture the 
 Direct contrary, that " the Gentiles knew not God," that " the 
 *' world by wisdom," or any disquisitions of the human mind, 
 ' knew not God," were " strangers to, without hope," and 
 a3eo;, absolute Atheists, " without God in the world," " ig- 
 ' nerant of him, but afterwards knew God." For " all the 
 " gods pf the, nations v/ere idols." Creatures, " which are not 
 ?' gods." *(* Things that are not." Empty, vain, and profit 
 not ; for " an idol is nothing in the world, and there is none other 
 *' God but one *," even " the Lord that made the heavens ;" 
 *vhom the Heathens neither know, nor had heard of. 
 
 As to the knowledge of God, every thing, on the side of re- 
 velation, is plain and consistent. " Faith is the assent to a pro- 
 position, not made out by the deductions of reason, but upon the 
 credit of the proposer, as coming from God," Locke, L. 4. c. 18. 
 2, To believe on the divine testimony is a religious act, which 
 has no objects but matter of revelation. This full assurance 
 , H.eb. x. 22. J makes every article certain and, 
 
 * i Thess. iv. 5. I Cor. i. 21. Eph. ii. iz. Gal. iv. 9. Ps. xcvi. 5. 
 Deut. xitxii. 16, Eit. xiv. ii. j Cor. viii, 4.
 
 and Understanding to Man. 135 
 
 infallible ; no proposition having more irresistible evidence, than, 
 whatever God affirms, is true. 
 
 < On t,he side of reason every thing is dark and impenetrable. 'By 
 what sure and certain steps, an uninstructed mind, which never 
 heard of God, could rise up to a clear comprehension of an infinite 
 and uncreated nature. The fable of the giants rearing mountain 
 upon mountain to invade heaven, has something more specious in 
 it, than the fable of a groveling silly Automathes, crawling up to 
 light inaccessible. 
 
 Where shall the savage (for all are such by nature) set out ? he 
 is without the name of what he is to seek ; yet names are the only- 
 marks of essence, to which he could affix any discoverable proper- 
 ties : and names cannot be given to things, of which the mind has 
 no apprehension. When, or where then, could he begin to search 
 for he knew not what ? 
 
 To say a finite mind should enquire after infinity, a term, which 
 it could neither conceive or understand, is a contradiction. Yet. 
 every thing in God is infinite, and what is immense is measurable 
 only by itself. So that till he could judge of infinity by his narrow - 
 reason, or measure eternity by a span of time, he would be as far 
 off the end of his enquiry, as when he began. Can those enlight- 
 ened Christians who attribute so much to Heathens, comprehend 
 eternity without succession, or immensity without extension ? Do 
 they not confess, " there is hardly any thing more inconceivable, . 
 " than how a thing should be of itself, as God is?" Tillotson, 
 V. 1. Serin. 48, p. 573. Yet this is but the first step in the ladder 
 which must reach to heaven. 
 
 Mr. Locke tells us, " that the first being is infinitely more re- 
 mote, in the real existence of his nature, from the highest and per- 
 fectest of all created beings, than the greatest man, nay purest se-' 
 raphim, is from the most contemptible piece of matter; and con* 
 sequently must infinitely exceed, what our narrow understandings 
 can conceive of him." L. 3. c. 6. 11. Now what ideas can 
 a man have of what he has not the loast conception ? yet 
 " knowledge (with him) goes not beyond our ideas and our. 
 perception of their agreement or disagreement with the reality of 
 things many of which are beyond our reach." If then there 
 can be no certainty of our ideas agreeing with archetypes infi-, 
 nitely beyond our comprehension, there can be no knowledge. Sq 
 where all the essential aud distinguishing properties of a substance 
 
 : incomprehensible, such must be its existence also. Every
 
 1 36 An Enquiry whence comcth Wisdom 
 
 thing here is equally boundless, and without limits : and the infi- 
 nite existence of an all-perfect nature, cannot be known but by its 
 infinite perfections. 
 
 Such is the fask men impose on their speechless, untaught, ig- 
 norant animal : to search for-, what he nitest know, if he knew 
 any thing, was altogether remote, and unsearchably. But others, 
 who have thoroughly studied the subject, teach us, that all things 
 of an incorporeal nature, lie beyond the reach of human know- 
 ledge, as we have no grounds from sense or reason to lead us to 
 them. That whatever belongs to God, the adorable perfection of 
 his attributes, the works of his power, the proceedings of his pro- 
 vidence, and the like, are objecis of none of our faculties : they 
 lie far beyond the sphere of natural light, or inquisition of 
 reason. 
 
 15th. As the question before us, whether the Heathens did, 
 by the use of reason, come to a knowledge of the true God, is 
 of great importance, let us examine it in a different manner. r JTie 
 first thing in all controversies, is to determine, aid agree in, the 
 true meaning of words. And if we understand the name. God 
 in a scriptural or Christian sense, as a nature, or essence, supreme, 
 invisible, incorporeal, ineffable, incomprehensible, cc. without be- 
 ginning or end, the first cause, and creator of all things; the Hea- 
 thens surely never had a notion of him. 
 
 . Again. As all things are distinguished by their essential pro- 
 perties, to know a thing must be to have right apprehensions of 
 those qualities, and attributes, which constitute that identity, by 
 which a thing is what it is, and not any thing else. But the pe- 
 culiarity of the godhead, or what makes it different from all other 
 beings, is infinite perfection: so that to ascribe the least shadow of 
 defect to him, at once destroys the clearest and most essential no- 
 tion we can have of God. 
 
 If the Heathens believed him such, they certainly knew him ; 
 if they did not, they as certainly were ignorant of him. It is an 
 old and true maxim, Deum -uegartt, ay/trendo quod Dei est, 
 Tertul. adv. Marc. c. 3, to withdraw what belongs to God, is a 
 denial of him, by making him something different from, inconsist- 
 ent with, and contradictory to his real nature. 
 
 To conceive him what he is not, is to pnt an idol in his place. 
 .And it deserves an harder name than shall be here given, ;o say,
 
 and Understanding to Man. 157 
 
 they knew the true God who represented him under characters, or 
 attributes, which he has not, nor can have ; or if he had them, 
 could not he what he is. 
 
 Truth is but one ; and he who makes the least alteration therein, 
 by endeavouring to add to, or diminish from it, turns it lit-9 
 falshood. As God therefore is but one single act, the same eter- 
 nal, uncompounded principle, without any dissimilar, or heteroge- 
 neous parts, and what we call the excellencies of his nature, are the 
 nature itself: to misrepresent, or defalcate these, is to change it into 
 a lie. 
 
 They who judge by this scriptural rule, must allow, that the 
 Heathens, with respect to divine knowledge, sat " in a land of 
 " darkness, as darkness itself, and of the shadow of death, with- 
 " out any order, and where the light is as darkness." Job x. 2<2. 
 Their ignorance, falshoods, and blasphemies' of the Supreme 
 Being, need not be mentioned. Every one knows them ; their 
 defenders are ashamed, and have no apology to offer. What a 
 scale of diminution is Dr. Clarke forced to use ? " Men," said he, 
 " without the assistance of revelation, did not attain to a right 
 knowledge of God, in any considerable degree some argued them- 
 selves out of the belief of the very being of God and in those en- 
 quiries, wherein they professed them to be most wise, they became 
 fools." Rom. i. 22. 
 
 To what lengths will a bad cause carry learned men ? They 
 knew God but not tightly^ fa&k falsely ; nor in any considerable 
 degree, therefore not at all, for he is not discoverable by scraps, or 
 halves; they knew, what their own ratiocination forced them to 
 unknow, so far, as to disbelieve his very existence. And after pro. 
 fessedly laying out the whole effort of the human mind, to attain 
 some wisdom, in these sublimer subjects, they remained errant 
 fools ; not knowing what, or why, they worshipped^ The upshot 
 is, that if they knew God, to know, and not to know, must be the 
 same thing, at the same time, and in the same- person. 
 
 Nor will it mend the matter, to glean a few detached sentences, 
 scattered up and down the ancient writings, how charming soever 
 they may be, and then cry out, behold the strength of reason ! 
 but let a philosopher be name 1, even the divine Plato, who rightly 
 judged, " that nothing should be attributed to God, that is not 
 consentaneous to his nature." Repub. 2. p. 319. A. And if a 
 thousand glaring abs-irJities, falshoods, contradictions, and in- 
 consistencies, are not to be found in him, (which Cicero saw,
 
 138 An Enquiry whence cometh Wisdom 
 
 and lamented in his Deus ille noster) the cause shall be given up. 
 If they occur in every page, the few bright sayings are no more 
 than flashes of lightning, which may amaze, but not direct the be-, 
 nighted traveller : and only prove, that they had heard of subjects 
 which they did not understand; and repeated a name, the true 
 import of which they never kneic. 
 
 It has also been ever acknowledged by Heathens, as well as 
 Christians, that men may as well have no God, as to entertain base, 
 unworthy conceptions of him. (See APPENDIX, C.) Yet by the 
 tenour of the Gentile catholick faith, he was looked on as a mate- 
 rial, impotent, and polluted being. 
 
 The Scriptures account for all this ; that " the nations had" 
 " forgot God." Ps. ix. 1. After which they never recovered the< 
 knowledge of him, " nor called upon his name." Ps. Ixxix. 6.' 
 " And when they Jtnew not God, they did service to them, which 
 ' by nature are not gods." Gal. iv. 8. For " they sacrificed to 
 devils, not to God." Deut. xxxii. 17. 1 Cor. x. 23. So that 
 except belief and disbelief, knowledge and ignorance, truth and 
 falshood, have changed places, the Heathens were utter strangers to. 
 the true Jehovah. 
 
 16th. If we further consider the real strength of reason, and 
 that great proficiency the ancient sages made in subjects, where 
 the mind had some sure footing : what could prevent their making 
 equal advancements, with certainty and truth, in divine know- 
 ledge, but that it is placed out of the depth of reason ; and that, 
 " touching the Almighty, we cannot find him out ?" Job xxxvii. 
 23. Had it been possible, some imperious mind, during the long 
 reign of philosophy, with its force of genius, natural and ac 
 quired endowments, and unwearied diligence, in the pursuit of it, 
 would have framed some rational consistent scheme ; but none 
 did. 
 
 Socrates had doubts concerning his country gods, but there he 
 stopped ; in life he constantly attended their altars and temples, and 
 in death worshipped them. Porphyry, " from the whole of their 
 religion, greatly feared, that their opinion of the Deity was quite 
 contrary to what it really is." Epist. ad Aneb. and shall we judge 
 of paganism from him, or any modern ? 
 
 Again. Had they discovered the existence of God with cer- 
 tainty, they must, by the same procedure and connexion of 
 proofs, have clearly perceived, that indefectible holiness,
 
 and Understanding to Man. 139 
 
 justice, infinite power, and every other perfection of essence, were 
 inseparable from that existence. Then would the schools have ar- 
 gued in a similar manner, concerning the first being; without those 
 fundamental differences, and eternal clashings ; which made Cicero 
 look on their disputes, as the dreams of madmen, rather than the 
 judgments of philosophers. 
 
 Here there is no medium. We must either say, the human 
 mind was unequal to the task: or, there was not a man honest 
 .enough to declare truths of the greatest importance to the world; 
 but maliciously debased them, with foul and intolerable errors. 
 Nor do they any honour to reason, who affirm she could do, what 
 she never uid; but it is justice to suppose her author never intended 
 her for such purposes. 
 
 In human philosophy vast improvements are daily made ; in the 
 divine so little, that, since paradise was lost, no wisdom under the 
 sun, has been able to add one iota, in the discovery of another at- 
 tribute, or a clearer manifestation of those that were revealed, be. 
 fore reason could enter on the enquiry. 
 
 Nothing hut conviction made Grotius say, " that to affirm any 
 thing more, for certain, than what is delivered in Holy Scripture, 
 either concerning the nature of God, or his will, by the sole 
 guidance of human reason, is most unsafe, and fallible." De Ver. 
 Christ. Relig. L. 3. c. 12. 
 
 | 17th. There is still another argument to be considered, which 
 natural religion most frequently appeals to, and seems to lay the 
 greatest stress upon, viz. that the human faculties, by contem- 
 plating the works, may, and did, ascend to a knowledge of the 
 workman. But this will, on examination, appear to be false and 
 groundless as the rest, upon several accounts. 
 
 1st. The Scriptures never urge the works, to prove the being 
 of God, but his eternal power and godhead, when revealed : 
 then, and not before, " the heavens declare the glory of God;" 
 and as Job speaks in the like sense, " ask now the beasts and they 
 " shall tell thee. For by the greatness and beauty of the crea- 
 " turos, proportionably the Maker of them is seen." Job 
 xii.7. Wisdom xiii. 5. 
 
 2dly, They plainly teach us,^" that through faith we under- 
 " stand that the worlds were framed by the word of God ; so that 
 *' things which are seen, were not made of things which do ap- 
 " pear," Heb. xi. 3. Creation., or producing something out of
 
 1 10 An Enquiry whence cometh Wisdom 
 
 nothing ; and innumerable beings, at a word, lee it be so, starting 
 out of non-entity, is no object of reason, but of faith. Here 
 again all things are infinite ; and he who can clearly discover the 
 contrivances of omniscience, may also perform the works of 
 omnipotence. The very hearing of creation, is by the word 
 of God, 
 
 3dly, The creatures were so far from leading to the Creator, 
 that they were the cause of the first and most universal idolatry, 
 when the world forsook and denied him. The name- of God re- 
 mained, with an opinion of some superior excellencies belong- 
 ing to it: but the nature so totally forgot, that t-hey arbitrarily 
 cnnexed the name to the most glorious of visible objects, the uni- 
 verse, the sun, moon, and stars, which they accordingly fell down 
 tt>, and worshipped, as gods. 
 
 They also deihcd the worst and wickedest of men ; but such as, 
 from their atchicvements, they looked upon above the common 
 rank of mortals ; the founders of kingdoms and cities, the inventors 
 of arts and sciences, or the benefactors of mankind. The former 
 continued to be the gods of philosophers, the latter of the com- 
 monality, during the life of paganism. 
 
 4thly, The very act of creation was looked upon as a thing so 
 incredible and impossible, that it became the common opinion of 
 all naturalists, that "nothing can be made out of nothing*." 
 They therefore universally held matter to be a self-existing princi- 
 ple, co-eternal with God, and that its pre-existende was absolutely 
 necessary to the production of tilings. Accordingly, Jehovah is, 
 through the Old Testament, distinguished from false gods, as the 
 maker of heaven and earth. And in the New Testament the Apos- 
 tles begin their instruction of the Gentiles (not the Jews, who ever 
 believed it) with that distinguishing attribute, they were entirely ig- 
 norant of, the living God who " made heaven and earth, and all 
 things therein f." 
 
 Aristor. Phys. i, 4, 8. 
 
 f Anaxagoras held two eternal principles. Plato made his im.-ter's hypothesis 
 ^orsc, by adding a third. And Arinotle denied both, as having no reason to support 
 them, and held the world to be eternal. 1'Uto V -leeil (in his Tim&us) calls Go<t 
 Jtytjsyoj 57Tj TI, the frainer and lather, of the lesser gods. But professes to have 
 received it from antjent original tradition ; and does not infer more, than that will 
 warrant; at the same time steadiiy holding the eternity of matter and motion. Galen 
 says, the opinion of Moses is quite different from mine, and Plato's, and all other 
 Grct'ks who have wrote judiciously couceruing nature. De part, in corp. hum. us, 
 Orat. 9. c. 13. Simplifies, if he [AIosjsJ thinks this tj have bce*i the tint geriera,-
 
 and Understanding to Man. 141 
 
 Omnipotence Is an essential attribute of God. That power 
 which reachith to the utmost possibility of things, or, to whatever 
 is not contrary to the divine nature, or does not imply a contra- 
 diction, which are no objects of power. This every Heathen 
 denied to God. And all his ways and workmanship being un- 
 searchnble by man ; he, for the manifestation of his own glory, 
 revealed, and recorded by Moses, what only could be known to 
 himself; the act, and order of creation. 
 
 It must then incontestibly follow, that no contemplation of the 
 visible works, could lead those i'p to an invisible Creator, wlv> 
 believed a creation utteily impossible. Consequently, no relations 
 or fitness of things could be a stiifrcient direction to the world, 
 whilst ignorant of the nearest relation man can stand in to God, 
 that of a creature to its Creator. And the foundation bciug thus 
 apparently false, the whole pompous fabiic built thereon, falls to 
 the ground. 
 
 Nor were any fitnesses declucibls from an agent who could not 
 work without matter prepared to his hand, as wanting the per- 
 fections .of a Supreme Being. And for moderns to infer them, 
 from an act of infinite liberty and freedom, is, at best, an un- 
 warrantable presumption. In the will and works of God every 
 thing is impenetrable, further than he declares them ; except there- 
 fore a man can comprehend all the ways which infinite wisdom 
 hath of knowing things, and infinite power of doing things; how 
 they were at first contrived, and by what means they now fulfil 
 their destined agency ; it will be ever impossible to deduce from 
 them, a complete and undoubted rule of life. 
 
 >,'or is it needful ; God no where requires it, but has given 
 another method of instruction. And could he deceive us in his 
 word, he might also by his works, and man be subjected to per- 
 petual delusion. The word and works are equally from him, as 
 Creator and Law-giver: hs established the course of things, and 
 order of nature, but gave them not as a law to us. That is, tQ 
 
 tion, and beginning of tims, it is a fabuloua narration. Com, in Arht. Phyf. L. 8. 
 p. 268. C'elsus derides the Mosaic history ot the creation, as an incredible unphiloso- 
 phical tale. Grig. cont. Cols. L. 4. p. 186. And Longinus, ^ 7. though he a-lmircd 
 the grandeur wherewith Moses described the creation, looked upon it as a high strain 
 f rhetorick, rather than a proper expresiion of that iucov.prehcns.ble efficacy, v. h .". 
 attends the divine '.vUi and decree. See ATPENDIX D.
 
 142 An Enquiry whence comet/i fffsdum 
 
 love him and keep his commandments, which are to Se learned 
 from his revealed word, not from the Bible of the world. 
 
 Mr. Locke, however, has the easy method, by a Pythagorean 
 ipse dixit, of sliding over and solving matters which do not square 
 with his Essay. The real essence of all things is, with him, far 
 beyond our discovery or apprehension. L. 3. c. 6. 9. Yet men 
 have faculties to discover enough in the creatures to lead them to 
 a knowledge of their Creator and their duty. L. 2- c. <23. 12. 
 L. 4. c. 12. 11. That is, men know nothing really of matter 
 the nearest to them ; yet by that knowledge of nothing, know 
 enough to discover a spiritual infinite, removed at the most incon- 
 ceivable distance from them. They are not fitted for the least, yet 
 are equal to the greatest task. 
 
 Mr. Locke indeed says this, but never attempts to prove it, ex- 
 cept by scriptural arguments, which he uses, when professedly 
 treating of this subject, L. 4. c. 10, &c. and he certainly in- 
 cluded himself under his general rule, that moderns no ways excel 
 the ancients in strength of reasoning ; and whatever they say better 
 is from a light the others never had. His bare assertion, there- 
 fore, can be looked upon as no more than what he elsewherer 
 calls, " a confused notion, taken up to serve an hypothesis." 
 
 " And he certainly was as good a philosopher, who teaches, that 
 " surely vain are all men by nature, who are ignorant of God, 
 ' and could not out of the good things that are seen, know him 
 " that is ; neither by considering the works, did they acknow- 
 " ledge the work- master." Wisd. xiii. 1. 
 
 18th. So much has been said of the knowledge of God, which 
 is the foundation of all religion, that little need be added on ether 
 subjects. A RESURRECTION, and the soul's IMMORTALITY, are 
 the ground-work of all reasonings about futurity; and if not 
 clearly discoverable, natural law is of little worth ; it being an 
 eternity to come, that makes religion so awful, and its motives so 
 powerful. 
 
 As to a RESURRECTION, it was ever looked upon as an article 
 i ncredible and impossible. The Stoics and Epicureans had never 
 heard of so strange a doctrine, and despised it. (Acts xvii.) Pliny- 
 says, God cannot do all things, neither recal the dead, nor rnake 
 mortal creatures immortal. N. H. L. <2. c. 7. And Celsus brands 
 it, as the hope of worms, a filthy, abominable, impossible thing,
 
 and Understanding to Man. 143 
 
 what God neither will, nor can do. Grig. cont. Cels. L. 5. 
 p. 240. 
 
 Of the soul's IMMORTALITY, it may suffice to say, that as 
 the divine power and goodness are the only stahility of things, by 
 which all created beings are brought into existence, and enjoy a 
 continuance of it : so, whether they shall be annihilated, or have 
 a permanence through all eternity, depends wholly on the will of 
 God; and what he will do cannot be learned but from revelation; 
 no principle being clearer tban this, that whatever had a begin- 
 ning, may also have an end ; that it shall not, must rest on the 
 divine testimony. 
 
 ' For had the soul a natural immortality, the origin of life in 
 itself, it could never cease to be, but would be God. If its im- 
 mortality be only positive, it is a special act of the Creator ; and 
 what infinite liberty did, or would do, could only be declared by 
 him. 
 
 But as all things beyond the grave are, to nature, a land of 
 darkness, the best arguments it could offer were false and incon- 
 clusive. There never was agreement, because no certainty. 
 Some doubted, others denied, not one had an assurance of it. 
 Whence all their disputes ended in nothing but words, and empty 
 contentions. All they could offer was, says Grotius, conjecture, 
 incerta;, vagtf, fragiles, doubtful, vague, and weak conjectures. 
 
 Immortality was an hearsay, which pleased some, convinced 
 none. If the soul survives, well ! if not, no evil will ensue ; 
 was the utmost limits of human understandings. (See APPEN- 
 DIX E.) 
 
 Of a FUTURE STATE, whose extremes of happiness or misery 
 so closely bind the soul of man, their opinions were equally wa- 
 vering and contradictory ; some broken remains of antiquity 
 carried down the river of time, sadly defaced, and ridiculously 
 disguised ; but what none could rectify. Yer, says Bp. Wilkins, 
 Nat. R. L. 1. c. 11. " what bears, and wolves, and devils, 
 would men prove to one another, without the belief of rewards 
 and punishments in another life ?" true; but were they not looked 
 upon as children's tales, without influence or regard ? These 
 things are only knowable by revelation ; to that are owing hu- 
 manity and civility, as well as reason and religion. And because 
 the voice of it was but little heard, or not at all, by so many 
 nations, ever was the true cause, and still is, of their being wolves 
 ami devils.
 
 144 An Enquiry whence conieih Wisdom 
 
 Yet these articles were steadily believed by the Hebrews. 
 Martha knew her brother would rise again in the resurrection 
 at the last day. It was the hope of Israel, and the promise of 
 God made unto the fathers. A future state of rewards and pu- 
 nishments was also so clearly revealed in the writings of Moses 
 and the prophets, that he who hearkened not to them would not 
 be persuaded though one rose from the dead, and attested the 
 reality of it. 
 
 The same will hold good of every ether article. Some light 
 shone forth in darkness, amidst the few who travelled to glean up 
 knowledge. But all primaeval truths became so miserably altered 
 that little more than their names remained. And of these, na- 
 tural religion shall have the full benefit, in the manner and measure 
 they were taught by the wisest schools. 
 
 As to their MORALS, they were of necessity loose and incon- 
 sistent, having no. rule to try them by, or principles to deduce 
 them from. It is agreed, that there can be no morality, except 
 there be a God, whose nature is the first and great exemplar of 
 it. Therefore, what men's notions of God are, such will be 
 their morals; if one be gross, imperfect, and false; so must be 
 the other. The propositions are convertible; tell us your gods, 
 and we will tell what your morals are : tell us your morals, and 
 \ve will tell what are your gods. All were alike bad, their gods 
 \vere vanities, their worship accursed, and their morals the shame 
 of reason, and the stain of na:ure. 
 
 19th. But it will be asked, how then can we account for what 
 knowledge, be it more or less, the Gentiles had, and whence was 
 it derived? the answer is, from TRADITION; as may appear by 
 several considerations. 
 
 1st. Nature being the same in all, take revelation away, and 
 mankind must have been under an universal light, or total dark, 
 ness; there being little difference, but what instruction makes. 
 This ceased, as men dispersed, and reports became daily more 
 uncertain ; like the faint twilight on the horizon, when the sun 
 is set, which gives some notices, but very imperfect ones, of 
 distant objects: where that was quite extinguished, it was dark- 
 ness, as the shadow of death. This our excellent Hooker con. 
 firms ( EC. Pol. L. 1. 13.) " To judge what hazard truth is in, 
 when it passeth through the hands of report, we need only con-
 
 and Understanding to Man. 145 
 
 suler the little of things divine, which the Heathens have in such 
 sort receive !." For truth never changes, but for the worse. 
 
 2dly, Tiie very obscurity of things is a proof of such convey- 
 ance: as truth must be before error, which is only a corruption 
 of it. Original falshood is a contradiction, and impossible. An 
 instance of this we have in the name of God (to which some su- 
 premacy and worship will be annexed) his proper appellation Je- 
 hovah remained, but turned into a lie, and called Jove ; not de- 
 noting any truly divine being, hut matter, or man, or what every 
 one pleased; for the world had 300 Jupiter gods, that Euripides 
 might well say, who Jupiter is, I know nothing, but what fame 
 reports. Menalip. v. 2. 
 
 The same rule will hold good in all cases : if there had not 
 been once a true religion, we could never have heard of bad ones : 
 every mode of Gentile worship was some divine institution per- 
 verted. This manifests the certainty of a revelation, and the 
 weakness of reason, which was so far from discovering new truths, 
 that it could not retain the old ones it had learned. And that these 
 were no congenite notions, appears from its never recovering them t 
 when once lost, but by fresh instruction. 
 
 3dly, According to the difference of purity, wherewith original 
 traditions were conveyed to different people, arose the strict ob- 
 servance of pa r ticular duties in some places, which, in others, 
 were totally neglected. So far conscience went, and thoughts ac- 
 cused, or excused them ; but no farther than informed. Where 
 ignorance was invincible, there could be no law to oblige, nor rule 
 to act by ; therefore God winked at it, passed it by, without 
 charging it to their condemnation. But had they sufficient light 
 by .nature, and that were the appointed means, to know their 
 duty and their God ; there could have been no room for such 
 mercy : or, the condition of Heathens was far better than that of 
 Jews or Christians. 
 
 4thly, If the world had various doctrines and speculations about 
 things, confessedly above the sphere of reason ; as of lesser gods 
 or angels, the origin of the universe, the primeval state, the cor- 
 ruption of man, the entrance of sin, mediators, atonement, and the 
 like : it has the strictest force of demonstration, that they were 
 once revealed ; and the deformed manner in which the Heathens 
 taught them, was a debasement of their pristine beauty. 
 
 The vast length of time also through which many traditions 
 have been conveyed, and do still subsist, amongst distant and even 
 
 VOL. i. L
 
 146 An Enquiry whence cometh Wisdom 
 
 barbarous nations, of which instances may be given amongst every 
 known people under heaven; abundantly confirms the observation 
 alr.-ady made, that there could be no age which did not receive 
 benefit from revelation. 
 
 Nor can we here omit a noble testimony of the patriarchal seats 
 being where Moses placed them, from which fountains all the 
 streams of knowledge flowed : that as Greece derived its sacred 
 doctrines and traditions from the east, the Chinese do it from the 
 west. Du Halde, torn. 3, p. 313. 
 
 5thly. There can be no point in philosophy more undeniable 
 than this; that whatever knowledge men discover by a rational 
 procedure, they are able to prove or shew by what train of rea- 
 soning they made out the deduction. Yet the Heathens never 
 couid do this, in any divine article. Some argued better than 
 others, but not a single tenet was ever demonstrated from right 
 principles, by proper mediums ; so that it could not fee their own 
 invention. Aristotle therefore rejected his master's suhlimer doc- 
 trines, because no rational account could be given of them. 
 
 Plato, however, is very ingenuous, professing he did not come 
 at them by his own discovery, but from hearsay ; and frankly 
 tells where and from whom he received each article ; " yet verily 
 believed them to be true." Gorgias, p. 524. A. He justly calls 
 them Syrian and Phoenician fables, or traditions, but ineffable, as 
 containing mysteries above his comprehension ; and derives the 
 very existence of the gods from their own information. Philebus, 
 p. 16. C. His example alone sufficiently demonstrates, that no 
 man can go further in supernatural truths than he has a borrowed 
 light to direct him : and such was the confession of every philo- 
 sopher. 
 
 6thly. This method of conveyance is acknowledged by their 
 most learned defenders, as the only one they had of coming at 
 these speculations. Grotius calls the survivance of souls a most 
 ancient tradition, derived from our first parents. Whence else, 
 says he, should it come to almost all civilized nations ? De Ver. 
 Christ. Relig. 1. 32. Bishop Cumberland. The tradition of 
 one God, greater than the rest, the soul's immortality, &c. were 
 derived from the common fountain of mankind, the sons of 
 Noah. Orig. Antiquiss. p. 451. Bp. Burnet, from the universal 
 belief of a God, infers, that either there is somewhat in the na- 
 ture of man that, by a secret sort of instinct, dictates this to him, 
 or, that this belief has passed down from the first man to all 
 
 4
 
 and Understanding to Man. 147 
 
 his posterity, in Art. 1 . Dr. Whitby. That the weak and im- 
 perfect knowledge the Heathens had of a future judgment, was 
 preserved to them by tradition. Attributes, V. 2. p. 69, 93. 
 Dr. Clarke, of the soul's immortality ; that it was received from 
 a tradition so ancient and so universal, as cannot be conceived to 
 owe its original either to chance, or to vain imagination, or to any 
 other cause, than to the author of nature himself. Boyle, Lect. 
 pt. 2. Prop. 4. And such is the language of almost every writer 
 who treats of this subject. 
 
 2@th. This enquiry into the means of attaining knowledge, 
 grounded on the true plan of nature, the authority of scripture, 
 the experience of all ages, and the confession of the wisest Hea- 
 thens and Christians ; shews that, in whatever light we place 
 things, an infant mind wants nurture, as well as an infant body ; 
 which nothing but instruction, and that originally from God, can 
 supply. Our adversaries are therefore again called upon to shew 
 when, where, and by whom, a right belief of the true God, and 
 the duties owing to him, were clearly and universally maintained 
 prior to, and without any benefit from revelation : or with it, out 
 of the pale of Jewry. 
 
 If the world ever was without the name of God, to which some 
 sense of religion must be annexed, let them prove it ; or tell us, 
 how men could be said to find out, what they learned from their 
 fathers? and if the wiser Heathens disclaimed their coming at 
 such knowledge, by any use of their faculties ; whether to 
 affirm what they deny of themselves, be not arrogance and 
 falshood. 
 
 Or were an universal rule of acting imprinted on nature, inter- 
 woven with our very beings, every one must be as conscious of it, 
 as of his own existence ; and as soon forget to see, or hear, or 
 walk, as these self-evident truths congenite with, spontaneously 
 springing up, and cut deep, in the heart : such objections as 
 these are slided over, never answered. Let one city, or one 
 man, be produced as an example, of knowing or believing these 
 things. 
 
 And if the few adulterated their choicest doctrines with mon- 
 strous absurdities ; to depend on reason for a guide, affords little 
 honour to God, or comfort to man ; of what use is a law in the 
 mind, which no one perceived, and every one corrupted. * Let it 
 also be reconciled, how mankind should, be able to discover the 
 
 L 2
 
 148- An Enquiry whence cometh Wisdom 
 
 perfect will of God ; yet, when discovered, totally unable to ob- 
 serve it in faith or practice. 
 
 But if we take instruction along with us> it is a teacher that 
 will direct us through all the obscurity and maze of things, solve 
 every difficulty, lead up truth to the fountain head, and explain 
 the mighty difference in wisdom, between ages and nations ; that 
 as marble in the block is capable of any form, so is the human 
 mind deformed, or beautiful, according to the skill of him who 
 models and polishes it. 
 
 What good cause then can be assigned for reason being thus set 
 up against revelation, except the pride of man, who would not 
 willingly be a debtor to any but himself? The revealed Word of 
 God is a complete law of all things required of him to believe, or 
 do, towards the perfection of his nature. And whether his com- 
 mands relate to practice or speculation, the authority of all is 
 equally from him ; but with this difference, that to the former he 
 demands the obedience of our will ; to the latter, only the assent of 
 our understanding. 
 
 Yet, though his precepts are most excellent, agreeable to the 
 purest dictates of reason, and the highest expectations of the soul, 
 men will not ascribe the glory of them to God, but themselves j 
 and by thus taking off their obligation, become their own lords 
 and masters. 
 
 On the same account they reject all mysteries, because there 
 can be no secret counsel in God, which they are notable fully to 
 understand and comprehend; though the only faith required of us, 
 is to believe the reality of some things, upon the credit of a divine 
 testimony ; not the manner how they do exist, which is neither 
 revealed, nor required of us to know. And if men are not so wise 
 as God, infidelity, in these cases, must be owing to great pride or 
 perverseness. Though one short rule may serve to direct us in 
 considering both the word and works of God ; that it matters not 
 what we (ignorant of the internal frame of all things) can con- 
 ceive or do, but what infinite power can do, and what infinite 
 truth declares he has done, can, or will do. This no one denies 
 of God, but that he may be a God to himself. Or for man to 
 complain that he cannot do, or know more, than his present fa- 
 culties are able, is to complain of God that he did not make him an 
 angel, or some different being, with larger capacities from what 
 he is. -
 
 and Understanding to Man. H9 
 
 And for what is it men would exchange the word of God? for a 
 law, which has no certainty or obligation, no existence, no mark 
 of truth or religion in it; of so little use to the great purposes of 
 man, rhat it never did afford an universal rule to direct him in the 
 way ro happiness ? What then could the fruits of it be, but to live 
 in ignorance, and He down in mis.ery f 
 
 Even to read Dr. Clarke's Unchangeable Obligations of Natural 
 Religion, seems sufficient to make a thinking Christian renounce 
 and abjnre it. V. 2. Prop. 6. " That the best of the philoso- 
 phers had no knowledge of the order and method of God's go- 
 verning the world niiat their natural understanding was as un- 
 qualified t find out and apprehend the most obvious necessary 
 truths, as the eyes of bars to behold the light of the sun even the 
 nature and attributes of God himself As to the manner in which 
 God would be worshipped, they are entirely and unavoidably ig- 
 norant In all important doctrines, as the soul's immortality, and 
 certainty of a future state, they were very doubtful, and uncertain 
 Nor were ever able fully to explain, or prove, the necessary in- 
 dispensable obligations of morality They perpetually disagreed, 
 and contradicted one another concerning the -chief good, and final 
 happiness of man and several other very necessary truths, not 
 possible to be discovered, with any certainty, by the bare light of 
 nature Or, were it possible, it is certain, infact^ the wisest philo- 
 sophers of old neyer did it So that there was plainly wanting 
 some extraordinary and supernatural assistance, which was above 
 the reach of bare reason and philosophy to procure And the very 
 heathens were persuaded, that the great rules of human life must 
 receive their authority from heaven For revelation has a greater 
 and more influence upon the lives and actions of men, than the 
 reasonings of all the philosophers." 
 
 Of what necessity or use, then, is a religion that thus vanishes 
 in a mist? Nor is it only a deceiver, in pretending to things it 
 iiever did, but a felon, in robbing revelation of invaluable truths, 
 and then claiming them as its own. " For'almost all the things 
 that are said wisely and truly by modern Deists (and pray what is 
 Dr. Clarke?) are plainly borrowed from that revelation which 
 they refuse to embrace, and without which, they siever could have 
 been able to have said the same things It is one thing to see that 
 these rules of life, when plainly laid before us, are perfectly agree- 
 ble to reason, and another thing, to find out these rules merely by 
 the light of reason." Dr. Clarke, ib. Prop. 1.
 
 150 An Enquiry whence cometh Wisdom 
 
 So Mr. Locke, and others " It sould seem," says he, " by 
 the little that has been hitherto done, that it is too hard a thing for. 
 un ssisted reason to establish morality in all its parts, upon its true 
 founda:ion it' ever failed men, in this its great and proper 
 business -And if the Christian philosophers have so much out- 
 done the Heathen, yet we may observe, that the first know- 
 ledge of the truths they have added, .was owing to revelation." 
 "With much more to the same purpose. Reason, of Christ, p. 
 268, &c. 
 
 Here, then, let us stop and consider if there are but two ways 
 of coming at whatever deserved the name of wisdom or under- 
 standing, either by reason or revelation : one, a glimmering, false, 
 deceitful taper, that always bewildered its followers in ignorance 
 and error ; the other a clear, perfect, and refulgent light, ever 
 shining forth unto perfect day, by which no one ever walked, 
 and was deceived. What difficulty can there be in our 
 choice ? 
 
 Who would change his Bible (by which, a villager knows more 
 than all the schools of Athens or Reme} for a metaphysical ceb- 
 \veb, an inconsistent jargon of unmeaning terms, which can render 
 a man neither wiser nor better ? or leave truths of his great con- 
 cernments to tedious intricate deductions, which few or none are 
 able to judge of, when he has in his hands so short and sure a me- 
 thod of coming at them, as the infallible rule of his almighty law- 
 giver ? 
 
 If redemption and faith, repentance and salvation, are articles of 
 our creed, and n parts of natural religion, what should we study, 
 but the words of eternal life ; or whither go for learning but to 
 that school, where such divine subjects are taught as none but God 
 could declare, and confirmed by such unquestionable evidences as 
 prophecies and miracles, which none but God could bring ? nor is 
 the time yet come, or ever will, when his revealed word shall not 
 be as accessary for the direction of man, as his providence to go- 
 vern the world. 
 
 To conclude. From the foregoing enquiry, we may perceive 
 the error of several opinions, advanced by great names amongst 
 us, in support of natural religion. One is, that God never gave 
 a law to mankind before the days of Moses ; and thence, in all 
 their discourses, confound the Patriarchal and Mosaical law toge- 
 ther, though most essentially different in their origin, obligation, 
 universality, and continuance. Another, equally false and danger-
 
 and Understanding to Man. 151 
 
 ous, is, that a general declaration of God's will was never made to 
 the world, hefore the preaching of the Gospel. 
 
 But of all the assertions inculcated by moderns, the most detest- 
 able is, that the only intent of revealed religion, was to revive and 
 improve the natural notions we have of God : and that revelation 
 cannot subsist, without presupposing a natural religion. Whereas 
 it appears undeniably, that revelation was from the beginning ; and 
 that without ir, there could net have been any duty, law, or re- 
 ligion in the world. Let us then " hold fast that form of sound 
 " words, and beware lest any man spoil us, 'through philosophy 
 " and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments 
 " of the world, and not after Christ." 
 
 For as the whole scheme of creation and redemption was laid in 
 the mind eternal, so since the fall, there has been but one covenant, 
 the everlasting Gospel of good tidings ; but one mediator, whose 
 priesthood is unchangeable ; one faith, by which we can be saved ; 
 one hope of eternal life, and threat of endless death, to every one 
 that cometh into the world. 
 
 Here then (but as I ought, in so solemn a case, from a thorough 
 and long conviction, nor from any other motive, would urge others 
 to do the same) I fix the rule of my faith, the law of my being, 
 and the hopes of my salvation, that religion entered the world by 
 revelation ; and that, because no other system can give certainty, 
 authority, and obligation to it, can neither satisfy {he judgment, 
 nor bind the conscience. And if this principle be true, without 
 any thing here advanced in support of ir, but what is warranted 
 by scripture, dispute is at an end. Whatever the Atheist or 
 Deist object ; whatever foundation of stubble, or straw, others 
 would lay, in reason or nature, can be no more than cavil or suppo- 
 sition. 
 
 In the Bible alone, is man's present duty, and final end pro- 
 pounded. And thence it appears that a perfect rule, and fixed mea- 
 sure of duty, binding at all times and places, without standing in 
 need of any addition or alteration, was given at the beginning, and 
 shall endure through all generations; who are but one family, in 
 one spirit, one Saviour, one God and Father of all. 
 
 To whom, &c.
 
 An Enquiry whence cometh Wisdom 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 J\S some points might seem to want further explanation, 
 and others to be confirmed by the opinion of the most 
 competent judges, it was thought proper to add them by way 
 f appendix. 
 
 A. p. 15. Tt is undoubted a task of utmost danger to dissent 
 from Mr. Locke's essay ; yet wkilst it is the standard of mens 
 reasonings, and judging of things, if any fundamental errors be 
 contained therein, they must unavoidably lead into mistakes of the 
 most pernicious nature. To examine matters of such consequence, 
 is every one's duty and interest ; with which view, I beseech every 
 serious enquirer after truth to consider, whether our great author, 
 whilst he rooted up innate ideas, did not, by his own hypothesis, 
 open a gap to far greater evils. Whether, indeed, his whole plan 
 be not contradictory, false, uncertain, and inconsistent with religion. 
 At least, I shall otter a few observations, why it appears to me in 
 that light. 
 
 1st. The grand principle on which his fabrick rests, is, "that 
 ideas of sensation and reflection are the original of all knowledge." 
 The rule is general ; no exception -can be made : for " all those 
 sublime thoughts which tower above the clouds, and reach as high. 
 as heaven itself, take their rise and footing here : in all the great 
 extent wherein the mind wanders in those remote speculations it 
 may seem to be elevated wuh, it stirs not one jot beyond these 
 ideas." L. 2. c. l.$2*. 
 
 To pass ovei ideas ot reflection which Bishop Brown (in his li- 
 mits of t'ae human understanding) has proved u ideniably to be a 
 contradiction in terms: it must be here observed, that the frequent 
 retractions from his main principle every where to be met with, 
 were not intended to invalidate it, nrare"so taken by his followers. 
 The general maxim is inviolable, " that we want knowledge of all 
 sorts, where we want ideas." 
 
 Now if the mind be acquainted with numberless truths, the 
 knowledge of which (by Mr. Locke's own confession, and 
 an impossibility arising from the nature of tilings) it did not come
 
 and Understanding to Alan. 153 
 
 at, by ideas of sensation and reflection, there can want no 
 farther pi' >->f of the Essay's being laid in falshood and contra- 
 diction. 
 
 Our i hilosopher then tells us in general, that " in the works 
 of G<>d there are more and more beautiful beings whereof we 
 have no ideas, than there are whereof we have ideas. 2d. Reply 
 to the Bishop of Worcester, p. 537. Dublin Edit. Of which 
 beings whereof we have no ideas, a man is capable of knowing 
 their exister.ee to be real and true, " because he is capable of hav- 
 ing it revealed to him by God," ib. which surely, as he seems 
 immediately after to apprehend, is inconsistent with " his own 
 way of certainty." 
 
 He again thus distinguishes things; " by reason God com. 
 municates to mankind that portion of truth which he has laid 
 within the reach of our natural faculties Revelation is natural 
 reason enlarged, by a new set: of discoveries, communicated by 
 God immediately." L. 4. c. 19. 4. Consequently, there are 
 truths and knowledge of quite a different kind and origin from 
 those supposed to be attainable from ideas of sensation and 
 reflection. 
 
 " For there are propositions above reason." Ib. c. 17. 23. 
 " Many things wherein we have very imperfect notions, or none 
 at-all, and other things, of whose past, present, oi future existence, 
 by the namral use of our faculties, we have no knowledge at all: 
 these as being beyond the discovery of our natural faculties, and 
 above reason, are, when revealed, the proper matter of faith." Ib. 
 c. 18. 7. " The existence of spirits is not knowable, but by 
 revelation." Ib. c. II. 12. " And concerning the existence 
 of several other things, we must content ourselves with the evi- 
 dence of faith." Ib. " For in all supernatural tru:hs, the evi- 
 dence of reason fails." 2d. Rep. to Bp. of W. p. 5i>7. " We 
 receive the Christian religion from revelation, whereby God him- 
 self affords light and knowledge immediately to us, and we see 
 the truth of what he says, in his unerring velocity." Ib. c. 7. 
 1 1." For revelation, having the testimony of Go^, is certaincy 
 beyond doubt, evidence beyond exception; and our assent to it, or 
 faith, has a* much certainty as our knowledge itself." Ib. c. 16. 
 14. 
 
 1$ it not then clear as the sun, that though some truths are laid 
 within our reach, " of which the mind can determine and judge, 
 by the use of its natural faculties, from nauualiy acquired ideas ;"
 
 154- An Enquiry whence cometh 
 
 Ib. c. 18. 9. yet there are numberless others of far greater dig- 
 nity and importance, which lie beyond the sphere of reason ; as all 
 supernatural, spiritual, and invisible beings, or objects, which are 
 discoveries immediately from God. For " whatever proposition 
 is revealed, of whose truth our mind, by its natural faculties and 
 notions, cannot judge, that is purely matter of faith, and above 
 reason." Ib. Then revelation is the principle of truth, and ground 
 of assent. 
 
 So that here re a vast stock of sublime knowledge, all indeed 
 deserving that name, which does not take its rise from, or has 
 the least connection with, ideas of sensation and reflection. Nay, 
 the point contended for undeniably follows Mr. Locke's own po- 
 sitions, that whenever religion entered the world, it must have been 
 by revelation, or communicated by God immediately ; which is 
 incompatible with ideas of sensation. 
 
 2dly. There arises from the very nature of things, an impossi- 
 bility of their being, in general, subject to Mr. Locke's system of 
 ideal knowledge. If we consider the utmost extent of the mind, 
 all things conceivable by it may be reduced under two classes, 
 visible and invisible, material and immaterial. There is no me- 
 dium ; nor can think or judge of them, without some mark or 
 representation before it ; and in proportion as these are clear or 
 confused, such will be its perception of them. 
 
 Of the former species it has an exact image, conformable to the 
 existence of things, which may be properly* called an Idea. This 
 is what he says ; " of a figure we clearly see, 1 and a sound we dis- 
 tinctly hear, we have ideas by sensation or reflexion." Let. to Bp. 
 of W. p. 70. 
 
 But what has this to do with tke other class of things, " which 
 " eye hath not seen, nor ear heard?" yet by his own rule we 
 have a knowledge of? Here we have no true picture, or represen- 
 tation in the mind, but only some faint notices, received by in- 
 struction and analogy, or comparing things unknown with those 
 that are known. We see them but " as through a glass darkly," 
 1 Cor. xiii. 12. ev amy/^arj, obscurely, at a distance; so as to 
 have a glimpse of them by likeness or similitude, not a clear vision 
 of the objects themselves. And these, in distinction to ideas, may 
 be called Notions, as " being quite removed from sense." L. 3. 
 c. 1. 5. For they are conveyed by language to the intellect, 
 where words are the substitutions or signs of them. 
 
 Nor are things themselves more essentially different than their
 
 and Understanding to Man. 155 
 
 conveyances to, or representations in the miad for objects of 
 thought. Language cannot convey original direct ideas of sense, 
 nor ideas of sense intellectual notions. So neither can we have 
 an idea of spirit, or a notion of what we distinctly see. And it 
 is as possible for the mind to create an object of sense, as a notion 
 of invisibilities without information. 
 
 On which accounts Mr. Locke's grand principle is false, con- 
 trary to, and inconsistent with, the nature and essential difference 
 of things. 
 
 3dly. This hypothesis is uncertain, and of the most pernicious 
 consequence to all religious truths. 
 
 It appears that the mind cannot contemplate things, in their 
 absence, but by some representations of them; nor otherwise, 
 than as they are true or false. For " as truth in its proper im- 
 port, signifies nothing but the joining or separating of signs, as 
 the things signified by them, do agree or disagree with one ano- 
 ther." L. 4. c. $. 2. it must follow, that the placing signs to 
 represent things which they cannot possibly signify, will produce 
 great uncertainty and error, both in philosophy and divinity, by 
 confounding all real truths as they exist in nature. Thus, by- 
 placing the same mark for visibles and invisibles, reduces both 
 classes into that, whereof the mark is a proper substitute, and the 
 mind must think and reason upon them accordingly. 
 
 " For knowledge is the perception of the agreement or dis- 
 agreement of any of our ideas." L. 4. c. 1. 2. And if things 
 be diverse, so raust the memorials of them ; or the mind, in 
 thinking, could not distinguish one from the other. For where 
 there is no difference, things will appear the same; it cannot 
 join or separate signs, consequently neither attain truth or know- 
 ledge. 
 
 Now, as the greatest " abuse of words is the setting them in 
 the place of things, which they do, or can by no means signify," 
 L. 2. c. 10. 17. it may justly be apprehended, that from our 
 great author's using the term Idea in so equivocal and undeter- 
 mined a manner, " as the idea of God, the idea of an infinite su- 
 preme being," L. 4. c. 3. 18, and the like, as well as of the 
 nearest and most contemptible objects, greater mischiefs have 
 arisen than from all the writings of the professed enemies to reli- 
 gion. He constantly asserts " an idea to be whatever is the object 
 of the understanding, when a man thinks." L. 4. c. 1. 8." For
 
 An Enquiry whence cometh 
 we cannot reason without thinking, or think, without immediate 
 objects of the mind in thinking, that is, without ideas." 2d Reply 
 to E. of W. 473, 536, 537. " So that where we have no ideas, 
 our reasoning stops, and we are at an end of our reckoning." 
 L. 4. c. 17. 9. 
 
 Not only of our reason, but of our religion also, and every 
 thing that is invisib'le and divine, whereof we can have no 
 ideas. 
 
 Again. The recapitulation of all is, " Wherever we are sure 
 our ideas agree with the reality of things, there is certain real 
 knowledge." L. 4. c. 4. ib. So on tlje contrary, without such, 
 assurance, we can have no certainty. Whence ic follows, that as 
 we cannot be sure that our most exalted notions do agree with tlve 
 archetypes of spiritual heavenly objects, we can have no real certain 
 knowledge of them. 
 
 The consequences which have followed this loose method of 
 teaching the doctrine of ideas, are many, and fatal. Hence, 
 younger minds have contracted such prejudices against religious 
 truths, as are, not without great difficulty to be removed Upon 
 this, our latter infidels have grounded all their cavils, or pre- 
 tended reasonings, against revelation It is so fundamental a point 
 in heresy, that some, in the preface to their lit.le essays, have re- 
 minded us of it, that we might never lose sight of this first self- 
 evident principle, that ideas of sensation and reflection are the 
 original of all knowledge. 
 
 It is fiom the reduction of things essentially different to the 
 same class, and making ideas the universal representatives of 
 them, that every free-thinker insolently assumes the liberty of 
 affirming and denying the same thing of all things, however 
 opposite, in the same literal manner as if they were of the 
 same kind ; and confidently demands the same proof for every 
 branch of knowledge, whether human or divine, though it be 
 as absurd and contradictory as to make one sense, judge of 
 objects peculiar to another; the car of colours, or the eye of 
 sounds. And because they have no direct seRsible ideas of sa- 
 . pernatural truths, cannot comprehend, therefore will not believe 
 them. 
 
 This sophism is the corner-stone of anti-revelationists under 
 all their serpentine marks and disguises, to require the evidence 
 of sense for what is not cognisable by sense. They cannot en- 
 dure the name of mystery, or that there should, be any thing so
 
 and Understanding to Man. 
 
 transcendent in the divine nature and existence, as paternity, filia- 
 tion, and the like ; or any decree or effect in the secret counsel of 
 God for the redemption of mankind, that is not to he conceived 
 in an human manner by plain direct ideas, as observed among the 
 creatures. Such is the pride of infidelity, that rather than give 
 up its all -comprehension, it will blend heaven and earth together; 
 destroy the first principles of whatever deserves the name of truth 
 or knowledge, and shamefully confound things essentially different, 
 which God and nature have removed at an infinite distance. 
 
 B. p. 29. This point cannot be allowed by the teachers of 
 eternal reasons and fitnesses, but is maintained as an undeniable 
 truth by almost every other great writer on the subject. * The 
 noble author already mentioned, shews at large, that nothing can 
 bind the observation of a command, but the supreme authority. 
 PuffendorrT, 1. 2. c. 3. 20 That we cannot conceive any fitness 
 or unfitness in actions prior to such law. L. 1. c. 2. 6 That 
 to establish an eternal rule of morality,, without respect to the 
 divine injunction, seems to be joining with God some coeval ex- 
 trinsical principle, which he was obliged to follow in assigning 
 the forms and essences of things All obligation proceeding from 
 the command of a superior, moral good and evil consist in the 
 respect they bear to that ; so that setting aside all law, the motions 
 and actions of men are, in reality, perfectly indifferent And till 
 reason is informed with the knowledge of such law, it is as im- 
 possible for it to discover any morality in human actions, as for a 
 man born blind to make a judgment of the disiinction of colours 
 Therefore such sentences, that the precepts of the natural law 
 are of eternal truth, and the like, must be so limited and re- 
 strained, that the eternity reach no further than the imposition or 
 institution of God Almighty, and the origin of human kind. Ib. 
 
 To the same purpose amongst many foreign authors, Osiander- 
 asks, if there were any such thing as moral good or evil, before 
 all law, how could there be any obligation to make such dif- 
 fert nee in our actions, since all obligation proceeds from the com- 
 mand of a superior ? Not. in Grot, de I. B. & P. p. 60. 
 
 And our own Bishop Taylor demonstrates at large (in Duct. 
 Dub.) that nature cannot make a law, nothing being just 01 un- 
 just, till S'...rns divine law intervenes : nor are the duties of natural 
 law bound upon us any other way, than by the command of 
 God The laws of nature are not to be looked for by the rules 
 of reason, which, has always been uncertain as the dreams of
 
 158 An Enquiry whence cometh Wisdom 
 
 disturbed fancies It has infinitely differed in every place and age 
 And the wisest of men have believed the worst of crimes to be 
 innocent, or without any natural dishonesty ; with numberless 
 other arguments. L. 2. c. 1. Even Hobbes maintains that the 
 laws of nature have no further the force of laws, than as they 
 are promulged in hsly scripture by the word of God, and not as 
 they are certain conclusions apprehended by reason, concerning 
 the doing or die omitting of things. De cive. 1. 3. ulr. 
 
 C. This some cannot digest, as bearing too hard against the 
 Gentile world ; but is not the less true on that account. I shall 
 mention, and that with great brevity, a few, out of many noble 
 attestations to it, botk from ancients and moderns, which deserve 
 to be read at large. 
 
 Plato refers all divine knowledge to divine instruction ; and 
 rightly says, that the Gods gave us understanding in order to learn, 
 and what we learn is by their information Nor can any man 
 teach religion, except God go before, and shew him the way. 
 Epinom. 988, 989. Plutarch, that by thinking rightly of the 
 Gods, we avoid a superstition, bad as atheism Better to have no 
 gods, than what many represent them. Is. & Osir. p. 355. D. 
 And whoever would attain a knowledge of the gods, must beg of 
 them to grant it. Ib. init. 
 
 Cicero, that the ancients were his teachers in religion which 
 they did not learn of themselves, but were taught by others. De 
 Harusp. Respons. That even they, who confessed the being of 
 the gods, run into such a variety and difference of opinions, that 
 it is a trouble even to enumerate them. N. D. L. 1. n. 1. That 
 they might rather be called the dreams of madmen, than the 
 judgments of philosophers. Ib. n. 16. And where opinions arc 
 so various and opposite, it is possible that all may be false, im- 
 possible that more than one should be true. Ib. n. 2. That the 
 nature of the gods always appeared to him very obscure. Ib. n. 7. 
 So that he ever doubted, never could determine what was true. 
 Seneca. That to conceive unworthily of God, is to deny him. 
 Epist. 114. 
 
 The elder Christians say, that opinions unbecoming the divine 
 nature and essence, are little better than blasphemy. Clem. Alex. 
 Strom. 6. p. 721. B. And Lactantius, reflecting on the mon- 
 strous tenets of the Greeks, thought it better to have no religion, 
 than so impious an one ; not to believe any gods, rather than 
 imagine them such as they were generally reported to be.
 
 and Understanding to Man. 159 
 
 Moderns say the same. That a man may have such unworthy 
 notions of a Deity, that it would in some respect be as good, nay 
 much better, to be without a God, than such an one as he may 
 frame. Wilkins, N. R. 1. 1. c. 8. Better to have no opinion of 
 God, than such an one as is unworthy of him. Ld. Bacon's 
 Essays. 
 
 There is, indeed, a kind of palliation offered by Lord Her- 
 bert, Bishop Burnet, and others, who acknowledge the monstrous 
 errors ascribed to God by the Heathens. But, say they, let him 
 be set forth with proper attributes, and they would be so far from 
 not believing such a Deity, that the instant he was propounded, 
 they would receive him. True ; and does not this establish what 
 is here contended for, that man by nature could not come at due 
 apprehensions of the divine attributes, but he had reason given 
 him to understand, and believe supernatural truths, when pro- 
 pounded to him, which could not be done but by revelation. 
 
 D. They who would satisfy themselves of the philosophic opi- 
 nions concerning the first principles of things, out of which they 
 were fashioned, need only consult Cicero de N. D. Plutarch, de 
 placit. & Laertius. And they will find but one universally agreed 
 in, viz. that they, looked upon God as a workman, who when he 
 builds, does not make the materials, but uses those already made. 
 The great Cicero taught that matter had a pre-existing state. In 
 Tirmeo. And, that to say it was either produced from, or could 
 be reduced to nothing, was an absurdity never affirmed by any 
 philosopher who studied nature. De Divinat. 1. 2 And the grave 
 Plutarch, that nothing can be made out of nothing, or what 
 has no existence. De Anim. Procreat. p. 1014 The Pythago- 
 reans, Stoics, Platonists, and Peripateticks, held the pre-existence 
 of matter; and after Christianity, the two latter returned to pro- 
 fess their old system, and the world's eternity, the better to oppose 
 the Gospel. Nor was there ever a philosopher who acknowledged 
 a God, and did not at the same time believe there was an eternal 
 uncreated being, viz. matter, which owed its existence only to 
 its own nature, and had no dependance on any other for its 
 essence, attribute*, or properties. 
 
 E. The issue ef this may be left to the conduct of Socrates, 
 and the judgment of Cicero. Natural religion constantly appeals 
 to, and lays great stress on, the case of Socrates. The appearance, 
 indeed, is solemn ; we see the best of men unshaken on the brink 
 of eternity, and discoursing on that momentous point with the
 
 ISO An Enquiry whence cometh Wisdom 
 
 \ 
 utmost composure. But what was the consequence ? his chosen 
 
 disciples, who revered the preaclier, looked on his thesis as a 
 mere paradox, a doctrine rejected by all mankind. Nor was their 
 master convinced of its truth ; his doubts were great, his cer- 
 tainty so little, that he was afraid of leading both himself, and 
 them, into error; and concluded his famous apology with these 
 remarkable words : " It is now time that I go hence to die* 
 and you to live ; but which is best, no mortal, I think, can tell." 
 It is also generally asserted, that Socrates knew the true God. 
 Of this we cannot judge better, than fr'-in iiis behaviour on this 
 last and most important event. Yet the true d-d is not so much 
 as mentioned, nor any of his incommunicable attributes, under 
 which a dying sinner would seek for refuge, his power, wisdom, 
 or goodness ; not a word of contrition or repentance, no suppli- 
 cating for pardon, no hopes or even a wish for mercy, at his 
 hands who judgeth the earth. Yet he had great compuncrion of 
 mind, and scruple of conscience ; not about his future condition, 
 but for not obeying the God of dreams : therefore during his 
 long imprisonment, makes a serious preparation for death, by 
 composing verses to the dsemon of Delphos, and translating 
 yEsop's fables. And in the last gasp, calls buck, as it were, Iiis 
 departing soul, to order the discharge of a vow, by as stupid an 
 act of idolatry as the most ignorant savage was ever guilty of. 
 
 Cicero affirms, that a pure mind, thinking, intelligent, and 
 free from body, was altogether inconceivable. N. D. L. n. 10. 
 Which, of all the philosophic opinions is true ; let some God 
 see to it : which most likely, is a question hard to be determined. 
 Tusc. Q. L. 1. n. 11. It was what most argued vehemently 
 against; and every learned man despised it, Ib. n. 22, 31. He 
 had often read and heard of it. De consolat. p. 563. and had the 
 magna, tpes, great hopes, but no assurance. Tusc. Q. L. 1. n. 41. 
 When he earned philosophy to its utmost stretch, in an ecstatick 
 rapture on the soul's permanence after death, " Oh glorious day," 
 &:c. Yet it ends in this ; " if after all, I am mistaken in my 
 belief of the soul's immortality, I am pleased with my error.'* 
 De Senect. ult. The dream may be enchanting, but vanishes as 
 soon as one wakes. " I have," says he, " perused Plato with 
 the greatest diligence and exactness, over and over again : but 
 know not how it is, whilst I read him, I am convinced ; when I 
 lay the book aside, and begin to consider by myself, of the soul's
 
 and Understanding to Man. 161 
 
 immortality, all the conviction instantly ceases.'* Tusc. Q. L. 1. 
 n. 11. 
 
 Dr. Clarke says, " this cannot be observed without some pity 
 and concern of mind." Boyle Lect. Disc. 2. A great deal one 
 may believe; for, in reality, it destroys all that he, or others, 
 have spoken of natural religion. 
 
 Cicero, indeed, thought common consent to be the strongest 
 argument in favour of the soul's immortality. Tusc. Q. L. 1. n. 
 14. Yet immediately after affirms, " that Pherecydes was the 
 first man, as evidently appears from his writings, who said the 
 souls of men were immortal." Ib. n. 16. Which surely can 
 imply no more than that, in his opinion, it was a doctrine so 
 agreeable to the reason and wishes of mankind, as must be 
 assented to, whenever duly proposed. But will not prove that to 
 Be the voice of nature, which so many millions of rational crea- 
 tures in the western world, never thought, or heard of for above 
 fifteen hundred years together. Some of our greatest moderns also 
 tell us, that it must be a natural notion, because men hit upon it 
 by chance, and agreed in if : so that their rational faculties had no 
 part in the noble discovery ; which is a contradiction to all their 
 other schemes, and as great an insult upon reason, as on true 
 religion.
 
 THE RELIGION OF NATURE, 
 
 WHICH IS NOW SET UP IN OPPOSITION TO THE 
 
 WORD OF GOD, 
 
 PROVED TO BE A MERE IDOL FROM THE VERY TEXT THAT 
 HAS SEEN SO OFTEN PRODUCED IN JTS FAVOUR, 
 
 IN A 
 
 SERMON 
 
 PREACHED IN Y O R K < M I N S T E R, JULY 8, 1744; 
 
 AT THE ASSIZES HOLDEN FDR THE COUNTY Of YORK, 
 
 Before the Honourable 
 
 THOMAS BURNET, ESQ. 
 
 NF. or HIS MAJESTY'S JUSTICES oj HIS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS; 
 
 AND 
 
 CHARLES CLARK, ESQ. 
 
 ONE OF THE BARONS OP HIS MAJESTY** COURT OF EXCHEQUER: 
 
 Published at the Request of the HIGH-SHERIFF, an4 the 
 GENTLEMEN of the GRAND-JURY. 
 
 BY CHARLES WILLATS, M. A. 
 
 RECTOR OF PIUMTRSE, IN NOTTINGHAMSHIRE,
 
 TO THE WORSHIPFUL 
 
 GODFREY COPLEY, ESQ. 
 
 HIGH SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF YORK, 
 
 AND THE 
 
 GENTLEMEN OF THE GRAND JURY. 
 
 The Honourable Christopher 
 
 Dawney, Esq; 
 Sir William Foulis, Bart. 
 Richard Langley, Esq; 
 John Twisleton, Esq; 
 William Wrightson, Esq; 
 Richard Beaumont, Esq; 
 Thomas Fawkes, Esq; 
 Henry Yarborough, Esq; 
 George Cooke, Esq; 
 William Simpson, Esq; 
 James Farrer, Esq; 
 
 Richard Turbut, Esq; 
 Edward Rookes, Esq; 
 Henry Browne, Esq; 
 William Burton, Esq; 
 Richard Farrand, Esq; 
 Timothy Sterne, Esq; 
 Jeremiah Rawson, Esq; 
 Edward Foster, Esq; 
 John Smith, Esq; 
 Philip Harland, Esq; 
 John Burton, Esq; 
 Lionel Copley, Esq. 
 
 GENTLEMEN, 
 
 [ NOW present you with the following Sermon, which 
 at your Request 1 have ventured to publish : I had 
 designed to have annexed to it a full Explication of 
 another famous Text that is often cited in Favour of the 
 Law of Nature. This has caused some little Alteration 
 in the Form of my Discourse, as well as delayed the 
 Publication of it. 
 
 BUT
 
 DEDICATION. 
 
 BUT that Argument soon grew under my Hands to a 
 Size that I thought somewhat disproportionate, and too 
 large for an Appendix. It may, perhaps, if it shall be 
 deemed necessary, be shortly printed in a distinct Dis- 
 course by itself. 
 
 
 
 I AM not so vain as to expect that others will now 
 read this Sermon with the same Candour that you were 
 pleased to receive it from the Pulpit. I know there are 
 many truly great and justly admired Names, as well as 
 some strong Prejudices against the Doctrine contained 
 in it. But I am so fully convinced not only of the 
 Truth, but of the Importance too, of what I have ad- 
 vanced, that if the Reader will only bring along with 
 him the Spirit of the Christian, I shall not much fear 
 the Severity of the Judge. I am, 
 
 GENTLEMEN, 
 Your most obedient, and 
 
 Most humble Servant, 
 
 CHARLES WILLATS,
 
 C 166 } 
 
 ROM. ii. 14, 15. 
 
 For when the Gentiles, which have not the Law, do by Nature 
 the Things contained in the Law, these having not thf Law, 
 'are a Law unto themselves : which shew the Work of the Law 
 written in their Hearts, 
 
 A HE Religion of Nature lias been for many years the favourite 
 idol of this Protestant kingdom. The Scriptures were for- 
 merly esteemed the sole rule of faith, and the only standard of 
 divine truth. But the word of God must now, it seems give 
 the way and precedency to this great and superior law of nature ; 
 xvhich has of late been cried up with as much noise and clamour, 
 and perhaps with as litile sense too, as the great goddess Diana, 
 was by the Ephesiafls, when the " greater part" of those, who 
 joined in the cry, " knew not wherefore they were come toge- 
 ther." 
 
 To this supreme law the characters of divinity have been ex- 
 pressly ascribed. 
 
 It is, they say, eternal and unchangeable, antecedent to the 
 will of God, and independent on it. It is so exceeding clear in 
 it3 principles, that it is the only true light " that enlighteneth 
 every man that cometh into the world." It is so full and perfect 
 in its rules, that God himself can neither ad.l to it, nor diminish 
 ought from it. -It is so universal in its extent, that it compre- 
 hends the whole race of mankind ; all kings must fall down be- 
 fore it, and all nations upon earth do it service. It is so authori- 
 tative in its dictates, that God as well as msm, the Creator as well 
 as the creature, is obliged to conform to it. 
 
 From this single source and fountain of light, we are told, that 
 all the right notions of the Deity are originally derived, and all 
 the great lines of morality drawn ; insomuch that unlss these are 
 first known and believed, " Revelation itself can signify nothing 
 to us :" for Natural Religion is the sole foundation of 11 that is 
 instituted and revealed.
 
 The Religion ofNalun proved to be tt tnere Idol. 167 
 
 Now all these assertions seem to me very shocking positions, 
 not only incapable of being reconciled to the Word of God, but 
 of fatal tendency to strengthen the hands of those that oppose it. 
 And in fact we find, that the keenest arrows, that have been shot 
 against Christianity have been drawn from this quiver. What 
 some very good men have made the only foundation of our faith , 
 other very bad men have, perhaps with less inconsistency ^ made 
 the principal foundation of their infidelity. And if our divines 
 will still tell them, that unless all the great things contained in 
 their Law of Nature are first known and believed, the Revelation 
 of God himself can signify nothing; we cannot, I think, much 
 wonder, that they should now at last tell our divines, that where all 
 these great things are first known and believed, Revelation can sig- 
 nify little. 
 
 For the very end of Revelation is, I presume* to discover to us, 
 by a supernatural light from heaven, those truths which we are na- 
 turally ignorant of, and not the truths which we naturally know ; 
 and these, with submission, I must believe are truths of the highest, 
 and not of the least importance, to the glory of God, and the salva- 
 tion of man. 
 
 But to get, if possible, to the bottom of this subject ; I would 
 fain learn from the present advocates of the Religion of Nacure, 
 where we may find the aulographa of this boas-ted law, and the 
 original text upon which such surprising comments have been 
 written. This is a fair question, and which I think ought to be as 
 fairly answered. 
 
 But these great men must know that it is only sending us upon 
 a fool's errand, to bid us consult the great digest and pandect of 
 nature, and the everlasting tables of right reason, which, they 
 say, are much more ancient, and by some expressions it should 
 seem, more sacred too, than the very tables on which God him* 
 self wrote the commandments he delivered to Moses. " For ask 
 now of the days that are past, since the day that God created 
 man upon the earth : and ask from the one side of heaven unto 
 the other," Who, of all the sons of Adam, ever saw these ever- 
 lasting tables, or ever heard of any library upon earthj where this 
 digest of nature was to be found ? And what God has never once 
 mentioned nor recommended to our notice, and no man to this 
 day can tell where we may findj I shall look upon as a mere 
 idol, which some moderns have set up in their hearts, but which,
 
 163 The Religion of Nature proved to be a were Idol. 
 
 in the strictest sense of St. Paul's words, is " nothing in the 
 world." 
 
 But I seem perhaps to forget my text, of which I expect now 
 to he reminded, and of those strong expressions contained in it, 
 where St. Paul, as these learned men will needs have it, does ex- 
 pressly affirm, that the Gentiles themselves, who had not the law 
 of Moses, nor any Revelation from God, did yet, by the mere 
 strength and light of nature, do the great things contained in the 
 law : and though they had not the law, yet they were a sufficient 
 law unto themselves, and shewed the grand work of the law writ- 
 ten on their hearts ; which plainly proves that there is a Law of 
 Nature antecedent to the revealed Will of God, and independent on 
 it, that is written in the hearts of all mankind. 
 
 Now I am fully convinced, that the modern geographer may as 
 soon find the very spot of ground where Paradise stood, before 
 the earth was broken down and dissolved at the deluge ; and the 
 apostate Jew as soon discover that unknown region of the world, 
 where the ten tribes of Israel lie concealed to this day ; as either 
 the Infidel or the Christian can find those Gentiles, that did by 
 the mere strength of nature the great things contained in the Law 
 of Moses. For it is plain from almost every page in the Bible, 
 that after the days of Moses, 1 till the coming of Christ, there was 
 not a single nation under heaven, the Jews only excepted, that 
 either knew or worshipped the true God. And how it was possible 
 for those, who knew not God, to do the great things contained 
 in the Law of God, it will require more philosophy, I believe, 
 than even these great men are masters of, to shew. And that St. 
 Paul himself never once dreamed of this boasted Law of Nature, 
 that is said to be written in men's hearts ; and that those learned 
 men, who have urged this passage as a strong proof of it, did 
 only dream so, is what I shall now endeavour to prove. From 
 which account we shall, I hope, at last find the true meaning of 
 this mis-translated and mistaken passage, and be able perhaps to dis- 
 cover the rise of those unhappy doctrines that have been built upon 
 it. 
 
 The great Mr. Locke, who has wrote a very elaborate comment 
 upon this epistle, justly admired St. Paul as a very close reasoner, 
 who always argued to the point he was upon ; and as a great master 
 of address too, who always took care to give as little offence as pos- 
 sible to his countrymen the Jews.
 
 The Religion of Nature proved to be a mere Idol. \ 69 
 
 But if now, according to the common interpretation, the Gen- 
 tiles in my text were those Gentiles who continued under that 
 apostasy and revolt from God, which the first Gentiles in the pre- \ 
 ceding chapter began, it will pose the acutest reasoner upon earth ' 
 to reconcile the amiable character St. Paul gives of the one, with 
 the very black and hideous colours in which he describes the 
 other. 
 
 Read over that large catalogue of stupendous sins, to which the 
 first Gentiles were abandoned by God upon their apostasy from ' 
 him ; and then compare them, and try if it is possible, that those* 
 Gentiles who persevered in this apostasy from the true God, could 
 deserve, or be in any sense capable of that character which St. 
 Paul gives them in the text before us. The former description 
 presents us with a ghastly scene of the greatest enormities that 
 man can commit ; the latter, if I do not greatly mistake, expresses 
 in few words the height of piety and goodness. But let us take" 
 this passage in another light. The Apostle had said in the very 
 verse before my text, that not " the hearers of the law are just " 
 " before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." But 
 if you now ask, who these doers of the law are ? St. Paul, that 
 great master of address, who is so very tender of shocking his 
 countrymen the Jews, is plainly made to answer in the very next 
 words, that they are the Gentiles who continue in open apos- 
 tasy from God. These, it seems, are the doers of the law which 
 shall be justified ; for though they have not the law, yet they do 
 the things contained in the law, and that by the sole strength of 
 nature too, and so completely also, that they are a law linto them- 
 selves ; " which shew the work," or great end, " of the law 
 " written on their hearts." This is in truth a doctrine so 
 shocking, not to Jews only, but, I should hope, to all Christians ' 
 too, that the very naming of it may shew that St. Paul's words 
 have certainly been mistaken. And yet it is exceeding plain, that ' 
 in the verses following my text, the great Apostle proceeds in the 
 very same chain of argument to shew, that the Jews were in truth 
 only hearers, but not doers of the law; and that therefore their 
 circumcision, in which they so much boasted, was made uncir- 
 cumcision: whereas the Gentiles in my text, whom St. Paul 
 describes in such beautiful colours, are the uncircumcision that keep 
 the righteousness of the law, and which shall be therefore counted 
 for circumcision. They are, as it is expressed in the next verse, " 
 the unchcumcision by nature, that, in the strongest word the
 
 170 The Religion of Nature proved to be a mere Idol. 
 
 Apostle could use, " fulfils" the law ; and therefore must con- 
 demn the Jew, " who by the letter and circumcision transgressed* 
 " the law. For he is not a Jew, who is one outwardly," and 
 can plead only his carnal descent from Abraham ; " neither is 
 '* that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh : but he is the 
 * Jew, who is one inwardly ;" a true Israelite indeed, of the 
 faith of their father Abraham : " and circumcision is that of the 
 " heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not 
 " of men but of God." These, as St Paul speaks in another 
 place, " are the circumcision that worship God in the spirit, and 
 * rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh." 
 And such I will now presume are the Gentiles in my text. 
 
 For to bring this point to a short issue ; St Paul was the 
 Apostle of the Gentiles, sent to open their eyes, " to turn them 
 from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto 
 " God." 
 
 Now these Genules in my text must be either those who were 
 converted, or those who still " sat in darkness and the shadow of 
 " death," under the dominion of the devil, " without Christ, 
 " without hope, and without God in the world." If they were 
 Gentiles by nature, who were now converted to Christ, the cha- 
 racter St. Paul gives them in my text is consistent with every text 
 in Scripture, which speaks of the first converts in as high terms ; 
 but if they were still under the power of Satan, you may as soon, 
 reconcile light and darkness, Christ and Belial together, as make 
 the received interpretation of this passage consistent either with 
 common sense, or the Word of God. 
 
 For what, I beseech you, are the things contained in the law ? 
 Is not the very first and greatest commandment of all, " Thou 
 shalt have no other Gods but me ?" Is not the second, " Thou 
 ' shalt not make unto thyself any graven image Thou shalt 
 " not bow down to them, nor worship them ?" Are not these 
 two in a manner the sum and substance of the whole law, in- 
 sisted on and inculcated over and over in every chapter of the 
 Bible ? And could the Gentiles after all, before they were con- 
 verted and turned from idols to serve the living God who made 
 heaven and earth, do the things contained in this law ? It is a 
 glaring and barefaced contradiction. 
 
 Moses tells us, that " whoever sacrificeth unto any gods, save 
 ' unto Jehovah only, shall be utterly destroyed." And were the 
 Geniiles who, St. Paul says, " sacrificed unto devils, and not 
 1
 
 The Religion of Nature proved to be a mere Idot. VM 
 
 '* unto God," the very same Gentiles who, the same Apostle tells 
 us, " did the things contained in the law ?" It is the height of 
 absurdity, and absolutely impossible. 
 
 But here I suppose, by some great men we shall be told, that 
 these laws were given to the Israelites only, and not to the 
 Gentiles. I own it ; I plead for it : the strength of my argu- 
 ment against their boasted Law of Nature, is from this irresistible, 
 and the astonishing weakness of their plea from the words of my 
 text demonstrable. " God had" indeed " shewed his word unto 
 " Jacob, his statutes and judgments unto Israel ; but he had 
 " not dealt so with any other nation, neither had the heathen 
 " any knowledge of his laws." No; it was in Judah only that 
 God himself was known, his name was great in Israel ; whereas 
 all the gods of the nations were idols: but Jehovah made the 
 heavens. 
 
 But where then, in the mean time, was this boasted Law of 
 Nature, or what was the light thereof, which duiing this long 
 night of pagan darkness could not distinguish an idol from the 
 living God, nor the creature from the Creator, who is blessed for 
 ever? And shall we be still told, that Natural Religion is the sole 
 foundation of that which is revealed ? So that where the being and 
 attributes of God, and other great points of morality, are not first 
 known by the light of nature, revelation itself can signify nothing; 
 and that it is indeed ridiculous in all respects to pretend to prove 
 these things by Revelation ? But how comes it to pass, I beseech 
 you, witla due reverence be it spoken, that an argument from the 
 mouth of God shall be thought ridiculous, which in the mouth of 
 a modern philosopher shall carry the force of demonstration ? 
 What ! is not the Bible as good a book, and as sufficient too for 
 the conviction of an Atheist, as Dr. Clarke's book of the Being 
 and Attributes of God ? Or cannot this Almighty Being reveul 
 himself to them that know him not, discover himself even to 
 them that seek him not, and manifest himself to them that ask not 
 after him ? What ! was not Christ then in truth a " Light to 
 " lighten the Gentiles" who knew not God? Or did he not indeed 
 send his Apostles to open the eyes of these blind Pagans, " to 
 '* turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan 
 " unto God ?" 
 
 And is it after all ridiculous, in all respects ridiculous, to pre- 
 tend to prove these things from Revelation ? And does Revelation
 
 172 The Religion of Nature proved to be a mere Idet. 
 
 itself necessarily presuppose these things as first known, and at- 
 ways speak of them as presupposed, when the Scriptures not only 
 suppose, but in the most express terms affirm them to be abso- 
 lutely unknown to the whole Gentile world; and that there was 
 not a single people upon earth besides the Jews, to whom the 
 oracles of God were committed, that either knew or worshipped 
 the true God ? And is it now possible to conceive that St. Paul 
 himself could affirm, that the Gentiles before their conversion, 
 even while they knew not God,^but did service to them who were 
 by nature no gods, did at the same time do the things contained in 
 the Law of God ? That while they were thus given over to a re- 
 probate mind, suffered to walk in their own ways, and to follow* 
 their own imaginations, they were yet a law unto themselves ? 
 and that the heathen, even when they had not che knowledge of 
 God's laws, did yet shew the work of the law written in their 
 hearts ? In truth, I am quite ashamed to expose in this manner 
 the nakedness of this interpretation ; but I hope the importance 
 of the subject will be my excuse. 
 
 The great Apostle of the Gentiles had converted many thou- 
 sands of them to the faith of Christ ; but in every epistle which 
 he writes to confirm them in this faith, he never fails" to remind 
 them of the deplorable state they were in, before their conversion 
 to it. They were then without strength, the servants of sin, and 
 enemies in their mind by wicked words ; nay, they were even 
 dead in sins, and by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 
 And is it possible that they could at the same time do, and that by 
 nature too, the things contained in the law ? He tells them, that 
 before their conversion they lived as other Gentiles live, " in for- 
 " nication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence," 
 and all those sins, " for which the wrath of God cometh uport 
 " the children of disobedience :" and were they at that time also 
 a sufficient law unto . themselves ? He reminds them, that " in 
 " times past they walked as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of 
 *' their minds, having their understanding darkened, being alie- 
 * { nated from, the life of God, through the ignorance that is in 
 " them, because of the blindness of their hearts, who being past 
 " feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work 
 " all uncleanness with greediness." And can the wildest imagi- 
 nation believe that the same Apostle could affirm, that they did at 
 that time " shew the work of the law written 'in their hearts?'* 
 What a load of absurdities does this single interpretation of my
 
 The Religion of Nature ^proved to be a mere Idol. 173 
 
 text throw upon the great Apostle St. Paul ? and yet how greedily 
 has it been catched at by some learned men to advance a favourite 
 potion, that I verily think is inconsistent with, and plainly con- 
 demned in almost every page of Scripture. I could easily heap 
 Argument upon argument, and still heighten this accumulative 
 Evidence in proof of my assertion. For so far was St. Paul from 
 once thinking of this boasted Law of Nature, so far from once 
 speaking one single word in its favour, so far from asserting that 
 the invisible things of God could ever be discovered by the bare 
 light of it, that he not only affirms over and over, that " the 
 *' Gentiles knew not God;" but moreover proves too, that they 
 never could have known him, unless God in his infinite mercy 
 had first sent his Apostles to preach and reveal him unto them. 
 This, in St. Paul's judgment, was the only means by which God 
 could ever be found of them that sought him not, or be made 
 manifest to them that asked not after him ; and I am quite 
 amazed, that good Christians should differ so widely from him. 
 For pray what is the meaning of that remarkable phrase St. Paul 
 uses to the Galatians, whom he had himself converted ? " Then 
 " when ye knew not God, ye did service to them who are by 
 " nature no gods: but now after that ye have known God, or 
 *' rather are known of God." This expression seems to me with 
 great strength and beauty to imply, that unless God had first visited 
 the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name, and had been 
 pleased to have first owned them for his servants, they had never 
 known or owned him for their God. And from this very argu- 
 ment St. Paul at once justifies himself to the Jews, and pleads 
 the necessity of his mission to the Gentiles. God had often 
 spoken of a new covenant that he would make in the latter days, 
 when there should be no longer difference between Jew and 
 Gentile ; but, in the words of. the prophet Joe], *< Whoever 
 " should call upon the name of Jehovah should be saved." Upon 
 which the Apostle immediately breaks out in these remarkable 
 words : " How then shall they call on him, in whom they have 
 " not believed ? And how, shall they believe in him, of whom 
 " they have not heard ? And how shall they hear without a 
 ' Preacher ? And how shall they preach, except they be sent ? 
 " So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of 
 " God." We have here, I think, as plain a demonstration as 
 any in Euclid, that as the Gentile world knew not God, be- 
 lieved not in him, and had not so much as heard of him i so they 
 
 2
 
 17* The Religion of Nature proved to be A mere IdoL 
 
 could never have called upon his name for salvation, unless God 
 had first sent his Apostles to reveal him, and to preach the 
 Gospel of peace, even the glad tidings of salvation unto them. 
 This single passage of the great Apostle of the Gentiles carries 
 fuch conviction along with it, and strikes with such a force, as is 
 sufficient to tear up at once this imaginary Law of Nature hy the 
 roots. It shews in the strongest point of light the absolute ne- 
 cessity of Revelation, and that Christ was, in the highest sense of 
 the words, " a light to lighten the Gentiles;" and at the same 
 time proves, that the Religion of Nature, to which the characters 
 of divinity are now ascribed, and which is by some set up in 
 direct opposition to the Gospel, is in truth as gross a fiction, and 
 as mere an idol, as any of the Gods which the heathens themselves 
 worshipped. 
 
 And had the words in my text been rightly pointed in the ori- 
 ginal, only hy placing the comma after Quasi instead of before it, 
 and then literally translated, " When the Gentiles, which have 
 " not the law by nature, DO the things contained in the law ;'* 
 the words had been strong and beautiful, and the sense of them 
 plain and obvious : there had been no room for mistaking St. 
 Paul's meaning, nor the least shadow of an argument to be drawn 
 from them in favour of the Law of Nature. It had then evi- 
 dently appeared, that the Gentiles in my text, " which do the 
 " things contained in the Law/' were the uncircumcision that 
 " keeps the righteousness of the law ;" the uncircumcision by 
 nature that fulfils the law ; and that therefore shall be counted for 
 circumcision, even the true " circumcision of the heart, whose 
 *' praise is not of men, but of God." 
 
 The very learned Grotius*, who was willing enough to build 
 something like a law of nature upon this text, yet plainly saw, 
 and was so ingenuous as to own, that the words might fairly be 
 translated as 1 have rendered them ; but the context plainly shews, 
 and the sense of the whole Scripture proves, that they not only 
 fairly may, but necessarily ought to be so translated. 
 
 The Jews, indeed, were born under the law, and so they had 
 the law by nature, that is, from their very birth, which the Gen- 
 tilts had not; and it should be remembered, that " we who are 
 " Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles," are the very 
 of our great Apostle himself in his speech to St. Peter : 
 
 Lib. I. Cap. i. $ 16. Par. 6. De Jur. Bell. & Pac.
 
 The Religion of Nature proved to be a were Idol. 175 
 
 and yet I verily think it would be the height of absurdity to affirm 
 of the best Jews that ever lived, that they " did by nature the 
 " things contained in the Law." But to affirm this of the Gen- 
 tiles, if there be degrees of impossibility, is surely the very fii st? 
 born of contradictions, and that whether they were converted to 
 Christ or not : for if they were converts to the faith of Christ, it 
 was certainly by Grace, and not by Nature, that they " did the 
 *' things contained in the Law ;' ? but if they were not converts, 
 but still " servants to sin, and under the power of. Satan," it was 
 absolutely impossible they should do them at all, or ever " shew 
 " the work of the Law written on their hearts." 
 
 So that, rack and torture this sentence as long as you please, in 
 the present position of the words, as they now stand in our trans- 
 lation, the wit of man can never extract common sense out of it, 
 or force it to speak any thing which will not be a flat contradiction 
 to the whole Scripture. 
 
 But to do justice to my argument, and throw in still more light 
 upon this greatly-mistaken passage, let us now enquire into the 
 original design of the law, that so we may better understand what 
 " the work of the law" is, and what " the things contained in it" 
 mean, in the text before us. 
 
 The Jews, we know, greatly boasted of their law : this was 
 not their fault; they might justly have so boasted. For what na- 
 tion under heaven was there so great, that had statutes and judg- 
 ments so righteous, as all that law which God, by the hands of 
 his servant Moses, had set before them ? But their great misfor- 
 tune, and their great fault too, was, that they had now by their 
 vain traditions quite mistaken the original design of their law ; 
 which, as St. Paul tells them, was " their school-master to bring 
 " them to Christ, who is the end of the law far righteousness to 
 " every one that believeth ;" and who had been promised as an 
 universal blessing to the whole world leng before their law was 
 given by Moses. For the Scripture, foreseeing that God would 
 justify the Heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel to 
 Abraham, saying, " in thee and thy seed shall all nations be 
 " blessed." 
 
 Now this original covenant, as St. Paul finely argues, which 
 " was before confirmed of God in Christ ;" or rather, as I think 
 it should be translated, to Christ, who was the seed meant in the 
 promise; " the law, which was four hundred years after," and 
 given to a single people only, " could not disannul, that it should
 
 116 The Religion of Katun: proved to he a mere Idol. 
 
 " make the" former " promise" void, or " of none effect." That 
 still subsisted in the same force and vigour under the law, as it did 
 before it. For surely the performance of one covenant, which 
 God made with their fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give 
 unto their posterity the land of Canaan for a possession, was no 
 proof that he was unmindful of that better covenant, in which all 
 the nations of the earth were. to be blessed. 
 
 You will ask, Wherefore then serveth the Law, which was 
 given with such amazing pomp and terror to the children of Israel 
 only, with an utter exclusion of the whole Gentile world, from 
 whom they were by this Law separated and distinguished by the 
 strongest fence and partition-wall that God himself could raise be- 
 tween them ? 
 
 Why, all this notwithstanding, the law was by no means 
 against the promises of God, as St- Paul speaks ; but, on the 
 contrary, designed to keep up the remembrance of them in the 
 earth, and was only " added," in the Apostle's phrase, " till the 
 " seed should come," to whom the original promise of this uni- 
 versal blessing was made ; but with infinite wisdom " added, be- 
 *' cause of transgressions." For the whole Gentile world were 
 now in a state of apostasy from God ; they served and adored the 
 heavens, instead of the God that created them ; they worshipped 
 the sun, moon, and stars, even all the host of heaven : these, they 
 thought, were the go<ls that governed the world, that gave them 
 rain and fruitful seasons, and to whom they were indebted for all 
 the products ef the earth, and all the blessings they enjoyed in it. 
 And it is well known from every page of Scripture, that the chil- 
 dren of Israel, from the day that God delivered them out of the 
 land of Egypt, till their return from their captivity in Babylon, 
 were ever prone to follow these abominations of the Heathen, 
 ' in transgressing the covenant of the Lord, and worshipping the 
 " host of heaven*." 
 
 " Because of these transgressions" therefore, and to keep alive 
 the knowledge of the true God in the world, which would other- 
 vise have been soon lost out of it, was the Law added, until the 
 promised seed should come, in whom all the nations of the earth 
 were to be "blessed," and in whom all the promises of God from 
 the foundation of the world are " Yea," and " Amen." 
 
 * Sec the zoth chapter of Ezekiel throughout;
 
 The Religion of Nature provt'd to be a mere Idol. 177 
 But when the Law had done the great work intende4 by God, 
 and answered the end proposed by him that gave it ; when Christ^ 
 the seed promised to Abraham^ and so punctually described both 
 by Moses and the Prophets, was now actually comej the fence 
 between Jew and Gentile is of course removed, and the partition- 
 wall broken down: " for now," in the pfophetick language of the 
 Psalmist, " God hath made known his salvation, his righteous- 
 " ness hath he openly shewed in the sight of the Heathen : he 
 " hath remembered his mercy and truth towards the house of 
 " Israel, and all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of 
 " our God." 
 
 This salvation was what all the faithful, who looked for redemp- 
 tion in Israel, plainly waited for, as well as their father Jacoby 
 when just before his death he uttered those remarkable words : 
 " I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord " and which old Si- 
 meon fully explains, when he had his Saviour in his arms, and 
 said, "Lord, now lettest thou.thy servant depart in peace, for 
 " mine eyes have seen thy salvation ; which thou hast pre- 
 " pared before the face of all people : a light to lighten the 
 " Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel." There remains, 
 therefore, now no difference between Jew and Gentile; for the 
 righteousness of God " without the Law," as St. Paul emphati- 
 cally expresses it, is now manifested, being fully witnessed both 
 by the Law and the Prophets, which the Jews have in their own 
 hands ; and by which it is plain, that " Christ is the end of the 
 " Law for righteousness to every one that believeth." And there- 
 fore when the Gentiles in my text, which by nature have not 
 the Law, DO the rai ru voa, the things originally intended by^ 
 and virtually contained in the Law > when they renounce their 
 idols, and no longer worship the host of heaven, but turn to the! 
 service of the living God, who made heaven and earth 5 when they 
 accept of that salvation that is now made known unto them* and 
 submit to the righteousness of God that is now manifested in their 
 sight ; these, though they have not the Law, are a Law unto them- 
 selves, their faith in Christ and his doctrine does more than supply 
 the place of the Law of Moses ; and by their submission to that 
 promised seed, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be 
 blessed, and who is " the very end of the Law" itself for righte- 
 ousness to every one that beiieveth, they evidently shew thegreatf 
 work of the Law written in their hearts, 
 VOL. I. N
 
 T/S The Religion of Nature proved to be a mere Idol. 
 
 This is now the true, the plain, and full meaning of this greatly 
 mistaken passage ; and which T think could not possibly have been 
 mistaken, as I before observed, if it had not been first mispointed 
 in the original ; but the comma being placed before Quasi instead 
 of after it, the term Nature was in every version thrown into a 
 wrong position ; and " the Law written in their hearts" following 
 so soon after in the same sentence, these words, which have nor 
 the least relation to each other, and which in their true meaning 
 are as opposite as light and darkness, were blended and confounded 
 together : and from this odd jumble of the words first sprang, as 
 I conceive, the famous doctrine of innate ideas, and of I know- 
 rtot-what imaginary law of nature originally stamped and im- 
 pressed upon the soul of man at his first coming into the world ; 
 the absurdity of which doctrine has been so fully and so justly 
 exposed by the late celebrated Mr. Locke, that I need not enlarge 
 upon it. It will be much more to our purpose to observe, that to 
 have ** the Law written in our hearts," is a phrase that, in the 
 Scripture language, expresses, not the state of a blind Pagan that 
 knew not God, but the most consummate piety, and the utmost 
 perfection of holiness; just as sin itself, when arrived to its full 
 growth, is said to be " written or graven on the heart." Thus 
 when Judah had most grievously revolted from God, and went a 
 whoring after the idols of the nations, the Prophet says, " the 
 ** sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, and with the point 
 * of a diamond; it is graven on the very tables of their hearts." 
 Whereas when God speaks to his most faithful servants, the style 
 then runs, " Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness ; ye 
 44 people in whose heart is my Law." So the Psalmist also de- 
 scribes the state of such persons, ** The righteous shall inherit 
 ' the land, and dwell therein for ever : the Law of his God is 
 ' in his heart, none of his steps shall slide." And when Christ 
 himself cometh- into the world, he saith, " I delight to do thy will, 
 *' () God ; yea, thy Law is within my heart." 
 
 And that exceeding great promise of God, which was to take 
 place under the new covenant that he would make witli the house 
 of Israel, is conveyed in these remarkable words : " After those 
 *' days 1 will put my Law in their minds, and will write it in 
 ' their hearts ; and I will be their God, and they shall be my 
 " people. And I will be merciful to their sins, and their iniqui- 
 * ties will I remember no more." With a view to this gracious 
 promise, I suppose, when the ten commandments are recited in
 
 The Religioii of Nature proved to be a mere Idol. 
 
 the communion service, the church puts into our mouth that most 
 significant and comprehensive prayer, '* Lord, have mercy upon 
 us, and write all these thy Laws in our hearts, we beseech thee.'* 
 This is, I think, a full explication of what is meant in Scripture by 
 " the Law written in our hearts;" and I would now willingly 
 hope, that the Christian at least is convinced, that it is written not 
 by nature, but by the spirit of the living God ; nor on tables of 
 stone only, as St. Paul speaks; but what is still a much greater bles* 
 sing, on the fleshly tables of the heart. 
 
 In a word therefore, and to conclude : the whole design of this 
 discourse has been to vindicate the honour of Christianity, and to 
 shew the absolute necessity of revelation. To make you duly sen- 
 sible, how infinitely we stand indebted, not to the light of nature^ 
 which, in the things of God, is the very blackness of darkness, but 
 to the marvellous light of Christ's Gospel: and to give you the 
 strongest conviction of that stupendous instance of God's loVe to a 
 whole world of sinners, who had apostatized and revolted from, 
 him ; when he sent his only-begotten Son into the world, that 
 *' whosoever believe! h in him, might not perish, but have everlast- 
 " ing life." For from the very darkness of Paganism h is now 
 clearly visible, that without faith it was impossible for the Gentiles 
 either to please, or even to know God* And the natural-religion- 
 rnan himself will, I presume, subscribe to this truth, " That he 
 " that cometh unto God, must" first- " believe," not only " th,.f 
 " he is," but that " he is a rewarded' also " of them that dili- 
 " gently seek him." Of which blessed reward, that we may all 
 at last be partakers, by having his laws now written on our hearts, 
 God of his infinite mercy grant, for the sake of his only Son Christ 
 Jesus our Lord ; to whom be ascribed all glory and dominion both 
 now and for evermore. 
 
 X 2
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 r P 
 
 Jl HE Reader may not be displeased, after this sermon of Mr, 
 Willats's, to peruse an account sent by Mr. Fellebien to the Aca- 
 demy of Sciences at Paris, and printed in tbeir Memoirs, by which 
 is fully evinced the absolute incapacity of man, uninstructed, for 
 making or thinking of any religion. 
 
 " The son of a tradesman in Chartres, who had been deaf 
 from his birth, and consequently dumb, when he was about 
 twenty-three or twenty-four years of age, began on a sudden to 
 speak, without its being known that he had ever heard. This 
 event drew the attention of every one, and many believed it 
 to be miraculous. The yonng man, however, gave a plain and 
 rational account, by which it appeared to proceed wholly from 
 natural causes. He said, that about four months before he was 
 surprized by a new and pleasing sensation, which he afrewardg 
 discovered to arise from a ring of b'ells ; that, as yet, he heard 
 only with "one ear, but afterwards a kind of water came from his 
 left ear, and then he could hear distinctly with both : that from 
 this time he listened, with the utmost curiosity and attention, to 
 the sounds which accompany those motions of the lips, which he 
 had before remarked to convey ideas from one person to another. 
 In short, he was able to understand them, by noting the thing to 
 vrhich they related, and the action they produced. And after 
 repeated attempts to imitate them when alone, at the end of four 
 months he thought himself able to talk. He therefore, without 
 having intimated what had happened, began at once to speak, and 
 affected to join in conversation, though with much more imperfec- 
 tion than he was aware of. 
 
 " Many Divines immediately visited him, and questioned him 
 concerning God, and the soul, moral good and evil, and many 
 other subjects of the same kind ; but of all this they found him 
 totally ignorant, though he had been used to go to mass, and had 
 been instructed in all the externals of devotion, as making the 
 sign of the cross, looking upwards, kneeling at proper seasons, 
 and using gestures of penitence and prayer. Of death itself,
 
 Postscript. 181 
 
 which may be considered as a sensible object, he had very confused 
 and imperfect ideas, nor did it appear that he had ever reflected 
 upon it. His life was little more than animal and sensitive. He 
 seemed to be content with the simple perception of such objects as 
 he could perceive, and did not compare his ideas with each other, 
 nor draw inferences, as might have been expected from him. It 
 appeared, however, that his understanding was vigorous, and his 
 apprehension quick ; so that his intellectual defects must have been 
 caused, not by the barrenness of ihe soil, but merely by the want 
 of necessary cultivation." 
 
 The above is not the only instance of the kind that has occurred, 
 the reader's own reflection may perhaps furnish him with several 
 others. And if he is still desirous of farther satisfaction on the 
 subject treated of in the above sermon, I would beg leave to re- 
 commend to him a book, entitled, " The Knowledge of Divine 
 Tljings from Revelation, not from Reason and Nature," wrote by 
 John Ellis, D. D. sometime of Brazen-Nose College, Oxford; 
 now Vicar of St. James's, and Chaplain to the Royal Hospital in 
 Dublin Printed for Dod in London, and sold by all the book- 
 sellers. I know not whether to promise the reader more benefit 
 or pleasure in the perusal of a book, in which purity of diction, 
 and solidity of just reasoning, drawn from the most convincing 
 tepieks, are so exceedingly remarkable.
 
 THE 
 
 TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY 
 
 DEMONSTRATED ; 
 
 IN A 
 
 BETWIXT A 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND A DEIST: 
 
 WHEREIN THE CASE OF THE JEWS IS LIKEWISE 
 CONSIDERED.
 
 TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY 
 
 DEMONSTRATED. 
 
 (1.) CHRISTIAN. 
 
 J.T is strange you should stand it out so against your own happi- 
 ness, and employ your whole wit and skill to work in yourself 
 a disbelief of any future rewards or punishments, only that you 
 may live easy (as you think) in this world, and enjoy your plea- 
 sures. Which yet you. cannot enjoy free and undisturbed from the 
 fear of those things that are to come, the event of which you 
 pretend not to be sure of; and therefore are sure of a life full of 
 trouble, that admits not of any consolation, and of a miserable 
 and wretched death, according to the utmost that you yourself 
 propose. 
 
 DEIST. How can you say that, when I propose to live without 
 any fear of those things ? I fear not hell, and I have discarded the 
 expectation of heaven, because I believe neither. 
 
 CMR. Are you sure there are no such things ? 
 
 DE. That is a negative, and I pretend not to prove it. 
 
 CHR. Then you must remain in a doubt of ir. And what a 
 condition is it to die in this doubt, when the issue is eternal misery ! 
 And this is the utmost, by your own confession, that you can pro- 
 pose to yourself. Therefore I called yours a disbelief, rather than 
 a belief of any thing. It is we Christians who believe, you Deists, 
 only disbelieve. 
 
 And if the event should prove as you would have it, and that 
 we should all be annihilated at our death, we should be in a
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 1S5 
 
 good a condition as you. But on the other side, if the event 
 should prove as we expect ir, then you are eternally miserable, 
 and we eternally happy. Therefore one would think it the wisest 
 part to take our side of the question ; especially considering r hat 
 those poor pleasures, for the sake of which you determine your- 
 selves against us, are hut mere amusements, and no real enjoy- 
 ments. Nay, we had better be without them than have them 
 even as to this life itself. Is not temperance and a healthful con- 
 stitution more pleasant than those pains and aches, sick Lead and 
 stomach, that are the inseparable companions of debauchery and 
 excess, besides the clouding our reason, and turning sottish in our 
 understanding ? 
 
 DE. We take pleasure in them for the time, and mind "not the 
 consequences But however, a man cannot believe as he pleases. 
 And therefore, notwithstanding all the glorious and all the teiriblc 
 things you speak of, it makes nothing to me, unless you can evi- 
 dently prove them to be so. And you must still leave me to judge 
 for myself, after you have done all you can. 
 
 CHR. What I have said, is only to dispose you to hear me im- 
 partially, and not to be prejudiced against your own happiness, both 
 here and hereafter. 
 
 (2.) DE, Well, without more prefacing, the case is this: I 
 believe a God, as well as you ; but for revelation, and what you 
 call the Holy Scriptures, I may think they were wrote by pious 
 and good men, who might take this method of speaking, as from 
 God, and in his name, as supposing that those good thoughts 
 came from Him, and that it would have a greater effect upon the 
 people ; and might couch their morals under histories of tilings 
 -supposed to be done, as several of the wise Heathens have taken 
 this course, in what they told of Jupiter and Juno, and the rest of 
 their gods and goddesses. But as to the facts themselves, I believe 
 the one no more than the other; or that all the facts in Ovid's Me- 
 tamorphoses, or in ^sop's -Fables, were true. 
 
 CHR. You seem willing by this to preserve a respectful esteem 
 and value for the Holy Scriptures, as being wrote by pious and 
 good men, and with a good design to reform the manners of 
 men. But your argument proves directly against the purpose for 
 which you brought it, and makes the pen-meu of the Scriptures 
 to be far from good men, to be not only cheats and impostors,
 
 18G The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 but blasphemers, and an abomination before God. For such these 
 same Scriptures frequently call those who presume to speak as 
 from God, and in his name, when he had not sent them, and 
 given them authority so to do. And the Law in the Scripture* 
 condemns such to be stoned to death as blasphemers. 
 
 It was not so with the Heathens, their moralists did not use the 
 style of " Thus saith the Lord ;" and their philosophers opposed 
 and wrote against one another without any offence. For all the 
 matter was which of them could reason best ; they pretended to 
 no more. 
 
 And for the facts of the fables of their gods, themselves did not 
 believe them, and have wrote the mythology or moral that was in- 
 tended by them. 
 
 DE. But many of the common people did believe the facts 
 themselves. As it is with the common people now in the church 
 of Rome, who believe die most senseless and ridiculous stones in 
 their books of legends to be as true as the Gospel ; though the 
 more wise among them call them only pious frauds, to encrease 
 the devotion of the people. And so we think of your Gospel itself, 
 and all the other books you say were wrote by men divinely in- 
 spired. We will let you keep them to cajole the mob, but when 
 you would impose them upon men of sense, we must come to the 
 test with you. 
 
 CHR. That is what I desire ; and to see whether there are no 
 more evidences to be given for the truth of Christianity, that is, 
 of the Holy Scriptures, than are given for the legends, and all 
 the fabulous stories of the Heathen gods. And if so, I will give 
 up my argument, and confess that it is not in my power to con- 
 vince you. 
 
 DE. I cannot refuse to join issue with you upon this. To be- 
 gin, then, I desire to know your evidences for the truth of your 
 Scriptures, and the facts therein related. 
 
 (3.) CHR. If the truth of the book, and the facts therein re- 
 lated be proved, I suppose you will not deny the doctrines to be 
 true. 
 
 DE. No: for if I saw such miracles with my eyes as are said 
 to have been done by Moses and Christ, I could not think of any 
 greater proof to be given, that such an one was sent of God. 
 Therefore if your Bible be true as to the facts, I must believe it 
 in the doctrine too. But there are other books which pretend tq
 
 TJie Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 187 
 
 give us revelations from God, and we must know which of these 
 is true. ^ 
 
 CHR. To distinguish this book from all others which pretend 
 to give revelations from God, these four marks or rules were set 
 down. 
 
 I. That the facts related be such of which mens outward senses, 
 their eyes and ears, may judge. 
 
 [This cuts off enthusiastical pretences to revelation, and opi- 
 nions which may be propagated in the dark, and like the tares 
 not known till they are grown up, and the first beginning of them 
 not discovered.] 
 
 JI. That these facts be done openly in the face of the world. 
 
 III. That not only publick monuments, but outward institu- 
 tions and actions should be appointed, and perpetually kept up in 
 memory of them. 
 
 IV. That these institutions to be observed should commence 
 from the time that the facts were done ; and consequently that the 
 book wherein these facts and institutions are recorded, should be 
 written.at the time, and by those who did the facts, or by eye 
 and ear-witnesses. For that is included in this mark, and is the 
 main part of it; to prevent false stories being coined in after 
 ages of things done many hundred years before, which none alive 
 can disprove. Thus Moses wrote his five books containing his 
 actions and institutions; and those, of Christ were wrote by his 
 tlisciples, who were eye and ear-witnesses of what they related. 
 And particular care was taken of this, as you may see, Acts i. 
 21, 22. upon choosing one to supply the place of Judas. 
 " Wherefore of these men which have companied with us, all 
 *' the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, be- 
 *' ginning from the baptism of John, until that same day that he 
 " was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be witness with 
 *' us of his resurrection." And St. John begins his first Epistle 
 thus : " That which was from the beginning, which we have 
 *' heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have 
 { looked upon, and our hands have handled That which we have 
 " seen and heard declare we unto you." 
 
 I have explained this fourth mark, because the author of the 
 detection, either wilfully or ignorantly, seems not to understand 
 it. And this alone overthrows all the stories he has 'told, which 
 he would make parallel to the facts of Moses, and of Christ ; and 
 therefore alledges that they have all these four marks. But he must
 
 188 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 begin again, and own that these four marks still stand an irrefra- 
 gable proof of the truth of any fact which has them all, till he 
 can produce a book which was wrote by the actors or eye-witnesses 
 of the facts it relates, and shew that such facts, having the other 
 three marks, have been detected to be false. Which when he 
 can do, I will give him up these four marks as an insufficient 
 proof, and own I was mistaken in them. But hitherto they have 
 stood the test ; for he himself will not say, he has produced any 
 guch book in all his detection. 
 
 If he says that facts may be true, though no such book can be 
 produced for them, and though they have not all the aforesaid 
 marks, I will easily grant it. But all I contend for is, that what- 
 "ever fact has all these four marks, cannot be false. For example 
 could Moses have persuaded six hundred thousand men that he had 
 led them through the sea in the manner related in Exodus, if it 
 had not been true ? If lie could, it would have been a greater 
 miracle than the other. The like of their being fed forty years 
 in the wilderness without bread, by manna rained down to them 
 from heaven. The like of Christ's feeding five thousand at a time 
 with five loaves ; and so of all the rest. The two first marks 
 secure from any cheat or imposture at the time the facts were 
 clone, and the two last marks secure equally from any imposition 
 in after ages, because this book which relates these facts speaks of 
 itself as written at that time by the actors or eye-witnesses, and as 
 commanded by God to be carefully kept and preserved to all ge- 
 nerations, and read publickly to all the people, at stated times, 
 as is commanded, Deut. xxxi. 10, 11, 12. And was practised, 
 Josh. viii. 34, 35. Neh. viii. &c. And the institutions appointed 
 in this book were to be perpetually observed from the day of the 
 institution for ever among these people, in memory of the facts, 
 as the passover, Exod. xii. and so of the rest. Now suppose this 
 book to have been forged a thousand years after Moses, would not 
 every one say when it first appeared, we never heard of this book 
 before, we know of no such institutions, as of a passover, or cir- 
 cumcision, or sabbaths, and the many feasts and fasts therein ap- 
 pointed, of a tribe of Levi, and a tabernacle wherein they werp 
 to serve in such an order of priesthood, &c. Therefore this book 
 must be an errant forgery, for it wants all those marks it gives of 
 itself, as to its own continuance, and of those institutions it re- 
 lates. No instance can be shewn since the world began of any 
 book so circumstantiated that was a forgery, and passed as truth.
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 18 
 
 upon any people. I think it impossible ; and therefore that the 
 four marks are still an invincible proof of the truth of that book, 
 and those facts wherein all these marks do meet. 
 
 But since I am come upon this subject again, I will endeavour 
 to improve it, and give four other marks, some of which no fact, 
 however true, ever had, or can have, but the fact of Christ alone. 
 Thus while I support the fact of Moses, I set that of Christ 
 above him, as the lord is above the servant. And the Jews being 
 herein principally concerned, I will consider their case likewise 
 as we go along ; therefore I add this fifth mark as peculiar to our 
 Bible, and to distinguish it from all other histories which relate 
 facts formerly done. 
 
 (V.) That the book which relates the fats contains likewise 
 the law of that people to whom it belongs, and be their statute- 
 book by which their causes are determined. This will make it 
 impossible for any to coin or forge such a book, so as to make it 
 pass upon any people. For example ; if I should forge a statute- 
 book for England, and publish it next term, could I make all the 
 Judges, Lawyers, and people believe, that this was their true and 
 only statute-book by which their causes had been determined these 
 many hundred years past ? They must forget their old statute-book, 
 and believe that this new bock, which they never saw or heatd of 
 before, was that same old book which has been pleaded in West- 
 minster-Hall for so many ages, which has been so often printed, 
 and the originals, of which are now kept in the Tower to be con- 
 sulted as there is occasion. 
 
 DE. I grant that to be impossible. But how do you apply it ? 
 CHR. It is evident as to the books of Moses, which are not 
 only a history of the Jews, but their very statute-book, wherein 
 their municipal law, as well civil as ecclesiastical, was contained. 
 
 DE. This is so indeed as to the book of Moses, to which they 
 always appealed ; " To the Law and to the testimony." And 
 they had no other statute-book. But this will not agree to your 
 Gospel, which is no municipal law, nor any civil Jaw at all, and 
 no civil causes were tried by it. 
 
 CHR. The law was given to the Jews, as a distinct and separate 
 people from all other nadons upon the earth : and therefore was a 
 municipal law particularly for that nation only of the Jews. But 
 Christianity was to extend to all the nations of the -earth ; and 
 Christians were to be gathered out of all nations ; and therefore
 
 1 90 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 the Gospel could not be a municipal Law as to civil rights to all 
 nations, who had each their own municipal Laws. This could 
 not be without destroying all the municipal Laws in the world, 
 of every nation whatsoever ; and then none could be a Christian, 
 without at the same time becoming a rebel to the government 
 where he lived. This would have been for Christ to have imme- 
 diately set up for universal and temporal King of all the world, as 
 the Jews expected of their Messiah, and therefore would have 
 made Christ a King. But he instructed them in the spiritual 
 nature of his kingdom, that it was not " of this world," nor 
 did respect their temporal or civil matters ; which therefore he 
 left in the same state he found them, and commanded their obe- 
 dience to their civil governors, though Heathen, not only for 
 wrath, but also for conscience sake. And as to the Law of 
 Moses, he left the Jews still under it, as to their civil concerns, 
 so far as the Romans, under whose subjection they then were, 
 would permit them. As Pilate said to them, " Ye have a Law ; 
 '* and judge ye him according to your Law." 
 
 But the Gospel was given as the spiritual and ecclesiastical Law 
 to the Church whithersoever dispersed through all nations ; for 
 that did not interfere with their temporal Laws, as to civil govern, 
 ment. And in this the fifth mark is made stronger to the Gospel 
 than even to the Law ; for it is easier to suppose that any forgery 
 might creep into the municipal Law of a particular nation, than 
 that all the nations whither Christianity is spread should conspire 
 'in the corruption of the Gospel, which to all Christians is of 
 infinitely greater concern than their temporal Laws. And with- 
 out such a concert of all Christian nations and people supposed, 
 no such forgery could pass undiscovered in the Gospel, which is 
 spread as far as Christianity, and read daily in their publick 
 offices. 
 
 DE. But I say it is discovered, as appears by the multitude of 
 your various Lections. 
 
 CHR. That cannot he called a forgery : it is nothing but such 
 mistakes as may very easily happen, and are almost unavoidable, 
 in so many copits as have been made of the Gospel, before 
 printing was known. And considering the many translations of 
 it into several languages, where the idioms are different, and 
 phrases may be mistaken, together with the natural slips of ama- 
 nuenses, it is much more wonderful that there are no more various 
 lections, than that there are so man}-.
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 191 
 
 But in this appears the great providence of God in the care the 
 Christians rook of this, that they have marked every the least va- 
 rious lection, even syllabical; and that among all these there is 
 not found one which makes any alteration either in the facts, or 
 in the doctrines. So that instead of an objection, this becomes a 
 strong confirmation of the truth and certainly of the Gospel, 
 which stands thus perfectly clear of so much as any doubt con- 
 cerning the facts or the doctrines therein related. 
 
 But I will now proceed to a stronger evidence than even this, 
 and all that has been said before ; which I have made the sixth 
 mark, and that is the topick of prophecy. 
 
 (VI.) The great fact of Christ's coming into the world was 
 prophesied of in the Old Testament from the beginning to the 
 end, as it is said, Luke i. 70. " By all the^holy prophets which 
 " have been since the world began." / 
 
 This evidence no other fact ever had ; for there was no pro- 
 phecy of Muses, but Moses himself did prophesy of Christ, 
 Deut. xviii. 15. (applied Acts Hi. 22, 23, C 24.) and sets down the 
 several promises given of him. The first was to Adam, imme- 
 diately after the fall, Gen. iii. 15. where he is called the seed of 
 the woman, but not of the man, because he was to have no man 
 for his father, though he had a woman to his mother. And of 
 none other can this be said, nor that he should " bruise the ser- 
 " pent's head," that is, overcome the devil and all his power. 
 
 Me was again promised to Abraham, as you may see, Gen. 
 xii. 3. xviii. 18. See this applied Gal. iii. 16. 
 
 Jacob did expressly prophesy of him, with a mark of the time 
 when he should come, and calls him " Shiloh," or " He that wa$ 
 ** to be sent." Gen. xlix. 10. 
 
 Balaam prophesie'd of him by the name of the Siar of Jacob, 
 and the Scepter of Israel. Num. xxiv. 17. 
 
 Daniel calls him the Messiah, the Prince ; and tells the time of 
 his coming, and of his death, Dan. ix. 2~> t 26. 
 
 It was foretold that he should be born of a virgin, Isai. vii. 1 K 
 In the city of Bethlehem, Micah v. 2. Of the seed of Jesse, 
 Isai. xi. 1. 10. His low estate and sufferings are particularly 
 described, Psal. xxii. and Isai. liii. And his resurrection, Psal. 
 xvi. 10. That he should sit upon the throne of David for ever, 
 and be called ** Wonderful," the " mighty God," the " Prince 
 *' of Peace," Isai. ix. 6, 7. " The Lord our rigiueousn.es:>,'' 
 1
 
 192 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 Jer. xxxiil. 16. Jehovah Tsiclkenu, (an incommunicable name 
 given to none but the great God alone.) And Immanuel, that is, 
 " God with us," Isai. vii. 14. And David, whose son he was, 
 according to the flesh, calleth him his Lord, Psal. ex. 1. 
 
 The cause of his sufferings is said to be for the sins of the peo- 
 ple, and not for himself, Isai. liii. 4, 5, 6. Dan. ix. 26. 
 
 And as to the time of his coming, it is expressly said, (to the 
 confusion of the Jews now) that it was to be before the scepter 
 should depart from Judah, Gen. xlix. 10. In the second temple, 
 Hag. ii. 7, 9. Within seventy weeks of the building of it, Dan. 
 ix. U4. that is, (according to the prophetical known stile of a day 
 for a year) within four hundred and ninety years after. 
 
 (1.) From these, and many more prophecies of the Messiah or 
 Christ, his coming was the general expectation of the Jews from 
 the beginning, but more especially about the time in which it 
 \vas foretold he should come, when several false Messiahs did ap- 
 pear among them. And this expectation still remains with them, 
 though they confess that the time foretold by all the Prophets for 
 his coming, is past. 
 
 But what I have next to offer will be more strange to you. 
 You may say it was natural for the Jews to expect their Messiah, 
 who was prophesied of in their book of the Lav, and was to be 
 a Jew, and a King of all the earth. But what had the Gentiles to 
 do with this? There were no prophecies to them. 
 
 Therefore -what I have to shew you is, that these prophecies of 
 the Messiah were likewise to the Gentiles. For it is said that he 
 should be the expectation of the Gentiles, as well as of the Jews. 
 And Gen. xlix. 10. That the gathering of the people (or nations) 
 should be to him. In the vulgar it is rendered txpectatio gentium. 
 " The expectation of the Gentiles." He is called " the desire 
 ** of all nations," Hag. ii. 7. And I will shew you the general 
 expectation the Gentiles had of his coming, about the time that 
 he did come. 
 
 They knew him by the name of the East. Their tradition 
 was, that the East should prevail, ut valcsceret oriens, as I will 
 shew you presently. But let me first tell you, that the Holy 
 Scripture often alludes to him under this denomination. The 
 blood of the great expiatory sacrifice was to be sprinkled towards 
 the East, Lev. xvi. 14. to shew whence the true expiatory sacri- 
 fice should come. And he is thus frequently stiled in the Pro- 
 phets. Zech. iii. 8. it is, said, according to the vulgar, " I will 
 8
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 193 
 
 * { bring forth my servant the East." And chap. vi. 12. " Be- 
 " hold the man whose name is the East." Our English renders 
 it in both places the Branch, for the Hebrew word bears both 
 senses. But the Greek renders it 'AvaToXvi, which we translate 
 the " day spring," Luke i. 18 ; and put on the margin Sun-rising 
 or Branch. The vulgar has it omens ex alto, the East or Sun-rising 
 from on high. He is called the " Sun of righteousness," Mai. 
 iv. 2. And it is said Isa. Ix. 3. *' The Gentiles shall come to thy 
 ** light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising." 
 
 (2.) Now, Sir, how literally was this fulfilled in the Magi 
 (generally supposed to be Kings) coming from the East, led by a 
 star which appeared to them in the East, to worship Christ when 
 he was born, and to bring presents unto him as unto a King ? As 
 it is told in the second of St. Matthew. 
 
 DE. Why do you quote St. Matthew to me? You know we 
 make no more of him than of one of your Legend-writers, and 
 believe this story no more than that these three Kings are now 
 buried at Cologne. 
 
 (3.) CHR. You make great use of the Legends, and answer 
 every thing by them ; and I confess they are the greatest affront to 
 Christianity, and (if possible) a disproof of it, as it must be to 
 those who will place them upon the same foot with the Holy Bible, 
 as too many do in the Church of Rome, and cry, we have the 
 authority of the Church for both. And they are taught to receive 
 the Holy Scriptures upon the authority of the Church only. But 
 my business is not with them now ; I shall only say, that when 
 they can bring such evidences for the truth of their Legends, or 
 for any particular fact in them,' as I do for the truth of the Holy 
 Scriptures, and in particular for the fact of Christ, then I wfll be- 
 lieve them. 
 
 DE. Will you believe nothing that has not all these evidences 
 you produce? 
 
 (4.) CHR. Far from it; for then 1 must believe nothing but 
 this single fact of Christ : befcause no other fact in. the world, 
 no, not of all those recorded- in Holy Scriptures, has all these 
 evidences which the fact of Christ has. And so God has thought 
 fitting, that this great fact above all other facts, of the greatest 
 
 VOL. I. O
 
 194 The Truth of Christianity demonstrnted, 
 
 glory to God, and importance to mankind, should appear with 
 greater and more undeniable evidence than any other fact ever was 
 in the world. 
 
 DE We are now upon the particular fact of the Magi, or wise 
 men, coming to Christ. Have you any more to say as to that ? 
 
 (5.) CHR. It has those same evidences that the truth of the 
 Bible in general has, which are more than can be produced for 
 any other book in the world. But now as to this fact in parti- 
 cular : St. Matthew was the first who wrote the Gospel, and it 
 was in the same age when this fact was said to be done. And 
 can you think it possible that such a fact as this could have passed 
 without contradiction, and a publick exposing of Christianity, 
 then so desirable and so much endeavoured by the unbelieving 
 Jews, their High-priests, Elders, &c. as the only means for their 
 own preservation, if the fact had not been notorious and fresh in 
 the memory of all the people then at Jerusalem, viz. that these 
 wise men came thither, and that Herod and the whole city were 
 troubled at the news they brought of the birth of the King of the 
 Jews ; that Herod thereupon gathered all the chief Priests and 
 Scribes of the people together, that they might search out of the 
 Prophets, and know the place where Christ should be born ; and 
 then the slaughter of the infants in and about Bethlehem, and in 
 all the coasts thereof, which followed. I say could such a fact as 
 this have passed at that very time, if it had not been true ? Could 
 St. Matthew have hoped to have palmed this upon all the people, 
 and upon those very same chief Priests and Scribes who he said 
 tvere vo far concerned in it ? Would none of them have contra- 
 dicted it, if it had been a forgery ? Especially when the detecting 
 it would have strangled Christianity in its birth. Would not they 
 have done it who suborned false witnesses against Christ, and gave 
 large money to the soldiers to conceal (if possible) his resurrection? 
 Would not they have done it who persecuted Christianity with 
 all spite and fury, and invented all imaginable false stories and ca- 
 lumnies against it ? Whereas here was one at hand, this of the 
 Magi, which, if false, could have been so easily detected, by 
 appealing to every man, woman, and child, I may say, in Jeru- 
 salem, Bethlehem, and even in all Ju3ea ; who no doubt had 
 heard of the terrible massacre of so many infants, and the cause 
 f k.
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated* ' 195 
 
 D. I can give no account why the writers against Christianity 
 did not offer to contradict this fact of the star and the Magi, 
 which is put in the very front of this Gospel of St. Matthew. 
 And there it is called his (Christ's) star. ** We have seen his star 
 " in the East*' As if God had created a new and extraordinary 
 star on purpose* as the signal of Christ hung out in the heavens, 
 to give the world notice of his birth. But did none of the heathen 
 Philosophers take notice of this star, or of this relation given of it 
 by your St. Matthew ? 
 
 (6.) CHR. Yqs. For Chalcidius, in his comment upon Plato's 
 Timaeus, speaking of the presages f stars mentioned by Plato> 
 adds, as a further proof, Est quoque alia vcnerabilior K sanctior 
 historici.' There is likewise another more venerable and holy his- 
 tory, by which I doubt not he means this of St. Matthew ; for 
 what he tells seems to be taken out of it, " That by the rising of 
 " a certain unusual star, not plagues and diseases, but the descent 
 " of the venerable God, for the salvation and benefit of mortals, 
 " was observed by the Chaldeans, who worshipped this God newly 
 ** born, by offering gifts unto him." 
 
 DE. This makes those Magi, or wise men, to have been Chal- 
 deans, who, I know, were the most noted then in the world for 
 the most curious learning, particularly in astronomy. And they 
 were likewise east of Jerusalem , so that it might be well said 
 they came from the East, and had seen his siar in the East. But 
 I cannot imagine how they should read the birth of a God in 
 the face of a new star ; and how that star should send them par- 
 ticularly to Jerusalem* though I may suppose it pointed them 
 westward. 
 
 (7.) CHR. This will be easier to you* when you kno\V, that all 
 over the East there was a tradition, or fixed opinion, that about 
 that time a King of the Jews would be born, who should rule the 
 whole earth. And the appearance of this extraordinary star in the 
 East was taken by them as a sign that he was then born. And 
 whither should they go to look for the King of the Jews, but to 
 Jerusalem ? And when they came thither they enquired, saying, 
 " Where is he that is born King of the Jews ? For we have 
 " seen his star in the East, and are come to worship him." This 
 made Herod gather the Priests and Scribes together. And they, 
 by searching the Prophets, found that Bethlehem wa$ the place ; 
 
 o 2
 
 196 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 whereupon the wise men went to Bethlehem ; and to convince 
 them that they were right, the star which they had seen in the 
 East appeared to them again, and " went before them till it came 
 " and stood over where the young child was." This made them 
 " rejoice with such an exceeding great joy." 
 
 DE. This would go down in some measure with me, if you 
 could make good your first postulatum, of such a current tradition 
 or opinion in the East ; bui for this you have given no sort of 
 proof. And all the rest which you have inferred from thence must 
 come to the ground with it, if it be not supported. I confess it 
 would seem as strange to me as the star to the wise men, if God 
 had (we know not how, it is unaccountable to us) sent such a 
 notion into the minds of men, and at that time only, of such a 
 King to be born, and that he should be a Jew, (the then most 
 contemptible people in the world, subdued and conquered by the 
 Romans) and that he was tc be King of the Jews, and thence to 
 become King of all the earth, and conquer his conquerors. The 
 Romans would have looked with disdain upon such a notion or 
 prophecy as this ; it would have made some stir among them, if 
 they had heard of it, or given any credit to it. 
 
 (8.) CHR. You argue right ; and I will shew you what stir it 
 made among them, and I hope you will take their word, as well 
 for this Eastern tradition, as for the effects it had among them, 
 selves. Nay, they wanted not the same tradition among them- 
 selves, and express prophecies of it in their Sibyls, and otherwise. 
 So that the same expectation of the Messiah was then current over 
 all the earth, with the Gentiles as well as the Jews. 
 
 Tacitus, in his History, 1. v. c. 13. speaking of the great prodi- 
 gies that preceded the destruction of Jerusalem, says, that many un- 
 derstood these as the forerunners of that extraordinary Person whom 
 the ancient books of the Priests did foretel should come about that 
 time from Judea, and obtain the universal dominion ; his words are, 
 *' Pluribus persitasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum literis contineri, 
 eo ipso teinporefore, tit vale secret Qricns, profecligue Judaea re- 
 ruin polirentur," i. e. " Many were persuaded that it was con- 
 tained in the old writings of the Priests, that at that very time the 
 East should prevail, and the Jews should have the dominion." And 
 Sueionius, in the Life of Vespasian, c. 1 . n. 4. says, " Percrebuerat 
 Oriente toto vetus 5C const ens opinio, esse in/atis, ut eo tempore* 
 Judaea profecli rerum potiren/ur," i.e. "That in was an an-
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. JflT 
 
 tient and constant opinion (or tradition) throughout the whole 
 East, that at that time those who came from Judea shtmhf obtain, 
 the dominion ;" that is, that some Jew should be universal king. 
 Therefore Cicero, who was a commonwealths-man, in his second 
 book of Divination, speaking of the books of the Sibyls, who ' 
 likewise foretold this great King to come, says, " Cum antistibus 
 agamus & quid-vis potius ex illis libris, quam regem proferant: 
 quern Roma post h&c nee Dii y nee homine esse patienfur." i. e. 
 " Let us deal with these priests, and let them bring any thing out 
 of their books, rather than a king : whom neither the Qods nor 
 men will suffer after this at Rome." 
 
 But he was mistaken, and had his head cut off for writing 
 against kingly government. And others more considerable than 
 he laid greater stress upon these prophecies, even the whole Senate 
 of Rome, as I come to shew you. 
 
 Whether these Sibyls gathered their prophecies out of the Old 
 Testament, is needless here to examine. I am now only upon 
 that general expectation which was then in the world of this great 
 and universal King to come about that time. 
 
 (9.) The same year that Pompey took Jerusalem, one of these 
 oracles of the Sibyls made a great noise, which was, " That na- 
 ture was about to bring forth a King to the Romans." Which, 
 as Suetonius relates in the Life of Augustus, c. 94. did so terrify 
 the Senate, that they made a decree to expose, that is, destroy all 
 the children born that year. Senatiim ex territum censuisse, ne quis 
 illo anno genitus educaretur. That none born that year should be 
 brought up, but exposed, that is, left in some wood or desert place 
 to perish. But he tells how this dreadful sentence was prevented. 
 Eos qui gravidqs uxores haberent, quod ad se quisque spem tra- 
 heret, curdssene S?natuscomultumad<erariiim deferretur* That 
 those Senators whose wives were with child, because each was in 
 hopes of having this great King, took care that the decree of the 
 Senate should not be put into the aerarium or treasury, without 
 which, by their constitution, the decree could not be put in exe- 
 cution, And Appian, Plutarch, Sallust, and Cicero, do all say^ 
 that it was this prophecy of the Sibyls which, raised the ambition 
 of Corn. Lentulus at that time, hoping he should be this King 
 of the Romans. Virgil, a few years before the birth of Christ^ 
 in his 4th Eclogue, quotes a prophecy of one of these Sibyls^ 
 speaking of an extraordinary person to be born about that
 
 IDS The Truth of Christianity demonstrated,. 
 
 who should introduce a golden age into the world, and restore al! 
 things, and should blot out our sins. 
 
 . : Si qua rnanent sceleris vestigia nostri. 
 And calls him, 
 
 Chara Dcum soboks, magnum Jovis incrementum. 
 Dear offspring of the Gods, and great son of Jove. 
 
 He describes a new state f things like the " new heavens" arwj 
 new earth," Isai. Ixv. J7. 
 
 Magnus ab integro seclorum nascitur ordo. 
 A great order of ages does begin, wholly new. 
 
 And as Isaiah describes the happy state in the " new earth," that 
 the lion and the lamb should feed together, the serpent eat dust, and 
 that they should not hurt or destroy in all the " holy mountain," 
 Jsai. Ixv. 25. Virgil does almost repeat his words : 
 
 Nee magnos metuent armenta leones. 
 
 Occidet et serpens, K fallax herba veneni 
 
 And as God introduces the Messiah with saying, " I will shake the 
 *' heavens and the earth, and the sea." Hag. ji. 7. Virgil does in a 
 manner translate it in this Eclogue, introducing the great person 
 then to be born, and the joy which should be in the whole creation, 
 
 Aspice convero nutantem pondere munduni, 
 Terrasq; tmctusy; maris, ccelumq ; profundum, 
 A&pice venture fatentur ut omnia seclo. 
 Lo! teemi"g nature bending with its load, 
 The earth, the ocean, and the heavens high. 
 Behold how all rejoice to greet the coming age. 
 
 Here the poet describes nature as in labour to bring forth this 
 creat King, as the other Prophecy of the Sibyls before-mentioned 
 speaks. And he says, Aderitjqm tempus. That the time was 
 then at hand. 
 
 Jam nota progenies caelo demittitur alto. 
 
 ISow ane\v progeny from heaven descends.
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. -199 
 
 And he applies it to Saloninus the Son of Pollio the Consul, then 
 newly born, as if it was to be fulfilled in him. But as there was 
 nothing like it in the event ; so these words are too great to be ap- 
 plied to any mortal, or the reign of any King thai ever was in the 
 world ; or to any other but to the Messiah the Lord of heaven and 
 earth. 
 
 (10.) DE. But you know the authority of these Sibyls is dis- 
 puted. Some say the Christians did interpolate them, and added to 
 them in about a hundred years after Christ. 
 
 CHR. It is true, the Christians did often quote them against the 
 Heathens, as St. Paul quoted the Heaihen Poets to the Athenians, 
 Acts xvii. 28. And Clem. Alexandrinus in his Strom. 1. 6. says, 
 that St. Paul quoted the Sibyls likewise in his Disputations with the 
 Gentiles. And the Christians were called Sibyllianists, from their 
 quoting the Sibyls so often. But Origen in his answer to Celsus, 
 1. 7. challenges him to shew any interpolation made by the Chris- 
 tians, and appeals to the Heathen copies which were in their own 
 possession, and kept with great care. 
 
 But what I have quoted to you out of Virgil was before Christ 
 was born, and therefore clear of all these objections. 
 
 DE. Then the Jews must have had some hand in them. As 
 likewise in that eastern tradition you have spoken of. 
 
 CHR. If so, you must suppose that the Jews had it from 
 their own Prophets. And this will be a strong confirmation, 
 that the time of the Messiah's coining was plainly told in the 
 prophets. 
 
 (11.) DE. What say the Jews to this? For I cannot imagine 
 how they can get off of it. 
 
 CHR. Some of them say, That, the Messiah put off his coming 
 at the appointed time, because of their sins. Others say, he did 
 come at the time, but has concealed himself evpr since. 
 
 DE. These are mere excuses. Do they pretend any prophecy 
 for this ? But to what purpose ? For these excuses shew, That 
 prophecies are no proofs, because if they may be thus put off, they 
 can never be known. And they may be putqff and put off to the 
 end of the world. 
 
 .(12.) CHR. But now, Sir, as to your point. If this general 
 expectation, both east and west, of the great King of the Jews,,
 
 200 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 to be born about that very time that he did come, was occasioned 
 by the Jewish tradition of it, strengthens the truth of the Holy- 
 Scriptures, whence the Jews had it. But otherwise, if God we 
 know not how, did send such a notion into the minds of men, all 
 over the world, at that particular time, and never the like, either 
 before or since, then the miracle will be greater, and the attestation 
 to the coming of Christ stronger, and as you said, it will be more 
 wonderful and more convincing to you, than the star was to the 
 wise men in the east. 
 
 DE. I must take time to answer this. I made nothing at all of 
 this of the Magi, and the star, and of Herod's slaying the infants 
 ,upon it. 1 though: it a ridiculous story, and to have no foundation 
 in the world. But when I see Suetonius telling us of the decree of 
 the Senate e>f Rome to destroy all the children born that year, and 
 for the same reason, for fear of this great King that was then to be 
 born ; I must think there was a strange chiming in of things here, 
 one to answer the other. I know not how' it happened. By 
 chance, or how ! 
 
 (13".) CHR. You cannot imagine there could be any concert in 
 this matter. That the Chaldeans, and Romans, and Jews, should 
 all agree upon the point, and hit it so exactly, without any one of 
 them discovering the contrivance ! especially when it was so terri- 
 ble to both the Romans and the Jews, that they took such desperate 
 methods to prevent it as to destroy their own children ! 
 
 DE. It is ridiculous to talk of a concert. I will not put my 
 __ cause upon lhat. Would they concert what they thought their 
 own destruction? Besides, the Jews and Romans were then ene- 
 mies ; and the Chaldeans were far off, and had little correspondence 
 with either of them. And such an universal notion could not be 
 concerted. Whole nations could not be trusted with a secret. And 
 if they all kept ir, and against their own interest too, it would be as 
 great a miracle as any in your Bible. 
 
 (14.) CHR. How much more possible is it to suppose, That 
 there should be a concert between different ages, between all the 
 ages frem Adam downwards, in all those prophecies of the coming 
 of the Messiah ? How should they know it but by revelation ? 
 And would they have all agreed so exactly as to the time, place, 
 manner, and other circumstances, if it had been a forgery contrived 
 by different persons and in different ages ?
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 2QI 
 
 (15.) This is an argument which St. Peter thought stronger 
 than the conviction even of our outward senses, for having set 
 down what he and the other two Apostles had both seen and heard 
 upon the holy Mount, he adds, " We have yet a more sure word 
 " (that is, a stronger proof) of prophecy, whereunto ye do well 
 " to take heed, as unto a light that shineth'in a daik place, until 
 " the day da*n, and the day-star arise in your hearts." 2 Pet. i. 
 19. And he enforces it thus, ** For the prophecy came not in old 
 " time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they 
 " were moved by the Holy Ghost." 
 
 Dt. I will grant his argument so far, That it is easier to suppose 
 the senses of three men or of all the men in the world to be im-^ 
 posed upon, than that Adam, Abraham, and I had concerted toge- 
 ther. But I will nst give you my answer yet. Have you any 
 more to say upon this head of prophecy ? 
 
 CHR. 1 need say no more till your answer comes. For you 
 have granted that this proof is stronger than what we see with our 
 eyes. 
 
 (1G.) But that your answer may take in all together, I will 
 give you something further. I have set down already some of the 
 great prophecies of the coming of Christ, his sufferings, death, 
 and resurrection. But there are others which reach to several 
 miuiite circumstances, such as cannot be applied to any other fact 
 that ever yet happened, and which could not have been foreseen by 
 any but God; nor were known by the actors who did them, else 
 they had not done them. For they would not have fulfilled the 
 Prophecies that went before of Christ, in applying them to him 
 whom they crucified as a false Christ. 
 
 See then how literally several of these Prophecies were fulfilled. 
 As Psal. Ixix. 21. "They gave me gall to eat and vinegar to 
 <c drink." Then read Matt, xxvii. 34. " They gave him vine- 
 " gar to drink mingled with gall." It is said, Psal. xxii. 16, 
 17, 18. " They pierced my hands and my feet They stand 
 ** staring and looking upon me. They part my garments among 
 <c them, and cast lots upon my vesture." As if it had been 
 wrote after John xix. 23, 24. It was merely accidental in the 
 soldiers, they would not tear his coat, because it was woven and 
 without seam, therefore they cast lots for it : thus fu, filling this 
 Scripture, without any knowledge of theirs, for they were Roman 
 soldiers, aud kaew nothing of the Scripture. Again it is said.
 
 202 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 Psal. xxii. 7, 8. " All they that see me, laugh me to scorn ; 
 " they shoot out their lips and shake their heads, saying, He 
 " trusted in God that he would deliver him ; let him deliver him 
 " if he will have him." Compare this with Matt, xxvii. 39, 
 41, 42, 43. And they that passed by, reviled him, wagging 
 " their heads, and saying Come down from the cross. Like- 
 " wise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and 
 " elders, said He trusted in God, let him deliver him now if 
 " he will have him, for he said, I am the Son of God." It is 
 said again, Zecli. xi. 10. " They shall look upon me whom 
 '* they have pierced." His very price was foretold, and how the 
 money should be disposed of, Zech. xi. 13. fulfilled Matt, xxvii. 
 6, 7. And his riding into Jerusalem upon an ass, Zech. ix. 9. 
 which the learned Rabbi Saadia expounds of the Messiah. That 
 he should suffer with malefactors, Isai. liii. 12. That his body 
 should not lie so long in the grave as to see corruption. Psal. xvi. 
 10. 
 
 Many other circumstances are told which cannot be applied to 
 any but to Christ. I have set down these few, that you may take 
 them into consideration when you think fit to give your answer as 
 to this head of Prophecies. 
 
 And you are to take care to find some other' fact guarded with 
 Prophecies like this. Or else you must confess that there is no 
 other fact that has such evidence as this. 
 
 (17.) But before I leave this head, I must mention the Prophe- 
 cies in our Bible of things yet to come to the end of the world, and 
 of the new heavens and new earth that shall succeed, 
 
 DE. These can be no proofs here, because we cannot see the ful- 
 filling of them. 
 
 CUR. You may believe what is to come, by the fulfilling you 
 have seen of what is past. But I bring this now to shew you, 
 That there is no other law or history in the world that so much as 
 pretends to this, or to know what is to come. This is pe- 
 culiar to the Holy Bible, as being written from the mouth of 
 God. 
 
 You have seen how the current of the Prophecies of the Old 
 Testament did point at and center in that great event the coming of 
 the Messiah. 
 
 When he was come, then he rold us more plainly of what was 
 to come after him, even to the consummation of all things. And
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 20$- 
 
 by what we have seen exactly fulfilled of all he told us to this time, 
 we must believe what remains yet to come. 
 
 (18.) How particularly did he foretel the destruction of Jerusa- 
 lem and the temple. Matt. xxiv. And that that age should not pass 
 till it should be fulfilled ? And his very expression was literally ful- 
 filled, That there should not be left one stone upon another in the 
 temple, for the very faundations of if were ploughed up by Turnus 
 Rufus. See Scaliger's Canon. Isagog, p. 30*. 
 
 When Jerusalem was first besieged it was full of Christians. 
 But the siege was raised unaccountably and for no reason that his- 
 tory gives. In which time the Christians seeing those signs come 
 to pass which Christ had foretold would precede its destruction, and 
 particularly laying hold of that caution he gave, " Then let them 
 * that are in Judea flee to the mountains," and that in such haste, 
 as that lie that was in the field was not to return (to Jerusalem) to 
 fetch his garment, or he on the house top there to stay to take his 
 goods with him ; accordingly all the Christians left Jerusalem, and 
 fled to Pella a city in the Mountains. And as soon as they were 
 all gone, die Romaas returned and renewed the siege. And so it 
 came to pass, that when Titus sacked the city there was not one 
 Christian found there, and the destruction fell only upon the unbe- 
 lieving Jews. The others escaped, as Lot out of Sodom, by be, 
 lieving the prediction of that ruin, 
 
 (19.) Another very remarkable prediction of our blessed Lord 
 in that same chapter was of the many false Christs that should 
 come after him ; and he warned the Jews not to follow them, for 
 that it would be to their destruction. " Behold, (says he, ver, 25.) 
 " I have told you before." But they would not believe 
 him ; and accordingly it came to pass. Josephus in his Antiquities 
 of the Jews, 1. xviii. c. 12. 1. xx. c. 6. And de Bell. Jud. 1. viu 
 c. 31. tells of abundance of these false Messiahs who appeared be- 
 fore the destruction of Jerusalem, and led the people into the 
 wilderness, where they were miserably destroyed. The very thing 
 of which our Saviour cautioned them, ver. 26. If they say unto 
 you, " behold, he (that is, Christ) is in the desert, go not forth." 
 And de Bell. Jud. 1. vii. c. 12. Josephus says, that the chief cause 
 of their obstinacy in that war with the Romans, was their ex- 
 pectation of a Messiah to come and deliver them, which brought
 
 204- The Truth oj Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 on their, ruin, and made them deaf to the offers of Titus, who 
 courted them to peace. 
 
 And since the destruction of Jerusalem there have been so many 
 false Messiahs, that Johannes a Lent has wrote a history of them, 
 printed Herbonx, 1697. Which brings them down as far as the. 
 year 1682. And tells the lamentable destruction of the Jews in 
 following them. 
 
 (20.) But the next Prophecy of our blessed Lord which I pro- 
 cluce is more remarkable than these ; and of which you see the 
 fulfilling in a great measure, viz. That his Gospel should prevail 
 over all the world, and that the gates of hell should not prevail 
 against it : and this told when he was low and despised, and had 
 but twelve poor fishermen for his followers : and that his religion 
 should conquer, not by the sword, like Mahomet's, but by patient 
 suffering, as lambs among wolves. And in this state the Church 
 endured most terrible persecutions, when all the rage of hell was 
 let loose against her, for the first three hundred years, without any 
 help but from heaven only ; till at last, by the Divine Providence, 
 the great Emperor of Rome, and other mighty Kings and Princes, 
 without any force or compulsion, did voluntarily and freely submit 
 their scepters to Christ. 
 
 No religion that ever was in the world was so begun, so propa- 
 gated, and did so prevail : and hence we assuredly trust, that what 
 remains will be fulfilled, of the promise of Christ to his church in 
 the latter days. 
 
 But I speak now only of this Prophecy so long beforehand, and 
 when there was so little appearance of its coming to pass so far as 
 we have seen already. 
 
 Let me here remember one particular passage foretold by Christ 
 concerning the woman, who anointed his body to the burying, 
 That**' wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached throughout the 
 " whole world, this als that she hath done shall be spoken of, for 
 " a memorial of her." Mark xiv. 8, 9. And we see how it is 
 spoken of to this day. 
 
 DE. If this book had been lost, we had not heard of this Pro* 
 phecy. 
 
 CHR. So you may say of all the Bible, or of any other book ; 
 but Providence has fulfilled this Prophecy by preserving the book : 
 and it is a prophecy that this book, at least this fact of the woman,
 
 The Truth of. Christianity demonstrated. SOS 
 
 should be preserved for ever, and it may be preserved though that 
 book were lost. 
 
 (21.) DE. When Prophecies are fulfilled, and the events corns 
 to pass, they are plain to every body; but why might they not 
 have been a s plain from the beginning ? And then there could 
 have been no dispute about them, as if it had been said, that such 
 a one by name, at such a time, and in such a place, should do 
 such things, &c. 
 
 CHR. Because God having given man free will, he does not 
 force men to do any wicked thing : and it would be in the power 
 of wicked men to defeat a Prophecy against themselves, as to the 
 circumstance of time, place, or the manner of doing the thing. 
 
 For example, if the Jews had known that Christ had told his 
 Apostles he was to be crucified, they would not have done it ; 
 they would have stoned him as they did St. Stephen ; for that wa 
 the death appointed by the law for blasphemy : and they several 
 times attempted to have stoned Christ for this, because he said I 
 am the Son of God. John viii. 59. x. 3 1, 32, 33. But crucifixien 
 was a death by the Roman law. Therefore the Jews, to fulfil 
 this Prophecy (but not knowing it) delivered Christ to the Romans 
 to be put to death. Yet he told them so much of it, that after 
 he was crucified they might know it, as he said to them, John 
 viii. 28. " When ye have lift up the Son of Mart, then shall ye 
 " know that I am he." And chap. x. 32, 33. " And I, if I 
 " be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This 
 " he said, signifying what death he should die." But they un- 
 derstood it not till they had done it ; then they knew what the lift, 
 ing up meant. And chap, xviii. 31, 32. When Pilate would have 
 had them judge him according to their law, which was stoning, 
 they were cautious at this time only, and said, " It is not lawful 
 " for us to put any man to death." Because they were then 
 under the government of the Romans. But the next words shew 
 the design of Providence in it, " that the saying of Jesus might 
 " be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should 
 " die." They had no such caution upon them when they stoned 
 St. Stephen after this, nor the many times before when they took 
 up stones to have stoned the same Jesus. 
 
 Then again, the 'piercing his side with the spear was no pare 
 of the Roman sentence of execution, but happened seemingly by 
 mere accident ; for the sentence of the law was to hang upon the 
 4
 
 06 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 cross till they were dead : but that being the day of preparation 
 for the Sabbath, which began that evening soon after Christ and 
 the thieves were fastened to the cross, before it could be supposed 
 they were dead, therefore, " that the bodies might not remain 
 " upon the cross on the sabbath-day," the Jews besought Pilate 
 that their legs might be broken (which was ne part of the sentence 
 neither, but done) lest they should escape when taken down. Ac- 
 cordingly the legs of the thieves were broken, for they were yet 
 alive, and the reason why they brake not the legs of Christ was, 
 because " they saw that he was dead already ;" but to make sure, 
 one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear: little knowing 
 that they were then fulfilling Prophecies, as that " a bone of him 
 " should not be broken." And again, " They shall look on him 
 ** whom they pierced." As little did the soldiers think of it 
 when they were casting lots upon his vesture: and the chief 
 Priests (if they had known it or reflected upon it) would not 
 have upbraided him in the very worda that were foretold in xxii. 
 Psalm, which I have before quoted. And they would have con- 
 trived the money they gave to Judas to have been one piece more 
 or less than just thirty : they would not have come so punctually 
 in the way of that Prophecy, Zech. xi. 12, 13. *' They weighed 
 41 for my price thirty pieces of silver." And they would have 
 bought any other field with it, but especially not that of the 
 Potter, which Zechariah there likewise mentions. 
 
 And as the enemies of Christ did not know they were fulfilling 
 these Prophecies of him, so neither did his disciples at the time 
 when they were so doing. As it is said, John xii. 16. *' These 
 *' things understood not his disciples at the first; but when Jesus 
 " was glorified, then remembered they that these things were 
 " written of him, and that they had done these things unto 
 4t him." This makes the fulfilling these Prophecies yet more 
 remarkable. 
 
 Where Providence sees that Prophecies will not be minded, 
 they are more express and plain : as likewise where the passions 
 and interests of men will hurry them on towards fulfilling them. 
 Thus Alexander the great is described as plainly almost as if he 
 had been named, Dan. viii. 9, 21, 22. And it is said, that 
 this Prophecy? which 1 was shewed him by the High-Priest at Je- 
 rusalem, did encourage him in his expedition against the Persians. 
 But it is not so when a man is to do foolish and wicked things, 
 and things hurtful to himself; for if these were told plainly and
 
 The "truth of Christianity demonstrated. 207 
 
 literally, it would be in his power to do otherwise; unless God 
 should force his will, and then he would not be a free agent. 
 
 (22.) DE. I must have recourse to the Jews in answer to these 
 Prophecies of the Messiah which you have brought; for they 
 owning these Scriptures as Revelations given them by God, must 
 have some solution or other for them, or else give themselves up 
 as self-condemned. 
 
 CHR. The answers the Jews give will convince you the more, 
 and render them indeed self-condemned. 
 
 Before the coming of Christ the Jews understood these texts as 
 we do, to be certainly meant of the Messiah, and of none other. 
 
 But since that time they have forced themselves to put the most 
 strained and contradictory meanings upon them ; for they agree 
 not in their expositions, and the one does manifestly destroy the 
 other. 
 
 Thus that text I before quoted, Gen. xlix. 10. was understood 
 by the Chaldee and ancient Jewish interpreters to be meant of the 
 Messiah. 
 
 Yet of their modern Rabbies some say, that it was meant of 
 Moses ; but others reject that, First, Because it is plain that the 
 gathering of the nations or Gentiles was not to Moses. Secondly, 
 Because the scepter was not .given to Judah till long after Moses. 
 The first of it that appears was Judg. xx. 18. when Judah was 
 commanded by God to " go up first," and lead the rest of the 
 tribes; and David was the first King of the tribe of Judah. 
 Thirdly, Because Moses did prophecy of a greater than himself 
 to come, to whom the people should hearken. Deut. xviii. 15, 
 18, 19. 
 
 For these reasons, other Rabbies say it could not be meant of 
 Moses, but they apply it to the tabernacle at Shiloh. This was 
 only for the sake of the word Shiloh, for otherwise it bears no 
 resemblance either to the gathering of the Gentiles, or the scepter 
 of Judah: and though the house of God was first set up at Shiloh, 
 yet it was removed from thence and established at Jerusalem ; 
 which was the place of which Moses spoke that God would place 
 his name there, as I shall shew you presently. 
 
 This interpretation therefore being rejected, other Rabbies say, 
 that this Prophecy must be meant of the Messiah, but that by th 
 word scepter is not to be understood a scepter of rule or govern- 
 merit, but of correction and punishment, and that this should not
 
 208 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated* 
 
 depart from Jodah till Shiloh came. But the text explaining 
 scepter by the word law-giver, that the scepter should not depart 
 from Jutlah, nor a law-giver from between his feet until Shiloh 
 came, overthrows this interpretation, and shews the scepter here 
 meivioned to be meant of a scepter of rule and government. 
 Again, Joshua gave them rest from their enemies round about; 
 and the land had rest many years under their Judges ; and David 
 delivered them out of the hands of their enemies; and under 
 Solomon they were the richest and happiest people upon earth ; 
 and frequently after they were in good condition and at ease : so 
 that the scepter of correction did often depart from tlierii before 
 Shiloh came. 
 
 This is so evident, that others of them allow this scepter to be 
 a scepter of government, but they say the meaning is, that the 
 scepter shall not finally or for ever depart from Judah, because 
 the Messiah will come and restore it to Judah again. But this is 
 adding to the text, and making a new text of it, and quite dif- 
 ferent from the former, nay directly opposite to it ; for the text 
 speaks only of the departing of the scepter, but nothing of the 
 restoring it ; and it cannot be restored till once it is departed : 
 therefore this exposition saying it shall depart," and the text 
 saying it " shall not depart," are directly contrary. 
 
 Lastly, there are others who throw aside all these excuses, 
 and say, that the scepter or dominion is not yet departed from 
 Judah, for that some Jew. or other may have some sort of rule 
 or government, in some part or other of the world, though we 
 know it not. 
 
 D. As if the Jews (who hold the best correspendence with one 
 another of any people) could not tell this place, if there were any 
 such, where they were governed by their own laws, and by go- 
 vernments f their own nation, though in subjection to the go- 
 vernment of 'the, country where they lived. 
 
 These salvos of the Jews are contradictory to each other, they 
 are poor excuses, and shew their cause to be perfectly destitute. 
 
 But I have an objection against 'this Prophecy, which affects 
 both Jews and Christians: that the regal scepter did depart from 
 the tribe of Judah long before your Shiloh came. 
 
 CHR. First, This prophecy does not call the scepter a regal 
 scepter, and therefore denotes only government in the general. 
 
 Secondly, The whole land and the nation took their name from 
 It was called the land of Judah, and the nation took the
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 209 
 
 riame of Jews from Judah, as before that of Hebrews from Heber 
 their progenitor, Gen. x. 25. And this Prophecy spoke of those 
 times when Judah should be the father of his country, and the 
 whole nation should be comprehended under the name of Judah : 
 and therefore Judah holds the scepter wherever a Jew governs. 
 Besides, the words scepter and throne are used in relation to infe- 
 rior governors, to tributary kings, and kings in captivity; thus it is 
 said, that thirty-seven years after the captivity of Judah, the king 
 of Babylon set the throne of Jchoiachin, king of Judah, above the 
 thrones of the kings that were with him in Babylon. 2 Kings xxv. 
 27, 28. This was more than half the time of the captivity ; and 
 this was continued to Jehoiachin all the *' days of his life," (ver. 
 29, 30.) which might last till the end, or near the end, of the cap- 
 tivity. But besides the king, the Jews had governors of their own 
 nation allowed them, who were their archontes or rulers ; and 
 they enjoyed their owri laws, though in subjection to the king of 
 Babylon. The elders of Judah (which was a name of govern- 
 ment) are mentioned in the captivity. Ezek. viii. 1. And the 
 chief of the Fathers of Judah, and the Priests and the Levites. 
 Ezra i. 5. And after the captivity, they had a trishatha, or go- 
 vernor of their own nation. Ezra ii. 63 ; Neh. viii. 9. And the 
 throne, or the governor, is named, Neh. iii. 7. So that here was 
 Still the throne or scepter of Judah. 
 
 And from the time of the Maccabees to their conquest by the 
 Romans, the supreme authority was in their High Priests. As it 
 was afterwards, but in subjection to the Romans ; and they en- 
 joyed their own laws. " Pilate said unto him, take ye him, and 
 "judge hirfi according to your law." John xviii. 3"!. And though 
 they answered,' " it is not lawful for us to put any man to death;" 
 the reason is given in the next verse, '* That the saying of Jesus; 
 " might be fulfilled which he spake, signifying what death he 
 " should die." For crucifixion was a Roman death, but stoning 
 by the Law of Moses was the death for blasphemy, of which they 
 accused him. And they afterwards Stoned St. Stephen for the same 
 (alledged) crime, according to their own law. Their High-Priests 
 and Council had full liberty to meet when they pleased, and to act 
 according to their law. And Christ himself owns they " sat in 
 * Meses's seat." Matth. xxiii. 2. The High-Priest sat to judge 
 St. Paul, who applied to him that text, Exod. xxii. 28. " Thou 
 " shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people, or 
 " speak ftl of him," as the Apostle renders it, Acts xxiii. 5. So 
 
 VOL. I. P
 
 210 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 that here the government was still in the Jews, though in subjec- 
 tion to the Romans ; and thus it continued till the destruction of 
 Jerusalem, and the temple hy the Romans. But since that time 
 they are dispersed in all countries, and have no governor or ruler 
 of their own in any. The scepter is entiiely departed from 
 them. 
 
 DE. It is impossible but the Jews must see the difference of their 
 state before the destruction of Jerusalem, and since, and of their 
 Condition as to government in their several captivities, and now in 
 their dispersion. In the former, they had still a face of govern- 
 ment left among themselves : but now, none at all. An;( their 
 excuses which you have mentioned, render them indeed self-con- 
 demned. 
 
 What do they say to that text you have quoted, Jer. xxiii. 17, 
 &c. that David should never want a son to sit upon his throne, &c. 
 You Christians apply it to Christ, who was called the Son of Dd- 
 vid; but to whom do the Jews apply it? 
 
 CHR-. Some of them say, that David will be raised from the 
 dead, and made immortal, to fulfil this prophecy. Others say, 
 that after the Messiah, who is to be of the seed of David, he shall 
 'hence forward no more want a son, &c. 
 
 Di;. Both these interpretations are in flat contradiction to 
 the text. The text says, shall never want ; these say, shall want 
 for a long time ; they must confess now for near seventeen hun- 
 dred years together, and how much longer they cannot telk 
 They have had none to sit in Moses's seat, or on the throne 
 of David, though in subjection to their enemies, as they had 
 in the worst of their captivities ; but have not now in their dis- 
 pcrsitm. 
 
 But is there any difference betwixt what you call the cathedra, 
 or seat of Moses, and the throne of David r 
 
 CHR.. None as to government ; for Moses was king in Jeshurun, 
 Deut. xxiii. 5 ; but David was the first king of the tiibe of Judah, 
 which was to be the name of the whole nation ; and Christ was 
 called the King of the Jews. It was rhe title set upon his cross. 
 But after him none ever had that title to this day. 
 
 D-E. Thjs is not to be answered by the Jews. But pray what 
 person is it do they say was meant in the 53d of Isaiah, which you 
 have quoted ? 
 
 CHR. They will not have it to be any person at all ; for they 
 can find none, except our Christ, to whom these prophecies can 
 
 1
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. dl 1 
 
 any way be applied. Therefore they say it must be meant of 
 the nation of the Jews, whose sufferings, &c. are there described 
 in the name of a person, by which the people are to be under* 
 stood. 
 
 DE. But the people and the person there described as suffering, 
 &c. are plainly contra-distinguished. It is said, ver. 8, " For the 
 " transgression of my people was he stricken." And ver. 3, 4, &Ci 
 *' We" (the people) like sheep have gone astray A-nd the 
 " Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," that is, of the 
 people: who are here called wicked. But he" is called "My 
 " righteous servant, who did no violence, neither was any deceit in 
 *' his mouth." Therefore this people and the person here spoke 
 of could not be the same. They are opposed to each other. The 
 one called righteous, the other wicked. The one to die for the 
 other, and to justify the other. " By his knowledge shall my 
 " righteous servant justify many, Sec." 
 
 CHR. The Jews before Christ came understood this prophecy 
 of the Messiah, as indeed it can be applied to none other : but the' 
 Jews since Christ, to avoid the force of this and other prophecies 
 which spefak of the sufferings and death of the Messiah, have in- 
 vented two Messiahs, one Bert- Joseph, of the tribe of Epb.raim, who 
 is to be the suffering Messiah, the otheV Ben David, of the tribe 
 of Judah, who is to triumph gloriously, and shall raise from the 
 dead all the Israelites, and among theni the first Messiah, Ben- 
 Joseph. 
 
 DE. Does the Scripture speak of two Messiahs, and the one 
 raising the other ? 
 
 CHR. No; not a word: but only of the Messiah, which Shews 
 it spoke only of one. But it mentions the twofold state of this 
 Messiah, the first suffering, the second triumphing. Wherice the 
 modern Jews have framed to themselves these two Messiahs. 
 
 DE. This is shameful ! And plainly to avoid the prophecies 
 against them. 
 
 CHR. This of 1 Isaiah is fully explained, Dan. itf. 24, &c. 
 where it is said, that the Messiah the Prince should be cut off, but 
 not for himself^ but for the transgressions of the people, " To* 
 " make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity." 
 And that this was to be within four hundred and ninety years 
 after the building of the second temple, which I have mentioned 
 before. 
 
 DE. I cannot imagine how the Jews get clear of this. 
 
 P 2
 
 212 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 CHR. They cannot. But in spite to it, they seek now to un- 
 dervalue the whole book of Daniel, thoughvhey dare not totally 
 reject it, because it was received by their forefathers, who pre- 
 ceded Christ. But about a hundred years after Christ they made 
 a new distribution of the books of the Old Testament, different 
 from their fathers, and took the book of Daniel out of the middle 
 of the Prophets, where it was placed before, and put it last of all. 
 But more than this, to lessen the credit of this book, they ad- 
 ventured to shake the authority of their whole Scriptures ; for 
 they took upon them to make a distinction of the books of the 
 Scripture, and made them not all inspired or canonical, but some 
 of them they called 'Ayiovp^a, that is, holy or pious books, though 
 in a lower class than those called inspired or canonical Scriptures. 
 And they put the book of Daniel into the isferior class ; but in 
 that book Daniel speaks of himself as having received these pro- 
 phecies immediately from an angel of God. Wherein if he told 
 us the truth, it must be put in the highest class of canonical Scrip- 
 ture; but if he told us false, then this book is quite through all a 
 lie, and blasphemous too, in fathering it all upon God ! So that the 
 distinction of our modern Jews confounds tl. -mi-elves. And since 
 they allow .this book of Daniel a place among the 'Ayj^afpa, or 
 holy writings, they cannot deny it to be truly canonical, as all 
 their fathers owned it before the coining of Christ. And if they 
 throw off Daniel, they must discard Ezekiel too ; for he gives the 
 highest attestation to Daniel that can be given to mortal man ; he 
 makes him one of the three most righteous men to be found in all 
 ages, and the very standard of wisdom to the world. Ezek. xiv. 
 14, 20. xxviii. 3. 
 
 DE. What do they say to Hag. ii. 7, 9 ; where it is said, that 
 Christ was to come into the second Temple ? 
 
 CHR. Some of them say, that this must be meant of a temple 
 yet to be built. 
 
 DE. This is denying the prophecy ; for it is said, ver. 7, " I 
 " will fill this house with glory, &c." And ver. 9, " The glory 
 *' of this latter house And in this place will I give peace, &c. :" 
 but I am not to defend the cause of the Jews. It seems to me 
 very desperate. I own you Christians have the advantage of them 
 in this. 
 
 CHR. And I hope it \viil have so much effect with you, as to 
 make you consider seriously of the weight of this argument of pro- 
 phecy we have discoursed.
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 DE. Let us at present leave this head of prophecy. Have you 
 mny further evidence to produce for your Christ ? 
 
 (VII.) CHR. I have one more, which is yet more peculiar to 
 iiim than even that of prophecy. For whatever weak pretence 
 may be made of some prophecies among the Heathen, as to some 
 particular events, of little consequence to the world, yet they never 
 offered at that sort of evidence I am next to produce ; which is 
 not only prophecies of the fact, and that from the beginning of 
 the world, but also types, resemblances, and exhibitions of the 
 fact, in outward sensible institutions, ordained as law from the be- 
 ginning, and to continue till the fact they prefigured shoujd came 
 to pass. 
 
 (I.) Such were the sacrifices instituted by God immediately upon, 
 the fall, (and upon his promisq of the life-giving seed, Gen Hi. 
 15.) as types of that great and only propitiatory sacrifice for sin 
 which was to come. Whose blood they saw continually shed (in 
 type) in their daily sacrifices. 
 
 These were continued in the Irleathen posterities of Adam by 
 immemorial tradition from the beginning! though they had forgot 
 the beginning of them, as they had of the worjd, or of mankind ; 
 yet they retained so much of the reason of them, as that they had 
 universally the notion of a vicarious atonement, an<jL that our sins 
 were to be purged by the blood of others suffering in our stead. As 
 likewise, that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin, 
 but that a more noble blood was necessary. Hence they came to 
 human sacrifices., and at last to sacrifice the greatest, most noble, 
 and most virtuous ; a.nd such offered themselves to. be sacrificed for 
 the safety of the people. As Codrus, King of the Athenians, who 
 sacrificed himself en this account. The like did Cartius for the 
 Romans, as supposing himself the bravest and most valuable of 
 them all. So the Pecii, the Fabii, &c. Agamemnon sacrificed 
 his daughter Iphigenia for the Qreek army ; and the King of 
 Moab sacrificed his eldest son that shftu'd have reigned in his stead, 
 L* Kings iii. 27. Thus the sacrificing (not their, servants, or slaves, 
 but) their children to Moloch^ is frequently mentioned of the. 
 Jews, which they did in imitation of the Heathen, as it is said, 
 Psal. cvi. 35, 36, 37, 38. " They were mingled among the 
 " Heathen, and learned their works; and they served their idols 
 *f Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto the idols
 
 214 The Truth of Christianity demcnstiatcd. 
 
 <( of Canaan, &c." Pursuant to which notion, the Prophet in- 
 troduceth them arguing thus : '* Wherewith I shall come before 
 " the Lord, and bow myself before the high God ? Shall I come 
 *' before him with burnt-offerings, with calves of a year old? 
 " Vyjll the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten 
 " thousands of rivers of oil ? Shall I give my first-born for my 
 ' transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul ?" 
 Micah vi. 6, 7. They were plainly search ing after a complete and 
 adequate satisfaction for sin ; and they thought it necessary. 
 
 DE. NO dpubt they thought SQ; but that did not make it ne- 
 cessary, 
 
 CHR, The doctrine of satisfaction is a subject by itself ; which 
 I have treated elsewhere, in my answer to the examination of my 
 last dialogue against the Socinians. But I am not come so far with 
 yoj.i yef ; I am now only speaking of sacrifices as types of the sa-r 
 crifice of Christ. 
 
 (2.) And besides sacrifice in general, there were afterwards 
 some particular sacrifices appointed more nearly expressive of our 
 redemption by Christ. As the passover, which was instituted in 
 memory of the redemption of the children of Israel (that is, the 
 church) out of Egypt, (the house of bondage of this world, 
 where we are in servitude to sin and misery) in the night when 
 God slew all the first-born of the Egyptians : but the destroyer 
 was to pass over those houses where he saw the blood of the 
 Paschal Lamb upon the door-posts. And it was to be eaten with 
 unleavened bread, expressing the sincerity of the heart, without 
 any mixtuje or tajnt of wickedness. And thus it is applied, 
 1 Cor. v. 1, 8. " Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may 
 " be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our 
 ?' passoyer is sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, 
 ' not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and 
 ** wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and 
 " truth," 
 
 (3.) There was a double exhibition of Christ on the great day 
 of expiation, which was but once a year ; on which day only the 
 High Priest entered into the holy of holies (which represented 
 heaven, Kxod. xxv. 40. Wisd. ix. 8. Heb. ix. 24.) with the 
 blood of the sacrifice, whose body was burnt without the camp; 
 to shew pod's detestation of sin, and that it was to be removed
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 215 
 
 far from us ; and that we must go out of the camp, that is, out 
 of this world, bearing our reproach for sin, before we can be 
 'quite freed from it. See how exactly this was fulfilled in Christ, 
 Heb. xiii. 11, 12, 13, 14. " For the bodies of those beasts 
 " whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the High-Priest 
 " for sin, are burnt without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, 
 " that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered 
 " without the gate. Let us go forth therefoie unto him without 
 *' the camp, bearing his reproach; for here we have no continuing 
 " city, but we seek one to come." 
 
 The other lively representation of Christ's bearing our sins, 
 and taking them away from us, which was made on the same day 
 of expiation, was the scape goat, Lev. xvi. 21, 22. " And 
 " Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, 
 < and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of 
 " Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them 
 " upon the head of the goat, and shall send him aw'ay by the 
 ' hand of a fit man into the wilderness. And the goat shall 
 '< bear upon him all their iniquities, into a land not inhabited : 
 " and he shall let go the goac in the wilderness," This is s$ 
 plain, that it needs no application, 
 
 (4.) Another express representation of Christ was the brazen 
 serpent in the wilderness, by looking upon which the people were 
 cured of the stings of the fiery serpents. So in looking upon 
 Christ by faith, the sting of the old serpent, the devil, is taken 
 away. And the lifting up the serpent did represent Cniist's being 
 lifted up upon the cross. Christ himself makes the allusion, Joh, 
 iii. 14. " As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so 
 " must the son of man be lifted up ; that whosoever believeth in, 
 '* him should not perish, but have eternal life." 
 
 (5.) He was likewise represented by the manna ; for he was the 
 true bread that came down from heaven to nourish us unto eternal 
 life. Joh. 31 to 36. 
 
 (6.) As also by the rock, whence the waters flowed out to give 
 them drink in the wilderness. " And that rock was Christ.** 
 1 Cor. x. 4.
 
 216 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 (7.) And he was not only their meat and drink, but he was 
 also their constant guide, and led them in a pillar of re by 
 right, and of a cloud by day. And the cloud of glory in the 
 Temple, in which God appeared, was by the Jews understood as 
 a type of the Messiah, who is the true Shechina, or habitation of 
 God. 
 
 (8.) The sabbath is called a shadow of Christ, Col. ij. If. I{ 
 was a figure of that eternal rest procured to us by Christ ; there- 
 fore it is called a sign of the perpetual covenant, Exod. xxxi. 16, 
 17. Ezek. xx. 12. 
 
 (9.) And such a sign was the Temple at Jerusalem ; at which 
 place, and none other, the. sacrifices of the Jews were to be offered, 
 Deut. xii. 11, 13, 14. Because Christ \vas to be sacrificed there, 
 and as a token of it, those sacrifices which were types of him were 
 to be offered only there. 
 
 And so great stress was laid upon this, that no sin of the Jews 
 is oftener remembered than their breach of this command. It 
 was a blot set upon their several reformations, otherwise good 
 and commendable in the sight of God, that the high places (where 
 they used to sacrifice) were not taken away. This is marked a$ 
 the great defect in the reformation of Asa, } Kings xv. 14 ; of 
 Jehoshaphat, 1 Kings xxii. 43 ; of Jehoash, 2 Kings xii. 3; of 
 Amaziah, 2 Kings xv. 4; of Jotham, ver. 35. But they were 
 taken away by Hezekjah, 2 Kings xviii. 4 ; and the people in- 
 structed to :icririce and burn incense at Jerusalem only. 2 Chron. 
 xxxii. 12. Isai. xxxvi. 7. 
 
 There was likewise a further design of Providence in limiting 
 their sacrifices to Jerusalem, which was, that after the great pro- 
 pitiatory sacrifice of Christ had been pnce offered there, God wa$ 
 to remove the Jews from Jerusalem, tliat they might have no sa- 
 crifice at all (as, for that reason, they have not had in any part 
 of the world near these seventeen hundred years past) to instruct 
 them. That (as the Apostle speaks to them, Heb. x. 26-) " there 
 ' remaineth no more" (or other) * sacrifice for sins." And 
 since by the Law their sins were to be purged by sacrifice, they 
 have now no way to purge their sins ; to force them (as it were) 
 to look back upon that only sacrifice which can purge their sins. 
 And till they return to that, they must have no sacrifice at all, but
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 217 
 
 die in their sins. As Jesus said unto them, " I go my way, and 
 - ye shall die in your sins. For it' ye believe not that I am he, 
 .* ye shall die in your sins " John viii. 21, 24. 
 
 And Paniel prophesied expressly, that soon after the death of 
 the Messiah, the city of Jerusalem and the sanctuary should he 
 .destroyed, and that the sacrifice should cease, jEven until the 
 " consummation, and that determined, shall be poured upon the 
 ." desolate." Dan. ix. 26, 27. 
 
 And this desolation of theirs, and what was determined upon 
 them, was told them likewise by Hosea, chap. iii. 4. " For the 
 " children of Israel shall abide many days without a sacrifice." 
 But he says in the next verse, That in the latter days they shall 
 ' return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their King." 
 That is, the Son of David, their Prince and Messiah. As he is 
 called Messiah the Prince. Dan. ix. 25. 
 
 Thus as salvation was of the Jews, because Christ was to 
 .come of them, so this salvation was only to be had at Jerusalem, 
 where he was to suffer, and by which only salvation was to be 
 had. 
 
 (10.) DE. This argument is to the Jews; and if I were a Jew 
 it would move me, because they never were so long before with- 
 out king, temple, or sacrifice. 
 
 CHR. But the prophecies of it, and these fulfilled as you have 
 seen ; and Christ being so plainly pointed at, and the place of his 
 passion, by limiting the sacrifices to Jerusalem only ; and by 
 causing the legal sacrifices to cease throughout the world, to shew 
 that they were fulfilled : all this is a strong evidence to you of the 
 truth of these things, and of our Jesus being the Messiah, or 
 Christ, who was prophesied of. 
 
 DE. I cannot deny but there is something remarkable in this, 
 which I will take time to consider ; but I do not see how the 
 Jews can stand out against this, because this mark given by Daniel 
 of the Messiah, that soon after his death the sacrifice should cease, 
 cannot agree to any after-Messiah who should now come so many 
 ages after the sacrifice has ceased. 
 
 CHR. Since we have fallen into the subject of the Jews, I 
 \v\\\ give you another prophecy which cannot be fulfilled in any 
 after-Messiah whom the Jews expect. And it will be also a 
 confirmation to you of the truth of the prophecies of the Holy 
 Scriptures.
 
 218 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 Thus God speaks, Jer. xxiii. 20, 21, 22. " Thus saith the 
 " Lord, if you can break my covenant of the day, and my co- 
 " venant of the night, and that there should not he day and 
 " night in their season: then may also my covenant be broken 
 " with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign 
 ' upon his throne; and with the Levites, the Priests, my minis- 
 " ters. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the 
 " sand of the sea measured : so will I multiply the seed of David 
 " my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.'* 
 
 Now let the Jews tell in which Son of David this is fulfilled, 
 except only in our Christ. 
 
 And how this is made good to the Priests and Levites, other- 
 wise than as Isaiah prophesied, chap. Ixvi. 21. " And I will 
 *< also take of them" (the Gentiles) " for Priests and for Levites, 
 " saith the Lord." And as it is thus applied, 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9, 
 and Rev. i. 6. And this evangelical priesthood is multiplied as the 
 stars of heaven, (which they are frequently called) not like jthe 
 tribe of Levi, which could not afford Priests to all the earth. 
 
 And as I said before of Jerusalem and the sacrifices there, 
 that they are ceased, to shew they are fulfilled, so here, after this 
 bon of David was come, all his other sons ceased, and the very 
 genealogy of their tribes, and so of Judah, is lost, as also of the 
 tribe of Levi ; so that the Jews can never tell, if any after- 
 Messiah should appear, whether he were of the tribe of Judah, 
 far less whether he were of the lineage of David; nor can they 
 shew the genealogy of any they call Levites now among them. 
 
 This is occasioned by their being dispersed among all nations ^ 
 and yet, preserved a distinct people from all the earth, though 
 without any country of their own, or King, or Priest, or temple, 
 or sacrifice. And they are thus preserved by the providence of 
 God, (so as never any nation was since the foundation of the 
 world) to shew the fulfilling of the prophecies concerning them, 
 and the judgments pronounced against them for their crucifying 
 their Messiah; and that their conversion may be more apparent 
 to the world, and their being gathered out of all nations, and 
 restored to Jerusalem (as is promised them) when they shall come 
 to acknowledge their Messiah. 
 
 And God not permitting them to have any king or governor 
 upon earth, ever since their last dispersion by the Romans, (lest 
 they might say, that the scepter was not departed from Judah) is 
 tj convince them (when God shall take the veil tiff their heart)
 
 The Truth of Christianity ^emonstratea. 21S 
 
 that no other Messiah who can come hereafter can answer this pro- 
 phecy of Jeremiah, or that of Jacob, that the scepter should not 
 depart from Judali till Shiloh came. 
 
 (II.) And it is wonderful to consider, how expressly their pre- 
 sent state is prophesied of, that it could not be more literal, if ic 
 were to be worded now by us who see it. As that they should be 
 scattered into all countries, sifted as with a sieve among all na- 
 iions, yet preserved a people; and that God would make an utter 
 end of those nations who had oppressed them, and blot out their 
 names from under heaven. (As we have seen it fulfilled upon 
 the g: eat empires of the Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Romans, who 
 one after the other, had miserably wasted the Jews) but that the 
 name of the Jews (the fewest and poorest of all nations) should 
 remain for ever, and they a people distinct from all the nations in 
 ihe world, though scattered among them all. Read the prophe- 
 cies express upon this point. Jer. xxx. 11. xxxi, 36, 37. xxxiii. 
 24, '25,0,6. xlvi.2S. Isai. xxvii. 1. xxix. 7, 8. liv. 9, 10. Ixv. 
 8. zek. vi. 8. xi. 16, 17. xii. 15, 16. Amos ix. 8, 9, Zech. 
 x. 9. And it was foretold them long before, that thus it would 
 be, Lev. xxvi. 44. and this " in the latter days." Peut. iv. 27, 
 30, 31. Thus Moses told them of it so long before, as the 
 after-prophets frequently ; and you see all these prophecies, lite- 
 rally fulfilled and fulfilling. The like cannot be said of any other 
 nation ever was upon the earth ! So destroyed, and so preserved ! 
 And for so long a time ! Having worn out out all the great em- 
 pires of the world, and still surviving them ! To fulfil what wa$ 
 further prophesied of them to the end of the world. , 
 
 DE. I cannot say but there is something very surprizing ia 
 this : I never thought of it before. It is a living prophecy, 
 which we see fulfilled and still fulfilling at this day before our 
 eyes. For we are sure these prophecies were not coined yester- 
 day ; and they are as express and particular, as if they were to be 
 wrote now, after the events are so far com,e to pass. 
 
 (12.) CHR. As the door was kept open to Ch^st before he 
 came, by the many an.d flagrant prophecies of him> and by the^ 
 types representing him, so was the door for ever shut after him, 
 by those prophecies being all fulfilled and compkated in him, and 
 applicable to none who should come after him ; and by all the 
 types ceasing, the, shade ws vanishing when the substance was
 
 220 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 come. No Messiah can come now, before the scepter depart 
 from Judah, and the sacrifice from Jerusalem. Before the sons of 
 David (all except Christ) shall cease to sit upon his throne, none 
 can come now, within four hundred and ninety years of the 
 building of the second Temple ; nor come into that very Temple, 
 as I have before shewed was expressly prophesied by Daniel and 
 Haggai. 
 
 DE. I know not what the Jews can say, who own these pro- 
 phecies. 
 
 CHR. They say, that the coming of the Messiah at the time 
 spoke of in the Prophets, has been delayed because of their sins. 
 
 DE. Then it may be delayed for ever, unless they can tell us 
 when they will grow better. But, however, these prophecies have 
 failed which spoke of the time of the Messiah's coming ; and they 
 can never be a proof hereafter, because the time is past. So that, 
 according to this, they were made for no purpose, unless to shew 
 that they were false ; that is, no prophecies at all ! 
 
 But were these prophecies upon condition ? Or was it said 
 shat the coming of the Messiah should be delayed if the Jews were 
 sinful ? 
 
 CHR. No : so far from it, that it was expressly prophesied that 
 the coming of the Messiah should be in the most sinful state of 
 the Jews, and to purge their sins, Dan. ix. 24. Zech. xiii. 1. 
 And the ancient tradition of the Jews was pursuant to this, that 
 at the coming of the Messiah the Temple should be a den of 
 thieves. Rabbi Juda in Masoreta. And a time of great corrup- 
 tion. Talmud, tit. de Synedrio, and dePonderibus, &c. 
 
 But more than this, the very case is put of their being most 
 sinful, and it is expressly said, that this should not hinder the 
 fulfilling of the prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah, 
 spoke of as the Son of David, 2 Sam. vii. 14, 15, 16. Psal. 
 Ixxxix. SO. 3337. 
 
 But it was prophesied that they should not know their Messiah, 
 and should reject him when he came, that he should be a " stone 
 *' of stumbling," and a " rock of offence to them." Isai viii. 
 14, 15. And that " their eyes should be closed," that they 
 should not understand their own Prophets, chap. xxix. 9, 1Q, 11. 
 That their builders should reject the head stone of the corner, 
 Psal. cxviii. 22. And the like in several other places of their 
 own Prophets. And thus they mistook the prophecy concerning 
 the coming of Elias, whom it is said they knew not, " but did
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 221 
 
 *' to him what they listed," and so the same of Christ, Matth. xvii. 
 12. And ii is said, 1 Cor. ii. 8. that " had they known it, they 
 *' would not have crucified the Lord of glory." 
 
 DE. This indeed solves the prophecies, both those of the coming 
 of the Messiah, and of the Jews not knowing him, and therefore 
 rejecting him'; and likewise obviates this excuse of theirs; for if 
 they were very sinful 1 at that time, it was a greater punishment of 
 their sin not to know, and to reject their Messiah, than his not 
 coming at that time would have been. 
 
 CHR. The great sin mentioned for which they were punished 
 by several captivities, was their idolatry, the last and longest of 
 which captivities was that of seventy years in Babylon ; since 
 which time they have forsaken their idolatry, and have never been, 
 nationally guilty of it since, but always had it in the utmost ab- 
 horrence. But since their rejecting their Messiah, they have been 
 now near seventeen hundred years not in a captivity, where they 
 might be all together, and enjoying their own law, government, 
 and worship, in some manner, but dispersed over all the world, 
 without country of their own, or King, or Priest, or Temple, 
 or sacrifice, or any Prophet to comfort them, or give them hopes 
 of a restoration ; and all this come upon them, not for their old 
 sin of idolatry, but from that curse they imprecated upon them- 
 selves, when they crucified their Messiah, saying, * His blood be 
 * on us, and on our children.' Which cleaves unto them from that 
 day to this, and is visible to all the world but to themselves ! And 
 what other sia can they think greater than idolatry, for which 
 they have been punished so much more terribly than for all their 
 idolatries ; what other sin can this be, but their crucifying the Mes- 
 siah ! And here they may see their sinful state, which they alletlge 
 as an excuse for their Messiah's not coming at the time foretold by 
 the Prophets, rendered tenfold more sinful, by their rejecting him. 
 when he came. 
 
 DE. This is a full answer, and convincing as to the Jews. But 
 have you any more to say to me ? 
 
 (13.) CHR. I have one thing more to offer, which may come 
 under this head of types, and that is, persons who represented 
 Christ in several particulars, and so might be called personal 
 types. 
 
 And I will not apply these out of my own head, but as they 
 are applied in the New Testament, which having all the marks of
 
 22 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 the Old Testament, and stronger evidence than these, in those 
 marks we are now upon, their authority is indisputable. 
 
 (1.) I begin with Adam, who gave us life and death too ; and 
 Christ came by his death to restore us to life again, even life 
 eternal. Hence Christ is called the second Adam, and Adam is 
 called the figure of Christ. The parallel betwixt them is insisted 
 on, Rom. v. 12. to the end, and 1 Cor. xv. 45, to 50. Eve 
 received her life from Adam, as the church from Christ. She 
 was taken out of the side of Adam when he was in a dead sleep ; 
 and after Christ was dead, the sacraments of water and blood 
 flowed out of his side, that is, baptism whereby we are born into 
 Christ, and the sacrament of his blood, whereby we arc nourished 
 into eternal life. 
 
 (2.) Enoch was carried up bodily into heaven : as Elijah. One 
 under the patriarchal, the other under the legal dispensation. In 
 both, the ascension of Christ was prefigured. 
 
 (3.) Noah, a preacher of righteousness to the old world, and 
 father of the new. Who saved the church by water, the like 
 figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, 1 Pet. iii. 
 0,21. 
 
 (4.) Melchisedec, that is, King of Righteousness, and King of 
 Peace, and Priest of the most High God ; who was made like unto 
 the Son of God, a Priest continually. Heb. vii. 1, 2, 3. 
 
 (5.) Abraham, the friend of God, and Father of the Faithful, the 
 heir of the world, Rom. iv. 13. In whom all the nations of the 
 earth are blessed, Gen. xviii. 18. 
 
 (6.) Isaac, the heir of this promise, was born after his father 'and 
 mother were both past the age of generation in the course of 
 nature, Gen. xvii. 17. xviii. 11. Rom. Jv. 19. Heb. xi. II, 12. 
 The nearest type that could be to the generation of Christ wholly 
 without a man. 
 
 And his sacrifice had a very near resemblance to the sacrifice 
 and death of Christ, who lay three days in the grave, and Isaac 
 was three days a dead man (as we say in the Law) under the sen- 
 tence of death, Gen. xxii, 4. whence Abraham received him in 
 a figure, Heb. xi. 19. that is, of the resurrection of Christ. 
 And Abraham was commanded to go three days journey to sacri- 
 fice Isaac upon the same mountain (according to the ancients) 
 where Christ was crucified, and where Adam was buried.' Again, 
 the common epithet of Christ, i. e. " The only begotten of the 
 *' Father, and his beloved Son," were both given to Isaac, Gen.
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 223 
 
 xxii. 2. Heb. xi. 17. For he was the only son that was begotten 
 in that miraculous manner, after both his parents were decayed by 
 nature. And he was the only son of the promise, which was 
 not made to the seed of Abraham in general, but " in Isaac shall 
 " thy seed be called," Gen. xxi. 12. " He saith not, And to 
 " seeds, as of many, but as of one. And to ,thy seed, which 
 " is Christ," Gal. iii. 16. 
 
 And as Isaac, which signifies rejoicing, or laughing for joy, 
 was thus the only begotten of his parents, so Abram signifies the 
 glorious father, and Abraham (into which his name was changed 
 on the promise of Isaac, Gen. xvii. 5, Id.) signifies the father of 
 a multitude, to express rhe coming in of the Gentiles to Christ, and 
 the increase of the Gospel; whence it is there said to Abraham, 
 ' A father of many nations have I made t'nee, and in thy seed all 
 ' the nations of the earth shall be blessed." 
 
 Isaac who was born by promise of a free-woman, represented 
 the Christian church, in opposition to Ishmael who was horn 
 after the flesh, of a bond-maid, and signified the Jewish church 
 under the law. See this allegory carried on, Gal. iv. 21. to the 
 end. 
 
 (7.) Jacob his Vision of the Ladder (Gen. xxviii. 12.) shews 
 the intercourse which was opened by Christ betwixt heaven and 
 earth, by his making peace: and tOjrhjs he alludes when he 
 says, " Hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of 
 ' God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man." John 
 i. 15. 
 
 And Jacob's wrestling with the angel, (Gen. xxxii. 24-, &c. 
 Hos. xii. 4.) and as it were prevailing over him by force to bless 
 him, shews the strong and powerful intercession of Christ; where- 
 by (as he words it, Matt. xi. 12.) " heaven suffereth violence, 
 " and the violent take if by force." Whence the name of Jacob 
 was then turned to Israel, that is, one who p;evails upon God, 
 or has power over him ; God representing himself here as over- 
 come by us : and the name of Israel was ever after given to the 
 church. But much more so when Christ came, as he said, Matt, 
 xi. 12. " From the days of John the Baptist untilmow, the kin^- 
 ' dom of heaven sufFereth violence," &c. that is, from the first 
 promulgation of Christ being come. Thenceforward the Gen- 
 tiles began to press into the Gospel, and as by force to take it 
 from the Jews. This was signified in the same Jacob, that is,
 
 24 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 a supplanter, for the Gentiles here supplanted their elder brother the 
 Jews, and stole the blessing and heirship from them. 
 
 (8.) Joseph was sold by his brethren out of envy ; but it proved 
 the preservation of them and all their families : and Christ was 
 sold by his brethren but of envy^ Markxv. 10. which proved the 
 means of their redemption : and Christ, as Joseph, became Lore? 
 over his brethren. 
 
 (9.) Moses calls Christ a Prophet like unto himself. Deut. 
 Xviii. 18. He represented Christ the great Lawgiver; and his de- 
 livering Israel out of Egypt, was a type of Christ's delivering his 
 church from the bondage of sin and hell. 
 
 (10.) Joshua called also Jesus, Heb. iv. 8. overcame all the ene- 
 mies of Israel, and gave them possession of the Holy Laud, which 
 was a type of heaven : and Christ appeared to Joshua, as Captain 1 
 of the Host of the Lord. Jos. v. 1 4-. So that Joshua was his Lieu- 
 tenant representing h5tru 
 
 (11*) Sampson, who by his single valour and his own Strength 
 overcame the Philistines, and slew more at his death than in all 
 his life, was a representation of Christ, who " trod the wine- 
 44 press alone, and of the people there was none with him, but 
 44 his own arm brought him salvation." Isai. Ixiii. 3, 5. But his 
 death compleated his victory, whereby he overcame all the power 
 of the enemy, *' and having spoiled principalities and powers,- he 
 44 made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in his cross." 
 Col. ii. Id. 
 
 (12.) David, whose Son Christ is called j speaks frequently of 
 him in his own person, and in events which cannot be applied to 
 David, as Psal. xvi. 10. ** Thou will not leave my soul in hellj nor 
 4 ' suffer thine holy one to see corruption ;" for David has seen cor- 
 ruption. Christ is said to sit upon the throne of David. Isa. ix. 
 7. And Christ is called by the name of David, Hos. iii. 5. and 
 frequently in the Prophets. 
 
 David from a shepherd became a King and a Prophet,- denoting 
 the threefold office of Christ, pastoral, regal, and prophetical. 
 
 (13.) Solomon, the wisest of men, his peaceable and magni- 
 ficent reign, represented the triumphal state of Christ's kingdom, 
 which is described, Psal. Ixxii. inscribed for Solomon, (there 
 called the king's son) but far exceeding the glory of his reign, or 
 what can possibly be applied to him, as ver. 5, 8, 11, 17. But his 
 reign came the nearest of any to that universal and glorious 
 reign there described, particularly in his being chosen to build the 
 3
 
 the Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 225 
 
 temple, because he was a man of peace, and had shed no blood, 
 like David his father, who conquered the enemies of Israel, but 
 Solomon built the church in full peace ; and as it is particularly 
 set down 1 Kings vi\ 1. and no doubt he was orc-iered by God so 
 to do,' **That the house when it was building, was built of stone 
 " made ready before it was brought thither: so that there was 
 '* neither hammer nor ax, nor any tool of iron heard in the house 
 *' while it was in building.*' Which did denote that the church 
 of Christ was to be built, not only in peace,, but without noise 
 or confusion, as Isaiah prophesied of him, chap. xlii. 3. " He 
 ' shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the 
 " street : a bruised reed shall he not break," &c. He was not to 
 conquer with the sword, as the Israelites subdued Canaan,- but 
 to overcome by meekness, and doing good to his enemies, and 
 patiently suffering all injuries from 'them. And so he taught his 
 followers, as St. Paul says, Tim. ii. 24- " The servant of the 
 " Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men.- in meekness, 
 " instructing those that oppose themselves ; &c. 
 
 And I cannot think but there was some imitation of this peace- 
 able temple of Solomon, in the temple of Janus among the Ro- 
 mans; for that was never to be shut but in time of peace; 
 which happened rarely among them, but three times in all their 
 history. The last was in the reign of Augustus, in which time 
 Christ came into the world, when there was "a profound and uni- 
 versal peace: and so it became the Prince of Peace, whose -birth 
 was thus proclaimed by the Angels, Luke ii. 14. " Glory tofeocl 
 " on high, and on earth peace, good-will towards men." But 
 to go on : 
 
 (14.) Jonah's being three days and nights in the belly of the 
 whale, was a sig'n of Christ's being so long in the heart of the earth, 
 Christ himself makes the allusion. Matt. xii. 40. 
 
 (15.) But as there were several persons, at several times, re- 
 presenting and prefiguring several particulars of the life and death 
 of Christ: so there was one standing and continual representation 
 of him appointed in the person of the High-Priest under the 
 Law ; who entering into the holy of holies once in a year, with 
 the blood of the -great expiatory sacrifice, and he only, to make 
 atonement for sin, did lively represent our great High-Priest enter- 
 ing into heaven, once for all, with .his own blood, to expiate 
 the sins of the whole world. This is largely insisted upon in. th4 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. vii. viii. ix. x. 
 VOL. I, Q
 
 226 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 And our deliverance by the death of Christ is represented, as in 1 
 picture, in that ordinance of the Law, that the man- slayer who fled 
 to one of the cities of refuge, (which were all of the cities of the Le- 
 vites) should not come out thence till the death of the High-Priest, 
 and no satisfaction be taken till then, and then he should be acquit, 
 ted and " return into the land of his possession.'* Num. xxxv. 6, 
 25, 26, 27, 28. 
 
 And I doubt not but the Gentiles had from hence their asyla or 
 temples of refuge for criminals. 
 
 (1.) DE. There is a resemblance in these things ; but I would 
 not have admitted them as a proof, if you had not supported 
 them, at least most of them, with the authority of the New 
 Testament. And it was not necessary that every one should 
 be named in it ; for those that are named are only occasionally ; 
 and I must take time to consider of the evidences you have brought 
 for the authority of the New Testament, which you have made 
 full as great, if not greater than the evidences for the Old 
 Testament. 
 
 CHR. I may say greater upon this head of Prophecies and 
 Types, because these ate no proofs till they are fulfilled ; though 
 then they prove the truth of these Prophecies and Types ; and so 
 the one confirms the other : but the whole evidence of the Law is 
 not made apparent till we see it fulfilled in the Gospel. For 
 which reason I call the Gospel the strongest proof, not only as to 
 itself, but likewise as to the Law ; and the Jews, as much as in 
 them lies, have invalidated this strongest proof for the Old Testa- 
 ment, which is the fulfilling of it in the New. Nay, they have 
 rendered these Prophecies false, which they say were not fulfilled 
 at the time they spake of, and never now can be fulfilled. And as 
 ho fact but that of our Christ alone ever had this evidence of Pro- 
 phecies and Types from the beginning, so never can any other fact 
 have it now while the world lasts. 
 
 (2.) DE. Why do you say, Never can have it ? For may 
 not God make what fact he pleases, and give it what evidence he 
 pleases ? 
 
 CHR. But it cannot have the evidence that the fact of Christ 
 
 has, unless at that distance of time hereafter, as from the be- 
 
 , ginning of the world to this day. Because God took care that 
 
 .the evidence of Christ should commence from the very beginning, 
 
 .in the promise of him made to Adam, and to be renewed by the 
 
 Prophets in all the after ages till he should come ; and the evidence
 
 "The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 27 
 
 <?fhim after his coming (in which I have instanced) and which con- 
 tinues to this day, before it can belong to any other, must have the 
 same compass of time that has gone to confirm this evidence, else 
 it has not the same evidence* 
 
 (3.) DE. By this argument the evidence grows stronger the 
 longer it continues, since you say, that the Prophecies of the Scrip* 
 tures reach to the end of the world, and so will be further and fur- 
 ther fulfilling every day; 
 
 This is contrary to what one of your doctors has lately advanced, 
 \vho pretends to calculate the age of evidences*, That in such a 
 time they decay, and in such a time must die. And that the 
 evidence of Christianity having lasted so Jong-, is upon the decay, 
 and must wear out soon, if not supplied by some fresh and new 
 evidence. 
 
 CHR. This may be true as to fables which have no foundation : 
 but is that Prophecy I mentioned to you of the dispersion and yet 
 wonderful preservation of the Jews, less evident to you, because it 
 was made so long ago ? 
 
 DE. No. It is much more evident for that. If I had lived at 
 the lime when those Prophecies were made, I fancy I should not 
 have believed one word of them ; but wondered at the assurance 
 of those who ventured to foretel such improbable and almost im- 
 possible things. 
 
 And I should have thought the same of what you have told me 
 of your Christ, foretelling the progress of his Gospel, ac the first 
 so very slender appearance of it, and by such weak and improbable 
 means, as only suffering and dying for it, which to me would have 
 seemed perfect despair, and a giving up the cause. 
 
 I should have thought of them (as of others) who prophesy of 
 things after their time, that they might not be contradicted while 
 they lived. 
 
 But my seeing so much of these Prophecies concerning the Jews, 
 and die progress of the Gospel, come to pass so long time after, is 
 the only thing that makes me lay stress upon them, and which 
 makes them seem wonderful to me. 
 
 CHR. When the Prophecies shall all be fully compleated at the 
 end of the world, they will then seem strongest of all ; they will 
 then be undeniable; when Christ shall visibly descend from heaven 
 (in the same manner as he ascended) to execute both what he has 
 promised and threatened. And in the mean time, the Prophecies 
 
 * Craig. Theologize Christian* Principia Mathematics. 1699,
 
 32S The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 lose none of their force, but their evidence encreases, as " the 
 ' light shineth more and more unto the perfect day." 
 
 (VIII.) DE, I observe you have made no use of that common 
 topic of the truth and sincerity of the pen-men of the Scriptures, 
 and what interest they could have in setting tip these things 
 if they had been false ; for this can amount at most but to a proba- 
 bility: and you haying produced those evidences which you think 
 infallible, it might seem a lessening of your proof to insist upon 
 bare probabilities; so that I suppose you give that up. 
 
 (l.)4Vo, Sir, I give it not up, though I have not made it 
 the chief foundation of my argument; and if it were but a proba- 
 bility, it wants not its force, for it is thought unreasonable 
 to deny a flagrant probability, where there is not as strong a pro- 
 bability on the other side, for then that makes a doubt : but other- 
 wise, men generally are satisfied with probabilities, for that is the 
 greatest part of our knowledge. If we will believe nothing but 
 what carries an infallible demonstration along with it, we must be 
 sceptics in most things in the world ; and such were never thought 
 the wisest men. 
 
 But besides, a probability maybe sooner discerned by some thanr 
 the infallibility of a demonstration ; therefore we must not lay aside 
 probabilites. 
 
 But in this case, I think there is an infallible assurance, as infalli- 
 ble as the senses of all mankind ; and I suppose you will not ask a 
 greater. 
 
 (2.) Dz. How can you say that? When the suffering of 
 afflictions, and death itself, is but a probability of the truth of what 
 is told us: because some have suiFeml death for errors. 
 
 CHR. But then they thought them true; and men may be 
 deceived in their judgments, we see many examples of it. But if 
 the facts related be such, as that it is impossible for those who tell 
 them to be imposed upon themselves, or for those to whom they 
 are told to believe them, if not true, without supposing an universal 
 deception of the senses of mankind, then 1 hope I have brought 
 the case up to that infallible demcmstration I promised, and this 
 is the case of the facts related in Holy Scripture. They were told 
 by those who saw them, and did them, and they were told to those 
 \vho saw them likewise themselves ; and the relators appealed 
 to this : so that here could be no deceit.
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 29 
 
 DE. I grant there is a great difference between errors in opinion, 
 and in fact ; and that such facts as are told of Moses and of Christ* 
 could not have passed upon the people then alive, and who were 
 said to have seen them. And I find that both Moses, Christ, and 
 the Apostles, did appeal to* what the people they spoke to had seen 
 themselves. 
 
 CHR, With this consideration, their patient suffering, even unto 
 death, for the truth of what they taught, will be a full demonstra- 
 tion- of the truth of it. 
 
 (3.) Add to this, that their enemies who persecuted them, the 
 Romans, as well as Jews, to whom they appealed as witnesses of 
 the facts, did not offer to deny them. 
 
 That none of the apostates from Christianity did attempt to de- 
 tect any falshood in the facts ; though they might have had great 
 rewards if they could have done it ; the Roman emperors being then 
 persecutors of Christianity, and for three hundred years after 
 Christ. AnJ Julian ihe emperor, afterwards turned apostate, who 
 had been initiated in the sacra of Christianity, yet could not he de- 
 tect any of the facts. 
 
 (4.) And it was a particular Providence for the further evidence 
 of Christianity, that all the civil governments in the world were 
 against it for the first three hundred years, lest it might be said, (as 
 it is ridiculously in your Ammtor) that the awe of the civil govern- 
 ment might hinder those who could make the detection, 
 
 Now, Sir, to apply all that we have said, I desire you would 
 compare these evidences I have brought for Christianity, with those 
 that are pleaded for any other religion. 
 
 There are but four in the world, viz. Christianity, Judaism, 
 Heathenism, and Mahometanism. 
 
 (1.) Christianity was the first; for from the first promise of 
 Christ made to Adam during the patriarchal and legal dispensations, 
 all was Christianity in type, as I have shewed. 
 
 And as to Moses and the Law, the Jews can give no evidence 
 for that, which will not equally establish the truth of Christ and 
 the Gospel. Nor can they disprove the facts of Christ by any to- 
 pic, which will not likewise disprove a those of Moses and the 
 Prophets. So that they are hedged in on every side: they must 
 either renounce Moses, or acknowledge Christ. 
 
 Moses and the Law have the first five evidences, but they have 
 not the sjxth and the seventh, which are the strongest,
 
 230 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 This is as to Judaism before Christ came ; but since, as it now 
 stands in opposition to Christianity, in favour of any future Messiah, 
 it has none of the evidences at all. On the contrary, their own 
 prophecies and types make against them, for their prophecies are 
 fulfilled, and their types are ceased, and cannot belong to any other 
 Messiah who should come hereafter. They stand now more naked 
 than the Heathens or the Mahometans. 
 
 (2.) Next for Heathenism, some of the facts recorded of their 
 gods have the first and second evidences, and some the third, but not 
 one of them the fourth, or any of the other evidences. 
 
 But truly and properly speaking, and if we will take the opinion 
 of the Heathens themselves, they were no facts at all, but my- 
 thological fables, invented to express some moral virtues or vices, 
 o r the history of nature, and power of the elements, &c. As like- 
 wise to turn great part of the History of the Old Testament into fa- 
 ble, and make it their own, for they disdained to borrow from the 
 Jews. They made gods of men, and the most vicious too : inso- 
 much that some of their wise men thought it a corruption of youth, 
 to read the history of their gods, whom they represented as notori- 
 ous liars, thieves, adulterers, &c. though they had some mythology 
 hid under all that. 
 
 And as men were their gods, so they made the first man to be 
 father of the gods, and called him Saturn, not begot by any man, 
 but the son of Coelus and Vesta, that is, of heaven and earth. 
 And his maiming his father with a steel scythe, was to shew how 
 heaven itself is impaired by time, whom they painted with wings 
 and a scythe mowing down all things. And Saturn eating up his 
 own children, was only to express how time devours all its 
 own productions : and his being deposed by Jupiter his son, shews, 
 that time, which wears away all other things, is worn away itself at 
 iast. 
 
 Several of the heathen authors have given us the mythology of 
 their gods, with which I will not detain you. 
 
 They expressed every thing, and worshipped every thing under 
 the name of a god, as the god of sleep, of music, of eloquence, of 
 hunting, drinking, love, war, Sec. They had above thirty thou- 
 sand of them ; and in what they told of them, and as they described 
 them, they often traced the sacred story. 
 
 Ovid begins his Metamorphoses with a perfect poetical version 
 of the beginning of Genesis. Ante Mare SC Tdlus Then goes 
 on with th'e history of the creation ; the formation of man out f
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 23 1 
 
 the dust of the earth, and his being made after the image of God^ 
 and to have dominion over the inferior creatures. Then he tells 
 of the general corruption, and the giants before the flood, when 
 the earth was filled with violence; for which all mankind with 
 the beasts and the fowl were destroyed by the universal deluge, 
 except only Deucalion and Pyrrah his wife, who were saved in a 
 boat, which landed them on the top of Mount Parnassus ; and 
 that from these two the whole earth was re-peopled. I think it 
 will be needless to detain the reader with an application of this 
 to the history of the creation set down by Moses, of the flood, 
 and the avk wherein N0ah was saved, and the earth re-peopled 
 by him, &c. 
 
 And Noah was plainly intended likewise in their god Janus, 
 with his two faces, one old, looking backward to the old world 
 that was destroyed ; the other young, looking forward to the new 
 world that was to spring from him. 
 
 So that even their turning the sacred history into fable, is a 
 confirmation of it. And there can be no comparison betwixt the 
 truths of the facts so attested, as I have shewed, and the fables 
 that were made from them. 
 
 (3.) Lastly, as to the Mahometan religion, it wants all the 
 evidences we have mentioned, for there was no miracle said to be 
 done by Mahomet, publicly and in the face of the world, but 
 that only of conquering with the sword. Who saw his Mesra, 
 or Journey from Mecca to Jerusalem, and thence to heaven in 
 one night, and back in bed with his wife in the morning? Who 
 was present and heard the conversation the moon had with him 
 in his cave ? It is not said there was any witness. And the 
 Alcoran, c. vi. excuses his not working any miracles to prove his 
 mission. They say that Moses and Christ came to shew the cle- 
 mency and goodness of God, to which miracles were necessary : 
 but that Mahomet came to shew the power of God, to which no 
 miracle was needful but that of the sword. 
 
 (1.) And his Alcoran is a rhapsody of stuff, without head or 
 tail, one would think wrote by a madman, with ridiculous titles, 
 as the chapter of the Cow, of the Spider, &c. 
 
 Ami their legends are much more senseless than those of the 
 Papists; as of an angel, the distance be'.wixt whose two hands is 
 seventy thousand days journey. Of a cow's head with horns, 
 which have forty thousand knots, and forty days journey betwixt 
 each knot ; and others which have seventy mouths, and every
 
 432 The Truth cf Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 mouth seventy tongues, and each tongue praises God seventy time* 
 a day, in seventy different idioms. And of wax candles before 
 the throne of God which are fifty years journey from one end to 
 the ether. The Alcoran says, the earth was created in two davs, 
 and is Mjpported by an ox which stands under it, upon a white 
 stone, with his head to the east, and his tail to the west, having 
 forty horns, and as great a distance betwixt every horn as a man 
 could walk in a thoosand years time. 
 
 TV.n their description of heaven, in a full enjoyment of wine, 
 vome.i, and other like gross sensual pleasures. 
 
 (2.) When you compare this with our Holy Scriptures, you will 
 need no argument to make you see the difference. The Heathen 
 orators have admired the sublime of the style of our Scriptures; no 
 writing in the woild conies near it, even with all the disadvantage 
 of our translation, which, being obliged to be literal, must lose 
 much of the beauty of if. The plainness and succinctness of the 
 historical part, the melody of the Psalms, the instruction of the 
 Proverbs, the majesty of the Prophets, and, above all, that easy 
 sweetness in the New Testament, where the glory of heaven is set 
 forth in a grave and moving expression, which yet reaches not the 
 height of the subject ; not like the flights of rhetoric, which set 
 out small matters in great words. But the holy Scriptures touch 
 the heart, raise expectation, confirm our hope, strengthen our 
 faith, give peace of conscience, and joy in the Hely Ghosf, which 
 is inexpressible. All which you will experience when you once 
 come to believe; you will then bring forth these fruits of the 
 Spirit, when you receive the word with pure affection, as we pray 
 in our Litany. 
 
 (3.) But, Sir, if there is truth in the Alcoran, then the Holy 
 Scriptures are the Word of God, for the Alcoran says so, and that 
 it was sent to confirm them, even the Scriptures of both the Okl 
 and New Testament ; and it expressly owns our Jesus to be the 
 Messiah. At the end of the fourth chapter it has these words: 
 " The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, is a prophet, and an 
 angel of God, his Word and his Spirit, which he seat to Mary.'* 
 Bui it gives him not the name of Son of God, for this wise reason, 
 chap. vi. " Hew shall God have a son, who hath no wives?'' Yet 
 it owns Jesus to be born of a pure virgin, without a man, by the 
 operation cf the Spirit of God. And in the same chapter this 
 Mahomet acknowledges ins own ignorance, and says, " I told 
 1101 that I had in my power all the treasures of God, neithciv
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 835 
 
 that I had knowledge of the future and past, nor do affirm that I 
 am an angel, I only act what hath been inspired into me; Is the 
 blind like him that seeth clearly?" And after says, " I am not 
 your tutor, every thing hath its time, you shall hereafter under- 
 stand the truth." 
 
 This is putting off, and bidding them expect some other after 
 Mahemet. But our Jesus said, He was our Tutor and Teacher, 
 and that there was none to come after him. Mahomet said he 
 was no angel, but that Jesus was an angel of God. But when 
 God bringeth Jesus into the world, he saith, " Let ail the angels 
 ' of God worship him." Heb. i. 6. And he made him Lord 
 of all the angels. Mahomet knew not what was past or to come; 
 but our Jesus knew all things, and what was in the heart of erery 
 man, John ii. 24, 25. which none can do, but God only, 1 King* 
 viii. 39. and foretold things to come to the end of the world. 
 Mahomet had not all the treasures of God ; but in Jesus are hid 
 '* all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. For in him 
 dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Col. ii. 
 3, 9., 
 
 Again, Mahomet never called himself the Messiah, or the 
 Word, or Spirit of Gad, yet all these appellations he gives to 
 our Jesus. 
 
 There were prophecies of Jesus which we havtf seen : Were 
 there any of Mahomet ? Nose ; except of the " false Christs 
 ** and false Prophets," which Jesus told should come after 
 him, and bid us beware of them, for that they would deceive 
 many, 
 
 (4.) De. But if Mahomet gave thus the preference to Christ in 
 every thing, and said that his Alcoran was only a confirmation of 
 the Gospel ; how came he to set it up against the Gospel, and to, 
 reckon the Christians among the unbelievers ? 
 
 CHR, No otherwise than as other heretics did, who called 
 themselves the only true Christians, and invented new interpreta- 
 tions of the Scriptures. The Socinians now charge whole Chris- 
 tianity with apostacy, idolatry, and polytheism; and the Alcoran, 
 is but a system of the ld Ariaiiism, ili digested and worse put to- 
 gether, with a mixture of some Heathenism and Judaism; for 
 Mahomet's father was a Heathen, his mother a Jewess, and his 
 tutor was Sergius the Monk, a Nestorian ; which sect was a 
 branch of Arianism : these crudely mixed made up the farrago of 
 'the Alcoran j but the prevailing part was Arianism j and where
 
 234- The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 that spread itself in the east, there Mahometanism succeeded, and 
 sprung out of it, to let all Christians see the horror of tiiat heresy ! 
 And our Socinians now among us, who call themselves Unita- 
 rians, are much more Mahometans than Christians. For except 
 some personal things as to Mahomet, they agree almost wholly in 
 his doctrine ; and as such addressed themselves to the Morocco am- 
 bassador here in the reign of King Charles II. as you may see in 
 the Preface to my Dialogues against the Socinians, printed in the 
 year 1708. Nor do they speak more honourably of Christ and 
 the Holy Scriptures than the Alcoran does : and there is no error 
 concerning Christ in the Alcoran but what was broached before 
 by the heretics of Christianity ; as that Christ did not suffer really 
 but in appearance only, or that some other was crucified in his 
 stead, but he taken up into heaven, as the Alcoran speaks. 
 
 So that in strictness, I should not have reckoned Mahometanism 
 as one of the four religions in the world, but as one of the heresies 
 of Christianity. But because of its great name, and its having 
 spread so far in the world, by the conquest of Mahomet and his 
 followers, and that it is vulgarly understood to be a distinct religion 
 by itself, therefore I have considered it as such. 
 
 And as to your concern in the matter, you see plainly, that the 
 Alcoran comes in attestation and confirmation of the facts of 
 Christ, and of the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 DE. I am not come yet so far as to enter into the disputes of 
 the several sects of Christianity, but as to the fact of Christ and of 
 the Scriptures in general, Mahometanism I see does rather confirm 
 than oppose it. 
 
 CHR. What then do you think of Judaism, as it now stands in 
 opposition to Christianity ? 
 
 DE. Not only as without any evidence, the time prophesied of 
 for the coming of the Messiah being long since past : but all their 
 former evidences turn directly against them, and against any 
 Messiah who ever hereafter should come. As that the scepter 
 should not depart from Judah ; that he should come into the se- 
 cond temple ; that the sacrifices should cease soon after his death ; 
 that David should never want a. son to sit upon his throne; that 
 they-should be many days without a king, and without a prince, 
 and without a sacrifice, &c. which they do not suppose ever will 
 be the case after their Messiah is come. So that they are wit- 
 Besses against themselves.
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 235 
 
 CHR. And what do you think of the stories of the Heathen 
 gods ? 
 
 DE. I believe them no more than all the stories in Ovid's 
 Metamorphoses. Nor did the wiser heathens believe them, only 
 such silly people as suck in all the Popish legends without exa- 
 mining. 
 
 And to tell you the truth, I thought the same of all your stories 
 in the Bible ; but I will take time to examine those proofs you 
 have given me. 
 
 For we Deists do not dispute against Christianity, in behalf of 
 any other religion, of the Jews, or Heathens, or Mahometans, all 
 which pretend to revelation ; but we are against all revelation; and 
 go only upon bare nature, and what our own reason dictates 
 to us. 
 
 (1.) CHR. What nature dictates, it dictates to all, at least to 
 the most ?pd the generality of mankind ; and if we measure by 
 this, then it will appear a natural notion, that there is necessity of 
 revelation in religion : and herein you have all the world agaiost 
 you from the very beginning. And will you plead nature against 
 all these? 
 
 DE. The notion came down from one to another, from the be- 
 ginning, we know not how. 
 
 CHR. Then it was either nature from the beginning, or else, it 
 was from revelation at the beginning ; whence the notion has de- 
 scended through all posterities to this day. 
 
 (2.) And there wants not reason for this : for when man had 
 fallen and his reason was corrupted (as we feel it upon us to this 
 day, as sensibly as the diseases and infirmities of the body) was it 
 not highly reasonable that God should give us a law and directions 
 how to serve and worship him? Sacrifices do not seem to be any 
 natural invention : for why should taking away the life of my 
 fellow-creature be acceptable to God, or a worship of him ? It 
 would rather seem an offence against him. But as Types of the 
 great and only propitiatory sacrifice of Christ to come, and to keep 
 up our faith in that, the institution given with the revelation of it 
 appears most rational. And that it was necessary, the great de- 
 fection shews, not only of the Heathens, but of the Je\vs them- 
 selves, who, though they retained the institution, yet in a great 
 measure lost the true meaning and signification of it ; and are novy
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated: 
 
 to be brought back to it, by reminding them of the institution and 
 the reason of it. 
 
 Plato in his Alcibiad. ii. de Precat. has the same reasoning, and 
 concludes, that we cannot know of ourselves what petitions will 
 be pleasing to God, or what Worship to give him : but that it is 
 necessary a Law-giver should be sent from heaven to instruct us ; 
 and such a one he did expect ; and " O how greatly do I desire 
 to see that man?" says he, and " who is her" The primitive tra- 
 dition of the expected Messiah had no doubt come to him, as to 
 many others of the Heathens, from the Jews, and likely from the 
 perusal of their Scriptures. 
 
 For Plato goes further, and says, (de Leg. 1. 4.) That this 
 Law-giver must be more than man ; for he observes that every na- 
 ture is governed by another nature that is superior to it, as birds 
 ana beasts by man, who is of a distinct and superior nature. So 
 he infers, that this Law-giver who was to teach man what man 
 could not know by his own nature, must be of a nature that is su- 
 perior to man, that is, of a divine nature. 
 
 Nay, he gives as lively a description of the person, qualifications, 
 life, and death of this. divine man, as if he had copied the liiid. of 
 Jsaiah : for he says, (de Repub. i. 2. ) That this just person must 
 be poor and void of all recommendations but that of virtue alone ; 
 that a wicked world would not bear his instructions and reproof, 
 and therefore within three or four years after he began to preach, 
 he should be persecuted, imprisoned, scourged, and at last put to 
 death ; his word is 'Avaj^vSiAey Swatrait, that is, cut in pieces, as 
 they cut their sacrifices. 
 
 DE, These are remarkable passages as you apply them ; and 
 Plato was three hundred years before Christ. 
 
 But 1 incline to think that these notions came rather from such 
 tradition as you speak of, than from nature; and I can see nothing 
 of nature in sacrifices, they look more like institution, come that 
 how k will. 
 
 (3.) CHR. It isstninge that all the nations in the world should 
 be carried away from what you call nature ; unless you will take 
 refuge among the Hottentots at the Cape of Good Hope, hardly 
 distinguishable from beasts, tq shew us what nature Itft to itself 
 would da! and leave us all the wise and polite world on the side 
 of revelation, either real or pretended; and of opinion that man- 
 kind could not be without it : and my business now with you has 
 been to distinguish the real from the pretended,
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonslratrd. 
 
 (4.) DE. By the account you have given, there is but one reli- 
 gion in the world, nor ever was : for the Jewish was but Christi- 
 anity in type, though in time greatly corrupted : and the Heathen 
 was a greater corruption, and founded the fables of their gods upon 
 the facts of Scripture: and the Mahometan you say is bat a heresy 
 of Christianity. So that all is Christianity still. 
 
 CHR. It is true God gave but one revelation to the world, which 
 was that of Christ : and as that was corrupted, new revelations 
 were pretended. But God has guarded his revelation* with such 
 evidences, as it was not in the power of men or devils to counter- 
 feit or contrive any thing like them. Some bear resemblance in 
 one or two features, in the first two or three evidences that I have 
 produced; but as none reach the fourth, so they are all quite des- 
 titute of the least pretence to the remaining four. So that when 
 you look upon the face of divine revelation, and take it altogether, 
 it is impossible to mistake it for any of those delusions which the 
 tlevii has set up in imitation of it. And they are made to confirm 
 it, because all the resemblance they have to truth, is that whereia 
 they are any ways like it ; but when compared with it, they shew 
 as an ill drawn picture, half man half beast, in presence of the beau- 
 tiful original. 
 
 (5.) DE. It is strange, that if the case be thus plain as 
 you have made it, the whole world is not immediately con- 
 vinced. 
 
 CHR. If the seed be never so good, yet if it be sown upon 
 stones or among thorns, it will bring forth nothing. There are 
 hearts of stone, and others so filled with the love of riches, with 
 the cares and pleasures of this life, that they will not see, they 
 have not a mind to know any thing which they think would dis- 
 turb them in their enjoyments, or lessen their opinion of them, 
 for that would be taking away so much of their pleasure ; there- 
 fore it is no easy matter to persuade men to place their happiness 
 in future expectations, which is the import of the Gospel. And 
 in pressing thi>, and bidding the worldly minded abandon their 
 beloved vices, and telling the fatal consequences of them, we must 
 expect to meet not only with their scorn and contempt, but their 
 uunost rage and impatience, to get rid of us, as so many enemies of 
 their lusts and pleasures. This is the cross which our Saviour 
 prepared all his disciples to bear, who were to fight against flesh 
 and blood, and all the allurements of the world : that it is a greater 
 miracle that they have had so many followers in this, than that
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 they have gained to themselves so many enemies. The world is 
 a strong man, and till a stronger than he come (that is, the full 
 persuasion of the future state) he will keep possession. And this 
 is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. But 
 we are told also, that this faith is the gift of God ; for all the 
 evidence in the world will not reach the heart, unless it be 
 prepared (like the good ground) to receive the doctrine that is 
 taught. Till then prejudice will create obstinacy, which will 
 harden the heart like a rock, and cry, Non persuadebis, etiamsi 
 persuaseris! " I will not be persuaded^ though I should be per- 
 auaded !" 
 
 You must consider under this head, too, the many that have 
 not yet heard of the Gospel ; and of those that have, the far 
 greater number who have not the capacity cr opportunity to exa- 
 mine all the evidences of Christianity, but take things upon trust, 
 just as they are taught. And how many others are careless, and 
 will not be at the pains, though they want not capacity, to enquire 
 into the truth ? All these classes will include the greatest part of 
 mankind. The ignorant, the careless, the vicious, and so the 
 obstinate, the ambitious, and the covetous, whose minds the god 
 of this world hath blinded. 
 
 But yet in the midst of all this darkness, God hath not left 
 himself without witness, which will be apparent to every dili- 
 gent and sober enquirer that is willing and prepared to receive the 
 truth. 
 
 (6.) Good Sir, let me ask you, though you are of no religion, 
 as you say, but what you call natural ; yet would you not think 
 me very brutal, if I should deny that ever there \vas such a man 
 as Alexander, or Csesar, or that they did such things ? If I should 
 deny all history, or that Homer, r Virgil, Demosthenes, or Cicero, 
 ever wrote such books ? Would you not think me perfectly ob- 
 stinate, seized with a spirit of contradiction, and not fit for human 
 conversation ? 
 
 And yet these things are of no consequence to me, it is not a 
 farthing as to my interest, whether they are true or false. 
 
 Will you then think yourself a reasonable man, if in matters 
 of the greatest importance, even your eternal state, you will not 
 believe those facts which have a thousand times more certain, arid 
 indisputable evidence ? Were there any prophecies of Csesar or 
 Pompey ? Were there any types of them, or public institutions 
 appointed by a Law, to prefigure the great things that they should
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 239 
 
 do ? Any persons who went before them, to bear a resemblance 
 of these things, and bid us expect that great event ? Was there a 
 general expectation in the world of their coming, before or at the 
 time when they came ? And of what consequence was their com- 
 ing to the world, or to after ages ? No more than a robbery com- 
 mitted a thousand years ago ! 
 
 Were the Greek and Roman histories wrote by the persons who 
 did the facts, or by eye-witnesses ? And for the greater certainty 
 were those histories made the standing law of the country ? Or 
 were they any more than our Holinshead and Stow, &c. ? 
 
 Must we believe these, on pain of not being thought reason- 
 able men ? And are we then unreasonable and credulous, if we 
 believe the facts of the Holy Bible ? which was the standing Law 
 of the people to whom it was given, and wrote or dictated by 
 those who did the facts, with public institutions appointed by 
 them as a perpetual law to all their generations ; and which, if 
 the facts had been false, could never have passed at the time when 
 the facts were said to be done : nor for the same reason, if that 
 book had been wrote afterwards ; because these institutions (as 
 circumcision, the passover, baptism, &c.) were as notorious facts 
 as any ; and that book saying they commenced from the time that 
 the facts were done, must be found to be false, whenever it was 
 trumpt up in after ages, by no such institutions being then known. 
 Not like the feasts, games, &c. in memory of the Heathen gods, 
 which were appointed long after those facts were said to be done ; 
 and the like institutions may be appointed to-morrow in memory 
 of any falshood said to be done a thousand years ago ; and so is 
 no proof at all. And though a legend, or book of stories of 
 things said to be done many years past, may be palmed upon peo- 
 ple, yet a book of statutes cannot, by which their causes are tried 
 every day. 
 
 Are there such prophecies extant in any prophane history so long 
 before the facts there recorded, as there are in the Holy Scriptures 
 of the coming of the Messiah ? 
 
 Were there any types or forerunners of the Heathen gods, or 
 Mahomet ? 
 
 Is there the like evidence of the truth and sincerity of the 
 Greek and Roman historians, as of the penmen of the Holy 
 Scriptures? 
 
 Would these historians have given their lives for the truth of all 
 .they wrote?
 
 40 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 Did they tell such facts only, wherein it was impossible for 
 themselves to be imposed upon, or that they should impose upon 
 others ? Nothing but what themselves had seen ?jid heard, and 
 they also to whom they spoke ? 
 
 Did they expect nothing but persecution and death for what 
 they related ? And were they bidden to hear it patiently without 
 resistance ? Was this the case of the disciples of Mahomet, who 
 were. required to fight and conquer with the sword ? 
 
 Did any religion ever overcome by suffering, but the Christian 
 only ? 
 
 And did any exhibit the future state, and preach the contempt 
 of this world, like the Christian? 
 
 DE. That is the reason it has prevailed so little. And yet, con- 
 side! ing this, it is strange it has prevailed so much. 
 
 (".) But there is one thing yet behind, wherein I would be glad 
 to have your opinion, because I find your Divines differ about it ; 
 and that is, how we shall know to distinguish betwixt true and 
 false miracles. 
 
 And tbis is necessary to the subject we are upon. For the 
 force of the facts you alledge ends all in this ; that such miracu- 
 lous facts are a sufficient attestation of such persons being sent of 
 God ; and consequently, that we are to believe the doctrine which 
 they taught. 
 
 You know we Deists deny any such thing as miracles, but re- 
 duce all to nature ; yet I confess, if I had seen such miracles as 
 are recorded of Moses and of Christ, it would have convinced 
 me. And for the truth of them we must refer to the evidences 
 you have given. But in the mean time, if there is no rule 
 whereby to distinguish betwixt true and false miracles, there is an 
 end of all the pains you have taken. For if the devil can work 
 such things, as appear miracles to me, I am as much persuaded 
 as if they were true miracles, and wrought by God. And so men 
 may be deceived in trusting to miracles. 
 
 The common notion of a miracle is what exceeds the power 
 of nature. To which we say, that we know not the utmost of 
 the power of nature, and consequently cannot tell wha: exceeds 
 it. Nor do you pretend to know the utmost of the power of 
 spirits, whether g o or evil, and how then can you tell what 
 exceeds thrir power ? 
 
 I doubt not but you would have thought those to be true mi- 
 racles which the- magicians are said to have wrought in Egypt,
 
 The Tridh of Christianity demonstrated. 24 1 
 
 but that Moses is said to have wrought miracles that were superior 
 to them. 
 
 t CHR. Therefore if two powers contend for the superiority, as 
 here God and the Devil did, the best issue can be is to see them 
 wrestle together, and then we shall soon know which is 
 strongest.' This was the case' of Moses and the magicians, of 
 Christ and the Devil. There was a struggle, and Satan was plainly 
 overcome. 
 
 I confess I know not the power of spirits, nor how they work 
 upon bodies. And by the same reason that a spirit can lift a straw, 
 he may a mountain, and the whole earth, for ought I know ; and 
 may do many things which would appear true miracles to me, and 
 so might deceive me. And all I" have to trust to in this case, is, the 
 restraining power ofGod, that he will not permit the devil so to do* 
 And were it not for this, I doubt not but the devil could take away 
 my life in an instant, or inflict terrible diseases upon me, as 
 upon Job. 
 
 And I think this consideration is the strongest motive in the 
 world to keep us in a constant dependance upon God, that we live 
 
 "^ 
 
 in the midst of such powerful enemies as we can by no means resist 
 of ourselves, and are in their power every minute, when God shall 
 withdraw his protection from us. 
 
 And it is in their power likewise to work signs and wonders to 
 deceive us, if God permit. And herein the great power and good- 
 ness of God is manifest, that he has never yet permitted the devil to 
 work miracles in opposition to any whom he sent, except where 
 the remedy was at hand, and to shew his power the more, as in the 
 case of Moses and the magicians, &c. 
 
 And this is further evident, because God has, at other times, and 
 upon other occasions, suffered the devil to exert his power, as to 
 make fire descend upon Job's cattle, &c. But here was no cause 
 of religion concerned, nor any truth of God in debate. 
 
 DE. But your Christ has foretold, Matt. xxiv. 24. that false 
 Christs and false Prophets shall arise^ who shall shew great signs 
 and wonders, to deceive, if possible, the very elect. And it is 
 said, 2 Thess. ii. 9. that there shall be a wicked one, whose coming 
 is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and 
 lying wonders; and it is supposed, Deut. xiii. 1, ckc. that a false 
 Prophet may give a sign or a wonder, to draw men after fajse gods. 
 Here then is sign against sign, and wonder against wonder,* ami 
 which of these shall we believe ? 
 
 VOL i. R
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 CHR. The first no doubt. For God cannot contradict himself, 
 nor will shew signs and wonders in opposition to that Law which 
 he has established by so many signs and wonders. Therefore in 
 such a case we must conclude, that God has permitted the devil to 
 exert his power, as against Moses and Christ, for the trial of our 
 faith, and to shew the superior power of God more eminently, in 
 overcoming all the power of the enemy. 
 
 But, as I said before, we have a more sure word, that is, proof, 
 that even these miracles exhibited to our outward senses, which is 
 the word of prophecy. Let then any false Christ who shall pre- 
 tend to come hereafter, shew such a book as our Bible, which 
 has been so long in the world (the most ancient book now extant) 
 testifying of him, foretelling the time, and all other circum- 
 stances cf his coming, with his sufferings and death, and all 
 these prophecies exactly fulfilled in him. And till he can do this, 
 he cannot have that evidence which our Christ has, and he must be 
 a false Christ to me, and all the signs that he can shew, will be but 
 lying wonders to any that is truly established in the Christian 
 faith. 
 
 But it may be a trial too strong for those careless ones who will 
 not beat the pains to enquire into the grounds of their religion, but 
 take it upon trust, as they do the fashions, and mind not to frame 
 their lives according to it, but are immersed in the world, and the 
 pleasures of it. 
 
 (8.) And it will be a just judgment upon these, that they who 
 shut their eyes against all the clear evidences of the Gospel, 
 should be given up to believe a lye. And the reason is given 2 
 Thess. ii. 12. because they "had pleasure in unrighteousness." 
 They loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were 
 evil. 
 
 So that I must repeat what I said before, that there is a prepa- 
 ration of the heart (as of the ground) to receive the truth. And 
 where the doctrine does not please, no evidence, how clear soever, 
 will be received. God cannot enter, till mammon be dispossessed. 
 We cannot serve these two masters. He who has a clear sight of 
 heaven, cannot value the dull pleasures of this life ; and it is im- 
 possible that he who is drowned in sense can relish spiritual 
 things. The love of this world is enmity against God. The 
 first sin was a temptation of sense ; and the reparation is to open 
 our eyes to the enjoyment of God. Vice clouds this eye, and
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 24S 
 
 makes it blind to the only true and eternal pleasure. It is foolish- 
 ness to such a one. 
 
 Tin's, this, Sir, is the remora that keeps men from Christianity. 
 It is not want of evidence, but it is want of consideration. I 
 would not say this to you till I had first gone through all the to^ 
 pics of reason with you, that you might not call it cant. But 
 this is the truth. As David says, " To him that ordereth his 
 conversation aright, will I shew the salvation of God." And 
 our Saviour says, " If any man do the will of God, he shall know 
 *' of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of my. 
 " self." And " No man can cpme unto me, except the Father 
 " draw him." 
 
 This was the reason why St. John the Baptist was sent as a 
 forerunner to prepare the way for Christ, by preaching of repent- 
 ance, to fit men for receiving the Gospel. 
 
 And they who repented of their sins upon his preaching, did 
 gladly embrace the doctrine of Christ. But they who would not 
 foisake their sins remained obdurate, though otherwise men o 
 sense and learning. As our Saviour told the Priests and Elders, 
 Matt. xxi. 31. " John came unto you in the way of righteousness, 
 " and ye believed him not; but the publicans and the harlots be- 
 " lieved him. And ye when ye had seen it, repented not after* 
 " wards, that ye might believe him." 
 
 And when Christ sought to prepare them for his doctrine, 
 by telling them, that they cou'd not serve God and mammon, it is 
 said, Luke xvi. 14. " That when the Pharisees, who were co- 
 '* vetous, heard these things, they derided him." But he in- 
 structed them in the next verse, (if they would have received it) 
 that " what is highly esteemed amongst men, is abomination in 
 " the sight of God." And enforced this with the example of 
 the rich man and Lazarus. And said, chap, xviii. 25. " That 
 " it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, 
 " than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." 
 And chap. xiv. 33. that " whosoever he be that forsaketh not all 
 ** that he hath, he cannot be my disciple." Now take this in 
 the largest sense, that he who is not ready and willing to forsake 
 all, as if he hated them, as Christ said, ver. 26. " If any man 
 " come to me, and hate not his father and mother," &c. (that 
 is, when they r .~mein competition with any command of Christ) 
 and " take not his cross and follow me, he cannot be my dis 
 
 R 2
 
 244 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 
 
 " ciple." How few disciples would he have had in tin's age! 
 Would all his miracles persuade some to this ? The world is too 
 hard for heaven with most menJ 
 
 Here is the cause of infidelity. The love of the world, the 
 lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, 
 darken the heart, and like shutters keep out the light of heaven ; 
 till they are removed, the light cannot enter. The spirit of purity 
 and holiness will not descend into an heart full of all unclean- 
 ness. If we would invite this guest, we must sweep the house, 
 and make it clean. 
 
 But this, too, is of God ; for he only can make a clean heart, 
 and renew a right spirit within us. But he has promised to give 
 this wisdom to those who ask it, and lead a godly life. There- 
 fore ask and you shall have, seek and you shall find, knock, 
 and it shall be opened unto you, But do it ardently and inces- 
 santly, as he that striveth for his soul. For God is gracious and 
 merciful, long suffering, and of great goodness f and those who 
 come to him in sincerity, he will in no ways cast out. There- 
 fore pray in faith, nothing doubting ; and what you pray for, 
 (according to his will) believe that you receive it, and you shall 
 receive it. 
 
 To his grace I commend you. 
 
 (9.) And with the fulness of the Gentiles, O ! that it would 
 please God to take the veil off the heart of the Jews, and let them 
 see that they have been deceived by many false Messiahs since 
 Christ came ; so none whom they expect hereafter can answer the 
 prophecies of the Messiah (some of which I have named) and 
 therefore no such can be the Messiah who is prophesied of in their 
 own Scriptures. 
 
 And let them see and consider how that fatal curse they impre- 
 cated upon themselves, " His blood be upon us and on our chil- 
 " dren," has cleaved unto them, beyond any of their former sins, 
 and even repeated idolatry, from which (to shew that it is not 
 the cause of their present dispersion) they have kept themselves 
 free ever since; and for which' their longest captivity was but 
 seventy years, and .then Prophets were sent to them to comfort 
 them, and assure them of a restoration : but now they have been 
 about seventeen hundred years dispersed over all the earth, with- 
 out any Prophet, or prospect of their deliverance ; that the whole 
 world might 'take notice of this before unparalleled judgment,
 
 The Truth of Christianity demonstrated. 2i$ 
 
 not known to any nation that ever yet was upon the face of the 
 earth ! So punished, and so preserved for judgment, and I hope, 
 at last, for a more wonderful mercy ! " For if the casting away 
 " of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiv- 
 ' ing of them be, but life from the dead? For God hath con- 
 " eluded all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. O 
 " the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of 
 " God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past 
 " finding out ! For of him, and through him, and to him, are all 
 tf things. To whom be glory for ever. Amen."
 
 DISCOURSE 
 
 ON TH1 
 
 ENGLISH CONSTITUTION; 
 
 SXTRACTED FROM 
 
 A LATE EMINENT WRITER, 
 
 ROGER NORTH, ESQ. 
 
 AND 
 
 APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT TIMES.
 
 PREFACE, 
 
 I HE Editor of the following Discourse on the Eng- 
 
 }ish Constitution, having been witness, for some years 
 
 past *, to the many dangerous absurdities which have 
 
 been published in factious News-papers to corrupt 
 
 the good people of England, and answer the purposes 
 
 of a party, who have been working secretly and openly 
 
 in every possible way, to throw things into confusion, 
 
 and bring about a change of the government, thinks it 
 
 high time that something should be offered, to shew the 
 
 public how they are imposed upon, and to furnish them 
 
 \vith a few rational principles concerning the nature of 
 
 civil power, the necessities of society, and the positive 
 
 laws of their own country. Hence they will soon see 
 
 that no plan can be made sense of, except that doctrine 
 
 of allegiance against which they have been taught to 
 
 clamour ; and that " resistance to civil government,'* 
 
 asserte4 on principle, is nothing but the extravagance 
 
 and nonsense of designing writers, who want to be re- 
 
 sisting^ every thing for their own private ends. 
 
 SUPPOSE I desire to trip up a man's heels, and pick 
 his pocket ; what can I do better, to keep up my own 
 credit, and promote my own purposes, than publish it 
 to the world, and get it believed, if possible, that the 
 " common rights of humanity" give one man a title 
 
 * This discourse was first extracted by an anonymous Editor in the 
 vear 1??6
 
 PREFACE. ccxlix 
 
 to trip up another man's heels ? And if many are per- 
 suaded into the same notion, till we are either too strono- 
 
 o 
 
 or too cunning for opposition, then the property of the 
 public is at our disposal ; which is the thing we had in 
 view. 
 
 WHEN this principle operates in low life* and raises 
 a gang of thieves and house-breakers, the principle it- 
 self, and the effects of it are equally detestable. And 
 it ought to be abhorred as much in other cases : for 
 what is every regular government, but a larger sort of 
 house ? What is the public revenue, but the pocket of 
 the state ? And are there no thieves who want to be 
 breaking into such an house, c< while the family is 
 asleep !" Are there not a larger sort of pick-pockets, 
 having the same appetites and principles with those of 
 the common sort, who would plunder the state as freely 
 as the others rifle a pocket ? There is, indeed, this dif- 
 ference betwixt the two classes; that the ordinary thief 
 has but little to say, while his brother of high degree 
 turns orator, and with false principles, and insinuating 
 speeches, renders his profession honourable and popular, 
 till a nation is betrayed into its own ruin, and becomes 
 a spectacle of misery toother states, who have been wise 
 enough to provide better for their own security. 
 
 EVERY Government ought to be upon its guard 
 against such men, before they have intoxicated the 
 lower order of the people with that enthusiastic notion 
 of natural privilege against positive law, which leads 
 directly to rebellion ? and the people should be better 
 informed in due time, lest their ignorance make them 
 a prey to those who labour so industriously to deceive
 
 ccl PREFACE. 
 
 them. To wean them from that patriotic froth with 
 which they have been so long treated, we must teach 
 them how to examine things by the plain rules of com- 
 mon sense and positive law ; .ind then they will see how 
 they have been dancing after the unsubstantial delusions 
 of oratory, and discover at last, that there is no liberty 
 without law, no security without obedience. 
 
 I NEVER met with any discourse, on the subject of 
 allegiance, better calculated to open their eyes than the 
 following ; and therefore would recommend the serious 
 consideration of it to all those who wish well to their 
 country, especially at this time, when so many wish ill 
 to it. It was written by a gentleman eminently skilled 
 in the English law who had studied the constitution 
 with integrity of mind, and has represented it with 
 very great ability. That the government of England, 
 or any part of it, is " not legally resistible with force,'* 
 is the position he lays down ; and he proves it by con- 
 sidering the people's allegiance pursuant to the positive 
 law of the land, and the rights of the English monarchy, 
 as they are by law expressly and undoubtedly established.
 
 C 251 3 
 
 DISCOURSE 
 
 OK THE 
 
 ENGLISH CONSTITUTION. 
 
 J.F it be a truth that laws (however originated) bind a people, 
 the people of England are bound not to resist with force the 
 King, or those commissioned by him, in any case, or upon any 
 pretence whatsoever. This is to be alledged as a fundamental 
 principle in arguing from positive law ; and hence it flows, and is 
 a known maxim of the English law, that the person of the So- 
 vereign is not punishable nor coercible by force ; and in the prac- 
 ticable forms of proceeding, transgressions against this law are 
 judged upon accusations after the form of high treason. This 
 consequence of law, the maintainers of resistance scarce deny; for 
 they seem to go off from, and surmount positive law, supposing a 
 power, which they call " the people," superior to all law, having 
 it in their hands to reduce laws and law-makers all together ; and 
 so they think they argue upon sure grounds. But this eludes the 
 hypothesis, which is, that the people are subject, and bound by the 
 laws : for it is the same as saying that there is no law but in active 
 force, which force is not constant ; for sometimes one, and some- 
 times another division or faction of the people proves to be 
 strongest ; and then the laws, if there may be any, are changeable, 
 and that which men call right and wrong, is contingent, as a wea- 
 ther-cock that varies with the air: all which is ridiculous to affirm 
 in discourse. But in a nation that hath established laws, all ques.
 
 , 
 
 252 \ North on-the English Government. 
 
 tions of right and wrong are referred to executive power, in such 
 methods of determination as the laws have prescribed ; that is, by- 
 regular process before competent judges, agains*- whom there is 
 no just exception. 
 
 But farther, nothing can justify resistance, but what will amount 
 to a just and legal defence upon an indictment of high treason. If 
 so, examine all the ordinary pretensions for resistance, and they 
 will be found wanting. As first, the abuse of royal power. That 
 will not do, for it is a rule of law, that " the King can do no 
 wrong," because all acts of the government against law are nul- 
 lities; and such have no legal effect, and justify no commissioner 
 or agent whatsoever. Then, next, immediate violence from the 
 person of the King upon a subject, will also fail ; for se defendendo 
 is no .legal plea in case of an inferior officer, much less in treason ; 
 for the law against compassing the death of the'King, hath no ex- 
 ception. Then, as to personal defects or incapacities, be it in the 
 highest degree, as madness, lunacy, infancy, or negligence, they 
 afford no matter of defence in treason; for whatever the resisters 
 say, the law says there can be no such thing : for if human in- 
 firmity in such cases may be afledged, designing people will ever 
 pretend it, to serve the turn of their ambition. In a word, the 
 law owns no mischief to a people in general or particular, so con- 
 siderable as to be put into the scales against high treason. Little- 
 ton's rule, " better a mischief than an inconvenience," sounds 
 oddly ; but it hath this very meaning, and is very good law ; and 
 the reason is, there can be no law but contingent mischiefs to par- 
 .ticulars may, and often do happen ; but the consideration of them 
 doth not disable a law that hath a general view. And whoever 
 argues against a law, from a supposition of such mischiefs possible, 
 argues against ail law, and for anarchy and confusion. The law 
 hath likewise another rule, which respects the same case; which is 
 de minimis non curat lex : and no contingent mischiefs to parti, 
 cular persons are regarded against the general convenience of a 
 Jaw, especially when government, common peace, and protection 
 depends upon it. 
 
 These maxims of law are sufficient to answer all the popular 
 reasonings of men, built upon the possibility of particular mis- 
 chiefs. But all reasoning is out of doors, where there is positive 
 law. None will deny the statute of treasons to be law, and in full 
 force. And then there is a new ground upon which the case 
 stands j so that if there were any former maxima, modifications,
 
 North on the English Government. 253 
 
 practices, or settlements of power contrary to that, call them co- 
 venants, contracts, fundamental principles, or whatever you please, 
 they all sink into and are drowned in that ; as latter laws, not con- 
 sistent with, always repeal former. And it is well it is so ; for 
 there are evidences in history, that hefore the making of that 
 law, which the lawyers say is but declaratory of what the law 
 was in truth hefore, there were great stretches, and even l&sa. 
 ma jest as was construed treason. A farther use shall be made of 
 this statute, which was a vast ease and safety to the people, in 
 some reflections by and by ; and in the mean time let it be ob- 
 served, that it is not fair to allege for answer, that it is not in- 
 genuous to refer to actual process, or course of law, and the con- 
 sequences of it; because all governments will take care of them- 
 selves, and that the laws shall be declared entirely on their side ; 
 as if this insisting on positive law were a subterfuge rather than 
 an argument. But such answer cannot be allowed to be just, or 
 any colour : for will not all irregular persons, as well as traitors, 
 viz. felons, and other evil doers, if they may come off so, or if 
 they are too strong for the judge, answer the same thing ? why the 
 one more than the other? To object power against the force of 
 positive law, is ridiculous; for without a title to absolute power, 
 there can be no lawKat all. To temper this, therefore, in England, 
 it is provided by law, that there be proper judges, competent to 
 decide all questions of right and wrong,, whether it concern 
 powers or interests, and such as are put under all obligations of 
 duty and oaths to do right according to law. But yet to enforce 
 this reasoning in favour of non-resistance, and bring it to the 
 height of demonstration, let the judges' immediate authority, though 
 that be decisive, be suspended, and the case stated upon universal 
 principles, and reasons at large. 
 
 Now the terms non-resistance and passive-cbedience, commonly 
 used in , this; dispute, are synonymous, and mean one and the 
 same thing j'Mhat is, a negation of all active force, whatever the 
 consequence be. Obedience, in the common acceptation of the 
 word, sounds active, and therefore doth not well bear such an ad- 
 jective as passive; non-resistance is properly passive : but common 
 use hath confounded the language, and diverse words or phrases 
 brought to signify one and the same thing ; which is only a 
 choosing to suffer rather than obey unlawful commands. And it 
 is very injurious to infer from such a behaviour, that any power 
 
 1
 
 54* North on the English Government. 
 
 or prerogative, more than is lawful, is thereby recognized ; but it 
 is one way, and an effectual one, of flying in the face of an ex- 
 orbitant power, and a flat contradiction to it. Thence it is in- 
 ferred, that in all civil concerns, the law is the rule of obedience, 
 whether active or (as it is termed) passive ; only the former belongs 
 to lawful, and the latter to unlawful commands. And there can 
 be no better means of asserting the rights of the people by law, 
 than the disowning unlawful commands by patient suffering. For 
 which reason the passive obedience men are the most express de- 
 fenders of the laws against unbounded prerogative ; as was demons 
 strated by the heroic carriage of some of the enthronised clergy 
 towards the government in the last century. 
 
 And here it may not be amiss to observe, that instead of the old 
 way of expression, the laws of this kingdom or nation, his Ma- 
 jesty's laws, the laws of the land, or the common law, some aff-Ct 
 to use the word constitution ; which in itself is no bad word, and 
 means no other than as before. But it is commonly brought for- 
 ward with a republican face, as if it meant somewhat excluding, 
 or opposite to the monarchy, and carried an insinuation as of a 
 co-ordination, or coercion of. the monarchy: which latter term, 
 viz. the monarchy of England, still implies, as of old, the whole 
 law ; as the crown, in all the authentic books is maintained to be 
 fonsjustitia ; and it is no where to be found that the crown was 
 one thing, and the constitution another ; but the true constitution 
 of England is the monarchy as established by law. And so acts of 
 parliament always refer (and anciently more express than now) 
 to the grant and ordination of the crown, with the usual additions 
 respecting the two houses. It is dangerous to vary the language 
 of the law; because those who do not well distinguish, are thereby 
 carried into mistaken notions af the public. 
 
 As to precedents, they are not to be received as a rule of legal 
 authority, but when done in quiet and regular times, approved and 
 allowed by a constant usage in succeeding times : for escapes are 
 no precedents. There have been some of this sort ; witness the 
 parricide of King Charles the first by Cromwell, who (to go no 
 higher) died in his bed. Which action hath not been allowed 
 a warrantable precedent ; but yet wicked men, if permitted to 
 have power, would allege and use it as such. Undue precedents 
 are very dangerous to liberty ; for there are more and stronger in- 
 stances of exorbitant prerogatives, than of republican encroach- 
 ments j and the argument is as good for the one as the other.
 
 North on the English Government. 255 
 
 Therefore actions out of course, irregular, and time-sen-ing, 
 should not be received as precedents decisive, in justification of 
 powers. These prejudices being removed, let the case of obedi- 
 ence be stated upon the true frame and ceconomy of right in the 
 world, and particularly upon the general or common law of 
 England. 
 
 In all governments that ever were or can be, the supreme 
 power, wherever it is lodged, is and must be uncontroulable and 
 irresistible. That is a truth included in the notion of authority 
 or power, for the one being granted, the other follows ; as two 
 and two are equal with four, because, in the idea, they are one 
 and the same. Government resistible is no government, and 
 those, who say the contrary, are to be talked with no more than 
 sceptics in philosophy, who pretend to doubt every thing, even of 
 their own essence, which that very doubting demonstrates. So 
 that, in any settled state, the supreme power, whether it resides 
 in one, a few, or many, may not be lawfully resisted, in any case 
 whatsover, by any coercive force. 
 
 In England, the supreme authority is by law lodged in th 
 crown, together with the two houses of parliament, when duly 
 assembled. It is not at all material, whether, or how, it might 
 have been otherwise placed ; though it is naturally impossible, 
 that, in England, it can reside in all the people fas hath been 
 vainly pretended to by some democratic cities of old) the people 
 of England being separated too far asunder, ever to be immedi- 
 ately joined in one action. It is enough here, that, by indubitable 
 law and right, the crown with the states of parliament, are to all 
 intents the supreme authority, being what is termed the legislative 
 power, which no subject ought to gainsay or resist. Tills will 
 surely be granted ; for whoever pretended to gainsay or resist an 
 act of parliament, although, by natural possibility, it may be as 
 iniquitous as any action of a single person can be? Lord Coke 
 will have it, that acts of pailiament against common justice are 
 void, as (for instance) if an act were past for erecting a judica- 
 ture to determine parte inauditd alterd. But this must be under- 
 stood in conscience and natural reason only, and not by the sen- 
 tence of the courts of law ; else, the acts to vest and divest pri- 
 vate estates, and attainders of absentees, and divers others, would 
 run a shrewd risk in Westminster-hall. 
 
 It necessarily happens, in the actual administration of govern- 
 ment, that by reason the persons invested with power cannot act 
 5
 
 256 North on the English Government. 
 
 all things directly, the business is distribuied in divers manners, 
 according to the policy of several states, to answer the ends of 
 government. As for the making, judging, and executing laws 
 for punishing, defending, compelling, resisting, and the like. 
 And these subdivided offices, or branches of power, may be com- 
 mitted to single persons, or bodies of men, as laws have provided ; 
 and then all those persons or authorities become parts of the 
 supreme power in their respective provinces. And (without re- 
 gard to wrong or right) as the whole supreme power is, so are 
 they, in their proper jurisdictions, irresistible by law upon any 
 pretence whatsoever; not allowing any man even libeity of self- 
 preservation. For whoever thought it lawful for one accused, or 
 condemned capitally, knowing himself to be innocent, and grossly 
 abused in the judgment, to kill the judge or jury, or hang up the 
 hangman, to save his own neck ? A man kills the bailiff that 
 attacks him with force to take hi<n ; it is an offence capital, and 
 he cannot plead se defendendo; and the law requires no proof of 
 malice. These considerations reflect strongly upwards, upon the 
 supreme power itself : for if the derivatives, in their offices, may 
 not be resisted on any pretence, how comes the principal, or 
 supreme in the execution of the whole power, to be resistible by 
 force ? 
 
 But farther, in England (whatever may be elsewhere) the grand 
 distinction of the supreme power is into the legislative and the 
 executive, which latter comprised) all actual coercion and force 
 entirely in itself. As to. the former, as the law now stands (for 
 the opinions and modes of speaking, which took place in ancient 
 times are droptj it is most certain, that in real effect, the two 
 houses of parliament have a co-authority with the crown in 
 making laws ; or it may be more agreeable, in other words, to say, 
 a negative voice upon all legislative acts ; or a little more, that is 
 a sort of rogation, or power to move for, and give a spring to, 
 new laws by petition, or otherwise as the practice is. So as, in 
 the main, no new law, of any sort, canr be made or discharged 
 for taxing, or otherwise, without the formal and actual concur- 
 rence of both houses of parliament: and either dissenting or non- 
 consenting, no new law is or can be made. And this union of 
 powers, in the making of laws, is that which, in England, is 
 properly the supreme power absolutely and to all intents. The 
 next thing is to consider how ic is distributed, that is, between the-
 
 North on the English Government. 257 
 
 crown and the two houses ; for there is no power or authority 
 which is not derived from, or under them, or one of them. 
 
 And first, it is not found that the two houses, beyond this con- 
 current power in legislature, claim any proper agency whatsoever 
 in the government. As for judicature in the lords house, it de- 
 pends on the executive power of the crown, as other courts of 
 justice do. Even private persons have often the like propriety in 
 jurisdiction; and it is the King's justice, though administered by 
 the lords : for the writs of error, that are the foundation of the 
 legal jurisdictions, are returnable coram regz in parliamento. 
 And, as to them and the commons, the office of counselling, peti- 
 tioning, representing, &c. in virtue of the very words, excludes 
 acting : and it is what every private person may, and often hath a 
 right to do. But the houses, either severally or jointly, have this ca- 
 pacity in the highest degree, being the greatest council, and most 
 universal representative that can be called or assembled legally in 
 England. But yet, excepting the share in the legislature and ju- 
 dicature, no acts of the houses, or either of them, are coercive, 
 or will impeach any man at common law for disobedience ; and 
 as for matters of privilege, grown into course, the coercion is still 
 (formally) granted by the crown, and an officer of the crown, the 
 Serjeant of the mace, assigned to execute the house's orders in 
 matters of privilege. Else, the commons claim no judicature, 
 not so much as power to administer an oath ; and in matters of 
 accusation, are petitioners to inform, as the sense of the word 
 impetitio is, not unlike a grand inquest of the whole nation. All 
 which matters are mentioned, lest any of these particulars, if 
 omitted, might be mistaken for an authoritative share in the exe- 
 cutive government of England. 
 
 Then farther it appears, that all the supreme power of the 
 government of England, except only that which is lodged in the 
 two houses of parliament, is to be found in the crown. The 
 general inference from thence is plain and obvious : but to pursue 
 it by steps. There are two conditions of the English govern- 
 ment, the one in the sitting, and the other in the vacancy of par- 
 liament. The sitting, as to time, place, and continuance (saving 
 the effect of the septennial act), is known to be in the pun? 
 direction of the crown ; yet considering, that out of parliament, 
 there may want means to petition or advise, de arduis regni, it is 
 an act of conscientious trust and justice in the crown to the people 
 in general (the said law apart), to hold frequent Parliament*, and 
 
 VOL. I. S
 
 258 North on ike English Government. 
 
 much more so according to that law, which turns it to a specific 
 right, that the intent of it should be pursued. But in all points 
 whatsover, saving what has been alleged, the government of 
 England, in and out of parliament, is exactly the same; and none 
 can say, that the crown hath less power of government when the 
 parliament is sitting than in vacation, nor more power in vacation 
 than when sitting. 
 
 To obviate an objection, that, in vacancy of parliaments, 
 there is no supreme power in esse,. because no new laws can be 
 made, without which capacity, the supreme power is imperfect, 
 and, in the fullness of that authority, ceaseth ; let it be observed, 
 that a power of positive legislature is not incident to a supreme 
 power, but it is often perfect without any legislative power at all. 
 As in Turkey, according to the maxims of policy there, no 
 power upon earth can alter their laws, for their laws result from 
 the religion of the country; as here no power can alter the doc- 
 trines of the Gospel. And, with them, the question is never 
 what should be, but what is the law ; and yet there is a supreme 
 power in the person of the Emperor, as must be confessed. And 
 the strains and abuses of ministers there, to serve the turns of 
 power, and the pleasure of great men, against justice and their 
 laws, is no answer to the constitution, which, in thesi, is unalter- 
 able; and yet there is a supreme power. But to be more plain; 
 if there were no laws at all in a country, but the will and plea- 
 sure 'of a potentate, or some junto, were really and truly the 
 lavV ; that binds every subject in conscience to obedience. Yet 
 even that supreme power is subject to rules, or law ; for there 
 is not, nor can there be, any power upon the face of the earth, 
 above, or without law. For where, none are declared, and 
 there is no superior to exact accounts, yet the law of natural 
 justice and equity prevail. And so a despotic ruler is tied up as 
 much to the law, in duty and conscience, as any sub-governor 
 is, who, by his commission, is restricted to rules. But this duty 
 of all governments doth not impeach the notion of supreme, 
 whether it be declared, or rests in the mind by nature. Either 
 is without coercion, and equally obligatory. If coercion be sup- 
 ' posed, then the power that coerceth takes the place of supreme: 
 and it is zpelion upon ossa to set power over power ; for that which 
 hath the coercion of others, must be incoercible itself. And 
 supposing that, and no obligation but conscience and duty in the 
 power, where is the difference whether it be guided 
 4
 
 North on the English Government. 259 
 
 by positive and declared law, or by natural justice ? All that can 
 be said is, that laws assist the weak capacities of some men in 
 power, by telling them what ought, and what ought not to be 
 done, which their own natural skill might not perhaps have found 
 out. Though I may say there is scarce a sincere person in the 
 world, whom the golden rule, " do as you would be done by,'* 
 will not direct : so it is corrupt will, and not want of under- 
 standing, which often misleads men ; and takes place against po- 
 sitive law, as \vell as against natural justice. So that it returns 
 every way upon the conscience of powers ; for if we admit a 
 superior coercion, or in the common phrase, a liberty (with 
 power) to resist, even that may be exercised with as bad a con- 
 science as the other ; and then what is got by the bargain ? 
 
 But it is a most pernicious error to discharge the supreme power 
 of the obligation to justice for conscience sake, as they do, who 
 say acts of the supreme power, or (in theforensical style) legisla- 
 tive acts, or acts of parliament, are always just, and though 
 made in partial cases, are not injurious because absolute. For a 
 legislative or supreme power, wherever it resides, is as much 
 bound to common justice and equity, in every public act, as a 
 private man is obliged to common trust and honesty,. And he that 
 says such powers do no injury, though their act is (as in possibility 
 it may be) most unjust and wicked, because they cannot be con- 
 tradicted, must, at the same time, allow that a private man who 
 breaks a secret trust, or kills his father, there being no evidence 
 to check or convict him, is a very honest man, and hath done 
 no wrong. Wherefore, if the consciences of men were not 
 some security in the general among promiscuous societies, and in 
 the ordinary dealings of the world ; the cases of innocent men, 
 who are most apt to rely on it, were very hard. But I dare say, 
 that however open, differences make a noise, there is in the world, 
 as bad as it is, more justice among men, upon account of the 
 common obligation of equity and conscience, than from all the 
 process of law and coercion of the magistrate all the world over. 
 And these men, who argue so strongly against all trust, especially 
 that lodged in governors, which is and will be a pure trust as long 
 as the world stands, only shew how little of that principle is to 
 be found in themselves, which they think wholly wanting in 
 others. It is most certain that numbers cf men, whenever a 
 public trust is reposed in them, may (I wish I could not as truly 
 say sometimes do) break all the commandments of God, as well 
 
 s 2
 
 2SO North on the English Government. 
 
 of the first as second table, as any private persons against whom 
 they are chose to be a guard. And to conclude: the having 
 power is so far from an excuse for doing bad things, that it ag- 
 gravates them ; as when dogs, that are to keep, worry the sheep. 
 A common thief has more to say for himself, than an oppressor 
 or murderer by power, who cannot be coerced. All these mat- 
 ters laid together make it plain, that whether there be a legisla- 
 tive power in esse or not, there is always a supreme power which 
 commands all the forces of the state, and is by law, as well in 
 the absence as in the presence of the legislative, irresistible with 
 force; and that will fall out to be the case of the crown of Eng- 
 land. 
 
 These premises will most clearly appear, if we consider that 
 the legislature, whereof the two houses partake, is of such a 
 nature, that resistance with force doth not take place against it. 
 For laws themselves are but the voice or words of power, and 
 have authority to create a duty, but no active force to compel 
 obedience, or to which resistance can be applied ; for who can 
 offer to resist a mere sound ? When the executive power comes 
 forward with a strong hand, then there is somewhat to resist, but 
 not else. Therefore resistance or obedience, active or passive, 
 relate wholly to the executive power, without which the legisla- 
 tive is weak and ineffectual. Now all the rest of the supreme 
 power of the government of England (except only legislature, or 
 the non-resistible part, wherein only the two houses are sharers) 
 being owned to reside in the crown, it follows that the same ne- 
 cessity, which makes any power irresistible, makes the crown of 
 England irresistible with force, upon any pretence whatsoever ; 
 which consequence is so plain, that it need not be inforced with 
 varying the expressions, or with repetitions. And then upon the 
 same account, it follows that, as concerning the passive obedience 
 or non-resistance of the subject with active force (legislature 
 always excepted, as not concerned in the question) the monarchy 
 of England is the supreme power, and ought not to be opposed 
 with force against its force in any case, nor upon any pretence ; 
 such opposition being a crime the laws style treason or rebellion; 
 for which the same laws allow no manner of justification. 
 
 As to those nice arguers for resistance, who perpetually harp 
 upon the abuse of power, and the sad erTects of it, which they 
 would prevent or cure by resistance, they are easily answered. 
 The matter of right aad wrong is indeed founded in nature, and
 
 North on the English Government. 261 
 
 in that quality, a law itself, however regularly enacted, may be 
 (as before hinted) abominable and wicked : tint is, the very legis- 
 lative power, were it the majority of the people (which is not 
 possible), or in select hands, as it ordinarily is, may tyrannize, 
 and offend against all the rules of natural justice, common sense, 
 and equity ; for which that power is to answer, as having trans- 
 gressed and broke their trust : but it is to God only ; for else the 
 correctors of them become at that instant the legislative power, 
 and then we are where we were before. Now there is a distinc- 
 tion to be made here, which is between misfortune and injury. 
 For if a subject is a sufferer under a general, however wicked 
 law, he is unfortunate, but not injured; because he can claim 
 no more than the common benefit of the laws of his country. 
 And having, in due form, stood the judgment of the law, he 
 can ask no more ; his appeal must be above ; there is no power on 
 earth to relieve him. This was the case of Socrates, and we 
 have his example, as well as reasonings, in the report of his case, 
 to confirm what is here maintained. In short, it is absolutely 
 impossible so to order affairs, but that whoever hath power to do 
 right, hath of consequence power to do wrong. And if resistance 
 be introduced upon a supposal (which may be made no less arbi- 
 trarily and insincerely than any act of power can be, and com- 
 monly is so) of the undue and insincere use of regular powers, it is 
 declaring plainly, that there can be no government nor distributive 
 justice at all in the world. 
 
 And to complete the argument, the positive law or statute (which 
 was mentioned before, but not specified as to one article) is abso- 
 lutely decisive of the question, in the very terms. It is the 
 article in the statute of 25 Edward III. which makes it high 
 treason to levy war. This is an expression so general, that it 
 forbids resistance upon any pretence ; for the government is 
 armed, and if opposed at all, must be opposed by arms, that is, 
 in array of war, or (as they say) more guerrino> And whatever 
 the cause is, though not directed, perhaps, against the King, but 
 to pull clown bad houses, destroy engine looms, and the like po- 
 pular, and (as they think) meritorious purposes, it is solemnly 
 adjudged to be treason, as levying war within this article. So 
 that resistance with force, which must be by levying war, is pro- 
 hibited on pain of death by a positive law ; which puts the matter- 
 past all dispute.
 
 2(32 North on the English Government. 
 
 As to the objection, that passive obedience or non-resistance is 
 a slavish and degenerate principle, it is a mistake ; so far from it, 
 it is a principle of liberty and security. For can any man be free 
 and safe from the outrages of oppressive, potent neighbours, who 
 doth not live under a power sufficient to keep the peace, and 
 protect him ? The sovereign power is high and remote, and com- 
 monly the interest of it, is to be a friend t the community. If 
 the abuses, when there are any, fall hard upon the great men 
 who are near it, they are compensated in the share that devolves 
 among them ; with which they would be more ready to oppress 
 their inferiors, if somebody were not above them to give protec- 
 tion and redress. And if the lusts and disorders, sometimes inci- 
 dent to power, bring evil upon the people, it is scarce ever so 
 great, but they are amply compensated by the ordinary peace and 
 protection they enjoy. There is much more danger of oppression 
 to a common man from bad neighbours, private enemies, and 
 wrong doers, as also from the cabals at the next door, than from 
 the potency of the government, though it should happen to be none 
 of the best. And it is found that the worst governments are those 
 that have most heads and hands ; for the abuses of such are more 
 diffused, and turn to a more general oppression. 
 
 In regard to the questions put by some men As, can it be 
 imagined a nation ever submitted to be tyrannized over by one 
 man ? Or is it fit that one man should have it in his power to 
 make all the rest miserable ? However impertinent these questions 
 are to the cause, in a just way of reasoning, yet they may be 
 answered by other questions. As, can it be believed, that a peo- 
 ple were ever willing-, or consented, that thieves, malefactors, 
 and cheats, every where in plenty, should have liberty to ravage 
 and destroy at their pleasure ? And will not a people choose ra f her 
 to be subject to one man's pleasure, upon a fair understanding, 
 who is potent, and can protect them, than be left at large to fight 
 it out continually, in clans and combinations, to gain a little de- 
 fence and safety ? They must answer, if any thing, right : but 
 then, say they 4 you may change, and have a better government. 
 True, you may change, but seldom comes a better. If they say- 
 it is better the government be weak and precarious, because, for 
 fear of themselves, they will do no injury ; no, nor yet, (through 
 the same fear) hinder others from doing injury, which is worst 
 of all ; and who lives that has not had experience of this ? But
 
 North on the English Government. 263 
 
 not to refine farther, let it be only observed, that the force of the 
 argument of the resisters lies in magnifying the evils of bad go- 
 vernment, and they will have those evils taken in the utmost ex- 
 tremity, though but naturally possible, and in no sort probable, if 
 ever known to have happened in the world. But they say nothing 
 of the evils that attend the want of power in a government, 
 which make a sharper catalogue by much than the other ; and 
 they are such as never fail to happen, and, what is worse, affect 
 the whole people wherever they do happen : as all must know by 
 experience, when the nerves of government have been relaxed. 
 No political state is perfect, and the least evil is the best. Public 
 good, so much in these men's mouths, is a cloak which hypocrites 
 always wear ; and if you turn it up a little, the nasty self-interest, 
 injustice, and oppression, will appear, that lie lurking under it. 
 Those who have been more than once burnt, whick is the case of 
 the English nation, will (it is to be hoped) watch well such fuel. 
 The hardest case of the justest government is, that they are forced 
 to deceive to make people happy ; that is, to be quiet, or to take 
 what is good for them. Give me the private man that dares be 
 honest, and the government that dares do justice. Men who live 
 in peace and safety, which are the ordinary fruits of government, 
 are like men in health ; then they are not contented, but long for 
 preferment, honour, luxury, and pleasures : but when they fall 
 under diseases, and are in pain, then they would quit all for pure 
 health and ease. 
 
 It is not foreign to these speculations, to put in a word in - 
 behalf of the English monarchy and government, which hath 
 many advantages to the people, but none more glorious than this ; 
 " that all acts of the crown, against law, are mere nullities ;'* 
 and all who act under them, are obn6xious to the law, and so far 
 from being protected, that they may be questioned and punished 
 by that very power, against whom its own command is no defence 
 or justification. And for this cause, all authentic commands are 
 put in writing, or sealed, or no person, served with such com- 
 mand, can be prosecuted for contempt in not obeying. For the 
 party may know by that, whether it be a legal command, which 
 requires active obedience or not ; and then by whose fault it is 
 sent forth, whereby the proper officer may be brought to answer 
 for it. This constitution never was heard of in any State but the 
 English, nor is it extant in force under any other government 
 upon earth: so little danger is there of excesses from the English
 
 264 North on the English Government. 
 
 monarchy. But if I were debarred this patriarchal privilege, and 
 had my lot in times of disorder, and were put upon a choice of 
 the two, I would certainly, upon the competition, rather yield to 
 one absolute potentate, tale yuale, who had power sufficient to 
 govern and protect, than to live in perpetual fear and proper 
 guard against injury and oppression from the most cruel of all sorts, 
 that is (not superiors so much as) equals, or rather inferiors. It 
 is an observation which the general experience of ages may vouch, 
 viz. that the calamities which have fallen upon the people of 
 England from the state of the government, have been incompa- 
 rably more by reason of too little, than of too much power exer- 
 cised by the Kings ; and that by how much nearer the State hath 
 \varped towards what some call a common-wealth, by so much 
 hath tyranny got ground, and the true liberty of the'people sunk 
 down ; whereof great part never emerged to them, no, not after 
 the former government hath been happily restored. 
 
 But to conclude with doing right to the cause, I must needs 
 say, that it is not a just balance of interest which always regu- 
 lates the good or evil consequences of power, but the mere shew, 
 name, ppinion, and prejudice, or rather humour of the people, 
 go a great way in it. For it may be observed, that it is not 
 enough to do men good, but they must think and accept of it as 
 such, and also trust their government ; or else, whatever the truth 
 is, they will not flourish in numbers and increase of trade and 
 wealth. Therefore it is a most wicked practice of the faction, 
 to labour, as they do, to create misunderstandings and distrust in, 
 the people of their government, which must needs tend to the 
 destruction of their welfare and increase. Now, to consider the 
 case rightly, and make a judgment from the extremes, it is almost 
 impossible that prosperity, by increase of people and wealth, 
 should happen under the great Asiatic monarchies (although now, 
 as the world transcends in wickedness, there can be' no other 
 , than absolute government there); for the people cannot have 
 reason to think themselves safe and secure in the advances they 
 make, and, being careless of that, are ambitious of nothing but 
 power to tyrannize over others, as they themselves are tyrannized 
 over by their superiors ; they think of no prosperity but through 
 oppression ; and so, by common consent, all are slaves. And 
 this wolfish humour is such, that the governments think their 
 security lies in the destruction and depopulation of provinces. 
 4.nd, tp say truth, all defection from common honesty and truth a
 
 North on the English Government. 265 
 
 * 
 
 which should tie people reasonably together, not only tends to, 
 but makes absolute government necessary. Hence, from the very 
 name of monarchy, men derive a prejudice, as if no security for 
 life or estate were had under it ; when it may be made appear, 
 that in monarchic countries, which have laws of government, as 
 well as of property, such as we call mixt, there is more real se- 
 curity than is to be found elsewhere, although there may be much 
 more pretension to it. To instance in the pretended republics of 
 Venice and Holland ; the former is a pestilent aristocracy of the 
 worst sort, that is, of a multitude, under which the community 
 of the people have no law or justice on their side, but as they 
 gain the protection of one great man against another. And the 
 other is Holland, which hath no pppular elections (essential to a 
 Republic), but burgomasters fill vacancies by a majority of them 
 selves ; and so a faction is always prevalent, both in the towns of 
 which the combination consists, and in the stadthouse, whereby 
 the lands of the countries all about are made direct slavish, and 
 sometimes taxed so as not to be worth owning ; and all to save 
 the citizen's purses ; and all preferments and succession run in a 
 match-making channel and family relation ; and yet the name of 
 Republic holds these in credit, and the people are pleased, in- 
 crease, and thrive. But whatever becomes of the humour and 
 fancies of people, it is certain, that for the true utility of govern, 
 merit, when sedition is not permitted to grow too much upon it, 
 the government of England is the safest and best government in 
 the world. 

 
 DISCOURSE 
 
 BY GEORGE HORNE, D.D. 
 
 LATE BISHOP OF NORWICH.
 
 [ 268 
 
 DISCOURSE 
 
 ex THE 
 
 ORIGIN OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 
 
 ROM. xiii. 4. 
 He is a minister of God to theefor good. 
 
 J.T is impossible for any one to consider, with attention, the har- 
 mony in which all the parts of the natural world conspire to act for 
 the benefit of the whole, without feeling an ardent desire to learn, 
 by whom and in what manner they were first framed and compact- 
 ed together ; how the agents were suited to the patients, and the 
 causes proportioned to the effects ; so that the former have ever 
 since operated invariably in the production of the latter ; and the 
 result hath been an uniform obedience to the laws originally im- 
 posed upon inanimate matter. 
 
 A diligent survey of the blessings, for which the moral world is 
 indebted to civil polity, and the due execution of its edicts, must 
 needs excite a curiosity equally earnest, and equally laudable, to 
 enquire into the origin of so useful and necessary an institution ; 
 to kno\v,.at what time, and under whose direction, a machine was 
 constructed, capable, by a variety of well-adjusted springs and 
 movements, of controuling the irregularities of depraved nature, 
 and of ensuring to us, amidst the restless and contradictory pas- 
 sions and affections of sinful men, a quiet possession of our lives 
 and properties. 
 
 2
 
 Home en the Origin of Civil Government. 26? 
 
 A " state of nature" hath heen supposed by writers of emi- 
 nence upon this subject, " when men lived in a wild and disor- 
 derly manner ; and though they had a principle of restraint from 
 religion, and a kind of general law, that exacted punishment of 
 evil doers, yet, as the administration of this law was in common 
 hands, and they had no one arbiter, or judge, with authority over 
 the rest, to put this law, with any regularity, in execution, so, 
 from the excess of self-love, many mutual violences and wrongs 
 would ensue, which would put men upon forming themselves 
 into civil societies, under some common arbiter, for remedy 
 of this disorder." And it hath been, accordingly, concluded, 
 that "the civil magistrate was called in as an ally to religion, to 
 turn the balance, which had too much inclined to the side of that 
 inordinate self-love." 
 
 In the " wild and disorderly state" here supposed, when man,, 
 kind were mere savages, it is not easy to conceive hopr they had 
 obtained " a principle of restraint from religion," or " a kind of 
 general law, that exacted punishment of evil doers." And it is 
 no less difficult to imagine what benefit would accrue to them from 
 either; since, as the religion had no priest to teach and enforce it, 
 the law had no magistrate, to promulgate and to execute it. " The 
 administration of this law was in common hands ;" that is, in the 
 hands of every man who had his own law, canon as well as statute, 
 suited to his present occasion, convenience, or caprice. And what 
 was this, but to be truly and properly destitute both of law and 
 religion ? 
 
 As this independent state of nature was a state of perfect liberty j 
 and as they, who had the happiness to live under so pure and pri- 
 mitive a dispensation, were, doubtless, too sensible of their hap- 
 piness, to exchange it readily for government, always liable ta 
 degenerate into tyranny and oppression, it is obvious to think, 
 that when the project for " calling in the civil magistrate as an 
 ally to religion" was first proposed, it would not fail to meet with 
 a " very vigorous opposition." " An inordinate self-love," we 
 find, was in possession : and no possessor is with more difficulty 
 ejected. Of the privilege enjoyed by every man, to do witb> 
 out controul what was " right in his own eyes," eveiy man 
 would be exceedingly tenacious ; and no one who thought himself, 
 by his superior strength of body, or intellect, better entitled to an 
 ox, or an ass, than his neighbour, could be presently made to see 
 the propriety of his suffering, for the good of the community.
 
 70 Home on the Origin of Civil Government. 
 
 " The free consent of every individual, we are told, is neces- 
 sary to be obtained for the institution of civil government." Bat 
 upon what plan shall the universal assembly be convened ? Or 
 who, in a state of nature, hath authority to convene it ? How shall 
 the proceedings of this tumultuary congress of independents be re- 
 gulated, or the votes of it's members be collected ? And when 
 will all agree to invest some with a power of inflicting pains and 
 penalties, which others cannot but be sensible they shall soon 
 incur ? 
 
 It is by no means reasonable to imagine, that each person would 
 consent from thenceforth to be determined by a majority of the 
 whole body, which might chance, upon questions of the utmost 
 importance, to exceed the minority, only by a single vote. And 
 that one half of the society should thus domineer over the other 
 half, it would be deemed an infringement on liberty, to which 
 men, born free and equal, rnight, with great appearance of reason, 
 scruple to subject themselves. 
 
 It is indeed sometimes asserted, that " no man can submit him- 
 self to the absolute will of another :" in which case, he certainly 
 cannot submit himself to any government whatsoever ; since the 
 legislature, ia every government, is absolute, having a power to 
 repeal or dispense with it's own laws, upon occasions, of which it- 
 ielf is judge. 
 
 The reason assigned for the above assertion, " tha" no man can 
 submit himself to the absolute will of another," is this, that " no 
 man can give that, of which himself is not possessed, namely, the 
 power over his own life." But how then came any government 
 to be invested with a power of life and death? And what would a 
 government avail, which was not invested with that power ? If 
 laws, inflicting capital punishments, are frequently broken, in what 
 a state would the world be, if there were no such laws? Here, 
 then, is a dignus vindice nodus; and therefore, DEUS intersit ! 
 For, withoot the interposition of some power superior to human, a 
 system of civil polity, calculated to answer, in any degree, the end 
 of its institution, can neither be framed, nor supported. 
 
 And the truth is, when we reflect a little farther upon the sub- 
 ject, we cannot but perceive our apprehensions greatly shocked at 
 the supposition, that the wise and good Creator, who formed 
 mankind for society in this world, and designed to train them, by 
 a performance of it's duties, for a more noble and exalted fellow- 
 ship with angels in the world to come, should place them, at the
 
 Home on the Origin of Civil Government. 271 
 
 beginning, in the above-mentioned wild and disorderly state of in- 
 dependence, to roam in fields and forests, like the brutes that pe- 
 rish, and to search for law and government, where they were not 
 to be found ; that he should give them no rulers, by whom, or how 
 they should be guided and directed, but leave them to choose for 
 themselves, that is, to dispute and fight, and in the end, to be go- 
 verned by the strongest. One cannot think of multitudes in such a 
 state of equality, with fierce and savage tempers and dispositions, 
 prepared to contend for .superiority, but it brings to mind that 
 army, which, according to a pagan fiction, from the teeth of 
 serpents sown in the earth, sprang up together, ready armed for bat- 
 tle, and destroyed each other. 
 
 But are these things so? Did God indeed, at the beginning? 
 bring into being, at the same time, a number of human creatures, 
 independent of each other, and turn them uninstructed into the 
 woods, to settle a civil polity by compact, among themselves ? 
 We know he did not. He who " worketh all things according 
 to the counsel of his own will," or that law which his wisdom 
 prescribes to his power ; he who appointed a regular subordination 
 among the celestial hierarchies; he who " made a law for the rain 
 and gave his decree to the sea, that the waters should not pass his 
 commandment ; he who is the God of peace and order, provided 
 for the establishment and continuation of these blessings among 
 mankind, by ordaining, first in the case of Adam, and then 
 again in that of Noah, that the human race should spring from one 
 common parent. 
 
 Unless, therefore, some other origination of mankind be disco- 
 vered, all equality and independence are at an end. The state of 
 nature was a state of subordination ; since, from the beginning, 
 some were born subject to others ; and the power of the father, 
 by whatever name it be called, must have been supreme at the first, 
 when there was none superior to it. " To fathers within their 
 private families," saith the judicious Hooker, '* nature hath given 
 a supreme power ; for which cause we see throughout the world, 
 even from the foundation thereof, all men have ever been taken as 
 lords and lawful kings, in their own houses." And had children 
 the power to choose for themselves, what could they wish for, be- 
 yond the care and protection of a parent ! 
 
 The creation of one pair, the institution of marriage, and the 
 relations flowing from it, do so evidently shew subordination, at 
 the beginning," to have been natural, and not founded on compact
 
 272 Home on the Origin of Civil Government. 
 
 between peers, that two of the ablest advocates for a different hy- 
 pothesis have, in fact, reduced the supposed compact at last to 
 a probable or tacit consent of the children to be governed by their 
 father. So that we may fairly look upon this point to be given up. 
 Let us, therefore, go on to trace, as well as we can, the progress 
 of society in the early ages of the world; to point out the manner 
 in which a number of families became united under one civil polity, 
 and governments arose, differing from each other, no less in form, 
 than in extent. 
 
 As mankind multiplied, they necessarily found themselves obliged 
 to separate and disperse; which they did accordingly, under their 
 natural rulers the chiefs of families and tribes, who, by reason 
 of their longevity, saw themselves, in a course of years, at the 
 head of a numerous train of descendants and dependents. By these 
 means the earth became gradually rilled with little governments ; 
 and as there was land sufficient for them all, in this state they con- 
 tinued, till, through the workings of corrupted nature, disputes 
 were engendered, which terminating in war, victory at last 
 declared for one of the parties, and the other was obliged to submit. 
 Thus the la rger governments arose by conquest, first swallowed up 
 the lesser into themselves, and then contended with, and overthrew 
 each other. 
 
 In the tenth chapter of Genesis, we have an account of the fa- 
 milies, tribes, or lesser governments, with which the earth was 
 overspread by the progeny of the sons of Noah. And in the same 
 chapter we read, that, very soon after, by means of Nimrod, a 
 mighty one, a warrior, a conqueror, the kingdom, or larger govern- 
 ment of Babel began to rear it's head, which, in process of time, 
 under different names, became universal ; till grown too great to 
 support it's own weight, it was subvened by the Persian, as the 
 Persian was by the Grecian, and the Grecian by the Roman, out of 
 which last were formed the empires, kingdoms, and states, at this 
 day subsisting. 
 
 Thus it was, that the lesser governments were, from the be- 
 ginning, founded on the patria potestas, and " multiplied as long 
 as there was room enough, or they could agree together ; till upon 
 dissentions arising, the stronger, or more fortunate, swallowed up 
 the weaker: and those great ones, again breaking in pieces, dis- 
 solved into lesser dominions*." Power dropped from the hands of 
 ene, but was always seized by another, before it could descend to 
 
 * Mr. Locke.
 
 Home on the Origin of Chit Government. 273 
 
 the people, who indeed often changed their governors, but were 
 never left to rove at large, without any government at all. Com- 
 pact had no place, unless either when the lesser states united, as 
 the Greeks did under Agamemnon, against a common enemy, 
 which was only for a time; or else, when several states United, to. 
 go and seek fresh settlements, they chose a head, with reserve of 
 privileges to the leaders under him. As to those illegitimate 
 forms of government called aristocratic, and democratic, they are 
 comparatively of late standing, and were indeed founded on com* 
 pact, though generally among peers in rebellion, who having 
 broken off from their allegiance to their natural riders, and thrown 
 the public into convulsions, and being determined to admit no com* 
 mon superior, were obliged, by the necessity of their circum- 
 stances, to settle themselves, by compact) into a jrovernment, in 
 which a certain mock equality of all was pretended) but a con- 
 junct tyranny of a few was exercised. Orators, haranguing upon 
 liberty, to get themselves a name among the populace, have ex- 
 tolled these forms, as the most accomplished and genuine of all. 
 But if we consider, as an acute writer directs us to do, that *' the 
 utmost energy of the nervous style of Ihucydides, and the great 
 copiousness and expression of the Greek language seem lo sink un- 
 der the historian, when he attempts to describe the disorders which 
 arose from faction, throughout all the Grecian commonwealths, ' 
 that " Appian's history of the Roman civil wars contains the most 
 frightful picture of massacres, proscriptions, and forfeitures, that 
 ever was presented to the world*/' if, at the same time, we re- 
 collect the confusion and desolation once occasioned in our own 
 country, by the project of erecting a government upon the plan of 
 those famous democracies, we shall find no temptation to exchange 
 a regular and well constituted monarchy for a REPUBLIC, espe- 
 cially as we must be first thrown into that imaginary political 
 chaos, falsely called a state of nature, before the fair creation 
 can emerge. Like the Israelites of old, we must break off all that 
 is precious and valuable, and cast it into the fire, that from thence 
 may come out this boasted idol, at the feet of which kings and 
 kingdoms are to fall down, and worship. 
 
 But if the foregoing be a true representation of facts, it may 
 be asked, how came men into that savage state, in which 
 
 * }Ir. Hume. 
 VQL. I. T
 
 274 Home on the Origin of Civil Government. 
 
 nations have been, and are at present, and which, if it be not a 
 state of nature, yet doth much resemble that which is described as 
 such, and perhaps gave birth to the ideas that have been entertained 
 concerning it, and the political systems erected upon the supposition 
 of it. 
 
 In order satisfactorily to answer this question, it must be re- 
 membered, that after the confusion at Babel, and the apostasy of 
 >the nations from the worship of the true God to idolatry, the 
 world was gradually peopled by colonies sent forth from places 
 overstocked. These colonies would consist of a mixture of 
 people, often the meanest and lowest, sometimes driven out by 
 conquering enemies, destitute of necessaries, to seek for settle- 
 ments in distant quarters of the globe. If they fixed in a colder 
 latitude, which rendered the want of clothes and a variety of well 
 prepared food more sensibly felt, and likewise in a place conveni- 
 ently situated for traffic, they would employ all the understanding 
 of which they were masters, to contrive things first for use, and 
 afterwards for elegance and ornament. But as this was a work of 
 ages ; as some imperfect notices of their ruder times would be 
 handed down to their more polite ones ; and as they had no writing 
 to record events, there must needs be a wide chasm in their 
 history, between the desertion of their old settlements, and the 
 completion of their new ones. So that when, in their civilized 
 and polished state, they came at their leisure, to look back, and 
 guess at their own rise and progress, they would be lost in the 
 darkness of those times, which preceded their present improve- 
 ments. They would then imagine a srate of nature, in which all 
 were savages, and all were equal ; they would fancy themselves 
 to have been Atm>x,0ovr, judge of other nations by their own, 
 make the system universal, and suppose all government to have 
 been founded on compact among peers, in that " wild and dis- 
 orderly state." As their laws, though of late date, were the first 
 written accounts of their civilization, they would conclude that, 
 till then, there had been no law, or civil polity in the world ; 
 though, in every country, there is a jus scriptum, and a jus non 
 scriptum> of which the latter is always the oldest, being coeval 
 with the constitution, or even prior to it, having sometimes been 
 brought from the place whence the colony came, and perhaps deli- 
 vered down from the beginning. 
 
 In circumstances like these, we are not to be surprised, if we 
 find the historians, philosophers, and poets, among the Greeks
 
 Home on the Origin of Civil Government. QT5 
 
 and Romans believing civil government to have arisen at first by an 
 agreement among independent savages, as some of them imagined, 
 that the world itself was formed by a fortuitous concourse of inde- 
 pendent atoms, floating up and down in an infinite void. In con- 
 structing these visionary systems, political and physical, they dis- 
 played their ingenuity, and we can only lament their want of in- 
 formation with regard to what had happened in former ages, of 
 which they had no means of obtaining more than was derived to 
 them by an imperfect disjointed tradition, disguised in the dress of 
 fable, and destitute of any authority to recommend and gain it cre- 
 dit. They erected the best fabric they could with the materials in 
 their hands, and it would be unreasonable to expect brick from arti- 
 ficers, to whom straw was not given. But in us who have the 
 Scripture history before us, it would be something worse than un- 
 reasonable, to over-look the information with which that supplies 
 us, and have recourse to romantic schemes, which owed their being 
 to the want of it. 
 
 On the ether hand, let us suppose a colony, upon it's migration, 
 to have settled itself in a warmer climate, where men would 
 find little or no occasion for clothes, houses, or the preparation 
 of food by fire ; and where they were cut off from all communi- 
 cation with the rest of the world. In this situation, they would 
 not concern themselves about the conveniencies, much less the 
 elegancies of life. Naked, or nearly so, living upon the fruits 
 of the earth, and such other provisions as the chase, or the net 
 would procure, and strangers, for want of commerce, to arts 
 and learning, they must continue in the deepest intellectual poverty, 
 retaining only some of those superstitious customs, and diabolical 
 rites, derived from their idolatrous ancestors, and imported with 
 them. And thus degenerating, as they must of necessity do, every 
 day more and more, they would come at last into that deplorable 
 state of ignorance and barbarism, in which some nations are in- 
 deed found at this day. But is this a state of nature? Was this 
 the state ia which the Lord of all things placed the noblest of su- 
 blunary beings, the heir of glory and immortality, when his own 
 hands had formed and fashioned him, and he had breathed into 
 him the breath of life.? No, surely, it is a state the most unnatu- 
 ral in which rational creatures, made in the image of theik 1 
 Creator, can be conceived to exist ! A state into which, through 
 
 T 2
 
 276 Home on the Origin of Civil Government. 
 
 apostacy .from revealed truth, and consequent loss of all know- 
 ledge, by the just judgment of God upon them, some nations 
 were permitted to fall, and are suffered to continue, in tcrrorcm to 
 others. And does a master of reason, an enlightened philosopher, 
 in an enlightened age, send us to learn the first principles of go- 
 vernment from Floridans, Brasilhms, and Cherokees, because it 
 is said, that they have no kings, but choo'se leaders, as they want 
 them in time of war? Though such is the force of primeval insti- 
 tution, such the necessity of government, and such the voice of 
 nature concerning it, that even in America, upon its discovery, 
 some nations, as the Mexicans and Peruvians,, were found irr the 
 state of the larger governments which arose by conquest, while 
 others, in the form of the lesser, were subject to the chiefs of 
 their respective clans and tribes. Savages themselves cannot live 
 a state of absolute equality and independence. In civilized com- 
 munities, a ship cannot be navigated, a regiment cannot march, a 
 family cannot be holden together, without a subordination esta- 
 blished and preserved. And was all government once dissolved, 
 and the world really reduced to that state, out of which civil polity 
 is supposed to have originally sprung, it would be a scene of uproar 
 and confusion, and a field of blood, till the day of the consumma- 
 tion of all things. 
 
 A long and uninterrupted enjoyment of blessings is apt to ex- 
 tinguish in us that gratitude towards the author of them which it 
 ought to cherish and invigorate ; and justice is the less regarded, 
 when she maketh these her awful processions through the land, 
 preserving peace and tranquillity in our borders, because she 
 maketh them periodically and constantly. Par different would be 
 our sensations at such times, had sad experience ever taught us 
 what it was to see government unhinged, to want the protection 
 of regal power, and the due execution of laws, by those to whom 
 that power is delegated, " for the punishment of evil doers, and 
 the praise of them that do well." The course of nature often 
 glides on unobserved, when there are no variations in it ; and the 
 sun himself shineth unnoticed, because he shineth every day. 
 " Since the time that God did first proclaim the edicts of his 
 law," says the excellent Hooker, " heaven and earth have heark- 
 ened unto his voice, and their labour hath been to do his will. 
 But if nature should intermit her course, and leave altogether, 
 though it were but for a while, the observation of her own laws;
 
 Home mi the Origin of Civil Government. 277 
 
 if those principal and mother elements, whereof all the things in 
 this lower world are made, should lose the qualities which now 
 they have; if the frame of that heavenly arch, erected over our 
 heads, should loosen and dissolve itself; if celestial spheres should 
 forget their wonted motions, and, by irregular volubility, turn 
 themselves any way, as it might happen ; if the prince of the lights 
 of heaven, which now, as a giant, doth run his unwearied course, 
 should, as it were, 'through a languishing faintness begin to stand, 
 and to rest himself; if the moon should wander from her beaten 
 \vay, the tunes and seasons of the year blend themselves by disor- 
 dered and confused mixture, ihe winds breathe out their last gasp, 
 the clouds yield no rain, the earth be defeated of heavenly influence, 
 and her fruits pine away, as children at the withered breasts of their 
 mother, no longer able to yield them relief; what would become 
 of man himself, whom these things do all now serve ;" and how 
 would he look back upon those benefits, for which, when they were 
 daily poured upon him in boundless profusion, he forgo* to be 
 thankful 1 
 
 While, therefore, we partake, in so eminent a degree, the bene- 
 fits of civil polity, let us not be unmindful of our great Benefactor. 
 Let these solemn occasions serve to remind us, that there is an inti- 
 mate connection between religion and government ; that the latter 
 flowed originally from the same divine source with the fonmer, 
 and was, at the beginning, the ordinance of the most High ; that 
 the state of nature was a state of subordination, not one of equality 
 and independence, in which mankind never did, nor ever can exist; 
 that the civil magistrate is " the minister of God to us for good ;" 
 and that to the gracious author of every other valuable gift we are 
 indebted for all the comforts and conveniencies of society, during 
 our passage through this turbulent scene, to those mansions where, 
 as violence is no more committed, punishment is no more deserved; 
 where eternal JUSTICE hath fixed her throne, and is for ever em- 
 ployed in distributing rewards to her subjects, who have been tried 
 aad found faithful.
 
 THE 
 
 BISHOP OF BANGOR'S 
 
 LATE 
 
 SERMON, 
 
 AND BIS 
 
 LETTER TO DR. SNAPE, 
 
 IN DEFENCE OF IT, 
 ANSWERED. 
 
 DANGEROUS NATURE OF SOME DOCTRINES IN 
 HIS PRESERVATIVE SET FORTH, 
 
 LETTER TO HIS LORDSHIP, 
 BY WILLIAM LAW, M.A.
 
 MR. LAW'S FIRST LETTEB, 
 
 TO THE 
 
 BISHOP OF BANGOR. 
 
 My LORD, 
 
 JL HAT your lordship may be prepared to receive, what I here 
 presume to lay before you, with the greater candour, I sincerely 
 profess, that it does not proceed from any prejudice; but from cer-, 
 tain reasons, upon which I find myself invincibly obliged to differ 
 from your lordship in opinion. 
 
 To prevent all suspicion of my designing any thing injurious to 
 your lordship's character in this address, I have prefixed what other- 
 wise I should have chosen to conceal, my name to it. , 
 
 Your lordship is represented as at the head of a cause, where 
 every adversary is sure to be reproached, either as a furious Jaco- 
 bite, or Popish bigot, as an enemy to the liberty pf his country and, 
 the Protestant cause. These hard names are to be expected, my 
 lord, from a set of men, 1 who dishonour your lordship with their 
 panegyrics upon your performances ; whose praises defile the cha-> 
 racter they would adorn. 
 
 When Dr, Snape represents your lordship as no friend to the 
 good orders, and necessary institutions of the church ; ycu com-f 
 plain of the ill arts of an adversary, who sets you out in false 
 colours, perverts your words/ on purpose to encrease his own 
 imaginary triumphs. But, my lord, in this, Dr, Snape only 
 thinks with those who would be counted your best friends ; and 
 would no longer be your friends, but that they conclude, you 
 have deplared against the authority of the church. Does your 
 lordship suppose that the T ds, the H ks, the B >ts, would be 
 $t so much expence of time and labour, to justify, commend,
 
 Mr. Law's first Letter to Bishop Hoadky. 281 
 
 and enlarge upon your lordship's notions, if they did not think 
 you engaged in their cause ? There is not a libertine, or loose 
 thinker in England, but he imagines you intend to dissolve the 
 church as a society, and are ready to offer incense to your lord- 
 ship for s "> meritorious a design. It is not my intention to re- 
 proach your lordship with their esteem, or to involve you in the 
 guilt of their schemes; but to shew, that an adversary does not 
 iu-: j d any malice to make him believe you no friend to the consti- 
 tution of the church, as a regular society, since your greatest ad- 
 mirers every day publish it by necessary construction to the world 
 in print. 
 
 After a word or two concerning a passage in your lordship's 
 Preservative, I shall proceed to conside-r your answer to Dr. 
 Snape. In the 98th page you have these words: *' But when 
 you are secure of your integrity before God, this will lead you 
 (as it ought all of us) not to be afraid of the terrors of men, or 
 the vain wards of regular and uninterrupted successions, authori- 
 tative benediction, excommunications, nullity or validity of 
 God's ordinances to the people, upon account of niceties and trifles, 
 or any other the like dreams." 
 
 My lord, thus much must be implied here : be not afraid of the 
 terrors of men, who would persuade you of the danger of being 
 in this, or that communion, and fright you into particular ways of 
 worshipping God, who would make you believe such sacraments, 
 and such clergy, are necessary to recommend you to his favour. 
 But these, your lordship affirms, we may contemn, if we are but 
 secure of our integrity. 
 
 So that if a man be not a hypocrite, it matters not what re- 
 ligion he is of. This is a proposition of an unfriendly aspect to 
 Christianity : but that it is entirely your lordfliip's, is plain from 
 what you declare, p. 90. " That every one may find it in his 
 own conduct to be true, that his title to God's favour cannot 
 depend upon his actual being, or continuing in any particular 
 method ; but upon his real sincerity in the conduct of his con- 
 science." Again, p f 91. " The favour of God follows sincerity, 
 considered as such, and consequently equally follows every equal 
 degree of sincerity." So that, I hope, I have not wrested your 
 lordship's meaning, by saying, that according to these notions, 
 'if a man be not an hypocrite, it matters not what religion lie is 
 of. Not only sincere Quakers, Ranters, Muggletonians, and 
 fifth Monarchy Men, are as much in the favour of God as any
 
 282 Mr. Law's first Letter to Bishop Hoadky. 
 
 of the Apostles ; but likewise sincere Jews, Turks and Deists, are 
 upon as good a bottom, and as secure of the favour of God, as 
 the sincercst Christian. 
 
 For your lordship saith, it is sincerity, as such, that procures 
 the favour of God. If it be sincerity, as such, then it is sincerity 
 independent and exclusive of any particular way of worship: and 
 if the favour of God equally follows every equal degree of sin- 
 cerity, then it is impossible there should be any difference, either 
 as to merit or happiness, between a sincere martyr, and a sincere 
 persecutor; and he that burns the Christian, if he be but in ear. 
 nest, has the same title to a reward for it, as he that is burnt for 
 believing in Christ. 
 
 Your lordship saith, you cannot help it, if people will charge 
 you with * evil intentions and bad views. I intend no such 
 charge : but I wonder your lordship should think it hard that any 
 one should infer from these places, that you are against the interest 
 of the church of England. 
 
 For, my Lord, cannot the Quakers, Muggletonians, Deists, 
 Presbyterians, assert you as much in their interest as we can ? 
 Have you said any thing for us, or done any thing for us in this 
 Preservative, but what you have equally done for them? Your 
 lord&hip is ours, as you fill a bishopric ; but we are at a loss to 
 discover from this discourse, what other interest we have in your 
 lordship : for you openly expose our communion, and give up all 
 the advantages of it, by telling all sorts of people, if they are but 
 sincere in their own way, they are as much in God's favour as any 
 body else. Is this supporting our interest, my lord ? 
 
 Suppose a friend of King George should declare it to all Bri- 
 tons whatever, that though they were divided into five thousand 
 different parties, to set up different pretenders ; yet if they were 
 but sincere in their designs, they would be as much in the favour 
 of God as those who were most firmly attached to his Majesty ; 
 Does your lordship think such a one would be thought any 
 great friend to the government ? And, my lord, is not this the 
 declaration you made as to the church of England ? Have you 
 not told all parties that their sincerity is enough ? Have you said 
 so much as one word in recommendation of our communion? 
 Or, if it was not for your church-character in the title-pages of 
 this discourse, could any one alive conceive what communion 
 
 * Answer, p. 46.
 
 Mr. Law's first Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 283 
 
 you was of? Nay, a leader that was a stranger, would imagine, 
 that he who will allow no difference between communions, i& 
 himself of no communion. Your lordship, for ought I know, 
 may act according to the strictest sincerity, and may think it 
 your duty to undermine the foundations of the church. I am 
 only surprized, that you should refuse to own the reason- 
 ableness of such a charge. Your lordship hath cancelled all 
 out obligations to any particular communion, upon pretence of 
 sincerity. 
 
 I hope, my lord, there is mercy in store for all sorts of people, 
 however erroneous in their way of worshipping God ; but can- 
 not believe that to be a sincere Christian, is to be no more in 
 favour of God, than to be a sincere Deist, or sincere destroyer 
 of Christians. It will be allowed, that sincerity is a necessary 
 principle of true religion ; and that without it, all the most speci- 
 ous appearances of virtue are nothing worth ; but still, neither 
 common sense, nor plain Scripture, will surfer me to think, that 
 when our Saviour was on ea r th they were as much in the favour 
 of God, who sincerely refused to be his disciples, and sin. 
 cerely called for his crucifixion, as those who sincerely left all 
 and followed him. If they were, my lord, where is that hies. 
 sedness of believing so often mentioned in the Scripture? Or, 
 where is the happiness of the Gospel revelation, if they are as 
 well who refuse it sincerely, as those who embrace it with in- 
 tegrity ? 
 
 Our Saviour declared, that those who believed, should be saved ; 
 but those who believed not should be damned. Will your lord- 
 ship say, that all unbelievers were insincere ; or that though they 
 were damned, they were yet in the same favour with God as those 
 who were saved ? 
 
 The Apostle assures us, that " there is no other name under 
 < heaven given unto men, whereby they can be saved," but 
 Jesus Christ. But your lordship hath found out an atonement, 
 more universal than that of his blood ; and which will even 
 make those blessed and happy, who count it an unholy thing. 
 For seeing it is sincerity, as such, that alone recommends us to 
 the favour of God, they who sincerely persecute this name are 
 in as good a way, as those that sincerely worship it. Has God 
 declared this to be the only way to salvation ? How can your 
 lordship tell the world that sincerity will save them, be they in 
 what way they will ? Is this all the necessity of Christ's satisfac-
 
 Mr. Law^s first Letter to Bishop 
 tion? Is this all the advantage of the Gospel covenant, that those 
 who sincerely contemn it, are in as good a state without it, -as those 
 that embrace it? 
 
 My lord, here is no aggravation of your meaning. If sin- 
 cerity, as such, be the only thing that recom menus us to God, 
 and every equal degree of it procures an equal degree of favour ; 
 it is a demonstration, that sincerity against Christ is as pleasing to 
 G0d, as sincerity for him. My lord, this is a doctrine which 
 no words can enough decry. So I shall leave it to consider what 
 opinion St. Paul had of this kind of sincerity. He did not 
 think, when he persecuted the church, though he did it ignonmtly, 
 and in unbelief, and out of zeal towards God, that lie was as 
 much in the favour of God as when he suffered for Christ. " I 
 " am the least," sajth he, " of the Apostles, not fit to be called 
 " an Apostle, because I persecuted the church of Christ." The' 
 Apostle does not scruple to charge himself with guilt, notwith- 
 standing his sincerity. 
 
 A little knowledge of human nature will teach us, that our sin- 
 cerity may be often charged with guilt ; not as if we were guilty 
 because we are sincere; but because it may be our fault that 
 we are hearty and sincere in such or such ill-grounded opinions. 
 It may have been from some ill conduct of our own, some irre- 
 gularities, or abuse of our faculties, that we conceive things as we 
 do, and are fixed in such or such tenets. And can we think so 
 much owing to a sincerity in opinions, contracted by ill habits 
 and guilty behaviour? There are several faulty ways, by which 
 people may cloud and prejudice their understandings, and throw 
 themselves into a very odd way of thinking; for some cause or 
 other, " God may send them a strong delusion that they should 
 " believe a lie." And will your lordship say, that those who 
 are thus sunk into errors, it may be, through their own ill con- 
 duct, or as a judgment of God upon them, are as much in his 
 favour as those that love and adhere to the truth ? This, my 
 lord, is a shocking opinion, and has given numbers of Chiistians 
 great offence, as contradicting common sense and plain Scrip- 
 ture ; as setting all religion upon the level as to the favour of 
 God. 
 
 The next thing that, according to your lordship, " we ought 
 liot to be concerned at, is vain words of regular and uninterrupted 
 successions, as niceties, trifles, and dreams." Thus much surely is 
 implied in these words : that no kind of ordination or mission of
 
 Mr. Law'sfj-st Letter to T>ishop Hoadky. 85-' 
 
 the clergy is of any consequence or moment to us. For 
 if the ordination nerd not be regular, or derived from those 
 who had authority from Christ to ordain, it is plain that HO 
 particular kind of ordination can be of any more value than 
 another, tor no ordination whatever, can have any worse 
 defects, than as being irregular, and not derived by a succession 
 from Christ. So that if these circumstances are to be looked ou 
 as trifles and dreams ; all the difference that can be supposed be- 
 twixt any ordinations, comes under the same notion of trifles and 
 dreams; and consequently are either good alike, or trifling alike. 
 So that Quakers, Independents, Presbyterians, according to your 
 lordship, have as much reason to think their teachers as use- 
 ful to them, and as true ministers of Christ, as those of the epis- 
 copal communion have to think their teachers. For if regula- 
 rity of ordination, and uninterrupted succession be mcr? trifles ^nd 
 nothing, then all the difference betwixt us and other teachers must 
 be nothing : for they can differ from us in no other respects. So 
 that, my lord, if episcopal ordination, derived from Christ, hatii 
 been contended for by the church of England, your Lordship hath , 
 in this point deserted her : and you not only give up episcopal or- 
 dination, by ridiculing a succession ; but likewise by the same ar- 
 gument exclude any ministers on earth from having Christ's autho- 
 rity. For if ti.ere be not a succession of persons authorised from 
 Christ to send others to act in his name, then both episcopal and 
 Presbyterian teachers are equally usurpers, and as mere lay-men as 
 any at all. For there cannot be any other difference between the 
 clergy and laity, but; as the one hath authority derived from Christ, 
 to pei form offices, which the other hath not. But this authority 
 can be no otherwise had, than by an uninterrupted succession of 
 men from Christ, empowered to qualify others. For if the suc- 
 cession He once broke, people must either go into the ministry of 
 their own accord, or be sent by such as have no more power to 
 send others than to go themselves. And, my lord, can these be 
 called ministers of Christ, or received as his ambassadors? Can 
 they be thought to act in his name, who have no authority from 
 him ? if so, your loulship'-s servant might ordain and baptize to as 
 much purpose as your lordship : for it could only be objected to such 
 actions, that they had no authority from 'Christ. And if there be 
 no succession of ordainers x frorn him, every one is equally qualified 
 to o.rchin. My lord, I should think it might be granted me, that 
 |B administering of a sacramgnt is an, action we have no right to
 
 286 //r. Law's first Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 perform, considered either as men, gentlemen, or scholars, or 
 members of a civil society : who then can have any authority to 
 interpose, but he that has it from Christ ? and how that can be had 
 from him, without a succession of men from him, is not easily con- 
 ceived. Should a private person choose a Lord Chancellor and de- 
 clare his authority good : would there be any thing but absurdity, 
 impudence, and presumption in it ? But why he cannot as well 
 commission a person to act, sign, and seal in the King's name, as 
 in the name of Christ is unaccountable. 
 
 My lord, it is a plain and obvious truth, that no man, or number 
 of men, considered as such, can any more make a priest, or com- 
 mission a person to officiate in Christ's name, as such, than he can 
 enlarge the means of grace, or add a new sacrament for the con- 
 veyance of spiritual advantages. The ministers of Christ are as 
 much positive ordinances, as the sacraments ; and we might as 
 well think, that sacraments not instituted by him, might be means 
 of grace, as those pass for his ministers, who have no authority 
 from him. 
 
 Once more, all things are either in common in the church of 
 Christ, or they are not : if they are, then every one may preach, 
 baptize, ordain, &c. If all things are not thus common, but the 
 administi ing of the sacrament, and ordination, &c. are offices ap- 
 propriated to particular persons ; then I desire to know, how in 
 this present age, or any other since the Apostles, Christians can 
 know their respective duties, or what they may or may not do, 
 with respect to the several acts of church-communion, if there be 
 no uninterrupted succession of authorized persons from Christ ; 
 for till authority from Christ appears, to make a difference between 
 them, we are all alike, and any one may officiate as well as an- 
 other. To make a jest therefore of the uninterrupted succession, 
 is to make a jest of ordination, to destroy the sacred character, 
 and make all pretenders ta it, as good as those that are sent by 
 Christ. 
 
 If there be no uninterrupted succession, then there are no au- 
 thorized ministers from Christ; if no such ministers, then no 
 Christian sacraments ; if no Christian sacraments, then no 
 Christian covenant, whereof the sacraments are the stated and 
 visible seals. 
 
 My lord, this is all your own : here are no consequences palmed 
 upon you ; but the first, plain, and obvious sense of your lord- 
 ship's words, And yet, after all, your lordship asks Dr. Snape, 
 5
 
 Mr. Law's first Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 281 
 
 Why all these outcries against you * ? Indeed, my Icrd, you have 
 only taken the main supports of our religion av/ay ; you have nei- 
 ther left us priests, nor sacraments, nor church : or, what is the 
 same thing, you have made them all trifles and dreams. And what 
 has your lordship given us in the room of all these advantages ? 
 Why, only sincerity ; this is the great universal atonement for all. 
 This is that, which, according to your lordship, will help us to 
 the communion of saints hereafter, though we are in communion 
 with any body, or no hody, here. 
 
 The next thing we are not to be afraid of, are, " the vain words 
 of nullity, and validity of God's ordinances," i.e. whether they 
 are administered by a clergyman or a layman. This indeed, I 
 have shewn, was included in what you said about the trifle of un- 
 interrupted succession ; but, for fear we should have overlooked it 
 there, you have given it us in express words in the next fine. 
 
 Your lordship tells Dr. Snape, that you know no confusion, 
 glorious or inglorious, that you have endeavoured to introduce into 
 the church f. 
 
 My lord, if I may presume to repeat your own words, lay 
 your hand on your heart, and ask yourself, whether the encou- 
 raging all manner of divisions, be not endeavouring to introduce 
 confusion ? If there were in England five thousand different 
 sects, has not your lordship persuaded them to be content with, 
 themselves ; not to value what they are told by other communions ; 
 that if they are but sincere, they need not have regard to any thing 
 else ? Is not this to introduce confusion ? What is confusion, but 
 difference and division ? And does not your lordship plainly de- 
 clare to the world, that there is no need of uniting ? That there 
 is no particular way or method that can recommend us more to 
 the favour of God than another ? Has your lordship so much as 
 given the least hint, that it is better to be in the communion of the 
 church of England than not ? Have you not exposed her sacra- 
 ments and clergy ; and as much as lay in you broke down every 
 thing in her, that distinguishes her froYn fanatical conventicles ? 
 What is there in her as a church that you have left untouched ? 
 What have you left in her that can any way invite others into her 
 communion ? Are her clergy authorized more than others ? For 
 fear that should be thought, you make a regular succession from 
 Christ a trifle. Are her sacraments more regularly administered ? 
 
 * Answer, p. 40. + Ibid. p. 47.
 
 283 Mr. Law's first Letter to Bisliop Hoadlci/. 
 
 Lest that should recommend her, you slight the nullity or validity 
 of God's ordinances. Is there any authority in her laws, which 
 enjoin communion with her ? Lest this should be believed, you 
 tell us, that our being or continuing in any particular method 
 (or particular communion) cannot recommend us more to the 
 favour of God than another. 
 
 I must observe to your lordship, that these opinions are very 
 oddly put in 'a " Preservative from ill Principles; or an Appeat 
 to the Consciences and Common Sense of the Laity." Are they 
 to be persuaded not to join with the Nonjurors, because no par- 
 ticular priests, no particular sacraments, or particular communion 
 is any thing but a dream and trifle : and such things as no way 
 recommend us to the favour of God more than others ? Are thv: 
 Nonjurors only thus to be r.nswered ? Is the established church, 
 thus to be defended ? Your lordship indeed has not minced the 
 matter : but I hope the church of England is to be supported upon 
 better principles, or not at all. 
 
 If I should tell a person that put a case of conscience to me, 
 that all cases of conscience are trifles, and signify nothing ; it 
 would be plain that I had given him a direct answer : but if he 
 had either conscience or common sense, he would seek out a better 
 confessor. 
 
 Your lordship tells Dr. Snape, that he saith and unsaith* to the 
 " great diversion of the Roman Catholicks *." But if your lord- 
 ship would unsay some things you have said, it would be a greater 
 mortification to them than all that ever you said or writ in your 
 life. To deny the necessity of any particular communion, to ex- 
 -pose the validity of sacraments, and rally upon the Uninterrupted 
 succession of priests, and pull down every pillar in the church of 
 Christ, is an errand on which Rome hath sent many messengers* 
 And the Papists are no more provoked with your lordship for 
 these discourses, than they were angry at William Penn, the 
 Jesuit, for preaching up Quakerism. So long as they rejoice in 
 our divisions, or are glad to see the city of God made a mere 
 Babel, they can no more be angry at your lordship than at your 
 advocates. 
 
 Dr. Snape says, you represent the church of Christ as a king- 
 dom, in which Christ neither acts himself, nor hath invested any 
 one else \vith authority to act for him. At this your lordship 
 
 * Answer, p. 26.
 
 Mr. Law's first Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 289 
 
 cries, p. 22. " Lay your hand upon your heart, and ask, Is this 
 a Chtistian, human, honest representation of what your own eyes 
 read in my sermon ?" 
 
 My lord, I have dealt as sincerely with, my heart as it is pos- 
 sible ; and I must confess, I take the doctor's representation to 
 be Christian and honest. For though you sometimes contend 
 against absolute and indispensable authority ; yet is plain, that 
 you strike at all authority ; and assert, as the doctor saith, that 
 Christ hath not invested any one on earth with an authority to act 
 for him. 
 
 Page II. You expressly say, " That as to the affairs of 
 conscience and eternal salvation, Christ hadi left no visible human 
 authority behind him." 
 
 Now, my lord, is not this saying, that he has left no authority 
 at all ? For Christ came with no other authority himself: but as 
 to conscience and salvation, he erected a kingdom, which related 
 to nothing but conscience and salvation ; and therefore they who 
 have no authority as to conscience and salvation, have no authority 
 at all in his kingdom. Conscience and salvation are the only 
 affairs of that kingdom. 
 
 Your Lordship denies, that any one has authority in these affairs ; 
 and yet you take it ill to be charged with asserting, that Christ 
 hath not invested any one with authority for him. How can 
 any one act for him, but in his kingdom ? How can they act in 
 his kingdom, if they have nothing to do with conscience and sal- 
 vation, when his kingdom is concerned with nothing else ? 
 
 Again, p. 16, your lordship saith, that no one of them (Chris- 
 tians) " any more than 'another, hath authority either to make 
 new laws for Christ's subjects, or to impose a sense upon the old 
 ones ; or to judge, censure, or punish the servants of another 
 master, in matters purely relating to conscience." 
 
 I can meet with no divine, my lord, either Juror or Nonjuror, 
 high or low, Church-man, or Dissenter, that does not think your 
 lordship has plainly asserted in these passages, what the doctor has 
 laid to your charge, " that no one is invested with authority from, 
 Christ to act for him." 
 
 Your lordship thinks, this is sufficiently answered, by saying 
 you contend against an absolute authority. You do indeed some- 
 times join absolute with that authority you disclaim^ But, my 
 lord, it is still true, that you have taken all authority from th 
 VOL. i, U
 
 290 Mr. Law's first Letter to Bishop Hoadleij. 
 
 church : for the reasons you every where give against this authority, 
 conclude as strongly against any degrees of authority, as that 
 which is truly absolute. 
 
 1st, You disown the authority of any Christians over other 
 Christians ; because 'hey are the " servants of another master." 
 (p. 16.) Now this concludes as strongly against any authority, 
 as that which is absolute : for no one can have the least authority 
 over those that are entirely under another's jurisdiction. A small 
 authority over another's servant is as inconsistent a's the greatest. 
 
 2dly, You reject this authority, because of the objects it is 
 exercised upon, 2. e. matters purely relating to conscience and 
 salvation. Here this authority is rejected, because it relates to 
 conscience and salvation ; which does as well exclude every degree 
 of authority, as that which is absolute. For if authority and 
 conscience cannot suit together, conscience rejects authority, as 
 such ; and not because there is this or that degree of it. So that 
 this argument banishes all authority. 
 
 3dly, Your lordship denies any church-authority ; because 
 Christ doth not " interpose to convey infallibility, to assert the 
 true interpretation of his own laws *." Now this reason con- 
 cludes as full against all authority as that which is absolute : for if 
 infallibility is necessary to found an obedience upon in Christ's 
 kingdom, it is plain, that no body in Christ's kingdom hath any 
 right to any obedience from others, nor consequently any au- 
 thority to command it, no members or number of members of it 
 being infallible. 
 
 4th ly , Another reason your lordship gives against Church au- 
 thority, is this ; " That it is the taking Christ's kingdom out of 
 his hands, and placing it in their own." (p. 14.) Now this 
 reason proves as much against authority in general, or any degrees 
 of it, as that which is absolute. P'or if the authority of others 
 is inconsistent with Christ's being King of his own kingdom, then 
 every degree of authority, so far as it extends, is an invasion of 
 so much of Christ's authority, and usurping upon his right. 
 
 The reason likewise which your lordship gives to prove the 
 Apostles noi usurpers of Christ's authority, plainly condemns 
 every degree of authority which any church can now pretend to. 
 " They were no usurpers ; because he then interposed to convey 
 infallibility; and was in a!i that they ordained: so that the au- 
 thority was his in the strictest sense f." So that where he does 
 
 * Sermon, p. 15. i Answer, p. 38.
 
 Mr. Law's first Letter to Rishop Hoadley. 291 
 
 not interpose to convey infallibility, there every degree of au- 
 
 th'inry is a degree of usurpation ; and consequently, the present 
 
 no infallibility, has no right to exercise the least 
 
 degree of autiio.i.v, \vithout robbing Christ of his prerogative. 
 
 ily appears, that every reason you have offered 
 again c >Tch authoriry concludes \vith as much strength against 
 all authoriry as that which is absolute. And therefore Dr. Snape 
 has done you no injury in charging you with the- denial of all 
 authority. 
 
 There happens, my lord, to be only this difference between 
 your Sermon and the Defence of it, that that is so many pages 
 against church authority, as such ; and this is "a confutation of 
 the Pope's infallibility. It is very strange that so clear a writer, 
 v/ho has been so long enquiring into the nature of government, 
 should not be able to make himself understood upon it : that 
 your lordship should be only preaching against the Pope, and yet 
 all the Lower H6use of Convocation should unanimously con- 
 ceive, that your doctrine therein delivered, tended to subvert all 
 government and discipline in th? church of Christ. 
 
 And my lord, it will appear from what follows, that your lord- 
 ship is even of the same opinion yourself; and that you imagined 
 you had banished all authority, as such, out of the church, by 
 those arguments you had offered against an absolute authority. 
 This is plain from the following passage, where you ridJcule that 
 which Dr. Snape took to be an authority, though not absolute. 
 When Dr. Snape said, that no church authority was to be obeyed 
 in any thing contrary to the revealed will of God ; your lordship 
 triumphs thus : " Glorious absolute authority indeed, in your 
 own account, to which Christ's subjects owe no obedience, till 
 they have examined into his own declarations ; and then they obey 
 not this authority, but him V 
 
 Here you make nothing of that authority which is not absolute ; 
 and yet you think it hard to be told that you have taken away all 
 church authority. That which is absolute, you expressly deny : 
 and here you say, that which is not absolute, is nothing at all. 
 Where then is the authority you have left? Or how is it that 
 Christ has impowered any one to act in his name ? 
 
 Your lordship fights safe under the protection of the word ab- 
 solute ; but your aim is at all church power : and your lordship 
 
 Answer, p 
 U 2
 
 292 Mr. Law's first Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 makes too hasty an inference, that because it is not absolute, it is 
 none at all. If you ask where you have made this inference, it 
 is on occasion of the above-mentioned triumph ; where your 
 lordship makes it an insignificant authority, which is only to be 
 obeyed so long as it is not contrary to Scripture. 
 
 Your lordship seems to think all is lost as to church power; 
 because the doctor does not claim an absolute one; but allows it 
 to be subject to Scripture ; as if all authority was absolute, or else 
 nothing at all. I shall therefore consider the nature of this church 
 power, and shew that though it is not absolute, yet it is a real 
 authority, and is not such a mere nothing as your lordship makes 
 it. 
 
 An absolute authority, according to your lordship, is, what is to 
 be always obeyed by every individual that is subject to it, in all 
 circumstances. This is an authority that we utterly deny to the 
 church. But, I presume, there may be an authority inferior to 
 this, which is nevertheless a real authority, and is to be esteemed 
 as such ; and that for these reasons : 
 
 First, I hope it will be allowed me, that our Saviour came 
 into the world with authority. But it was not lawful for the 
 Jews to receive him, if they thought his appearance not agree- 
 able to those^marks and characters they had of him in their Scrip- 
 tures. May I not here say, rny lord, Glorious authority of 
 Christ indeed^ to which the Jews owed no obedience, till they 
 had examined their Scriptures ; and then they obey, not him, but 
 them!" 
 
 Again, the Apostles were sent into the world with authority . 
 but vet, those who thought their doctrines unworthy of God, and 
 unsuitable to the principles of natural religion, were obliged not 
 to obey them. *' Glorious authority indeed, of the Apostles, to 
 whom mankind owed no obedience, till they had first examined 
 their own notions of God and religion ; and then they obeyed, 
 not the Apostles, but them !" 
 
 I hope, my lord, it may be allowed, that the sacraments are 
 real means of grace : but it is certain, they are only conditionally 
 so, if those that partake of them, are endowed with suitable dis- 
 positions of piety and virtue. " Glorious means of grace of the 
 sacraments which is only obtained by such pious dispositions : 
 and then it is owing to the dispositions, and not the sacraments." 
 Now, my lord, if there can be such a thing as instituted real 
 means of giace, which are only conditionally applied, I cannot 
 4
 
 Mr. Law's frst Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 293 
 
 see xvhy there may not be an instituted real authority in the church, 
 which is only to be conditionally obeyed. 
 
 Your lordship has written a great many elaborate pages to 
 prove the English government limited; and that no obedience is 
 due to it, but whilst it preserves our fundamentals; and, I suppose* 
 the people are to judge for themselves, whether these are 
 safe or not. Glorious authority of the English government, which 
 is to be obeyed no longer than the people .think it their interest to 
 obey it ! 
 
 Will your lordship say,there is no authority in the English govern- 
 ment, because only a conditional obedience is due to it, whilst we 
 think it supports our fundamentals ? Why then must the church 
 authority be reckoned nothing at all, because only a rational condi- 
 tional obedience is to be paid, whilst we think it not contrary to 
 Scripture ? Is a limited, conditional government in the state, such 
 a wise, excellent, and glorious constitution ? And is the same au- 
 thority in church such absurdity, nonsense, and nothing at all, as to 
 any actual power ? 
 
 If there be such a thing as obedience upon rational motives, 
 there must be such a thing as authority that is not absolute, or 
 that does not require a blind, implicit obedience. Indeed, ra- 
 tional creatures can obey no other authority ; they must have 
 reasons for what they do. And yet because the church claims only 
 this rational obedience, your lordship explodes such authority as 
 none at all. 
 
 Yet it must be granted, that no other obedience was due to 
 the Prophets, or our Saviour and his Apostles ; they were only to 
 be obeyed by those who thought their doctrines worthy of God. 
 So that if the church has no authority, because we must first con- 
 sult the Scriptures before we obey it ; neither our Saviour, nor his 
 Apostles had any authority, because the Jews were first to consult 
 their Scriptures, and the Heathen their reason, before they obeyed 
 them. And yet this is all that is said against church authority; 
 that because they are to judge of the lawfulness of its injunctions, 
 therefore they owe it no obedience : which false conclusion, I hope, 
 is enough exposed. 
 
 If we think it unlawful to do any thing that the church requires 
 of us, we must not obey its authority. So, if we think it un- 
 lawful to submit to any temporal government, we are not to com- 
 ply. But I hope it will not follow that the government has no 
 authority, because some think it unlawful to comply with it. If
 
 294 Mr. Law's first Letter to Bishcp H.adley. 
 
 we are so unhappy as to judge wrong in any matter r.>f cuty, we 
 must nevertheless act according to our judgments ; and the guilt of 
 disobedience cither in church or state, is more or less, according as 
 our error is more or less voluntary, and occasioned by our own'mis- 
 managemenr. 
 
 I believe I /have shewn, first, that all your lordship's arguments 
 rgiinst church authority conclude with the same force against all 
 degrees of authority. Secondly, that though church authority be 
 not absolute in a certain sense \ yet, if our Saviour and his 
 Apostles had any authority, the church may have a real authority: 
 for neither He nor his Apostles had such an absolute authority as 
 excludes all consideration and examination: which is your notion 
 of absolute authority. 
 
 Before I leave this head, I must observe, that in this very answer 
 to Dr. Snape, where you would be thought to have exposed this 
 absolute authority alone, you exclude all authority along with it. 
 You ask the Doctor*, " Is this the whole you can make of it, after 
 all your boasted zeal for mere authority r" Youthen say, " Why 
 may not I be allowed to say, no man on earth has an absolute au-- 
 thority, as well as you ?" My lord, there can be no understanding 
 of this, unless mere authority and absolute authority be taken for the 
 same thing by your-lordship. 
 
 But, my lord, is not the smallest particle of matter, mere matter? 
 And is it therefore the same as the whole mass of matter ? Is 
 an inch of space, because it is mere space, the same as infinite space ? 
 How comes it then, that mere authority is the same as absolute au- 
 thority? My lord, mere authority implies only authority, as a 
 mere man implies only a man : but your lordship makes no difference 
 between this, and absolute authority ; and therefore hath left no au- 
 thority in the church, unless there can be authority, that is not 
 mere authority, i. e. matter, that is not mere matter; or space, that 
 is not mere space. 
 
 When the church enjoins matters of indifference, is she obeyed 
 for any reason, but for her mere authority r But your lordship al- 
 ' lows no obedience to mere authority ; and therefore no obedience, 
 even in indifferent matters. 
 
 Thus do these arguments of yours lay all waste in the church : 
 and I must not omit one, my lord, which falls as heavy upon the 
 state, and makes all civil government unlawful. Your words are 
 
 * Answer, p. a 6.
 
 Mr. Law's first Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 295 
 
 these, " As the church of Christ is the kingdom of Christ, He 
 himself is King; and in this it is implied, that He is the sole 
 Law-giver to his subjects, and Himself the sole Judge of their 
 behaviour in the affairs of conscience and salvation." If there 
 be any truth or force in this argument, it concludes with the same 
 truth and force against all authority in the kingdoms of this world. 
 In Scripture we are told, "The Most High ruleth in ti.e king- 
 " dom of men," (Dan. iv. 17.) " That the Lord is our Law- 
 ' giver, the Lord is our King," (Isa. xxxiii. 22.) Now, if because 
 Christ is King of the church, it must he in this implied, that 
 He is sole Law-giver to his subjects; it is plain to a demon- 
 stration, that because God is King and Law-giver to the whole 
 earth, that therefore He is sole Law- giver to his subjects ; and 
 consequently, that all civil authority, all human laws, are mere in- 
 vasions and usurpations upon God's authority, as King of the whole 
 earth. 
 
 Is nobody to have any jurisdiction in Christ's kingdom, because 
 He is King of it? How then comes any one to have any authority 
 in the kingdoms of this world, when God has declared himself "the 
 Law-giver and King of the whole world? Will your lordship 
 say, that Christ hath left us the Scriptures as the statute laws of 
 his kingdom, to pervert the necessity of after laws ? It may be 
 answered, that God has given us reason for our constant guide; 
 which, if it were as duly attended to, would as certainly answer the 
 ends of civil liberty, as the observance of the Scriptures would make 
 us good Christians. 
 
 But, my lord, as human nature, if left to itself, would neither 
 answer the ends of a spiritual or civil society ; so a constant visible 
 government in, both, is equally necessary : and I believe, it appears 
 to all unprejudiced eyes, that in this argument, at least, your lord- 
 ship has declared both equally unlawful. 
 
 Your lordship saith*, "The exclusion of the Papists from the 
 throne, was not upon the account of their religion." Three lines 
 after, you say, *' I have contended, indeed, elsewhere, that it 
 was their unhappy religion which alone made them uncapable in, 
 themselves, of governing this Protestant nation, by the laws of 
 the land." My lord, I cannot reconcile these two passages. Po- 
 pery alone, you say, was their incapacity* From which it may 
 be inferred, they had no other incapacity. Yet your lordship 
 
 * Answer, p. 25.
 
 296 Mr. Law's f.rst Letter to Bishop Hoadley* 
 
 saith, they were not excluded upon the account of their religion* 
 A little after, you say, " The ground of their exclusion was not 
 their religion, considered as such, hut the fatal, natural, certain 
 effect of it upon themselves to our destruction." 
 
 As for instance; your lordship may mean thus: if a man of a 
 great estate dit-s, he loses his right to his estate ; not upon the 
 account of death considered, as such, but for the certain, fatal, 
 natural effect of it upon himself. Or, suppose a person be ex- 
 cluded for being an idiot ; it is not for his idiotcv, considered as 
 such ; but for the certain, fatal, natural effect of it upon himself to 
 
 our destruction. 
 i 
 
 My lord, this is prodigious deep : I wish it be clear; or that 
 it be not too refined a notion for common use on this subject. 
 Likewise I do not conceive, my lord, what you can call the fatal, 
 natural, certain effects of any one's religion. I am sure, amongst 
 Protestants, there are no natural, certain effects of their religion 
 upon them ; that their practices don r t fatally follow their principles ; 
 neither is there any demonstrative certainty that a Bishop cannot 
 be against episcopacy. 
 
 If the Papists are so unalterably sincere in their religion, that we 
 can prove their certain observation of it, it is pity but they had our 
 principles, and we had their practice. I have not that good opinion 
 of the Papists, which your lordship hath : I believe, several of them 
 sit as loose to their religion as other folks. Does your lordship 
 think, that all Papists are alike ? That natural temper, ambition 
 and education, do not make as much difference amongst them, as 
 the same things do amongst us ? Are all Protestants loose and li- 
 bertine alike? Why should all Papists be the same zealots ? If 
 not, my lord, then these effects you call fatal, natural and certain, 
 may be not to be depended upon. 
 
 Your Lordship knows, that it was generally believed that King 
 Charles the Second was a Papist: but I never heard of any fatal, 
 natural, and certain effects of his religion upon him. All that 
 one hears of it is, that he lived like a Protestant, and died like a 
 Papist. I suppose, your lordship will allow, that several who were 
 lately Papists, are now true Protestants : I desire therefore to know 
 what is become of the fatal, certain, aud natural effects of their 
 religion } 
 
 My lord, [ beg of you to lay your hand again upon your heart, 
 and ask, whether this be strict reasoning? Whether it is possible
 
 Mr. Law's first Letter to Bishop Hoadky* 297 
 
 in the very nature of the thing, that such fatal, natural and cer- 
 tain effects should follow such a giddy, whimsical, uncerta 1 i thing, 
 as human and free choice ? My lord, is it neither possible for 
 Papists to change or conceal their religion for interest, or leave it 
 through a conscientious conviction? If the former is impossible, 
 then, according to your lordship, it is the safest religion in the 
 world; because they are all sure of being sincere, and consequently 
 the first favourites of God. If the latter is impossible, then a great 
 many fine sermons and discourses have been written to as wise 
 purposes as if they had been directed to the wind. 
 
 I come now to your lordship's definition of prayer, a " calm 
 " and undistui bed address to God." It seems very strange, that 
 so great a master of words as your lordship, should pick out two 
 so very exceptionable, that all your lordship's skill could not de- 
 fend them, but by leaving their first and obvious sense. Who 
 would not take " calm" and " undisturbed" to be very like 
 " quiet" and " unmoved ?" Yet your lordship dislikes those ex- 
 pressions. But if these do not give us a true idea of prayer, you 
 have made a very narrow escape, and have given us a definition 
 of prayer, as near to a wrong one as possible. 
 
 Prayer chiefly consisteth of confession and petition. Now to 
 be calm, and free from all worldly passions, is a necessary temper 
 to the right discharge of such duties: but why our confession must 
 be so calm, and free from all perturbation of spirit ; why our peti- 
 tions may not have all that fervour and warmth with which either 
 nature or grace can supp'y, is very surprizing. 
 
 My lord, we are advised to be dead to the world ; and I 
 humbly suppose, no more is implied in it, than to keep our affec- 
 tions from being too much engaged in it; and that a calm, un- 
 disturbed, i. e. dispassionate use of the world, is very consistent 
 with our being dead to it. If so, then this calm, undisturbed ad- 
 dress to Heaven, is a kind of prayer that is very consistent with our 
 being dead to Heaven. 
 
 We are forbid to love the world ; and yet no greater abstraction 
 from it is required, than to use it calm and undisturbed. We are 
 commanded to set our affections on things above ; and yet, accord- 
 ing to your lordship, the same calm, undisturbed temper is enough. 
 According to this, therefore, we are to be affected, or rather un- 
 affected alike, with this, and with the next world, since we are to 
 be calm and undisturbed with respect to both.
 
 t99 Mr. Law's frst Letter to Bishop Hoadky. 
 
 The reason youHordship offers for this definition of prayer, is 
 this ; because you " * look upon calmness and undisturbedness to 
 be the ornament and defence of human understanding in all its 
 actions." My lord, this plainly supposes there is no such thing 
 as the right use of our passions: for if we could ever use them to 
 any advantage, then it could not be die ornament of our nature, 
 to be dispassionate alike in all its actions. It is as much the or- 
 nament and defence of our nature to be differently. affected with 
 things according to their respective differences, as it is to under- 
 stand or conceive different things according to their real difference. 
 It would be no ornament or credit to us to conceive no difference 
 betwixt a mountain and a mole-hill : and our rational nature is as 
 much disgraced when we are no more affected with great things 
 than with small. It is the essential ornament of our na:ure, to 
 be as sensibly affected in a different manner with the different de- 
 grees of goodness of things, as it is to perceive exactly the dif- 
 ferent natures or relations of things. Passion is no more a crime, 
 as such, than the understanding is, as such : it is nothing but 
 mistaking the value of objects, that makes it criminal. An infi- 
 nite good cannot be too passionately desired, nor a real evil too 
 vehemently abhorred. Mere philosophy, my lord, would teach 
 us, that the dignity of human nature is best declared by a pungent 
 uneasiness for the misery of sin, and a passionate warm application 
 to heaven for assistance. Let us now consult the Scripture. St. 
 Paul describes a godly sorrow something different from your lord- 
 ship's calm and undisturbed temper, in these words : " When ye 
 * sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in 
 44 you ! Yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what zeal, 
 " yea, what revenge !" (<3 Cor. vii. 11.) My lord, I suppose these- 
 are not so many other words for " calm" and " undisturbed.'* 
 Yet as different as they are, the Apostle makes them the qualities 
 of a godly sorrow ; and all this at the expence of that calmness 
 which your lordship terms the ornament of human nature. Dr. 
 Snape pleads for the fervency and ardour of our devotions, from 
 our Saviour's praying more earnestly before his passion. 
 
 Your lordship replies, that this can give no direction as to our 
 daily prayers, because it was what our Saviour himself knew 
 nothing of, but this once. The author of the Epistle to the He- 
 brews knew nothing of this way qf reasoning; for as an argu- 
 
 * Answer, p. n.
 
 Mr. Latfs first Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 ment for daily patience, he bids us look unto Jesus, who endured 
 the cross, because he died for us, leaving us an example. 
 
 Our Saviour, my lord, suffered and died but once : yet is it 
 made a reason for our daily patience, and proposed as an example 
 for us to imitate. 
 
 If therefore, my lord, his passion, so extraordinary in itself, 
 and as much above the power of human nature to bear, as the 
 intensenesss of his devotions exceeded our capacities for prayer, be 
 yet proposed as an example to us in the ordinary calamities of 
 life, how comes it that his devotion at that time should have no 
 manner of use or direction in it as to our devotions, especially in 
 our distress ? How comes it, that his suffering should have so 
 much of example in it, so much to be imitated, but the manner 
 of his devotion then have nothing of instruction, nothing that 
 need be imitated by us ? All the reason that is offered, is the singu- 
 larity and extiaordinariness of it, when the same may be said of 
 his passion ; yet that is allowed to be an example. 
 
 Your lordship is pleaded, for the information of your x unwary 
 readers, to reason thus upon the place : " If this be the example 
 of our Saviour, to assure us of his will about the temper necessary 
 to prayer, it will follow, that our blessed Lord himself never 
 truly prayed before this time : and yet again, if he prayed more 
 earnestly, it will follow, that he had prayed before; and conse- 
 quently, that this temper in which he now was, was not neceessary 
 to prayer." 
 
 My lord, one would think this elaborate proof was against 
 something asserted. Here you have indeed a thorough conquest; 
 but it is over nobody. For did any one ever assert, that such extra- 
 ordinary earnestness was necessary to prayer ? Does Dr. Snape, or 
 any divines, allow of no prayers, except we sweat drops of 
 blood ? Will your lordship say, that the necessity of this temper 
 is implied in the quotation of this text, as a direction for 
 prayer ? I answer, just as much as we are all obliged to die upon 
 the cross, because his sufferings there are proposed to us as an 
 example. 
 
 The plain truth of the matter, my lord, I take to be this : our 
 Saviour's sufferings on the cross were such as no mortal can un- 
 dergo ; yet they are justly proposed as an example to us to bear 
 with patience such sufferings as are within the compass of human 
 nature. His earnest devotion before this passion, far exceeded any 
 fervours whicu the devoutest of mankind can attain to : yet is it 
 5
 
 300 Mr. La-ofs first Letter to Bishop Hoadley, 
 
 jus'ly proposed to us as an example, to exche us to be as fervent 
 as we can ; and may be justly alleged in our defence, when our 
 ' Trm and passionate addresses to God in our calamities, are con* 
 c ned as supeistitious folly. My lojd, must nothing be an ex- 
 ample, but \vhat we can exactly come up to ? How then can the 
 life of our Saviour, which was entirely free from sin, be an ex- 
 ample to us ? How could it be said in Scripture, " Be ye holy, for 
 *' I am iioly ?" Can any one be holy as God is ? 
 
 My k-.i, one might properly urge the practice of the primitive 
 Christians, who parted with all they had for the support of their 
 indigent brethren, as an argument for charity, without designing 
 to oblige people to part with all they have : and he that should in 
 answer to such an argument, tell the world, that charity is only a 
 calm undisturbed good-will to all mankind, would just as much 
 set forth the true doctrine of charity, as he that defines prayer to 
 be a calm and undisturbed address to heaven, for no other reason, 
 but because no certain degrees of fervour or affection are neces- 
 sanly required to constitute devotion. My lord, has charity no- 
 thing to do with the distribution of alms, because no certain al- 
 lowance is fixed? Why then must pi aver have nothing to do 
 \vith heat and fervency, because no fixed degrees of it are ne- 
 cessary ? 
 
 Therefore, my lord, as I would define charity to be a pious 
 distribution of so much of our goods to the poor as is suitable to 
 our circumstances, so I would define prayer an address to heaven, 
 enlivened with such degrees of fervour and intensenesss as our na- 
 tu:al temper, influenced with a true sense of God, could beget 
 jn us. 
 
 Your lordship says, you only desire to strike at the root of su- 
 perstitious folly, and establish prayer in its room ; and this is to 
 be effected by making our addresses calm and undisturbed ; by 
 \vhich we are to understand, a freedom from heat and passion, as 
 your lordship explains it, by an application to yourself. 
 
 If, therefore, any one should happen to be so disturbed at his 
 sins, as to offer a broken and contrite heart to God, instead of 
 one calm and undisturbed, or, like holy David, his soul should 
 be a-thirst for God, or pant af:er him, as the hart panteth after 
 the water-brooks, this would not be prayer, but superstitious 
 folly. 
 
 My lord, calmness of temper, as it signifies a power over our 
 -passions, is -a happy circumstance of a rational nature, but no
 
 Mr. Law's first Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 301 
 
 farther: when the object is well chosen, there is no danger in the 
 pursuit. 
 
 The calmness your lordship hath described, is fit for a philoso- 
 pher, in his study, who is solving mathematical problem*. But if 
 he should come abroad into the world, thus entirely empty of all 
 passion, he would live to as much purpose as if he had left his un- 
 derstanding behind him. 
 
 What a fine subject, my lord, would such a one make, who 
 when he heard of plots, invasions, and rebellions, would continue as 
 calm and undisturbed as when he was comparing lines and figures : 
 such a calm subject would scarce be taken for any great loyalist. 
 
 Your Lordship in other places, hath recommended an open and 
 undisguised zeal*, and told us such things as ought to alarm the 
 coldest heart f. Sure, my lord, this is something more than calm 
 and undisturbed ; and will your lordship, who hath expressed so 
 much concern for this ornament and defence of human understand- 
 ing, persuade us to part with the least degree of it upon any account ? 
 
 I am, my lord, (with all the respect that is due to your lordship's 
 Station and character) 
 
 Your most humble and obedient Servant, 
 
 WILLIAM LAW. 
 
 Serin. 5 Nov. p. 5. f Serm. p. 14.
 
 A 
 
 SECOND LETTER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 BISHOP OF BANGOJl, 
 
 WHEREIN HIS LORDHIP's NOTIONS OF 
 
 V 
 
 BENEDICTION, ABSOLUTION, AND CHURCH 
 COMMUNION, 
 
 ARE PROVED TO BE DESTRUCTIVE OF EVERY INSTITUTION 
 OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 
 
 To WHICH IS ADDED, 
 
 A POSTSCRIPT, 
 
 IN ANSWER TO THE OBJECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN 
 MADE AGAINST HIS FORMER LETTER. 
 
 BY WILLIAM LAW, M.A.
 
 [ 304 ] 
 
 MR. LAW'S SECOND LETTER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 "' -og-SS-i 
 
 MY LORD, 
 
 JUST concern for truth, and the first principles of the Chris- 
 tian religion, was the only motive that engaged me in the examina- 
 tion of your lordship's doctrines in a former letter to your lordship. 
 And the same motive, I hope, will be thought a sufficient apology 
 for my presuming to give your lordship the trouble of a second 
 letter. 
 
 Amongst the vain contemptible things whereof your lordship 
 would create an abhorrence in the laity, are, " the trifles and 
 niceties of authoritative benedictions, absolutions, excommunica- 
 tions*." Again, you say, that " to expect the grace of God from 
 
 any hands but his own, is to affront him f." And " that all 
 
 depends upon God and ourselves; that human benedictions, hu- 
 man absolutions, human excommunications, have nothing to do 
 with the favour of God J." 
 
 It is evident from these maxims, (for your lordship asserts them 
 as such) that whatever institutions are observed in any Christian 
 society, upon this supposition, that thereby grace is conferred 
 through human hands, or by the ministry of the clergy, such insti- 
 tutions ought to be condemned, and are condemned by your lord- 
 ship, as trifling, useiess, and affronting to God. 
 
 There is an institution, my lord, in the yet established church 
 of England, which we call Confirmation : it is founded upon the 
 
 * Preservative, p. 98. i P, 89. J P. 101,
 
 Mr. "Law's second Letter to Bishop fioadleif. 
 
 express words of Scripture, primitive observance, and the universal 
 practice of all succeeding ages in the church. The design of this 
 institution is, that it should be a means of conferring grace, by the 
 prayer and imposition of the bishop's hands on those who have been 
 already baptized. But yet against all this authority, both divine 
 and human, and the express order of our own church, your lord- 
 ship teaches the laity, " that all human benedictions are useless 
 niceties ; and that to expect God's grace from any hands but his 
 own, is to affront him." 
 
 If so, my lord, what shall we say in defence of ^ie Apostles'? 
 We read (Acts viii. 14.) that when Philip the deacon had bap- 
 tized the Samaritans, the Apostles sent Peter and John to them, 
 who having prayed, and " laid iheir hands on them, they re- 
 " ceived the Holy Ghost, who before was fallen upon none of 
 " them ; only they were baptized in the name of the Lord 
 " Jesus." 
 
 My lord, several things are here out of question ; first, that 
 something else, even in the apostolical times, was necessary besides 
 baptism, in order to qualify persons to become complete members 
 of the body, or partakers of the grace of Christ* They had been 
 baptized, yet did not receive the. Holy Ghos:, till the Apostles 
 hands were laid upon them. 2dly, That God's graces are not only 
 conferred by means of human hands, but of some particular hands, 
 and not others. 3dly, That this office was so strictly appropriated 
 to the Apostles, or chief governors of the church, that it could not 
 be performed by inspired men, though empowered to work mi- 
 racles, who were of an inferior order; as Philip the deaco-i. 
 4thly, That the power of the Apostles for the performance of this 
 ordinance, was entirely owing to the superior degree in the mi- 
 nistry ; and not to any extraordinary gifts they were endowed 
 with : for then Philip might have performed it, who was not want- 
 ing in those gifts, being himself an evangelist, and worker of mira- 
 cles : which is a demonstration, that his incapacity arose from hia 
 inferior degree in the ministry. 
 
 Arid now, my lord, are all human benedictions niceties and 
 trifles ? Are the means of God's grace in his own hands alone? Is 
 it wicked, and affronting to God, to suppose the contrary ? How 
 then comes Peter and John to confer the Holy Ghost by the im- 
 position of their hands ? How comes it that they appropriate this 
 office to themselves ? Is the dispensation qf God's grace in hi 
 VOL. i. X
 
 306 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadky. 
 
 own hand? alone ? And yet can it be dispensed to us by the minis- 
 try of some persons, and not by that of others ? 
 
 Were die Apostles so wicked, as to distinguish themselves by a 
 pretence to vain powers, which God had reserved to himself ? And 
 which your lordship supposes, from the title of your Preservative, 
 that it is inconsistent with common sense to imagine that God 
 would, or could have communicated to men. 
 
 Had any of your lordship's well instructed laity lived in 
 the Apostles days, with what indignation must they have rejected 
 this senseless chimerical claim of the Apostles? They must have 
 said, Why uo you, Peter or John, pretend to this blasphemous 
 power ? Whilst we believe the Gospel, we cannot expect the 
 grace of God from any hands but his own. You give us the Holy 
 Ghost ! You confer the grace of God ! Is it not impious to think, 
 that he should make our improvement in grace depend upon your 
 ministry ; or hang our salvation on any particular order of clergy- 
 men ? We know that God is just, and good, and true, and that all 
 depends upon him and ourselves, and that human benedictions 
 . are trifles. Therefore whether you Peter, or you Philip, or 
 both, or neither of you lay your hands upon us, we are neithe r 
 better nor worse ; but just in the same state of grace as we were 
 before. 
 
 This representation has not one syllable in it, but what 'is 
 founded in your lordship's doctrine, and perfectly agreeable 
 to it. 
 
 The late most pious and learned bishop Beveridge has these re- 
 markable words upon confirmation : " How any bishops in our 
 age dare neglect so considerable a part of their office, I know not ; 
 but fear they will have no good account to give of it, when they 
 come to stand beford God's tribunal *." 
 
 But we may justly, and therefore I hope with decency, 
 ask your lordship, how you dare perform this part of your 
 office ? For you have condemned it as trifling and wicked ; as 
 trifling, because it is an human benediction ; as wicked, because it 
 supposes grace conferred by the hands of the bishop. If therefore 
 any baptized persons should come to your lordship for con- 
 firmation, if you are sincere in what yoti have delivered, your 
 lordship ought, I humbly conceive, to make them this decla- 
 ration : 
 
 * First volumt of Sermons,
 
 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. S07 
 
 " My friends, for the sake of decency and order, I have taken 
 upon me the episcopal character : and, according to custom, 
 which has long prevailed against common sense, am now to lay 
 my hands upon you : but, I beseech you, as you have any regard 
 to the truth of the Gospel, or to the honour of God, not to 
 imagine there is any thing in this action more than an useless 
 empty ceremony : for if you expect to have any spiritual advantage 
 from human benedictions, or to receive grace from the imposition 
 of a bishop's hands, you affront God, and in effect, renounce chris- - 
 tianitv." 
 
 Pray, my lord, consider that passage in the Scripture, where the 
 Apostle speaks of " leaving the principles of the doctrine of 
 " Christ, and going on unto perfection; riot laying again the 
 " foundation of repentance from dead works, of faith towards 
 " God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, 
 " and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.'* 
 (Heb. vi. 12.) 
 
 My lord, here it is undeniably plain, that this laying on of 
 hands (which is with us called confirmation) is so fundamental a 
 part of Christ's religion, that it is called one of the first principles 
 of the doctrine of Christ; and is placed amongst such primary 
 truths as the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 
 
 St. Cyprian, speaking of this apostolical imposition of hands, 
 says, " The same is now practised with us ; they who have 
 been baptized in the church, are brought to the presidents of the 
 church, that by our prayer and imposition of .handsj they may 
 receive the Holy Ghost, and be consummated with the Lord's 
 seal." 
 
 And must we yet believe, that all human benedictions are 
 dreams, and the imposition of human hands' trifling and useless ; 
 and that to expect God's graces from them, is to affront him? 
 Though the Scriptures expressly teach us, that God confers his 
 grace by means of certain particular human hands, and not of 
 others ; though they tell us this human benediction, this laying on 
 of hands, is one of the first principles of the religion of Christ, and 
 as much a foundation doctrine as the resurrection of the dead* and 
 eternal judgment; and though every age since that of the Apostles 
 has strictly observed it as such, and the authority of our own church 
 still requires the observance of it ? 
 
 I come now, my lord, to another sacred and divine institution of 
 Christ's church, which stands exposed anil condemned by your 
 
 x 2
 
 308 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadky. 
 
 lordship's doctrine ; and that is, the ordination of the Christian 
 clergy ; where, by means of an human benediction, and the impo- 
 sition of the bishop's hands, the Holy Ghost is supposed to be con- 
 ferred on persons towards consecrating them for the work of the 
 ministry. 
 
 We find it constantly taught by the Scriptures, that all ecclesi- 
 astical authority, and the graces whereby the clergy are qualified 
 and enabled to exercise their functions to the benefit of the church, 
 are the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Apostle ex- 
 horts the elders " to take heed unto the flock, over which the 
 " Holy Ghost hath made them overseers." (Acts xx. 28.) But 
 how, my lord, had the Holy Ghost made them overseers, but by 
 the laying on of the Apostles hands ? They were not imme- 
 diately called by the Holy Ghost ; but being consecrated hy such 
 human hands as had been authorized to that purpose, they were 
 as truly called by him, and sanctified with grace for that employ- 
 ment, as if they had received an immediate or miraculous com- 
 mission. So again, St. Paul put* Timothy in mind, " to stir up 
 *' the gift of God that was in him, by laying op of his hands." 
 2 Tim. ii. 6. 
 
 And now, my lord, if human benedictions be such idle dreams 
 and trifles ; if it be affronting to God, to expect his graces from 
 them, or through human hands, do we not plainly waiit new 
 Scriptures ? Must we not give up the Apostles as furious high 
 church prelates, who aspired to presumptuous claims, and talked 
 of conferring the graces of God by their own hands ? Was not 
 this doctrine as strange and unaccountable then as at present ? 
 Was it not as inconsistent with the attributes and sovereignty of 
 God at that time, to have his graces pass through other hands 
 than his own-, as in any succeeding age ? Nay, my lord, where 
 shall we find any fathers or councils in the primitive church, but 
 who owned and asserted these powers ? They that were so ready 
 to part with their lives, rather than do the least dishonour to God, 
 or the Christian name, yet were all guilty of this horrid blas- 
 phemy, in imagining that they were to bless in God's name; 
 and that by the benediction and laying on of the bishop's 
 hands, the graces- of the Holy Ghost could be conferred on. any 
 pprsons. 
 
 Agreeable to the sense of Scripture and antiquity, our church 
 uses this form of ordination : " The bishop laying his hands on 
 the person's head, saith, Receive the Holy Ghost, for the office.
 
 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 309 
 
 and work of a Priest in the church of God, committed unro 
 * 4 thee, by the imposition of our hands." From this form it is 
 plain, first, that our church holds, that the reception of the Holy 
 Ghost is necessary to constitute a person a Christian Priest. 2dly, 
 That the Holy Ghost is conferred through human hands. 3dly, 
 That it is by the hands of a bishop that the Holy Ghost is con- 
 ferred. 
 
 If therefore your lordship is right in your doctrine, the church 
 of England is evidently most corrupt. For if it be dishonourable 
 and affronting to God, to expect his grace from any human 
 hands ; it must of necessity be dishonourable and affronting to 
 him, for a bishop to pretend to confer it by his hands. And can 
 that church be any ways defended, that has established such an 
 iniquity by law, and made the form of it so necessary ? How can, 
 your lordship answer it to your laity, for taking the character or 
 power of a bishop from such a form of words ? You tell them it 
 is affronting to God, to expect his grace from human hands ; yet 
 to qualify yourself for a bishopric, you let human hands be laid 
 on you, after a manner which directly supposes you thereby to re- 
 ceive the Holy Ghost ? Is it wicked in them to expect it from, 
 human hands ? And is it less so in your lordship, to pretend to re- 
 ceive it from human hands ? He that believes it is affronting to 
 God to expect his grace from human hands, must likewise believe, 
 that our form of ordination, which promises the Holy Ghost by 
 the bishop's hands, must be also affronting to God. Certainly he 
 cannot be said to be very jealous of the honour of God, who will 
 submit himself to be made a bishop by a form of words derogatory, 
 upon his own principles, to God's honour. 
 
 Suppose your lordship was to have been consecrated to the office 
 of a bishop by these words ; " Take thou power to sustain all 
 things in being given thee by my hands." I suppose your lordship 
 would think it entirely unlawful to submit to the form of such 
 an ordination. But, my lord, " receive thou the Holy Ghost," 
 &cc. is as impious a form, according to your lordship's doctrine, 
 and equally injurious to the Eternal Power and Godhead as the 
 other. For if the grace of God can only be had from his own 
 hands, would it not be as innocent in the bishop to say, " Receive 
 thou power to sustain all things in being," as to say, " Receive 
 the Holy Ghost, by the imposition of my hands ?" And would not 
 a compliance with either form be equally unlawful? According to
 
 
 310 Mr. La-j^s second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 your doctrine, in each of them God's prerogative is equally ifl- 
 yaded; and herefore the guilt must be the same.. 
 
 It may also well be wondered, how your lordship can accept f 
 a character, which is, or ought to be chiefly distinguished by the 
 exe r cise of that power which you disclaim j as in the offices of 
 confirmation and ordination. For, my lord, whe'e can be the 
 sincerity of saying, " Receive the Holy Ghost by the imposition 
 of our hands," when you declare it affronting to Gocl, to expect it 
 from any hands but his own? Suppose your lordship had been 
 preaching to the laity against owning any authority in the Virgin 
 Mary ; and yet should acquiesce in the conditions of being made a 
 bishop in her name, and by recognizing her power: could such a 
 submission be consistent with sincerity ? Here you forbid die laity 
 to expect God's grace from any hands but his ; yet not only accept 
 of an office, upon supposition of the contrary doctrine, but oblige 
 yourself, according to the sense of the church wherein you are 
 ordained a bishop, to act frequently in direct opposition to your 
 own "principles. 
 
 So that, I think, it is undeniably plain, that you have at onpe, 
 my lord, by these doctrines condemned the Scriptures, the 
 Apostles, their martyred successors, the church of England 
 and your own conduct; and have hereby given us some reason 
 (though I wish there was no occasion to mention it) to 
 suspect, whether you, who allow of no other church, but 
 -what is founded in sincerity, are yourself really a member of any 
 church. 
 
 I (hall now proceed to say something upon the consecration of 
 the Lord's Supper ; which is as much exposed as a trifle, by your 
 lordship's doctrine, as the other institutions. St. Paul says, 
 " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the cornmunien 
 " of the blood of Christ?" My lord, is not this cup still to be 
 blessed ? Must there not therefore be such a thing as an human 
 benediction ? And are human benedictions to be all despised, 
 though by them the bread and wine become means of grace, and 
 are made the spiritual nourishment of our souls ? Can any one 
 bless tiiis cup ? If not, then there is a difference between human 
 benedictions : some are authorised by God, and their blessing is 
 effectual ; whilst others only are vain and presumptuous. If the 
 prayer over the elements, and the consecration, be only a trifle and 
 a dream ; and it be offensive to God to expect they are converted 
 into means of grace by an human benediction; why then did St.
 
 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Iloadley. 311 
 
 Paul pretend to bless them ? Why did he make it the privilege of 
 the church ? Or why do we keep up the same solemnity? But if 
 it be to be blessed only by God's ministers, then how can your 
 lordship answer it to God, for ridiculing and abusing human be- 
 nedictions ; and telling the world that a particular order of the 
 clergy are not of any necessity, nor can be of any advantage to 
 them. For if the sacrament can only be blessed by God's mi- 
 nisters ; then such ministers are as necessary as the sacraments 
 themselves. 
 
 St. Paul says, the cup must be blessed ; if you say any one may 
 "bless it, then, though you contemn the benedictions of the clergy, 
 you allow of them by every body else : if every body cannot bless 
 it, then you must confess, that the benedictions of some persons 
 are effectual, where others are not. 
 
 My lord, the great sin against the Holy Ghost was the denial of 
 his operation in the ministry of our Saviour, And how near does 
 your lordship come to it, in denying the operari >n of that same 
 spirit, in the ministers whom Christ hath sent ? They are em- 
 ployed in the same work that he was. He left his aut'iority with, 
 them; and promised that the Holy Spirit should remain with 
 them to the end of the world ; that wi.ai soever they should bind 
 on earth, should be bound in heaven ; and whatsover they should 
 loose on earth, should be loosed in heaven ; that whosoever de- 
 spises them, despises him, and him that sent him. And yet your 
 lordship tells us, we need not to trouble our heads about any 
 particular sort of clergy ; that all is to be transacted betwixt 
 God and ourselves ; that human benedictions are insignificant 
 trifles. 
 
 But pray, what proof has your lordship for all this ? Have you 
 any Scripture for it? Has God any where declared, that no men 
 on earth have any authority to bless in his name ? Has he any 
 where said, that it is a wicked, presumptuous thing for any one 
 to pretend to it? Has he any where told us, that it is inconsistent 
 with his honour, to bestow his graces by human hands? Has he 
 any where told us that he has no ministers, no embassadors ou 
 earth; but that ail his gifts and graces are to be received imme-, 
 diately from his own hands ? Have you any antiquity, fathers, or 
 councils on your side? No: the whole tenour of Scripture, the 
 whole concurrent tradition is against you. Your novel doctrine 
 has only this to recommend it to the libertines of the age, who 
 universally give into it, tkat it never was the opinion of any
 
 312 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 church, or church-aian. It is your lordship's proper assertion, 
 >' That \ve offend God in expecting his graces from any hands 
 but his own." 
 
 Now it is strange, that God should be offended with his owrt 
 methods ; or that your lordship should find us out a way of 
 pkasing him, more suitable to his nature and attributes, than 
 what he has taught us in the Scriptures. I call them his own 
 methods : for what else is the whole Jewish dispensation, but a 
 niethocj. of God's Providence; where his blessings and judgments 
 Sivere dispensed by human han;ls ? What is the Christian religion, 
 but a method of salvation, where the chief m a^is of grace are 
 offered and dispensed by human hands ? Let me here recommend 
 to your lordship the excellent words of a very learned and judicious 
 prelate on this occasion. 
 
 " This will have no weight with any reasonable man, against 
 the censures of the church, or any other ordinance of the Gospel, 
 that they make the intervention of other men necessary to 
 our salvation; since it has been always God's ordinary me- 
 thod, to dispense, his blessings and judgments by the hands 
 of men *." 
 
 Your lordship exclaims against your adversaries, as such ro- 
 mantic strange sort of men, for talking of benedictions and ab- 
 solutions, and of the necessity of receiving God's ordinances from 
 proper hands : yet, my lord, here is an excellent bishop, against 
 whose learning, judgment, and Protestantism there can be no ob- 
 jection; who says, if a person have but the use of his reason, he 
 will have nothing to object to any ordinances of the Gospel, which 
 make the intervention of other men necessary towards the con- 
 veyance of them ; since that has always been God's ordinary me. 
 thod. The bishop does not say it is necessary a man should be a 
 great divine to acknowledge ; so he be but a reasonable man, he 
 will allow it. Yet your lordship is so far from being this reason- 
 able man, that you think your adversaries void both of reason and 
 common sense, for teaching it. You expressly exclude all persons 
 from having any thing to do with our salvation ; and say, it 
 >vholly depends upon God and ourselves. 
 
 You tell us, that " authoritative benediction is another of 
 the terms of art used by your 'Protestant adversaries ; in which 
 $hey claim a light, in one regular succession, of blessing the 
 
 * Dr. Potter's Church Goverjynent, p. 33$.
 
 Mr. Lab's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 315 
 
 people *." An ingenious author, my lord, (in the opinion of 
 many, if not of most of your friends) calls the consecration of the 
 elements " conjuration f ;" your lordship calls the sacerdotal be- 
 nediction a " term of art;" too plain in intimation, though in 
 more remote and in somewhat softer terms, that in the sense of a 
 certain father of the church, her clergy are little better than so 
 many jugglers. 
 
 Your lordship says, " If they only meant thereby to declare 
 upon what terms God will give his blessings to Christians, or to 
 express their own hearty wishes for them, this might be under- 
 stood." So it might, my lord, very easily ; and, I suppose, 
 every body understands that they may do this, whether they be 
 clergy or laity, men or women ; for I presume, any one may de- 
 clare what he takes to be the terms of the Gospel, and wish that 
 others may faithfully observe them. But I humbly presume, my 
 Lord, that the good bishop above-mentioned, meant something 
 more than this, when he spake of ordinances, which make the 
 intervention of other men necessary to our salvation, and of 
 God's dispensing his blessings in virtue of them through their 
 hands. 
 
 There is a superstitious custom (in your lordship's account k 
 must be so) yet remaining in most places, of sending for a cler- 
 gyman to minister to sick persons in imminent danger of death : 
 even those who have abused the clergy all their lives long, are 
 glad to beg their assistance when they apprehend themselves upon 
 the confines of another world. There is no reason, my lord, to 
 dislike this practice, but as it supposes a difference between thft 
 sacerdotal prayers and benedictions, and those of a nurse. 
 
 We read, my lord, that God would not heal Abimelech, though 
 he knew the integrity of his heart, till Abraham had prayed for 
 him. " He is a prophet," said God, " he shall pray for thee, 
 " and thou shalt live." Gen. xx. 7 
 
 Pray, my lord, was not God just, and good, and true, in the 
 days of Abraham, as he is now ? Yet you see, Abimelech's in. 
 tegrity was not available itself. He was to be pardoned by the 
 prayer of Abraham ; and his prayer was effectual; and so repre- 
 sented, because it was the prayer of a prophet. 
 
 Suppose, my lord, that Abimelech had said with your lordship, 
 *' That jt is affronting to God, that we should expect his graces 
 
 * Page 91. f Rights of the Christian Church.
 
 314 Mr. Law's second 'Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 from any hands hut his awn ; that all is to be transacted between 
 God and ourselves; and so had rejected the prayer of Abraham, 
 as a mere essay of prophet-craft ; he had then acted with as much 
 prudence and piety as your loidship's laity would do, if you could 
 persuade them to despise benedictions and absolutions, to regard 
 no particular sort of clergy, but entirely depend upon God and 
 themselves, without any other assistance whatever. 
 
 We read also, that " Joshua was full of the spirit of wisdom ; 
 '* for Moses had laid his hands upon him." (Deut. xxxiv. 9.) 
 Was it not. as absurd, my lord, in the days of Joshua, for human 
 hands to bless as it is now ? Did there not then lie the same ob- 
 jection against Moses, that there does now against the Christian 
 clergy ? Had Moses any more narural power to give the spiiit of 
 wisdom, &c. by his hands, than the clergy have to confer grace 
 by theirs? They are both equally weak and insufficient for, these 
 purposes, of themselves, and equally powerful when it pleases 
 God to make them so. 
 
 Again, when Eliphaz and his friends had displeased God, they 
 were not to be reconciled to God b\ their own repentance, or 
 transact that mattei only between God and themselves; but they 
 were referred to apply to Job. " My servant Job shall pray for 
 ** you; for htm will I accept." Job xlii. 8. Might not EJiphaz 
 here have said, shall I so far affront God, as to think I cannot 
 be blessed without the prayers of Job ? Shall I be so weak or 
 senseless as to imagine my own supplications and repentance will 
 not save me ; or that I need apply to any one but God alone, to 
 qualify me foi* the reception of his grace ? 
 
 Again, " The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, speak unto 
 " Aaron and his sons, saying, on this wise shall ye bless the chil- 
 " dren of Israel, saying unto them, The Lord bless and keep 
 * thee," &c. " and I will bless them." Numb. vi. 22. 
 
 Again, " The Priests of the sons of Levi shall come near ; for 
 " them hath the Lord thy God chosen to minister unto him, and 
 " to bless in the name of the Lord." Deut. xxi. 5. 
 
 Now, my lord, this is what we mean by the authoritative ad- 
 ministrations of the Christian clergy; whether they be by way of 
 benediction or of any other kind. We take them to be persons 
 whom God has chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in his 
 name. We imagine that our Saviour was a greater Priest and 
 Mediator than Aaron, or any of God's former ministers. We 
 are assured, that Christ sent his Apostles, as his father had sent
 
 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Roadtey. 315 
 
 jhim; and that therefore they were his true successor,- ; and since 
 they did commission others to succeed them in their office, by the 
 imposition of hands, as Moses commissioned Joshua to succeed 
 him ; the clergy who have succeeded the Apostles, have as divine 
 3 call and commission to their work, as those who were called by 
 pur Saviour ; and are as truly his successors as the Apostles them- 
 selves were. 
 
 From the places of Scripture above-mentioned, it is evident: 
 and indeed, from the whole tenour of Sacred Writ, that it may 
 consist with the goodness and justice of God to depute men to act 
 in his name, and be ministerial towards the salvation of others ; 
 and to lay a necessity upon his creatures of qualifying themselves 
 for his favour, and receiving his graces by the hands and inter- 
 vention oF mere men. 
 
 JBut, my lord, if there be now any set of men upon earth, that 
 are more peculiarly God's ministers than others ; and through 
 whose administrations, prayers, and benedictions, God will ac- 
 cept of returning sinners, and receive them to grace ; you have 
 done all you can to prejudice people against them; you have 
 taught the laity, that all is to be transacted between God and 
 themselves ; and that they need not value any particular sort of 
 clergy in the world. 
 
 I leave it to the great Judge and Searcher of hearts, to judge, 
 from what principles, or upon what motives, your lordship has 
 )been induced to teach these things; but must declare, that for my 
 wn part, if I had the greatest hatred to Christianity, I slrould 
 think it could not be more expressed, than by teaching what your 
 lordship has publicly taught. If I could rejoice in the misery 
 and ruin of sinners, I should think it sufficient matter of triumph 
 to drive them from the ministers of God, and to put them upon 
 inventing new schemes of saving themselves, instead of submitting 
 to the ordinary methods of salvation appointed by God. 
 
 It will not follow from any thing I have said, that the laity have 
 lost their Christian liberty ; or that no body can be saved, but 
 whom the clergy please to save ; that they have the arbitrary dis- 
 posal of happiness to mankind. Was Abim :lech's happiness in 
 the disposition of Abraham, because he was to be received by 
 means of Abraham's intercession? Or could Job damn Kliphaz, 
 because he was to mediate for him, and procure his reconciliation 
 to God ?
 
 316 Mr. Liters second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 Neither, my lord, do the Christian clergy pretend to this des- 
 potic empire over their flocks : they do not assume to themselves a 
 power to damn the innocent, or to save the guilty : but they assert 
 a sober and just right to reconcile men to God ; and to act in his 
 name, in restoring them to his favour. They received their com- 
 mission from those whom Christ sent with full authority to send 
 others, and with a promise that he would be with them to the 
 end of the world. From this they conclude, that they have his 
 authority ; and that in consequence of it, their administrations are 
 necessary, and effectual to the salvation of mankind ; and that 
 none can despise them, but who despise him that sent them ; 
 and are as surely out of the covenant of grace, when they leave 
 such his pastors, as when they openly despise, or omit to receive 
 his sacraments. 
 
 And what is there in this doctrine, my lord, to terrify the con. 
 sciences of the laity ? What is there here, to bring the prophane 
 scandal of priestcraft upon the clergy ? Could it be any ground of 
 Abimelech's hating Abraham, because that Abraham was to re- 
 concile him to God ? Could Eliphaz justly have any prejudice 
 against Job, because God would hear Job's intercession for him ? 
 Why then, my lord, must the Christian priesthood be so horrid 
 and hateful an institution, because the design of it is to restore 
 men to the grace and favour of God ? Why must we be abused 
 and insulted, for being sent upon the errand of salvation, and 
 made ministers of eternal happiness to our brethren ? There is a 
 woe due to us if we preach not the Gospel, of neglect those 
 ministerial offices that Christ has entrusted to us. We are to 
 watch for their souls, as those who are to give an account. Why 
 then must we be treated as arrogant priests, or popishly affected, 
 for pretending to have any thing to do in the discharge of our 
 ministry, with the salvation of men ? Why must we be re- 
 proached with blasphemous claims, and absurd senseless powers, 
 for assuming to bless in God's name; or thinking our adminstra- 
 tions more effectual than the office of a common layman? 
 
 But farther> to what purpose does your lordship except against 
 these powers in the clergy ? from their common frailties and in- 
 firmities with the rest of mankind ? Were not Abraham and Job 
 and the Jewish priests, men of like passions with us r Did not our 
 Saviour command the Jews to apply to their priests, notwith- 
 standing their personal faults, because they sat in Moses's chaiv ?
 
 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadlcy. 
 
 Did not the Apostles assure their followers, that they were men. 
 of like passions with them ? But did they therefore disclaim their 
 mission or apostolical authority ? Did they teach that their natural 
 infirmities made them less the ministers of God, or less necessary 
 to the salvation of men ? Their personal defects did not make 
 them depart from the claim of those powers they were invested 
 with, or desert their ministry : hut indeed, gave St. Paul occasion 
 to say, " We have this treasure in earthen vessels, (/. e. this au- 
 thority committed to mere men) " that the excellency of it may 
 " be of God, and not of men." The Apostle happens to differ 
 very much from your lordship. He says, such weak instruments 
 were made use of, that the glory might redound to God. Your 
 lordship says, to suppose such instruments to be of any benefit to 
 us, is to lessen the sovereignty of God, and in consequence, his 
 glory. 
 
 Your lordship imagines you have sufficiently destroyed the sa- 
 cerdotal powers, by shewing that the clergy are only men, and 
 subject to the common frailties of mankind. My lord, we own 
 the charge, and do not claim any sacerdotal powers from our 
 personal abilities, or to acquire any glory to ourselves. But, weak 
 as we are, we are God's ministers ; and if we are either afraid or 
 ashamed of our duty we must perish in the guilt. But is a pro- 
 phet therefore proud, because he insists upon the authority of his 
 mission ? Cannot a mortal be God's messenger, and employed in 
 his affairs, but he must be insolent and assuming, for having the 
 resolution to own it ? If we are to be reproved for pretending to 
 be God's ministers, because we aie but men, the reproach will 
 fall upon Providence ; since it has pleased God, chiefly to trans- 
 act his affairs with mankind, by the ministry of their brethren. 
 
 Your lordship has not one word from Scripture against these 
 sacerdotal powers ; no proof that Christ has not sent men to be 
 effectual administrators of his graces : you only assert, that there 
 can be no such ministers, because they are mere men. 
 
 Now, my lord, I must beg leave to say, that if the natural 
 weakness of men makes them incapable of being the instruments 
 of conveying grace to their brethren ; if the clergy cannot be of 
 any use or necessity to their flocks, for this reason ; then it un- 
 deniably follows, that there can be no positive institutions in the 
 Christian church religion, that can procure any spiritual advan- 
 tages to the members of it ; then the sacraments can be no longer 
 any means of grac.e. for, I hope, no one thinks, that bjeadi 
 
 1
 
 3] 8 Mr. Law*s second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 and wine have any natural force or efficacy to convey grace to the 
 soul. The water in baptism has the common qualities of water, 
 and is destitute of any intrinsic power to cleanse the soul, or pu- 
 rify from sin. Bat your lordship will not say, because it has only 
 the common name of water, that therefore it cannot be a means 
 of grace. Why then may not the clergy, though they have the 
 common nature of men, be constituted by God to convey his 
 graces, and to be ministerial to the salvation of their brethren? 
 Can God consecrate inanimate things to spiritual purposes, and 
 make them the means of eternal happiness ? And is man the Only 
 creature that he cannot make subservient to his designs ? The only 
 being that is too weak for an Omnipotent God to render effectual 
 towards attaining the ends of his grace ? 
 
 Is it just and reasonable to reject and despise the ministry and 
 benedictions of men, because they are men like ourselves ? And is 
 it not as reasonable to despise the sprinkling of water, a creature 
 below us, a senseless and inanimate creature ? 
 
 Your lordship therefore must either find us some other reasons 
 for rejecting the necessity of human administrations, than because 
 they are human ; or else give up the sacrnmeats, and all positive 
 institutions along with them. 
 
 Surely your lordship must have a mighty opinion of Naaman 
 the Syrian ; who, when the prophet bid him go wash in Jordan 
 seven times, to the end he might be clean from his leprosy, very 
 wisely remonstrated, *' Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of 
 " Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel ?" 
 
 This, my lord, discovered Naanaan's great liberty of mind j 
 and it is much this has not been produced before, as an argument 
 of his being a free-thinker. He took the water of Jordan to be 
 only water, as your lordship justly observes a clergyman to be 
 only a man : and if you had been with him, you could have 
 informed him, that the washing seven times was a mere nicety 
 and trifle of the prophet ; and that since it is God alone who can 
 work miraculous cures, we ought not to think that they depend 
 upon any external means, or any stated number of repeating 
 them. 
 
 This, my lord, is the true scope and spirit of your argument : 
 if the Syrian was right in despising the water of Jord a n, because 
 it was only water, your lordship may be right in despising any 
 particular order of clergy, because they are but mea. Your lord- 
 ship is certainly as right, or as wrong, as he was. 
 
 8
 
 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 31 
 
 And now, my lord, let the common sense of mankind here 
 judge, whether, if the clergy are to be esteemed as having no 
 authority, because they are mere men, it does not plainly follow 
 rhat every thing else, every institution that has not some natural 
 force and power to produce the effects designed by ir, is not also 
 to be rejected as equally trifling and ineffectual. 
 
 The sum of the matter is this : it appears from many express 
 facts, and indeed from the whole series of God's providence, that 
 it is not only consistent with his attributes, but also agreeable to 
 his ordinary methods of dealing with mankind, that he should 
 substitute men to act in his name, and be authoritatively employed 
 in conferring his grace and favours upon mankind. It appears, 
 that your lordship's argument against the authoritative administra- 
 tions of the Christian clergy, does not only contradict those facts, 
 and condemn the ordinary method of God's dispensations, but 
 likewise proves the sacraments, and every positive institution of 
 Christianity to be ineffectual, and as mere dreams and trifles as. the 
 several offices and orders of the clergy. 
 
 This, I hope, will be esteemed a sufficient confutation of your 
 lordship's doctrine, by all who have any true regard or zeal for 
 the Christian religion, and only expect to be saved by the methods 
 of divine grace proposed in the Gospel. 
 
 I shall now in a word or two set forth the sacredness of the 
 ecclesiastical character as it is founded in the New Testament j 
 with a particular regard to the power of conferring grace, and 
 the efficacy of human benedictions. 
 
 It appears therein, rhat all sacerdotal power is deiived from the 
 Holy Ghost. Our Saviour himself took not the ministry upon 
 him, till he had this consecration : and during the time of his 
 ministry, he was under the guidance and direction of the Holy 
 Ghost. Through the Holy Spirit he gave commandment to the 
 Apostles whom he had chosen. When he ordained them to the 
 work of the ministry, it was with these words, " Receive the 
 " Holy Ghost." Those whom the Apostles ordained to the same 
 function, it was by the same authority : they laid their hand* 
 upon the elders, exhorting them to take care of the flock of Christ, 
 over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers. 
 
 Hereby they plainly declared, that however this office was to 
 descend from man to man through human hands, that it was the 
 Holy Ghost which consecrated them to that employment, and 
 gave them authority to execute it.
 
 Mr. Law's second letter to Eishop Hoadley. 
 
 From this it is also manifest, that the priesthood is a grace of 
 the Holy Ghost ; that it is not a function founded in the natural 
 or civil rights 0f mankind, but is derived from the special au- 
 thority of the Holy Ghost ; and is as truly a positive institution 
 as the sacraments. So that they who have no authority to alter 
 the old sacraments, and substitute new ones, have no power to 
 alter the old order of the clergy, or introduce any other order of 
 them. 
 
 For why can we not change the sacraments ? Is it not, because 
 they are only sacraments, and operate as they are instituted by the 
 Holy Ghost ? Because they are useless ineffectual rites without this 
 authority ? And does not the same reason hold as well for the 
 order of the clergy ? Does not the same Scripture tell us they are 
 equally instituted by the Holy Ghost^ and oblige only by virtue of 
 his authority ? How absurd is it, therefore^ to pretend to abolish, 
 or depart from the settled order of the clergy, to make new orders, 
 and think any God's ministers, unless we had his authority, and 
 could make new sacraments, or a new religion ? 
 
 My lord, how comes it that we cannot alter the Scriptures ? 
 Is it not, because they are divinely inspired, and dictated by the 
 Jloly Ghost ? And since it is express Scripture, that the priesthood 
 is instituted and authorized by the same Holy Spirit, why is not 
 the Holy Ghost as much to be regarded in one institution as in 
 another ? Why may we not as well make a Gospel, and say, it 
 was writ by the lioly Ghost, as making a new order of clergy, and 
 call them his ; or esteem them as having any relation to him ? 
 
 From this it likewise appears, that there is an absolute neces- 
 sity of a strict succession of authorized 01 riainers, from the aposto- 
 lical times, in order to constitute a Christian priest. For since a 
 commission from the Holy Ghost is necessary for the exercise of 
 this office, no one now can receive it, but from those who have 
 derived their authority ^in a true succession from the Apostles, 
 We could not, my lord, call our present Bibles the word of God, 
 unles we knew the copies from which they are taken, were taken 
 from other true ones, till we come to the originals themselves. 
 No more could we call any true ministers, or authorized by the 
 Holy Ghost, who have not received their commission by an un- 
 interrupted succession of lawful ordainers. 
 
 What an excellent divine would he be, who should tell the 
 world, it was not necessary that the several copies and manu- 
 scripts, through which the Scriptures have been transmitted
 
 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Uoadley. 321 
 
 through different ages and languages, should be all true ones, and 
 none of them forged ; that " this was a thing subject to so great 
 uncertainty, that God could not hang our salvation on such nice- 
 ties." Suppose, for proof of this, he should appeal to the Scrip- 
 tures; and ask, where any mention is made of ascertaining the truth 
 of all the copies ? Would not this be a way of arguing very theo- 
 logical ? The application is very easy. 
 
 Your lordship has not one word to prove the uninterrupted 
 succession of the clergy a trifle or dream ; but that it is subject to 
 so great uncertainty, and is never mentioned in the Scriptures. 
 And to the uncertainty of it, it is equall y as uncertain, as whether 
 the Scriptures be genuine. There is just the same sufficient histo- 
 rical evidence for the certainty of one, as the other. As to its 
 not being mentioned in the Scriptures, the doctrine upon which 
 it is founded, plainly made it unnecessary to mention it. It is 
 needful for the Scriptures to tell us,~ that if we take our Bible 
 ffom any false copy, that it is not the word of God. Why then 
 need they tell u, that if we are ordained by usurping false pre- 
 tenders to ordination, not deriving their authority to that end 
 from the Apostles, that we are no priests ? Does not the thing 
 itself speak as plain in one case as in the other? The Scrip- 
 tures are only of use to us, as they are the word of God : we 
 cannot have this word of God, which was written so many 
 years ago, unless we receive u from authentic copies and manu- 
 . scripts. 
 
 The clergy have their commission from the Holy Ghost: the 
 power of conferring this commission of the Holy Ghost was left 
 with the Apostles : therefore the present clergy cannot have the 
 same commission, or call, but from an order of men who have 
 successively conveyed his power from the Apostles to tht pr_-- 
 sent time. So that, my lord, I shall beg leave to la^ it down as a 
 plain, undeniable, Christian truth, that the order of the clergy is 
 an order of as necessary obligation as the sacraments, and as un- 
 alterable as the Holy Scriptures ; the same Holy Ghost being as 
 truly the author and founder of the priesthood, as the institutor of 
 the sacraments, or the inspirer of those divine oracles. And 
 when your lordship shall offer any fresh arguments to prove, that 
 no particular sort of clergy is necessary ; that the benedictions and 
 administrations of the present clergy of our most excellent church, 
 are trifling niceties ; if I cannot shew that the same arguments 
 will conclude against the authority of the sacraments and the 
 
 VOL. i. Y
 
 S22 . Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadlei/. 
 
 Scriptures, I faithfully promise your lordship to become a convert to 
 your doctrine. 
 
 What your lordship charges upon your adversaries as an absurd 
 doctrine, in pretending the necessity of one regular, successive, 
 and particular order of the clergy, is a true Christian doctrine; 
 and as certain from Scripture, as that we are to keep to the in- 
 stitution of particular sacraments ; or not to alter those particular 
 Scriptures which now compose the canon of the Old and New 
 Testament. 
 
 By authoritative benediction, we do not mean any natural or in- 
 trinsic authority of our own : but a commission fiom God, to 
 be effectual administrators of his ordinances, and to bless in his 
 name. Thus, a person who is sent from God to forctel things, 
 of which he had before no knowledge or notion ; or to denounce 
 judgments, which he has no natural power to execute, may be 
 truly said to be an authoritative prophet, because he has the au- 
 thority of God for what he does. Thus, when the bishop is said 
 to confer grace in confirmation ; this is properly an authoritative 
 benediction ; because he is then as truly doing what God has com- 
 missioned him, to do, as when a prophet declares upon what errand 
 he is sent, 
 
 It is in this sense, my lord, that the people are said to be autho- 
 ritatively blessed by the regular clergy, because they are God's 
 clergy, and act by his commission; because by their hands the 
 people receive the graces and benefits of God's ordinances ; which 
 they have no more reason to expect from other ministers of their 
 own election, or if the word may be used in an abusive sense of 
 their own consecration, than to receive grace from sacraments of 
 their own appointment. The Scriptures teach us, that the Holy 
 Ghost has instituted an order of clergy : we say, a priesthood 
 so authorized, can no more be changed by us, than we can change 
 the Scriptures, or make new sacraments ; because they are all 
 founded on the same authority, without any power of a dispensa- 
 tion delegated to us in one case more than in another. If there*, 
 fore we have a mind te continue in the covenant of Christ, and re- 
 ceive the grace and benefit of his ordinances, we must receive 
 them through such hands as he has authorized for that purpose, to 
 the' end we maybe qualified to partake the blessings of them. 
 For as a true priest cannot benefit us by administering a false 
 gacrament, so a true sacrament is nothing, when it is administered 
 by a false uncommissioned minister. Besides this benediction
 
 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Iloadky. 525 
 which attends the ordinances of God, when they are thus perform- 
 ed by authorized hands, there is a benediction of prayer, which we 
 may justly .think very effectual, when pronounced or dispensed by 
 the same hands. 
 
 Thus when the bishop or priest intercedes for the congregation, 
 or pronounces the apostolical benediction upon them, we do not 
 consider this barely as an "act of charity and humanity, of one 
 Christian praying for another, but as the work of a person who is 
 commissioned by God to bless in his name, and be effectually minis- 
 terial in the conveyance of his graces ; or as the prayer of one 
 who is left with us in Christ's stead, to carry on his great design of 
 saving us ; and whose benedictions are ever ratified in heaven, but 
 when we render ourselves, in one respect or other, incapable o 
 them. 
 
 Now, my lord, they are these sacerdotal prayers, these autho- 
 rized sacraments, these commissioned pastors, whom the Holy 
 Ghost has made overseers of the flock of Christ, that your lordship 
 encourages the laity to despise." You bid them " contemn the vain 
 words of validity or invalidity of God's ordinances ;" to " heed no 
 particular sort of clergy, or the pretended necessity of their adminis- 
 trations." 
 
 Your lordship sets up in this controversy for an advocate for the 
 laity, against the arrogant pretences and false claims of the clergy. 
 My lord, we are no more contending for ourselves in this doctrine, 
 than when we insist upon any article in the creed. Neither is it 
 any more our particular cause when we assert our mission, than 
 when we assert the necessity of the sacraments. 
 
 Who is to receive the benefit of that commission which 
 we assert, but they ? Who is to suffer, if we pretend a false one, 
 but ourselves ? Sad injury, indeed, offered to the laity, that we 
 should affect to be thought ministers of God for their sakdS ! If 
 we really are so, they are to receive the beefit j if not, we are to 
 bear the punishment. 
 
 But your lordship comas too late in this glorious undertaking, to 
 receive the reputation of it : the work has been already, in the 
 opinion of most people, better done to your lordship's hands. The 
 famous author of the " Rights of the Christian Church," has car- 
 ried this Christian liberty to as great heights as your lordship. 
 And though you have not one notion, I can recollect, that has 
 given offence to the world, but what seems taken from that perni- 
 cious book, yet your lordship is hot so just, as ever once to cite 
 
 Y 2
 
 S24 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 or mention the author ; who, if your lordship's doctrine be 
 true, deserves to have a statue erected to his honour, and receive 
 every mark of esteem which is due to the greatest reformer of re- 
 ligion. 
 
 Did not mine own eyes assure me, that he has cast no contempt 
 upon the church, no reproach upon the evangelical institutions, or 
 the sacred function, but what has been seconded by your lordship, 
 I would never have placed your lordship in the same view with so 
 scandalous a declaimer against the ordinances of Christ. Whether I 
 am right or not, in this charge, I freely leave to the judgment of those 
 to determine, who are acquainted with both your works. Yet this 
 author, my lord, has been treated by the greatest and best part of the 
 nation, as a free-thinking infidel. But for what, my lord ? not that 
 he has declared against the Scriptures ; not that he has rejected re- 
 velation ; (we are not, blessed be God, still so far corrupted with the 
 principles of infidelity) but because he has leproached every par- 
 ticular church, as such, and denied all obligation to communion ; 
 because he has exposed benedictions, absolutions, and excommuni- 
 cations ; denied the divine right of the clergy, and ridiculed the 
 pretended sacredness and necessity of their administrations as mere 
 niceties and trifles, though commonly in more distant, I was going 
 to say, more decent ways : in a word, because he made all churches, 
 all priests, all sacraments, however administered, equally valid, 
 and denied any particular method necessary to salvation. Yet 
 after all this prophane declamation he allows, my lord, that 
 " religious offices may be appropriated to particular men, called 
 clergy, for order sake only ; and not on the account of any peculiar 
 spiritual advantages, powers or privileges, which those who are set 
 apart for them, have from heaven*." 
 
 Agreeable to this, your lordship owns, that you are not against 
 the " order, or decency, or subordination belonging to Christian 
 societies f." 
 
 But pray, my lord, do you mean any more by this than the 
 above-mentioned author ? Is it for any thing, but the sake- of a 
 little external order or conveniency ? Is there any Christian law 
 that obliges to observe this kind of order ? Is there any real es- 
 sential difference between persons ranked into this order ? Is it 
 a sin for any body, especially the civil magistrate, to leave this 
 
 * Page xji, f Answer t Dr. Snape, p. 48.
 
 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 325 
 
 order and make what other orders he prefers to it ? This your 
 lordship cannot resolve in the affirmative ; for then you must allow, 
 that some' communions are safer than others, and that some clergy 
 have more authority than others. 
 
 Will your lordship say, that no particular order can be neces- 
 sary ; yet some order necessary, which may be different in different 
 communions ? This cannot hold good upon your lordship's prin- 
 ciples : for since Christ has left no law about any order, no mem- 
 bers of any particular communion need submit to that order ; 
 since it is confessed by your lordship, that in religion no laws but 
 those of Christ are of any obligation. So that though you do not 
 disclaim all external order and decency yourself, yet you have 
 taught other people to do it if they please, and as much as they 
 please. 
 
 Suppose, my lord, some layman, upon a pretence of your lord- 
 ship's absence, or any other, should go into the diocese of Bangor, 
 and there pretend to ordain clergymen ; could your lordship quote 
 one text of Scripture against him ? Could you allege any law of 
 Christ, or his Apostles, that he had broken ? Could you prove 
 him guilty of any sin ? No, my lord, you would not do that, 
 because this would be acknowledging such a thing as a sinful or- 
 dination ; and if there be sinful ordinations, then there must be 
 some law concerning ordinations : for " sin is the transgression 
 * of the law :" and if there be a law concerning ordinations, then 
 we must keep to the clergy lawfully ordained ; and must confess, 
 after all your lordship has said, or can say, that still some commu- 
 nions are safer than others. 
 
 If you should reprove such a one, as an Englishman, for acting 
 in opposition to the English laws of decency and order, he would 
 answer, that he has nothing to do with such trifles ; that Christ 
 was sole lawgiver in his kingdom : that he was content to have his 
 kingdom as orderly and decent as Christ had left it ; and since he 
 had instituted no laws in that matter, it was presuming for others 
 to take upon them to add any thing by way of order or decency, 
 by laws of their own : that as he had as much authority from Christ 
 to ordain clergy as your lordship, he would not depart from his 
 Christian liberty. 
 
 If he should remonstrate to your lordship in these, or words to 
 the like effect, he would only reduce your lordship's own doctrine 
 to practice. This, my lord, is part of that confusion the learned 
 Dr. Snape has charged you with being the author of, in the'church 
 
 I
 
 $26 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop floadley. 
 
 of God. And all persons, my lord, whom you have taught not to 
 regard any particular sort of clergy, must know (if they have 
 the common sense to which you appeal) that then no clergy are at 
 all necessary ; and that it is as lawful for any man to be his own 
 priest, as to solicit his own cause. For to say that no particular 
 sort of clergy are necessary, and yet that in general the clergy are 
 necessary, is the same as to say, that truth is necessary to be be- 
 lieved; yet the belief of no particular truth is necessary. 
 
 The next thing to be considered, my lord, is your doctrine con- 
 cerning absolutions. You begin thus : " The same you will find 
 a sufficient reply to their presumptuous claim to an authoritative 
 absolution. An infallible absolution cannot belong to fallible 
 men. But no absolution can be authoritative, which is not infalli- 
 ble; therefore no authoritative absolution can belong to any 
 man living*." 
 
 I must observe here, your lordship does not reject this absolu- 
 tion, because the claim of it is not founded in Scripture, but by an 
 argument drawn from the nature of the thing : because you 
 imagine such absolution requires infallibility for the execution of 
 it, therefore it cannot belong to men. Should this be true, it 
 would prove, that if our Saviour had really so intended, he could 
 not have given this power to his ministers. But, my lord, who 
 can see any repugnancy in the reason of the thing itself? Is it not 
 as easy to conceive, that our Lord should confer his grace of 
 pardon by the hands of his ministers, as by means of the sa- 
 craments? And may not such -absolution be justly called au- 
 thoritative, the power of which is granted and executed by his au- 
 thority ? 
 
 Is it Impossible for men to have this authority from God, be- 
 cause they may mistake in the exercise of it ? This argument 
 proves too much ; and makes as short work with every institution 
 of Christianity, as with this power of absolution. 
 
 For if it is impossible that men should have authority from 
 God to absolve in his name, because they are not infallible, 
 this makes them equally incapable of being entrusted with any 
 other means of grace; and consequently, supposes the whole 
 priest's office to imply a direct impossibility in the very notion of 
 it. 
 
 * Preservative, p. ja
 
 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley 327 
 
 Your lordship's argument is this: Christians have their sins 
 pardoned upon certain conditions, but fallible men cannot certainly 
 know these conditions ; therefore fallible men cannot have autho- 
 rity to absolve. 
 
 From hence -I take occasion to argue thus: persons are to be 
 admitted to the sacraments on certain conditions; but fallible men 
 cannot tell whether they come qualified to receive them according 
 to these conditions ; therefore fallible men cannot have authority 
 to administer the sacraments. 
 
 2dl y, Tnis argument subverts all authority of the Christian 
 religion itself, and the reason of every instituted means of grace : 
 for if nothing can be authoritative but what a man is infallibly 
 assured of, then the Christian religion cannot be an authoritative 
 method of salvation ; since a man, by being a Christian, does not 
 become infallibly certain of his salvation; nor does grace infallibly 
 attend the participation of the sacraments. So that though your 
 lordship has formed this argument only against this absolving 
 power, yet it has as much force against the sacraments, and the 
 Christian religion itself. For if it be absurd to suppose that the 
 priest should absolve any one, because he cannot be certain that he 
 deserves absolution, does it not imply the same absurdity, to 
 suppose that he should have the power of administering the sa- 
 craments, when he cannot be infallibly certain, that those who 
 receive them are duly qualified ? If a possibility of error destroys 
 the power in one case, it as certainly destroys it in the other. 
 Again ; if absolution cannot be authoritative, unless it be infal- 
 lible, then it is plain, that the Christian religion is not an au- 
 thoritative means of salvation, because all Christians are not in- 
 fallibly saved : nor can the sacraments be authoritative means of 
 grace ; because all who partake of them, do not infallibly obtain 
 grace. 
 
 Your lordship proceeds with your laity by way of expostula- 
 tion: " If they amuse you with that power which Christ left 
 with his Apostles, * whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted 
 " unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained 
 " unto them *.' " 
 
 But why amuse, my lord ? Are the texts of Holy Scripture to 
 be treated as only matter of amusement j or does your lordship 
 
 * Page 93,
 
 328 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 know of any age in the church, when the very same doctrine 
 which we now teach, has not been taught from the same texts ? 
 
 Do you know any successors of the Apostles, who thought the 
 power there specified did not belong to them ? But however, your 
 lordship has taught your laity to believe what we argue from this 
 text, all amusement ; and told them, " They may securely 
 answer, that it is impossible for them to depend upon this right as 
 any thing certain, till they can prove to you, that every thing 
 spoken to the Apostles belongs to ministers in all ages *." The 
 security of this answer, my lord, is founded upon this false pre- 
 sumption, viz. That the clergy can claim no right to the exercise 
 of any part of their office, as successors of the Apostles, till th6y 
 can prove that every thing that was spoken to the Apostles, be- 
 longs to them. 
 
 This proposition must be true, or else there is no force or se- 
 curity in the objection you here bring for the instruction of the 
 laity. If it is well founded, then the clergy cannot possibly 
 prove they have any more right to the exercise of any part of 
 their office than the laity. Do they pretend to ordain, confirm. 
 to admit or exclude men from the sacraments ? By what authority 
 is all this done ? Is it not because the Apostles, whose successors 
 they are, did the same things ? But then, say your lordship's well- 
 instructed laity, this is nothing to the purpose: prove your- 
 selves Apostles ; prove, that every thing said to the Apostles, be- 
 longs to you ; and then it will be allowed that you may exercise 
 these powers, because they exercised them : but as this is impos- 
 sible to be done, so it is impossible for you to prove that you have 
 any powers or authorities, because they had them. 
 
 And now, my lord, if the case be thus, what apology shall we 
 make for Christianity, as it has been practised in all ages ? How 
 shall we excuse the noble army of martyrs, saints and confessors, 
 who have boldly asserted the right to so many apostolical powers ? 
 Could any men in those ages pretend, that every thing that was 
 spoken to the Apostles, belonged to themselves ? False, then, was 
 their claim, and presumptuous their authority, who should pre- 
 tend to any apostolical powers, because the Apostles had them ; 
 when they could not prove, that every thing that was spoken to 
 the Apostles, belonged to them, 
 
 94-
 
 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 329 
 
 Farther; to prove that the above-mentioned text does not 
 confer the power of absolution on the clergy, you reason thus: 
 ' Whatever contradicts the natural notions of God, and the deaiga 
 and tenour of the Gospel, cannot be the true meaning of any 
 passage in the Gospel : but to make the absolution of weak and 
 fallible men so necessary, or so valid, that God will not pardon 
 without them : or that all are pardoned who have them pro- 
 nounced over them, is to contradict those notions, as well as the 
 plain tenour of the Gospel *." 
 
 Be pleased, my lord, to point out your adversary : name any- 
 one church of England man that ever taught this romantic doc- 
 trine which you are confuting. Who ever taught such a necessity 
 of absolutions, that God wilt pardon none without them? Who 
 ever declared that all are pardoned, who have them pronounced 
 over them ? We teach the necessity and validity of sacraments ; 
 but do we ever declare that all are saved who receive them ? Is 
 there no medium between two extremes ? No such thing, my lord, 
 as moderation ? Must every thing be thus absolute and extrava- 
 gant, or nothing at all ? 
 
 In another page, we have more of this same colouring: " But 
 to claim a right to stand in God's stead, in such a sense that they 
 can absolutely and certainly bless, or not bless, with their voice 
 alone ; this is the highest absurdity and blasphemy, as it supposeth 
 God to place a- set of men above himself, and to put out of his own 
 hands the disposal of his blessings and curses t." 
 
 If your lordship had employed all this oratory against wor- 
 shipping the sun or moon, it had just affected your adversaries as 
 much as this. For who ever taught that any set of men could 
 absolutely bless, or withhold blessing independent of God? Who 
 ever taught that the Christian religion, or sacraments, or absolu- 
 tion, saved people on course, or without proper dispositions ? 
 Who ever claimed such an absolving power, as to set himself 
 above God, and to take from him the disposal of his own blessings 
 and curses ? What has such extravagant descriptions, such ro- 
 mantic characters of absolution, to do with that power the clergy 
 justly claim ? Cannot there be a necessity in some cases of re- 
 ceiving absolution from their hands, except they set themselves 
 above God ? Is God robbed of the disposal of his blessings, when 
 in obedience to his own commands, and in virtue of his own 
 
 * Page 94. t Pa$e 91.
 
 33o Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadky. 
 
 authority, they admit some as members of the church, and ex- 
 clude others from the communion of it ? Do they pretend to be 
 channels of grace, or the means of pardon, by any rights or 
 powers naturally inherent in them ? Do they not in all these 
 things consider themselves as instruments of God, that are made 
 -ministerial to the edification of the church, purely by his will, 
 and only so far as they act in conformity to it ? Now if it has 
 pleased God to confer the Holy Ghost in ordination, confirma- 
 tion, &c. only by them, and to annex the grace of pardon to the 
 imposition of their hands, on returning sinners ; is it any blas- 
 phemy for them to claim and exert their power? Is the preroga- 
 tive of God injured, because his own institutions are obeyed? 
 Cannot he dispense his graces by what persons, and on what 
 terms he pleases ? Is he deprived of the disposal of his blessings, 
 because they are bestowed on persons according to his order, and 
 in obedience to his authoity ? If I should affirm, that Bishops 
 have the sole power to^ordain and confirm, would this be robbing 
 God of his disposal of those graces that attend such actions? Is it 
 not rather allowing and submitting to God's own disposal, when 
 v/e keep close to those methods of it, which himself has pre- 
 scribed ? 
 
 Pray, my lord, consider the nature of sacraments. Are not 
 they necessary to salvation ? But is God therefore excluded from 
 any power of his own ? Has he for that reason, set bread and 
 wine in the Eucharist, or water in baptism, above himself? Has 
 he put the salvation of men out of his own power, because it 
 depends on his own institutions ? Is the salvation of Christians 
 less his own act and deed, or less the effect of his own mercy, 
 because these sacraments in great measure contribute to effect it ? 
 Why then, my lord, must that imposition of hands, that is at- 
 tended with his grace of pardon, and which has no pretence to 
 such grace, but in obedience to his order, and in virtue of his 
 promise, be thus destructive of his prerogative ? Where is there 
 any diminution of his honour and authority, if such actions of the 
 clergy are made necessary to the salvation of souls in some cir- 
 cumstances, as their washing in water, <>r their receiving bread 
 and wine ? Cannot God institute means of grace, but those means 
 must not be above himself? They owe all their power and effi- 
 cacy to his institution ; and can operate no farther than the ends 
 for which he instituted them. How then is he dethroned for being 
 thus obeyed?
 
 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadky. 331 
 
 My lord, you take no notice of Scripture, but in a new way 
 of your own contend against this power, from the nature of the 
 thing : yet I must beg leave to say, this power stands upon as sure 
 a bottom, and is as consistent with the goodness and majesty of 
 God as the sacraments. If the annexing grace to scraments, and 
 making them necessary means of salvation, be a reasonable insti- 
 tution of God ; so is his annexing pardon to the imposition of 
 hands by the clergy on returning sinners. The grace or blessing 
 received in either case, is of his own giving, and in a method of 
 his own prescribing. And how this should be any injury to 
 God's honour, or affront to his majesty, cannot easily be ac- 
 counted for. 
 
 The clergy justly claim a power of reconciling men to God, 
 from express texts of Scripture; and of delivering his pardons to 
 penitent sinners. Your lordship disowns this claim, as making 
 fallible men the absolute dispensers of God's blessings, and putting 
 it in their power to damn and save as they please. But, my lord, 
 nothing of this extravagance is included in it. They are only 
 entrusted with a conditional power ; which they are to exercise 
 according to the rules God has given; and it only obtains its 
 effect when it is so exercised. Every instituted means of grace is 
 conditional ; and is only then effectual, when it is attended with 
 such circumstances as are required by God. If the clergy, through 
 weakness, passion, or prejudice, exclude persons from the church 
 of God, they injure only themselves. But, my lord, are these 
 powers nothing, because they may be exercised in vain ? Have 
 the clergy no right at all to them, because they are not absolutely 
 infallible in the exercise of them ? 
 
 Can you prove, my lord, that they are not necessary, because 
 they have not always the same effect? May not that be necessary 
 to salvation, which is only effectual on certain conditions ? Is 
 net the Christian religion necessary to salvation, though all Chris- 
 tians are not saved ? Are not the sacraments necessary means of 
 grace, though the means of grace obtained thereby is only condi- 
 tional ? Is every one necessarily improved in grace who receives 
 the sacrament ? Or is it less necessary, because the salutary effects 
 of it are not more universal? Why then must the imposition of 
 hands be less necessary, because the grace of it is conditional, and 
 only obtained in due and proper circumstances? Is absolution no- 
 thing, because if withheld wrongfully, it injures not the. person 
 who is denied it ; and if given without due dispositions in the 
 9
 
 332 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadky. 
 
 penitent, it avails nothing ? Is not this equally true of the sacra- 
 ments, if they are denied wrongfully, or administered to unpre- 
 pared receivers ? But do they therefore cease to be standing and 
 necessary means of grace ? 
 
 The argument therefore against this power, drawn from tfre 
 ignorance or passions of the clergy, wherehy they may mistake or 
 pervert the application of it, can be of no force; since it is as 
 conditional as any other Christian institution. The salvation of 
 no man can be endangered by the ignorance or passions of any 
 clergyman in the use of this power: if they err in the exercise of 
 it, die consequences of their error only affect themselves. The 
 administration of the sacraments is certainly entrusted tbeYn : but 
 will any one say, that the sacraments are not necessary to salva- 
 tion ; because they may, through ignorance or passion, make an 
 ill use of this trust ? 
 
 There is nothing in this doctrine to gratify the pride of clergy- 
 men, or encourage them to lord it over the flock of Christ. If 
 you could suppose an Atheist or a Deist in orders ; he might be 
 arrogant, and domineer in the exercise of his powers : but who, 
 that has the least sense of religion, can think it matter of triumph, 
 that he can deny the sacraments, or refuse his benediction to any 
 of his flock? Can he injure or offend the least of these, and will 
 not God take account ? Or, if they fall through his offence, will 
 not their blood be required at his hands ? 
 
 Neither is there any thing in it that can enslave the laity to the 
 clergy ; or make their salvation depend upon their arbitrary will. 
 Does any one think his salvation in danger, because the sacra- 
 ments (die necessary means of it) are only to be administered by 
 the clergy ? Why then must the salvation of penitents be en- 
 dangered, or made dependent on the sole pleasure of the clergy, 
 because they alone can reconcile them t the favour of God ? If 
 persons are unjustly denied the sacraments, they may humbly 
 hope, that God will not lay the want of them to their charge. 
 And if they are unjustly kept out of the church, and denied ad- 
 mittance, they have no reason to fear, but God will, notwith- 
 standing, accept them, provided they be in other respects proper 
 objects of his favour. 
 
 But to proceed ; your lordship says, " The Apostles might pos- 
 sibly understand the power of remitting and retaining sins, to be 
 that power of laying their hands upon the sick."
 
 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 333 
 
 Is this possible, my lord ? Then it is possible, the Apostles 
 might think, that in the power here intended to be given them, 
 nothing at all was intended to be given them. For the power of 
 healing the sick was already conferred upon them. Therefore if 
 110 more was intended to be given them in this text, it cannot be 
 interpreted, as having entitled them properly to any power at all. 
 
 2. The power mentioned here, was something that Jesws pro- 
 mised he would give them hereafter : which plainly supposes they 
 had it not then : but they then had the power of healing, there- 
 fore something else must be intended here. 
 
 3. The power of the keys has always been looked upon as the 
 highest in the apostolical order. But if it related only to the 
 power of healing, it could not be so : for the Seventy, who were 
 inferi0r to the Apostles, had this power. 
 
 4. The- very manner of expression in this place, proves, that 
 the power here intended to be given, could not relate to healing 
 the sick, or to any thing of that nature ; but to some spiritual 
 powers, whose effects should not be visible ; but be made good by 
 virtue of God's promise. Thus, " Whomsoever ye shall heal 
 on earth, I will heal in heaven," borders too near upon an ab- 
 surdity. There is no occasion to promise to make good such 
 actions as are good already, and have antecedently produced their 
 effects. Persons who were restored to health, to their sight, or 
 the use of their limbs, did not want to be assured, that the 
 Apostles, by whom they were restored, had a pewer to that end ; 
 the exercise of which power proved and confirmed itself. There 
 was no need therefore of a divine assurance, that a person who 
 was healed, was actually healed in virtue of it. But when we 
 consider this promise, as relating to a power whose effects are not 
 visible ; as the pardon of sins, the terms whereby it is expresr, 
 are most proper : and it is very reasonable to suppose God pro- 
 mising, that the spiritual powers exercised by his ministers on 
 earth, though they do not here produce their visible effects, shall 
 yet be made good and effectual by him in heaven. 
 
 These reasons, my lord, I should think, are sufficient to con- 
 vince any one, that the Apostles could not possibly understand 
 these words in the sense of your lordship. 
 
 Let us now consider the commission given to Peter. Our Sa- 
 viour said to him, " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will 
 " build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
 ' it ; and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
 
 334 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop. Hdadley. 
 
 " heaven ; and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth, shall 
 * be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shah loose on earth, 
 '* shall be loosed in heaven.'* 
 
 Now, my lord, how should it enter into the thoughts of Peter, 
 fhat nothing was here intended, or promised by our Saviour, but 
 a power of healing ; which he not only had before, but also many 
 other disciples, who were not Apostles ? " I will give unto thee 
 the keys of the kingdom of heaven ;'* that is, according to your 
 lordship, " I will give thee power to heal the sick." Can any 
 thing be more contrary to the plain obvious sense of the words ? 
 Can any one be said to have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, 
 because he may be the instrument of restoring people to health ? 
 Are persons members of Christ's- kingdom, with any regard to 
 health ? How then can he have any powers in that kingdom, or 
 be said to have the keys of it, who is only empowered to cure 
 distempers ? Could any one be said to have the keys of a temporal 
 kingdom, who had no temporal power given in that kingdom ? 
 Must not he therefore who has the keys of a spiritual kingdom, 
 have some spiritual power in that kingdom ? 
 
 Christ has told us, that his kingdom is not of this world. 
 Your lordship has told us, that it is so foreign to every thing of 
 this world, that no worldly terrors or allurements, no pains or 
 pleasures of the body, can have any thing to do with it. Yet 
 here your lordship teaches us, that he may have the keys of this 
 spiritual kingdom, wh'o has only a power over diseases. My lord, 
 are not sickness and health, sight and limbs, things of this world ? 
 Have they not some relation to bodily pleasures and pains ? How 
 then can a power about things wholly confined to this world, be 
 a power in a kingdom that is not of this world ? The force of the 
 argument lies here : our Saviour has assured us, that his kingdom 
 is not of this world : your lordship takes it to be of so spiritual 
 a nature, that it ought not, nay, that it cannot be encouraged or 
 established by any worldly powers. Our Saviour gives to his 
 Apostles the keys of this kingdom. Yet you have so far forgotten 
 your own doctrine, and the spirituality of this kingdom, that you 
 tell us, he here gave them a temporal power of diseases ; though 
 he says, they were the keys of his kingdom which he gave them. 
 Suppose any successor of the Apostles should from this text pre. 
 tend to the power of the sword, to make people members of this 
 kingdom : must not the answer be, that he mistakes the power, 
 by not considering that they are only the keys of a spiritual,
 
 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 335 
 
 not of a temporal kingdom, -which were here delivered to the 
 Apostles. 
 
 I humbly presume, my lord, that this would be as good an an- 
 swer to your lordship's doctrine, as to theirs, who claim the right 
 of the sword, till it can be shewn that health and sickness, sight 
 and limbs, do not as truly relate to the things of this world as the 
 power of the sword. 
 
 If this power of the keys must be understood, only as a power 
 of inflicting or curing diseases ; then the words, in the proper 
 construction of them, must run thus : " Thou art Peter, and upon 
 " This rock I will build my church," i. c. a peculiar society of 
 healthful people, and the gates of hell shall never prevail against 
 it; i. e. they shall always be in a state of health. " I will give 
 " unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," i. e. thou shalt 
 have the power of inflicting and curing distempers ; " and what- 
 " soever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven," 
 i. e. on whomsoever thou shalt inflict the leprosy on earth, he shall 
 be a leper in heaven ; " and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, 
 *' shall be loosed in heaven/' i. e. whomsoever thou shalt cure of 
 that disease on earth, shall be perfectly cured of it in heaven. 
 
 This, without putting any force upon the words, is your lord- 
 ship's own interpretation ; which exposes the honour and au- 
 thority of Scriptures as much as the greatest enemy to them can wish. 
 If our Saviour could mean by these words, only a power of heal- 
 ing distempers ; or if the Apostles understood them in that sense, 
 we may as well believe, that when he s^id his kingdom was not 
 of this world, that he meant, it was of this world : and that the 
 Apostles so understood him too. 
 
 But however, for the benefit and edification of the laity, your 
 lordship has another interpretation for them : you say, " if they 
 (the Apostles) did apply this power of remitting sins to the 
 certain absolution of particular persons, it is plain, they could 
 do it upon no other bottom but this ; that God's will, and good 
 pleasure, about such particular persons was infallibly communi- 
 cated to them." 
 
 Pray, my lord, how, or where is this so plain ? Is it plain, that 
 they never baptized persons, till God had " infallibly communi- 
 cated his good pleasure to them about such particular persons ?" 
 Baptism is an institution equally sacred with this other, and puts 
 the person baptized in the same state of grace, that absolution does 
 the penitent. Baptism is designed for the remission of sin. It is
 
 336 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadky. 
 
 an ordinance to which absolution is consequent, but I suppose 
 persons may be baptized without such infallible communication 
 promised, as your lordship contends for. If therefore it be not 
 necessary for the exercise of absolution by baptism, why must it 
 be necessary for absolution by the imposition of hands ? 
 
 Can pastors without infallibility baptize Heathens, and absolve, 
 cr be the instruments of absolving them thereby from their sins ? 
 Are they not as able to absolve Christian penitents, or restore those 
 who have apostatized ? If human knowledge, and the common 
 rules of the church, be sufficient to direct the priest to whom 
 he ought to administer the sacraments ; they are also sufficient 
 for the exercise of this other part of the sacerdotal office. 
 
 But your lordship proceeds thus : " Not that they themselves 
 absolved any." 
 
 No, my lord, no more than water in baptism of itself purifies 
 the soul from sin. This baptismal water is, notwithstanding, 
 necessary for the remission of our sins. 
 
 Again. you say, " Not that God was obliged to bind and loose 
 the guilt of men, according to their declarations, considered as 
 their own decisions and their own determinations." No, my lord; 
 who ever thought so ? God is not obliged to confer grace by the 
 baptismal water, considered only as water ; but he is considered 
 as his own institution for that end and purpose. So, if these de- 
 clarations are considered only as the declarations of men, God 
 is not obliged by them : but when they are considered as the 
 declarations of men whom he has especially authorized to make 
 such declarations in his 'name, then they are as effectual with 
 God, as any other of his institutions whatever. 
 
 I proceed now to a paragraph that bears as hard upon our 
 Saviour as some others have done upon his Apostles and their 
 successors ; where your lordship designs to prove, that though 
 Christ claimed a power of remitting sins himself, or in his own 
 person, yet that he had really no such power. 
 
 You go upon these words : If we look back upon our Saviour 
 himself, we shall find, that when he declares that the Son of 
 man had power upon earth to forgive sins, even he himself either 
 meant by it, the power of a miraculous releasing man from his 
 affliction ; or if it related to another more spiritual sense of the 
 words, the power of declaring, that the man's sins were forgiven 
 by God*." 
 
 * Preservative, p. 94.
 
 Mr* Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 337 
 
 The words of our Saviour, which we are to look back upon, 
 are these : " Whether is it easier to say, thy sins are forgiven thee: 
 * or to say, arise, take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may 
 " know the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins." 
 Mark ii. 9, 10. As if he had said, " Is not the same divine au- 
 thority and power required ? Is it not a work as peculiar to God, 
 to perform miraculous cures, as to forgive sifls? The reason there- 
 . fore, why 1 now chuse to declare my authority, rather by saying, 
 " Thy sins are forgiven thee," than by saying, " Arise and walk," 
 \vas purely to 'each you this truth, that the power of the Son of 
 man is not confined to bodily cures ; but that he has power on 
 earth to forgive sins." 
 
 This, my lord, is the first obvious sense of the words; and 
 therefore I take it to be the true sense. But your lordship can 
 look back upon them, till you find that Christ has not this 
 power, though he claims it expressly; but that he only intends 
 a power of doing something or other, which no more imports a 
 power of forgiving sins, than of remitting any temporal debt or 
 penalty. 
 
 If our blessed Saviour had intended to teach the world, that he 
 was invested with this power, I would gladly know, how he must 
 have expressed himself, to have satisfied your lordship that he 
 really had it ? He must have told you, that he had not this power; 
 and then possibly, your lordship would have taught us that he 
 had this power. For no one can discover any reason why you 
 should deny it him ; but because he has in express words claimed 
 and asserted it. I hope your lordship has not so low an opinion, 
 of our Saviour's person, as to think it unreasonable in the nature 
 of the thing, that he should have this power. Where does it 
 contradict any principle of reason, to say, that a king should 
 be able to pardon his subjects ? Since there is no absurdity then 
 in the thing itself; and it is so expressly asserted in the Scrip- 
 ture ; it is just matter of surprize, that your lordship should 
 carry your reader from a plain consistent sense of the words, to 
 either this or that something or other, the origi^ whereof is only 
 to be sought for in your lordship's own invention ; rather than 
 not exclude Christ from a power which he declared he had, and 
 declared he had it for this very reason, that we might know that 
 he had it. Our Saviour has told us, that the way to heaven is: 
 narrow. Your lordship might as reasonably prove from hence, 
 that he meant, it was broad., as that he did not mean he couldi 
 
 FOL. I. Z
 
 338 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 forgive sins, when he said, " that ye may know, that the Son of 
 " man hath power on earth to forgive sins." 
 
 Your lordship has rejected all church authority, and despised 
 the pretended powers of the clergy, for this reason ; hecause Christ 
 is the sole King, sole Lawgiver, and Judge in his kingdom. But, 
 it seems, your lordship, notwithstanding, thinks it now rime to 
 depose him: and this sole King in his own kingdom, must not be 
 allowed to be capable of pardoning his own subjects. 
 
 This doctrine, my lord, is delivered, I suppose, as your other 
 doctrines, out of a hearty concern and Christian zeal for the pri- 
 vileges of the laity ; and to shew, that your lordship is not only 
 able to limit as you please, the authority of temporal kings ; but 
 also to make Christ himself sole King, and yet no King, in his 
 spiritual kingdom. For, my lord, the kingdom of Christ is a 
 society, founded in order to the reconciliation of sinners to God. 
 If therefore Christ could not pardon sins, to what end could he 
 either erect, or how could he support his kingdom, which is only 
 in the great and last design of it, to consist of absolved sinners ? 
 He that cannot forgive sins in a kingdom that is erected for the 
 remission of sins, can be no more sole King in it, than he that 
 has no temporal power, can be sole king in a temporal kingdom. 
 Therefore your lordship has been thus mighty serviceable to the 
 Christian laity, as to teach them, that Christ is not only sole King, 
 but no King in his kingdom. 
 
 This is not the first contradiction your lordship has unhappily 
 fallen into, in your attempts upon kingly authority. Nor is it the 
 last ; which I shall presume to observe to the common sense of 
 your laity. 
 
 Again, in this account of our blessed Saviour, your lordship has 
 made no difference between him and his Apostles, as to this absolv- 
 ing authority. For you say, the great commission given to them, 
 implied either a power of releasing men from their bodily afflic- 
 tions ; or of declaring such to be pardoned, whom God had assured 
 them that he had pardoned: and this is all that you here allow to 
 Christ himself. 
 
 Your lordship's calling him so often King, and sole King, &c. 
 in his kingdom, and yet making him a mere creature in it, is too 
 like the insult ami designed sarcasm of the Jews, who, when they 
 had nailed him to the cross, writ over his head, " This is the King 
 of the Jews."
 
 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 339 
 
 But to proceed : your lordship proves, that our Saviour had 
 not the power of forgiving sins; because his way of expression 
 was, " Thy sins are forgiven thee." This was plainly to ac- 
 knowledge, and keep up that true notion, that God alone for" 
 giveth sins. 
 
 Let us therefore put this argument in form. Christ has affirmed, 
 that he had power to forgive sins: but his way was, to say, " Thy 
 " sins are forgiven thee." Therefore Christ had not power to 
 forgive sins. Q. E. D. 
 
 It is much your lordship did not recommend this to your laity 
 as another invincible demonstration. For by the help of it, rny 
 lord, they may prove, that our Saviour could no more heal dis- 
 eases, than forgive sins. As thus; Christ indeed pretends to a. 
 power of healing diseases ; but his usual way of speaking to the 
 diseased person, was, " Thy faith hath made thee whole;" there- 
 fore he had not the power of healing diseases.- The argument 
 lias the same force against one power, as against the other. If he 
 did not forgive sins, because he said, " thy sins are forgiven thee ;" 
 no more did he heal diseases, because he said, " thy faith hath 
 " made thee whole." 
 
 I have a claim of several debts upon a man : I forgive him them 
 all, in these words, Thy debts are remitted thee. A philosophical 
 wit stands by, and pretends to prove, that I had not the power of 
 remitting these debts; because I said, thy debts are remitted thee. 
 What can come up to, or equal such profound philosophy, but the 
 divinity ef one who teaches, our Saviour could not forgive sins, 
 because he saki, " thy sins are forgiven thee ?" 
 
 But your lordship says, the reason why our Saviour thus ex- 
 presses himself, " thy sins are forgiven thee," " was plainly to 
 keep up that true notion, that God alone forgiveth sins." There- 
 fore, my lord, according to this doctrine, our Saviour was obliged 
 not to claim any power that was peculiar or appropriated to God 
 alone. For if this be an argument why he should not forgive sins, 
 it is also an argument that he ought not to claim any other power, 
 any more than this; which is proper to God, and only belongs to 
 him. But, my lord, if he did express himself thus, that he might 
 not lay claim to any thing that was peculiar to God, how came he 
 in so many other respects, to lay claim to such things as are as 
 truly peculiar to God, as the forgiveness of sins ? How came he 
 in so many instances to make himself equal to God ? How came 
 
 z 2
 
 340 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 he to say, " Ye believe in God, believe also in me? And that men 
 " should worship the Son, even as the Father?" That he was 
 the Son of God ; that he was the way, the truth, and the life ? 
 
 Are not evangelical faith, worship and trust, duties that are solely 
 due to God ? Does he not^ as much invade the sovereignty of God, 
 who lays claim to these duties, as he that pretends to forgive 
 sins? Did not Christ also give his disciples power and autho- 
 rity over devils and unclean spirits, and power to heal all manner 
 of diseases? 
 
 Now, if Christ did not assume a power to forgive sins, because 
 God alone could forgive sins, it is also as unaccountable that he 
 should exercise other authorities and powers which are as strictly 
 peculiar to God, as that of forgiving sins. As if a person should 
 disown that Christ is omniscient, because omniscience is an attri- 
 bute of God alone; and yet confess his omnipotence, which is an 
 attribute equally divine. 
 
 But farther, my lord : did our Saviour thus designedly express 
 himself, lest He should be thought to assume any power which was 
 divine, then it is certain (according to this opinion) that if He 
 had assumed any suck power, or pretended to do what was peculiar 
 to God, he had been the occasion of misleading men into error. 
 For if this be a plain reason, why he expressed himself so as to 
 disown this power, it is plain, that if he had owned it, he had been* 
 condemned by this argument, as teaching false doctrine. 
 
 Now if this would have been interpretatively false doctrine in 
 Christ, to take upon himself any thing that was peculiar to God, 
 the Apostles were guilty of propagating this false doctrine. For 
 there is scarce any known attribute or power of God, but they 
 ascribe it to our Saviour. They declare him eternal, omnipotent, 
 omniscient, &c. Is it not a true notion that God alone can 
 create, and is governor of the universe ? Yet the Apostles ex- 
 pressly assure us of Christ, that ' all things were created by him," 
 and that " God hath put all things in subjection under his feet.'* 
 It is very surprising, that your lordship should exclude Christ 
 from this power of forgiving sins, though he has expressly said he 
 could forgive sins, because such a power belongs only to God ; 
 when it appears through the whole Scripture, that there is scarce 
 any divine power which our Saviour himself has not claimed, nor 
 am/ attribute of God, but what his Apostles have ascribed to him. 
 They have made him the creator, the preserver, the governor of
 
 Mr. Law's second Latter to Bishop Hoadlcy. 341 
 
 the universe, the author of eternal salvation to all that obey him ; 
 and yet your lordship tells us that he did not pretend to forgive 
 sins, because that was a power peculiar to God. 
 
 Here is then (to speak in your lordship's elegant style) an im- 
 moveable resting-place for your laity to set their feet upon ; here 
 is an argument that will last them for ever ; they, must believe that 
 our Saviour did not forgive sins, because this was a power that 
 belonged to God, though the Scriptures assure us that every other 
 divine power belonged to Christ. That is, they must believe 
 that though our Saviour claimed all divine powers, yet not this 
 divine power, because it is a divine power. And, my lord, if 
 they have the common sense to believe this, they may also believe 
 that though our Saviour took human nature upon him, yet that 
 lie had not a human soul, because it is proper lo man. They 
 may believe that any person who has all kingly power, cannot 
 remit or reprieve a malefactor, because it is an act of kingly 
 power to do it ; or that a bishop cannot suspend an offender of 
 his diocese, because it is an act of episcopal power to do it. All 
 these reasons are as strong and demonstrative as that Christ, who 
 claimed all divine powers, could not forgive sins, because it was a 
 divine po%ver. 
 
 Lastly, In this argument your lordship has plainly declared 
 against the divinity of Christ, and ranked him in the order of 
 creatures. Your lordship says, Christ did not forgive sins, because 
 it is God alone who can forgive sins; as plain an argument as 
 can be offered, that in your lordship's opinion, Christ is not God: 
 for if you believed him, in a true and proper sense, God, how 
 could you exclude him from the power of forgiving sins, because 
 God alone can forgive sins? It is inconsistent with sense and 
 reason to deny this power to Christ because it is a divine power, 
 but only because you believe him not to be a divine person. If 
 Christ was God, then he might forgive sins, though God alone 
 can forgive sins : but you say, Christ cannot forgive sins because 
 God alone can forgive sins; therefore it is plain, that according 
 to your lordship's doctrine, Christ is not truly, or in a proper 
 sense, God. 
 
 Here, my lord, I desire again to appeal to the common sense of 
 your laity ; let them judge betwixt the Scriptures and your lord- 
 ship. The Scriptures plainly and frequently ascribe all divine 
 attributes to Christ : they make him the creator and governor of 
 the world; God over all, blessed for ever. Yet your lordship
 
 342 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop ffoadley. 
 
 makes him a creature, and denies him such a power, because it 
 belongs only to God. 
 
 You yourself, my lord, have allowed him to be absolute ruler 
 over the consciences of men ; to be an arbitrary dispenser of 
 the means of salvation to mankind ; than which powers, none 
 can be more divine : and yet you hold that he cannot forgive sins, 
 because pardon of sin can only be the effect of a divine power. 
 
 Is it not equally a divine power (even according to your lord- 
 ship) to rule over the consciences of men, to give laws of sal- 
 vation, and to act in these affairs with an uncontroulable power, as 
 to forgive sins ? 
 
 My lord, let their common sense here discover the absurdity 
 (for I must call it so) of your new scheme of government in Christ's 
 kingdom. Christ is absolute Lord of it, (according to yourself) 
 and can make or unmake laws relating to it ; can dispense or with- 
 hold grace as he pleases in this spiritual kingdom, all which 
 powers are purely divine ; yet you say he cannot forgive sins, 
 though every express power which you have allowed him over 
 the consciences of men, be as truly a divine power as that of for- 
 giving sins. Has not Christ a proper and personal power to give 
 grace to his subjects ? Is. he not Lord over their consciences? And 
 are not these powers as truly appropriated to God ? And has not 
 your lordship often taught them to be so, as that of forgiveness of 
 sins ? Is it not as much the prerogative of God to have any natural 
 intrinsic power, to confer grace, or any spiritual benefit to the 
 souls of men, as to forgive sins? Has not your lordship de- 
 spised all the administrations of the clergy, becauce God's graces 
 can only come from himself, and are only to be received from his 
 own hands? The conclusion therefore is this ; either Christ has 
 a personal intrinsic power to confer grace in his kingdom, or he 
 has not ; if you say he has not, then you are chargeable with the 
 collusion of making him a king in a spiritual kingdom, where 
 you allow him no spiritual power : if you say he has, then you 
 fall into this contradiction, that you allow him to have divine 
 powers, though he cannot have divine powers ; that is, you 
 allow him to give grace, though it is a divine power, and 
 not to forgive sins, because it is a divine power. My lord, I 
 wish your laity (if there be any to whom you can render 
 it intelligible) much joy of such profound divinity. Or if 
 there are others who are more taken with your lordship's 
 sincerity, I desire them not to pass by this following remarkable 
 instance of it : your lordship has here as plainly declared, as words
 
 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 34$ 
 
 can consequentially declare any thing, that you do not believe 
 Christ to DC God, yet profess yourself bishop of a church, whose 
 liturgy in so many repeated testimonies declares the contrary doc- 
 trine, and which obliges you to express your assent and consent 
 to such doctrine. My lord, I here call upon your sincerity, either 
 declare Christ to be perfect God, and then shew why he could 
 not forgive sins, or deny him to be perfect God, and then shew 
 how you can sincerely declare your assent and consent to the doc- 
 trines of the church of England. 
 
 This, my lord, has an appearance of prevarication, which you 
 cannot, I hope, charge upon any of your adversaries : who if 
 they cannot think, that to be sincere is the only thing necessary to 
 recommend men to the favour of God, yet may have as much, 
 or possibly more sincerity, than those who do think so. 
 
 Before 1 take leave of your lordship, I must take notice of a 
 " resting-place," a " strong retreat," a " lasting foundation,'* 
 i. e. a demonstration in the strictest sense of the words, that all 
 church-communion is unnecessary. 
 
 Your lordship sets it out in these words : 
 
 " I am not now going to accuse you of a heresy against charity, 
 but of a heresy against the possibility and nature of things. As 
 thus Mr. Nelson (for instance) thinks himself obliged in con- 
 science to communicate with some of our church. Upon this you 
 declare he hath no title to God's mercy ; and you and all the 
 world allow, that if he communicates with you whilst his con- 
 science tells him it is a sin, he is self- condemned, and out of 
 God's favour. That notion, (viz. the necessity of church-com- 
 munion) therefore, which implies this great invincible absurdity, 
 cannot be true." 
 
 Pray, my lord, what is this wonderous curiosity of a demon- 
 stration, but the common case of an erroneous conscience ? Did 
 the strictest contenders for church-communion ever teach, that 
 any terms are to be complied with against conscience ? But it is a 
 strange conclusion to infer from thence, that there is no obligation 
 to communion, or that all things are to be held indifferent, be- 
 cause they are not to be complied with against one's conscience. 
 
 The truths of the Christian religion have the same nature and 
 obligation, whatever our opinions are of them, and those that are 
 necessary to be believed, continue so, whether we can persuade 
 ourselves to believe them or not. I suppose your lordship will 
 not say, that the articles of faith, and necessary institutions of the 
 Christian religion, are no otherwise necessary, than because we
 
 344- Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 believe them to be so, that our persuasion is the only cause of the 
 necessity ; but if their necessity be not owing merely to our belief 
 of them, then it is certain that our disbelief of them cannot 
 make them less necessary. If the ordinances of Christ, and the 
 articles of faith are necessary, because Christ has made t,hem so, 
 that necessity must continue the same, whether we believe and 
 observe them or not. 
 
 So that, my lord, we may still maintain the necessity of chprch- 
 rommunion, and the strict observance of Christ's ordinances, 
 notwithstanding that people have different persuasions in these 
 matters, presuming that our opinions can no more alter the na- 
 ture or necessity of Christ's institutions, than we can believe error 
 into truth, good into evil, or light into darkness. I shall think 
 myself no heretic against the nature of things, though I tell a 
 conscientious Socinian, that the divinity of Christ is neceseary to 
 be believed, or a conscientious Jew, that it is necessary to be a 
 Christian in order to be saved. But if your lordship's. demonstra- 
 tion was accepted, we should be obliged to. give up the necessity 
 of every doctrine and institution to every disbeliever that pretended 
 conscience. We must not tell any party of people that they are 
 in any danger for being out of communion with us, if they do 
 but follow their own persuasion: 
 
 Your lordship's invincible demonstration proceeds thus : 
 " We must not insist upon the necessity of joining with any 
 particular church, because then conscientious persons will be in 
 danger either way ; for if there be a necessity of it, then there 
 is a danger if they do not join with it ; and if they comply against 
 their consciences, the danger is the same." 
 
 What an inextricable difficulty is here ! How shall divinity or 
 logic be able to relieve us ! 
 
 Be pleased, my lord, to accept of this solution in lieu of your 
 demonstration. 
 
 I will suppose the case of a conscientious Jew ; I tell him that 
 Christianity is the only covenanted method of salvation, and that 
 he can have no title to the favour of God, till he professes the 
 faith of Christ. What, replies he, would you direct me to do ? 
 If I embrace Christianity against my conscience, I am out of 
 God's favour ; and if I follow my conscience, and continue a 
 Jew, I am also out of his favour. The answer is this, my 
 lord ; the Jew is to obey his conscience, and to be left to the un- 
 covenanted, unpromised terms of God's mercy,' whilst the con-
 
 Mr. La-w's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 345 
 
 factitious Christian is entitled to the express and promised favours 
 of God. 
 
 There is still the same absolute necessity of believing in Christ, 
 Christianity is still the only method of salvation, though the sin- 
 cere Jew cannot so persuade himself ; and we ought to declare it 
 to all Jews and unbelievers whatsoever, that they can only be 
 saved by embracing Christianity. That a false religion does not 
 become a true one, nor a true one false, in consequence of their 
 opinions ; but that if they are so unhappy as to \ :fuse the cove- 
 nant of grace, they must be left to such mercy as is without any 
 covenant. And now, my lord, what is become of this mighty 
 demonstration ? Does it prove that Christianity is not necessary, 
 because the conscientious Jew may think it is not so ? It may as 
 well prove that the moon is no larger than a man's head, because 
 an honest ignorant countryman may think it no larger. 
 
 Is there any person of common sense, who would think it a 
 demonstration that he is not obliged to go to church, because a 
 conscientious Dissenter will not ? Could he think it less necessary 
 to be a Christian, because a sincere Jew cannot embrace chris- 
 tianity ? Could he take it to be an indifferent matter, whether he 
 believed the divinity of Christ, because a conscientious Socinian 
 cannot ? Yet this is your lordship's invincible demonstration, that 
 we ought not to insist upon the necessity of church-communion, 
 because a conscientious disbeliever cannot comply with it. 
 
 A small degree of common sense would teach a man that true 
 religion and the terms of salvation must have the same obligatory 
 force, whether we reason rightly about them or not ; and that 
 they who believe and practise according to them, are in express 
 covenant with God, which entitles them to his favour ; whilst 
 those who are sincerely erroneous, have nothing but the sincerity 
 of their errors to plead, and are left to such mercy of God, as is 
 without any promise. Here, my lord, is nothing frightful or 
 absurd in this doctrine ; they who are in the church which Christ 
 has founded, are upon terms which entitles them to God's favour; 
 they who are out of it, fall to his mercy. 
 
 But your lordship is not content with the terms of the Gospel, 
 or a doctrine that only saves a particular sort of people ; this is a 
 narrow view, not wide enough fer your notions of liberty. Par- 
 ticular religions, and particular covenants, are demonstrated to be 
 absurd, because particular persons may disbelieve, or not submit 
 to them.
 
 <$46 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 Your lordship must have doctrines that will save all people 
 alike, in every way that their persuasion leads them to take, but, 
 my lord, there needs be no greater demonstration against your 
 lordship's doctrine, than that it equally favours every way of wor- 
 ship ; for an argument which equally proves every thing, has been 
 generally thought to prove nothing ; which happens to be the case 
 of your lordship's important demonstration. 
 
 Your lordship indeed only instances in a particular person,, Mr. 
 Nelson ; but your demonstration is as serviceable to any other 
 person who has left any other church whatever. The conscien- 
 tious Quaker, Muggletonian, Independent, or Socinian, &c. 
 have the same right to obey conscience, and blame any church 
 that assumes a power of censuring them, as Mr. Nelson had ; and 
 if they are censured by any church, that church is as guilty of the 
 same heresy against the nature of things, as that church which 
 censured Mr. Nelson, or any church that should pretend to cen- 
 sure any other person whatever. 
 
 I am not at all surprised that your lordship should teach this 
 doctrine, but it is something strange that such an ai gument should 
 be obtruded upon the world as an unheard-of demonstration, and 
 that in an " Appeal to common Sense." Suppose somebody or 
 other in defence of your lordship, should take upon him to de- 
 monstrate to the world, that there is no such thing as colour, 
 because there are some people that cannot see them ; or sounds, 
 because there are some who do not hear them, he would have 
 found out the only demonstrations in the world that could equal 
 your lordship's, and would have as much reason to call those he- 
 retics against the nature of things, who should disbelieve him, and 
 insist upon the reality of sounds, as your lordship has to call your 
 adversaries so. 
 
 For, is there no necessity of church-communion, because there 
 are some who do not conceive it ? Then there are no sounds, be- 
 cause there are some who do not hear them ; for it is certainly 
 as easy to believe away the truth and reality, as the necessity of 
 things. 
 
 Some people have only taught us the innocency of error, and 
 been content with setting forth its harmless qualities ; but your 
 lordship has been a more hearty advocate, and given it a power 
 over every truth and institution of Christianity. If we have but 
 an erroneous conscience, the whole Christian dispensation is can-
 
 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 347 
 
 celled ; all the truth and doctrines in the Bible are demonstrated to 
 be unnecessary, if we do not believe them. 
 
 How unhappily have the several parties of Christians been dis- 
 puting for many ages, who if they could but have found out this 
 intelligible demonstration, (from the case of an erroneous consci- 
 ence) would have seen the absurdity of pretending to necessary 
 doctrines, and insisting upon church-communion ; but it must be 
 acknowledged your lordship's new invented engine for the destruc- 
 tion of churches ; and it may be expected the good Christians of 
 no church will return your lordship their thanks for it. 
 
 Your lordship has thought it a mighty objection to some doc- 
 trines in the church of England, that the Papists might make 
 some advantage of them: but yet your own doctrine defends all 
 communions alike, and serves the Jew and Socinian, &c. as much 
 as any other sort of people. Though this sufficiently appears, 
 from what has been already said, yet that it may be still more obvi- 
 ous to the common sense of every one, I shall reduce these 
 doctrines to practice, and suppose for once, that your lordship in- 
 tends to convert a Jew, a Quaker, or Socinian. 
 
 Now in order to make a convert of any of them, these pre- 
 liminary propositions are to be first laid down according to your 
 lordship's doctrine. 
 
 Some Propositions for the improvement of true religion. 
 
 Proposition I. That we are neither more or less in the favour 
 of God for living in any particular method or way of worship, but 
 purely as we are sincere. Preserv. p. 90. 
 
 Prop. II. That no church ought to unchurch another, or de- 
 clare it out of God's favour. Preserv. p. 85. 
 
 Prop. III. That nothing loses us the favour of God, but a 
 wicked insincerity. Ibid. 
 
 Prop. IV. That a conscientious person can be in no danger 
 for being out of any particular, church. Preserv. p. 90. 
 
 Prop. V. That there is no such thing as any real perfection or 
 excellency in any religion that can justify our adhering to it, but 
 that is all founded in our personal persuasion. Which your 
 lordship thus proves : " When we left the Popish doctrines, was 
 it because they were actually corrupt ? No ; the reason was, 
 because we thought them so." Therefore if we might leave the 
 church of Rome, not because her doctrines were corrupt, but 
 because we thought them so, then the same reason will justify 
 5
 
 348 Mr. Larv's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 any one else in leaving any church, how true soever its doctrines 
 are ; and consequently there is no such thing as any real perfec- 
 tion or excellency in any religion considered in itself, but it is 
 right or wrong according to our persuasions about it. Preserv. 
 P. 85. 
 
 Prop. VI. That Christ is sole King and Law-giver in his 
 kingdom ; that no men have any power of legislation in it; that if 
 we would be good members of it, we must shew ourselves subjects 
 of Christ alone, without any regard to man's judgment. 
 
 Prop. VII. That as Christ's kingdom is not of this world, so 
 \vhen worldly encouragements are annexed to it, these are so 
 many divisions against Christ and his own express word. Serm. 
 i>. 11. 
 
 Prop. VIII. That to pretend to know the hearts and sincerity 
 of men, is nonsense and absurdity. Serm. p. 93. 
 
 Prop. IX. That God's graces are only to be received immedi- 
 ately from himself. Serm. p. 89. 
 
 These, my lord, are your lordship's own propositions, expressed 
 in your own terms, without any exaggeration. 
 
 And now, my lord, begin as soon as you please, either with a 
 Quaker, Socinian, or Jew ; use any argument whatsoever to con- 
 vert them, and you shall have a sufficient answer from your own 
 propositions. 
 
 Will you tell the Jew that Christianity is necessary to salvation ? 
 He will answer from Prop. I. " That we are neither more or less 
 in the favour of God for living in any particular method or way of 
 worship, but purely as we are sincere." 
 
 Will your lordship tell him, that the truth of Christianity is so 
 well asserted, that there is no excuse left for unbelievers ? He will 
 answer from Prop. V. " That all religion is founded in per- 
 sonal persuasion ; that as your lordship does not believe that 
 Christ is come, because he is actually come, but because you 
 think he is come ; so he does not disbelieve Christ because he 
 is not actually come, but because he thinks he is not come." So 
 that here, my lord, the Jew gives as good a reason why he is not a 
 Christian, as your lordship does why you are not a Papist. 
 
 If your lordship should turn the discourse to a Quaker, andi 
 offer him any reasons for embracing the doctrine of the church 
 of England, you cannot possibly have any better success; any 
 one may see fromjyour propositions, that no argument can
 
 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley, 549 
 
 be urged but what your lordship has there fully answered. For 
 since you allow nothing to the truth of doctrines, or the excel- 
 lency of any communion as such, it is demonstrable that no 
 church or communion can have any advantage above another, 
 which is absolutely necessary in order to persuade any sensible man 
 to exchange any communion for another. 
 
 Will your lordship tell a Quaker that there is any danger in that 
 particular way that he is in ? 
 
 He can answer from Prop. 1st, Sd, and 4th. " That a consci- 
 entious person cannot be in any danger for being out of any parti- 
 cular church." 
 
 Will your lordship tell him that his religion is condemned by the 
 universal church ? 
 
 He can answer from Prop. II. " That no church ought to un- 
 church another^or declare it out of God's favour." 
 
 Will you tell him that Christ has instituted sacraments as neces- 
 sary means of grace, which he neglects to observe 7 
 
 He will answer you from Prop. IX. " That God's graces are 
 only to be received immediately from himself. And to think that 
 bread and wine, or the sprinkling of water is necessary to salvation, 
 is as absurd as to think any order of the clergy is necessary to re- 
 commend us to God." 
 
 Will your lordship tell him that he displeases God, by not hold- 
 ing several articles of faith, which Christ has required us to 
 believe ? 
 
 He can reply from Prop. III. " That nothing loses us the fa- 
 vour of God but a wicked insincerity." And from Prop. V. 
 " That as your lordship believes such things, not because they arc 
 actually to be believed, but because you think so, so he disbelieves 
 them, not because they are actually false, but because he thinks 
 so." 
 
 Will your lordship tell him he is insincere? 
 
 He can reply from Prop. VI. " That to assume to know the 
 hearts and sincerity of men, is nonsense and blasphemy." 
 
 Will your lordship tell him that he ought to conform to a church 
 established by the laws of the land ? 
 
 He can answer from Prop. VIII. '* That this very establish, 
 ment is an a r gument against conformity j for as Christ's kingdom 
 is not of this world, so when worldly encouragements are annexed 
 to it, they are so many decisions against Christ, and his own 
 express words." And from Prop. VII. " That seeing Christ is
 
 35O Mr. Latins second Letter to Bishop Hoodley. 
 
 sole King and Law-giver in his kingdom, and no men have any 
 power of legislation in it, they who would be good members f it, 
 must shew themselves subjects to Christ alone, without any regard 
 to man's judgment. 
 
 I am inclined to think, my lord, that it is now demonstrated to 
 the common sense of the laity, that your lordship cannot urge any 
 argument, either from the truth, the advantage, or necessity of em- 
 bracing the doctrines of the church of England to either Jew, He- 
 retic, or Schismatic, but you have helped him to a full answer to 
 any such argument, from your own principles. 
 
 Are we, my lord, to be treated as Popishly affected for asserting 
 some truths which the Papists join with us in asserting ? Is it a 
 crime in us not to drop some necessary doctrines, because the Pa- 
 pists have not dropt them ? If this is to be Popishly affected, we 
 own the charge, and are not for being such true Protestants as to 
 give up the Apostles' creed, or lay aside the sacraments, because 
 they are received by the church or Rome. I cannot indeed charge 
 your lordship with being well affected to the church of Rome or of 
 England, to the Jews, the Quakers, or Socinians ; but this I 
 have demonstrated, and will undertake the defence of it, that your 
 lordship's principles equally serve them all alike, and do not give the 
 least advantage to one church above another, as has sufficiently ap- 
 peared from your principles. 
 
 I will no more say your lordship is in the interest of the 
 Quakers, or Socinians, or Papists, then I would charge you with 
 being in the interest of the church of England ; for as your doc- 
 trines equally support them all, he ought to ask your lordship's 
 pardon, who should declare you more a friend to one than the 
 other. 
 
 I intended, my lord, to have considered another very obnoxious 
 article in your lordship's doctrines, concerning the repugnancy of 
 temporal encouragements to the nature of Christ's kingdom ; but 
 the consistency and reasonableness of guarding this spiritual 
 kingdom with human laws, has been defended with so much 
 perspicuity andistrength of argument, and your lordship's objec- 
 tions so fully confuted by the judicious and learned Dean of Chi- 
 chester, that I presume this part of the controversy is finally deter- 
 mined. 
 
 I hope, my lord, that I have delivered nothing here that needs any 
 any excuse or apology to the laity, that they will not be persuaded, 
 through any vain pretence of liberty, to make themselves parties
 
 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 351 
 
 against the first principles of Christianity ; or imagine, that whilst 
 \ve contend for the positive institutions of the Gospel, the neces- 
 sity of church-communion, or the excellency of our own, we are 
 robbing them of their natural rights, or interfering with their 
 privileges. Whilst we appear in the defence of any part of 
 Christianity, we are engaged for them in the common cause of 
 Christians ; and I am persuaded better things of the laity, than to 
 believe that such labours will render either our persons or profes- 
 sions hateful to them. Your lordship has indeed endeavoured to 
 give an invidious turn to the controversy, by calling upon the 
 laity to assert their liberties, as if they were in danger from the 
 principles of Christianity. But, my lord, what liberty does any 
 layman lose by our asserting, that church-communion is necessary ? 
 What privilege is taken from them by our teaching the danger of 
 certain ways and methods of religion ? Is a man made a slave be- 
 cause he is cautioned against the principles of the Quakers, against 
 fanaticism, popery, or socinianism ? Is he in a state of bondage, be- 
 cause the sacraments are necessary, and none but episcopal clergy- 
 ought to administer them ? Is his freedom destroyed because there 
 is a particular order of men appointed by God to minister in holy 
 things, and be serviceable to him in recommending him to the 
 favour of God ? Can any persons, my lord, think these things 
 breaches upon their liberty, except such as think the command- 
 ments a burden ? Is there any more hardship in saying thou shalt 
 keep to an episcopal church, than thou shalt be baptized ? Or in 
 requiring people to receive particular sacraments, than to believe 
 particular books of Scripture to be the word of God ? If some other 
 advocate for the laity should, out of zeal for their rights, declare 
 that they need not believe one half of the articles in the creed; if 
 they would but assen their liberty, he would be as true a friend, and 
 deserve the same applause, as he who should assert the necessity of 
 church-communion is inconsistent with the natural rights and li- 
 berties of mankind. 
 
 lam, my lord, 
 
 Your lordship's most humble Servant, 
 i 
 
 WILLIAM LAW.
 
 352 ] 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 J. HOPE your lordship \vill not think it unnatural or impertinent, 
 to offer here a word or two in answer to some objections against my 
 former letter. 
 
 To begin with doctrine of the* uninterrupted succession of the 
 clergy. 
 
 I have, as I think, proved that there is a divine commission 
 required to qualify any one to exercise the priestly office, and that 
 seeing this divine commission can only be had from such particular 
 persons as God has appointed to give it, therefore it is necessary 
 that there should be a continual succession of such persons, in order 
 to keep up a commissioned order of the clergy. For if the com- 
 mission itself be to descend through ages ; and distinguish the clergy 
 from the laity ; it is certain the persons who alone can give this 
 commission, must descend through the same ages, and consequently 
 an uninterrupted succession is as necessary, as that the clergy have a 
 divine commission. Take away this succession, and the clergy 
 may as well be ordained by one person as another ; a number of 
 women may as well give them a divine commission, as a congre- 
 gation of any men ; they may indeed appoint persons to officiate 
 in holy orders, for the sake of decency and order; but then there 
 is no more in it lhan an external decency and order, they are no 
 more the priests of God, than those that pretended to make them 
 so. If we had lost the Scriptr ' it would be very well to make 
 as good books as we could, a ^me as near them as possible ; but 
 then it would be not only folly, but presumption, to call them the 
 word of God. But I proceed to the objections against the doctrine 
 of an uninterrupted succession. 
 
 First, It is said, that there is no mention made of it in Scripture, at 
 having any relation to the being of a church. 
 
 Secondly, That it is subject to so great uncertainty, that if it be 
 necessary, we cannot now be sure we are in the church. 
 
 Thirdly, That it is a Popish doctrine, and gives them great ad- 
 vantage over us. 
 
 I begin with the first objection, that there is no mention made 
 of it in the Scriptures, which though I think I have sufficiently an- 
 swered in this letter, I shall here farther consider.
 
 Mr. Law's second Letter to BisJiop Hoadley. 3 J 3 
 
 Pray, my lord, is it not a true doctrine, that " the Scriptures 
 contain all things necessary to salvation ?" But, my lord, it is no 
 where expressly said, that " the Scriptures contain all things ne- 
 cessary to salvation." It is no where said, that no other article* 
 of faith need be believed. Where does it appear in Scripture, that 
 the Scriptures were writ by any divine command ? Have any of 
 the Gospels or Epistles this authority to recommend them ? Are 
 they necessary to be believed, because there is any law of Christ 
 concerning the necessity of believing them? 
 
 May I reject this uninterrupted succession, because it is not 
 mentioned in Scripture? And may I not as well reject all the 
 Gospels ? Produce your authority, my lord, mention your texts of 
 Scripture, where Christ has hung the salvation of men upon their 
 believing, that St. Matthew or St. John wrote such a book seven- 
 teen hundred years ago. These, my lord, are niceties and trifles 
 which are not to be found in Scripture, and consequently have 
 nothing to do with the salvation of men. 
 
 Now if nothing be to be held as necessary, but what is expressly 
 required in so many words in Scripture, then it can never be 
 proved that the Scriptures- themselves are a " standing rule of 
 faith in all ages," since it is no where expressly asserted, nor is 
 it any where said, that the Sciiptures should be continued as a 
 rule of faith in all ages. Is it an objection against the necessity of 
 a perpetual succession of the clergy, that it is nor mentioned in 
 the Scripture ? And is it not as good a one against the necessity of 
 making Scripture the " standing rule of faith in all ages, 1 ' since 
 it is never said, that they were to be continued as a standing rule 
 in all ages ? If things are only necessary for being said to be so in 
 Scripture, then all that are not thus taught are equally unnecess. 
 and consequently it is no more necessary that the Scripture should 
 be a fixed rule of faith in all ages, than that there should be bishops 
 to ordain in all ages. 
 
 Again, where shall we find it in Scripture, that the sacraments 
 are to be continued in every age of the church ? Where is it said, 
 that they shall always be the ordinary means of grace necessary 
 to be observed ? Is there any law of Christ, any text of Scripture, 
 that expressly asserts, that if we leave the use of the sacraments, 
 we are out of covenant with God ? Is it any where directly said, 
 that we must neveVlay them aside, or that they will be perpetually 
 necessary ? No, my lord, this is a nicety and trifle nat to be fouhd 
 
 VOL. I. Aa
 
 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 in Scripture : there is no stress laid there upon this matter, but 
 upon things of a quite different nature. 
 
 I now presume, my lord> that every one who lias common sense 
 plainly sees, that if this succession of the clergy be to be despised, 
 because it is not expressly required in Scripture; it undeniably fol- 
 lows, that we may reject the Scriptures, as not being a " standing 
 rule of faith in all ages:" we may disuse the sacraments, as not 
 the " ordinary means of grace in all ages;" since this is no more 
 mentioned in the Scriptures, or expressly required, than this unin- 
 terrupted succession. 
 
 If it be a good argument against the necessity of episcopal or- 
 dainers, that it is never said in Scripture, that there shall always. 
 be such ordainers ; it is certainly as conclusive against the use of 
 the sacraments in every age, that it is no where said in Scripture 
 they shall be used in all ages. 
 
 If no government or order of the clergy be to be held as neces- 
 sary, because no such necessity is asserted in Scripture ; it is certain 
 this concludes as strongly against government, and the order itself, 
 as against any particular order. For it is no more said in Scrip*. 
 ture, that there shall be an order of clergy, than that there shall be 
 any particular order; therefore if this silence proves against any 
 particular order of clergy, it proves as much against order itself. 
 
 Should therefore any of your lordship's friends have so much 
 church-zeal as to contend for the necessity of some order, though 
 of no particular order; he must fall under your lordship's dis- 
 pleasure, and be proved as mere a dreamer and trifler, as those 
 who assert the necessity of episcopal ordination. For if it be plain 
 that there need be no episcopal clergy, because it is not said there 
 shall always be episcopal clergy; it is undeniably plain, that there 
 need be no order of the clergy, since it is no where said, there shall 
 be an order of clergy: therefore whoever shall contend for an order 
 of clergy, will be as much condemned by your lordship's doctrine, 
 as he that declares for the episcopal clergy, 
 
 The truth of the matter is this, If nothing is to be esteemed 
 of any moment, but counted as mere trifle and nicety among 
 Christians, which is not expressly required in the Scriptures ; then 
 it is a trifle and nicety, whether we, believe the Scripture to be 
 a standing rule of faith in all ages, whether we use the sacra- 
 ments in all ages, whether we have any clerg), at all, whether we 
 observe the Lotd's day, whether we baptize our children, or whs-.
 
 Mr. Laws second Letter to BisJwp JloaiUey. 355 
 
 (her we go to public worship ; for none of these things are ex- 
 pressly required in so many words in Scripture. But if your lord- 
 ship, with the rest of the Christian world, will take these things to 
 be of moment, and well proved, because they are founded in Scrip- 
 ture, though not in express terms, or under plain commands; if 
 you will acknowledge these matters to be well asserted, because 
 they may be gathered from Scripture, and are confirmed by the 
 universal practice of the church in all ages, (which is all the proof 
 that they are capable of) I do not doubt but it will appear, that 
 this successive order of the clergy is founded on the same evidence, 
 and supported by as great authority, so that it must be thoaght 
 of the same moment with these things, by all unprejudiced 
 persons. 
 
 For, my lord, though it be not expressly said, that there shall 
 always be a succession of episcopal clergy, yet it is a troth founded 
 in Scripture itself, and asserted by the universal voice of tradition 
 in the first and succeeding ages of the church. 
 
 It is thus founded in Scripture: there we are taught that the 
 priesthood is a positive institution ; that no man can take this office 
 unto himself; that neither our Saviour himself, nor his Apostles, 
 nor any other person, however extraordinarily endowed with gifts 
 from God, could, as snch, exercise the priestly office, till they had 
 God's express commission for that purpose. Now how does it 
 appear, that the sacraments are positive institutions, but that they 
 are consecrated to such ends and effetts as of themselves they were 
 no way qualified to perform ? Now as it appears from Scripture, 
 lhat men, as such, however endowed, were not qualified to take 
 this office upon them without God's appointment ; it is demon- 
 stratively certain, that men so called are as much to be esteemed 
 a positive institution, as elements so chosen can be called a positive 
 institution. All the personal abilities of men conferring no more 
 authority to exercise the office of a clergyman, than the natural 
 qualities of water to make a sacrament : so that the one institution 
 is as truly positive as the other. 
 
 Again. The order of the clergy is not only a positive, order 
 instituted by God, but the different degrees in this order is of the 
 same nature. For we find in Scripture, that some persons could 
 perform some offices in the priesthood, which neither deacons 
 nor priests could do, though those deacons and priests were in* 
 spired persons, and workers of miracles. Thus Timothy was 
 sent to ordain elders, because none below his order, who was a
 
 35(5 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 bishop, could perform that office. Peter and John laid their hands 
 on baptized persons, because neither priests nor deacons, though 
 workers of miracles, could execute that part of the sacerdotal 
 office. 
 
 % Now can we imagine that the Apostles and Bishops thus dis- 
 tinguished themselves for nothing ? That there was the same power 
 in deacons and priests to execute those offices, though they took 
 them to themselves ? No, my lord ; if three degrees in the mi- 
 nistry are instituted in Scripture, we are obliged to think them as 
 truly distinct- in their powers, as we are to think that the priest- 
 hood itself contains powers that are distinct from those of the 
 laity. It is no more consistent with Scripture, to say that deacons 
 or priests may ordain, than that the laity are priests or deacons. 
 The same divine institution making as truly a difference betwixt 
 the clergy, as it does betwixt clergy and laity. 
 
 Now if the order of the clergy be a divine positive institution, 
 m which there are different degrees of power, where some alone 
 can ordain, Sec. whilst others can only perform other parts of the 
 sacred office ; if this (as it plainly appears) be a doctrine of 
 Scripture, then it is a doctrine of Scripture, that there is a 
 necessity of such a succession of men as have power to ordain. 
 For do the Scriptures make it necessary that Timothy (or some 
 bishop) should be sent to Ephesus to ordain priests, because 
 the priests who were there could not ordain ? And do not the 
 same Scriptures make it as necessary, that Timothy's successor 
 be the only ordainer, as well as he was in his time ? Will not 
 priests in the next age be as destitute of the power of ordaining a$ 
 when Timothy was alive ? So that since the Scriptures teach, 
 that Timothy, or persons of his order, could alone ordain in that 
 age, they as plainly teach, that the successors of that order can 
 alone ordain in any age, and consequently the Scriptures plainly 
 teach a necessity of an episcopal succession. 
 
 The Scriptures declare there is a necessity of a divine commission 
 to execute the office of a priest ; they also teach, that this com- 
 mission can only be had from particular persons: therefore the 
 Scriptures plainly teach, there is a necessity of a succession of such 
 particular persons, in order to keep up a truly commissioned clergy. 
 
 Suppose when Timothy was sent to Ephesus to ordain elders, 
 the church had told him, We have chosen elders already, and laid 
 our hands upon them: that if he alone was allowed to exercise 
 $bis power, it might seem as if he alone had it; or. that ministers
 
 Mr. Law* s second Letter to Bishop Jloadky. 351 
 
 the better for being ordained by his particular hands ; and that 
 some persons might imagine they could have no clergy, except 
 they were ordained by him, or some of his order; andj that seeing 
 Christ had no where made an express law, that such persons should 
 be necessary to the ordination of the clergy ; therefore they rejected 
 this authority of Timothy, lest they should subject themselves to 
 niceties and trifles. 
 
 Will your lordship say, that such a practice would have been 
 allowed of in the Ephesians ? Or that ministers so ordained, 
 would have been received as the ministers of Christ ? If not, why 
 must such practice or such ministers be allowed of in any after 
 ages ? Would not the same proceeding against any of Timothy's 
 successors, have deserved the same censure, as being equally un- 
 lawful ? If therefore the Scripture condemns all ordination but 
 what is episcopal, the Scriptures make a succession of episcopal or- 
 dainers necessary. So that I hope, my lord, we shall be no more 
 told that this is a doctrine not mentioned in Scripture, or without 
 any foundation in it. 
 
 The great objection to this doctrine is, that this episcopal order 
 of the clergy, is only an apostolical practice ; and seeing all aposto- 
 lical practices are not binding to us, sure this need not. 
 
 In answer to this, my lord, I shall first shew, that though all 
 apostolical practices are not necessary, yet some may be necessary. 
 Secondly, That the divine unalterable right of episcopacy is not 
 founded merely on apostolical practice. 
 
 To begin with the first : The objection runs thus, " AH aposto- 
 lical practices, are not unalterable or obligatory to us, therefore 
 no apostolical practices are." This, my lord, is just as theolo- 
 gical, as if I should say, all Scripture-truths are not articles of 
 faith, or fundamentals of religion, therefore no Scripture-truths 
 are: is not the argument full as just and solid in one case as the 
 other ? May there not be that same difference between some prac- 
 tices of the Apostles and others, that there is betwixt some Scrip- 
 ture-truths and others? Are all truths equally important that are 
 to be found in the Bible? Why must all practices be of the same 
 moment that were apostolical ? Now if there be any way, either 
 divine or human, of knowing an article of faith, from the smallest 
 truth or most indifferent matter in Scripture, the-; will equally 
 assist us in distinguishing what apostolical practices are of perpetual 
 obligation, and what are not. But it is a strange way of reason- 
 ing that some people are fallen into, who seem to know nothing
 
 3S8 Mr. Law's second Letter Id Bishop 
 
 of moderation, but jump as constantly out of one extreme into ano- 
 ther, as if there was no such thing as a middle way, or aay such 
 virtue as moderation. Thus either the church must have an abso- 
 
 % 
 
 lute uncontroulable authority, or none at all ; we must either hold 
 all apostolical practices necessary, or none at all. 
 
 Again, if no apostolical practices can be unalterable, because all 
 are not, then no apostolical doctrines are necessary to be taught in 
 all ages, because all apostolical doctrines are not; and we are 
 no more obliged to teach the death, satisfaction, and resurrection 
 of Jesus Christ, than we are obliged to forbid the eating of blood 
 and things strangled. If we must thus blindly follow them 
 in all their practices, or else be at liberty to leave them in all, we 
 must for the same reason implicitly teach all their doctrines, or else 
 have a power of receding from them all. 
 
 For if there be any thing in the nature of doctrines, in the te- 
 nour of Scripture, or the sense of antiquity, whereby we can 
 know the difference of some doctrines from others, that some were 
 occasional temporary determinations, suited to particular states and 
 conditions in (he church, whilst others were such general doctrines 
 as would concern the church in all states and circumstances; if 
 there can be this difference betwixt apostolical doctrines, there 
 must necessarily be the same difference betwixt apostolical prac- 
 tices, unless we will say, that their practices were not suited to 
 their doctrines. For occasional doctrines must produce occasional 
 practices. 
 
 Now may not we be obliged by some practices of the Apostles, 
 where the nature of the thing, and the consent of antiquity shew it 
 to be equally necessary and important in all ages and conditions of 
 the church, without being tied down to the strict observance of 
 every thing which the Apostles did, though it plainly appears, that 
 it was done upon accidental and mutable reasons. Can we not be 
 obliged to observe the Lord's-day from apostolical practice, with- 
 out being equally obliged to lock the doors where we are met, be, 
 cause in the Apostles times they locked them for fear of their 
 enemies ? 
 
 My lord, we are to follow the practices of the Aposdes, as we 
 ought to follow every thing else, with discretion and judgment, and 
 not run headlong into every thing they did, because they were 
 Apostles, or yet think that because we need not practise after them 
 in evrry thing, we need do it in nothing. We best imitate them, 
 when we act upon such reasons as they acted upon, and neither 
 
 i
 
 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 make their occasional practices perpetual laws, nor break through 
 such general rules, as will always have the same reason to be ob- 
 served. 
 
 If it be asked, how we can know what practices must be ob- 
 served, and what may be laid aside r I answer, as we know ar- 
 ticles of faith from lesser truths ; as we know occasional doctrines 
 from perpetual doctrines ; that is, from the nature of the things, 
 from the tenor of Scripture, and the testimony of antiquity. 
 
 Secondly, It is not true, that the divine unalterable right of epis- 
 copacy is founded merely upon apostolical practice. 
 
 We do not say that episcopacy cannot be changed, merely be- 
 cause we have apostolical practice for it ; but because such is the 
 nature of the Christian priesthood, that it can only be continued in 
 that method, which God has appointed for its continuance. Thus, 
 episcopacy is the only instituted method of continuing the priest- 
 hood ; therefore episcopacy is unchangeable, not because it is an 
 apostolical practice, but because the nature of the thing require* 
 it ; a positive institution being only to be continued in that method 
 which God has appointed; so that it is the nature of the priest- 
 hood, and not the apostolical practice alone, that makes it neces- 
 sary to be continued. The apostolical practice indeed shews, that 
 episcopacy is the order that is appointed, but it is the nature of the 
 priesthood that assures us that? it is analterable : and that because 
 an office which is of no significancy, but as it is of divine ap- 
 pointment, and instituted by God, can no otherways be con- 
 tinued, but in that way of continuance which God has appointed. 
 
 The argument proceeds thus : The Christian priesthood is a 
 divine positive institution, which as it could only begin by the 
 divine appointment, so it can only descend to after ages in such a 
 method as God has been pleased to appoint. 
 
 The Apostles (and your lordship owns, Christ was in all that 
 they did *) instituted episcopacy alone, therefore this method of 
 episcopacy is unalterable, not because an apostolical practice cannot 
 be laid aside, but because the priesthood can only descend to after- 
 ages in such a method as is of divine appointment. 
 
 So that the question is not fairly stated, when it is asked, whe- 
 ther episcopacy, being an apostolical practice, may be laid aside ? 
 But it should be asked, whether an instituted particular me- 
 thod of continuing the priesthood be not necessary to be continued ? 
 
 * Answer to Dr. Stupe.
 
 360 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Iloadky. ' 
 Whether an appointed order of receiving a commission from God 
 be not necessary to be observed, in order to receive a commission 
 from him ? If the case was thus stated, as it ought to be fairly 
 stated, any one would soon perceive, that we can no more lay 
 aside episcopacy, and yet continue the Christian priesthood, than 
 we can alter the terms of salvation, and yet be in covenant with 
 God. 
 
 I come no\v, my lord, to the second objection. " That this 
 uninterrupted succession is subject to so great uncertainty, that if 
 it be necessary, we can never say that we are in the church." 
 
 I know no reason, my lord, why it is so uncertain, but because 
 it is founded upon historical evidence. Let it therefore be consi- 
 dered, ray lord, that Christianity itself, is a matter of fact, only 
 conveyed to us by historical evidence. 
 
 That the canon of Scripture is only made known to us by 
 historical evidence ; that we have n'o other way of knowing what 
 writings are the word of God ; and yet the truth of our faith, 
 and every other means of grace depends upon our knowledge and 
 belief of the Scriptures. Must we not declare the necessity of this 
 succession of bishops, because it can only be proved by historical 
 evidence, and that for such a long tract of time ? 
 
 Why then do we declare the belief of the Scriptures necessary 
 to salvation ? Is not this equally putting the salvation of men' upon 
 a matter of fact, supported only by historical evidence, and 
 making it depend upon things done seventeen hundred years ago ? 
 Cannot historical evidence satisfy us in one point as well as in the 
 other ? Is there any thing in the nature of this succession, that it 
 cannot be as well asserted by historical evidence, as the truth of 
 the Scriptures ? Is there not the same bare possibility in the thing 
 itself, that the Scriptures may in some important points be cor- 
 rupted, as that this succession may be broke ? But is this any 
 just reason why we should believe, or fear, that the Scriptures arc 
 corrupted, because there is a physical possibility of ir, though there 
 is all the proof that can be required of the contrary ? Why then 
 must we set aside the necessity of this succession from a bare possi- 
 bility of error, though there is all the proof that can be required, 
 that it never was broken, but strictly kept up ? 
 
 And though your lordship has told the world so much of the 
 *' "improbability", nonsense, and absurdity" of this succession, yet 
 I promise your lordship an answer whenever you ihall think fit 
 *
 
 Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 td shew, when, or how, or where this succession broke, or seemed 
 to break, or was likely to break. 
 
 And till then, I shall content myself with offering this reason to 
 your lordship, why it is morally impossible it ever should have 
 broken in all that term of years, from the Apostles to the present 
 times. 
 
 The reason is this ; it has been a received doctrine in every age 
 of the church, that no ordination was valid but that of bishops : 
 this doctrine, my lord, has been a constant guard upon the 
 episcopal succession ; for seeing it was universally believed that 
 bishops alone could ordain, it was morally impossible, that any 
 persons could be received as bishops, who had not been so or. 
 dained. 
 
 Now is it not morally impossible, 'that in our church any one 
 should be made a bishop without episcopal ordination ? Is there 
 any possibility of forging orders, or stealing a bishopric by any 
 other stratagem ? No, it is morally impossible, because it is an 
 acknowledged doctrine amongst us, that a bishop can only be or- 
 dained by bishops. Now as this doctrine must necessarily prevent 
 any one being a bishop without episcopal ordination in our age, 
 so it must have the same effect in every other age as well as ours ; 
 and consequently it is as reasonable to believe that the succession of 
 bishops was not broke in any age since the Apostles, as that it 
 was not broke in our own kingdom within these forty years. For 
 the same doctrine which preserves it forty years, may as well pre- 
 serve it forty hundred years, if it was equally believed in all that 
 space of time. That this has been the constant doctrine of the 
 church, I presume your lordship will not deny; I have not here 
 entered into the historical defence of it, this, - and indeed every 
 other institution of the Christian church having been lately so 
 well defended from the ecclesiastical records by a very excellent 
 and judieious writer *. 
 
 We believe the Scriptures are not corrupted, because it was 
 always a received doctrine in the church, that they were the 
 standing rule of< faith, and because the providence of God may 
 well be supposed to preserve such books, as were to convey to 
 every age the means of salvation. The same reasons prove the 
 great improbability that this succession should ever be broke, both 
 'because it was always against a received doctrine to break it, and 
 
 * Original Draught of the Primitive Churchi
 
 362 Mr. Laitfs second Letter to Bishop Hoadley* 
 
 because we may justly hope the providence of God would keep 
 up his own institution. 
 
 I must here observe, that though your lordship often exposes 
 the impossibility of this succession, yet at other times, even vou 
 yourself, and your advocates assert it. Thus you tell us, " That 
 the papists have one regular appointment or uninterrupted succes- 
 sion of bishops undented with the touch of lay-hands *." 
 
 Is this succession then such an improbable, impossible thing, 
 and yet can your lordship assure us that it is at Rome ? that though 
 it be seventeen hundred years old there, yet that is a true one ? Is 
 it such absurdity, and nonsense, and every thing that is ridiculous 
 when we lay claim to it; and yet can your lordship assure us that 
 it is not only possible to be, but actually is in being in the church 
 of Rome ? What arguments or authority can your lordahip pro- 
 duce to shew that there is a succession there, that will not equally 
 prove it to be here ? 
 
 You assert expressly, that there is a true succession there ; you 
 deny that we have it here; therefore your lordship must mean, 
 that we had not episcopal ordination when we separated from 
 the church of Rome. And here the controversy must rest betwixt 
 you and your adversaries, whether we had episcopal ordination 
 then ; for as your lordship has expressly affirmed, that there is 
 this uninterrupted succession in the church of Rome, it is impos- 
 sible that we should want it, unless we had not episcopal ordina- 
 tion at the Reformation. 
 
 Whenever your lordship shall please to appear in defence of the 
 Nag's-head story, or any other pretence against our episcopal or- 
 dination when we departed from Rome, we shall beg leave to shew 
 ourselves so far true Protestants, as td answer any Popish argu- 
 ments your lordship can produce. 
 
 Here let the common sense of the laity be once more appealed 
 to : your lordship tells them that an uninterrupted succession is 
 improbable, absurd, and morally speaking, impossible, and, for 
 this reason, they need not trouble their heads about it ; yet in an- 
 other place you positively affirm, that this true uninterrupted suc- 
 cession is actually in the church of Rome ; that is, they are to 
 despise this succession, because it never was, or ever can be, yet 
 are to believe that it really is in the Romish church. My lord, 
 this comes very near saying and unsaying, to the great diversion 
 
 * Preservative, p. 8o-
 
 3D'. L<nt?s second Letter to Bishop Iloadli'y. 363 
 
 of the Papists. Must they not laugh at your lordship's Protestant 
 zeal, which might be much better called the spirit of Popery? 
 Must they not be highly pleased with all your banter and ridicule 
 upon, an uninterrupted succession, when they see you so kindly 
 except theirs ? And think it only nonsense and absurdity, -when 
 claimed by any other church ? Surely, my lord, they must con- 
 ceive great hopes of your lordship, since you have here rather 
 chose to contradict yourself, than not vouch for their succession: 
 for you have said it is moral impossible, yet affirm that It is with 
 them. 
 
 The third objection against this uninterrupted succession is this, 
 that it is a popish doctrine, and ** gives Papists advantage over 
 us." 
 
 The objection proceeds thus, " We must not assert the necessity 
 of this succession, because the Papists say it is only to be found 
 \vith them." I might add, because some mighty zealous Pro- 
 testauts say so too. 
 
 But if this be good argumentation, we ought not to tell die 
 Jews or Deists, &c. that there is any necessity of embracing 
 Christianity, because the Papists say Christians can only be saved 
 in their church. 
 
 Again we ought not to insist upon a true faith, because the Pa- 
 pists say, that a true faith is only in their communion. So that 
 there is just as much Popery in teaching this doctrine, as in assert- 
 ing the necessity of Christianity to a Jew, or the necessity of a 
 right faith to a Socinian, &c. 
 
 I shall only trouble your lordship with a word or two con- 
 cerning another point in my former letter. I there proved that 
 your lordship has put the whole of our title to Goo's favour upon 
 sincerity, as such, -independent of every thing else. That no 
 purity of worship, no excellence of order, no truth of faith, no 
 sort of sacraments, no kind of institutions, or any church, as 
 such, can help us to the least degree of God's favour, or give us 
 die smallest advantage above any other communion. And conse- 
 quently that your lordship has set sincere Jews, Quakers, Soci- 
 nians, Muggietonians, and ail heretics and schismatics upon the 
 same bottom, as to the favour of God, with sincere Christians. 
 
 Upon this, my lord, I am called upon to prove that these 
 several sorts of people can be sincere in your account of sincerity. 
 To which, my lord, I make this answer, either there are some 
 since) e persons amongst Jews, Quakers, Socinians, or any kind
 
 36* Mr. Law's second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 of heretics and schismatics, or there are not ; if there are, your 
 lordship has given them the same title to God's favour, that you 
 have to the sincerest Christians ; if you will say, there are no sin- 
 cere persons amongst any of them, then your lordship damns them 
 all in the gross ; for surely corruptions in religion, professed with 
 iinsincerity, will never save people. 
 
 I have nothing to do to prove the sincerity of any of them; if 
 they are sincere, what I have said is true ; if you will not allow 
 them to be sincere, you condemn them all at once. 
 
 Again, I humbly supposed a man might be sincere in his reli- 
 gious opinions, though it might be owing to some ill habits, or 
 something criminal in himself, that he was fallen into such or such 
 a way of thinking. But it seems this is all contradiction ; and no 
 man can be sincere, who has any faults, or whose faults have any 
 influence upon his way of thinking. 
 
 Your lordship tells all the Dissenters, that they may be easy, if 
 they are sincere ; and that it is the only ground for peace and 
 satisfaction. But pray, my lord, if none are to be esteemed 
 sincere, but those who have no faults, or whose faults have no in- 
 fluence upon their persuasions, who can be assured that he is 
 sincere, but he that has the least pretence to it, the proud Pharisee? 
 If your lordship or your advocates were desired to prove your 
 sincerity, either before, God or man, it must be for these reasons, 
 because you have no ill passions or habits, no faulty prejudices, no 
 past or present vices that can have any effect upon your minds. 
 My lord, as this is the only proof that any of you could give of 
 your own sincerity in this meaning of it, so the very pretence to 
 it would prove the want of it.
 
 REPLY 
 
 TO THE 
 
 REPRESENTATION 
 
 COMMITTEE OF CONVOCATION. 
 
 HUMBLY ADDRESSED TO HIS LORDSHIP. 
 
 BF WILLIAM LAW, M. A.
 
 C 366 J 
 
 MR. LAW^S THIRD LETTER 
 
 TO TUB 
 
 BISHOP OF BANGOR. 
 
 MY LORD, 
 
 JL BEG leave to trouble your lordship and the world once more 
 with my remarks upon the doctrines \ ou have lately delivered. 
 Your Sermon ami Preservative I have already considered in the 
 tisost impartial manner I could ; and shall now examine your an- 
 swer to the representation of the learned committee, both as it is an 
 answer to that, and as it contains opinions contrary to the funda- 
 mental articles of Christianity. 
 
 I have less need of excusing to your lordship this third address, 
 since you can so- easily acquit yourself from the trouble of making 
 i ay reply to whatever comes from me. It seems I have too small 
 a reputation to deserve your notice; but if the Dean of Chichester 
 wottM but declare for the doctrines delivered in my letters, and put 
 fcwt a little of his reputation upon the issue, then, you say, you 
 would submit to the employment of an answer*. 
 
 My lord, I readily confess that I have neither reputation nor 
 learning, nor any title to recommend me to your lordship's notice ; 
 but I must own that I thought the very want of these would, in 
 your opinion, qualify me to make better enquiries into religious 
 truths, and raise your esteem of me as a correspondent in these 
 
 * Answer to Condit. of our Saviour vindicated, p. nj.
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Iloadley. 367 
 
 matters. For you expressly declare, " That if learning or litera- 
 ture is to be interested in this debate, then the most learned man 
 has certainly a title to be the universal judge*." So that no man 
 ought to shew any regard to learning as a qualification in religious 
 disputes, unless he will own that the most learned man has a title 
 to be a Pope, or, as you express ir, the universal judge. Yet 
 your lordship, in spite of this Protestant doctrine so lately deli- 
 vered, lias despised and overlooked all my opinions in religion, 
 merely for my want of character and learning, and has promised 
 to undertake the needless task of examining those opinions with 
 another gentleman, merely upon account of his character and 
 reputation. So that though it is perfect popery, and making the 
 most learned man the universal judge, to allow any thing to 
 learning, yet your lordship is so true a Protestant, and pays so 
 great a regard to learning, that you will not so much as examine 
 a doctrine with a person of no character for learning. 
 
 Again you say ; " Nothing has been seen to administer so 
 many doubts and differences (in religion) as learning "T;" and 
 t( that none are seen to be less secure from error than learned 
 men." 
 
 Now is it not strange, my lord, that after this noble declaration 
 against learning, as the greatest cause of doubts and differences, 
 this extraordinary preference given to ignorance, as a more likely 
 guide to truth, you should despise any one as below your notice 
 in religious disputes, because he wants that learning which so 
 blintls the understanding ? Can you ascribe thus much honour to 
 learning, which in your opinion does so much dishonour to reli- 
 gion? Y\ ill you interest those qualities in this debate, which if 
 they are allowed to have any interest in it, will make the man of 
 the greatest abilities the universal judge ? 
 
 Again; as a farther reason why you have taken no notice of 
 me, you say, " As considerable a writer as Mr. Law is, I hope 
 the committee, as a body, are much more considerable in the 
 Pean's eyes ; I am sure they are in mine : and the Dean himself I 
 have thought a much more considerable writer than Mr. Law, and 
 50 have spent all my time upon him and the committee." 
 
 Now, my lord, though I readily acknowledge this to be ex- 
 ceeding true, and have so far at least a just opinion of myself, as 
 \Q be afraid to be compared to much less persons than the Dean, 
 
 * Answer to Repr. p. 99, t Ibid. p. 98.
 
 268 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadlcy. 
 
 or any of the learned committee, yet, my lord, this reason,, 
 which, if urged by any one else, might pass for a good, one, 
 cannot be urged by you, without contradicting a principal doctrine 
 maintained in your Answer to the Representation. For there you 
 bid us look into the Popish countries, and see whether one illiterate 
 honest man be not as capable of judging for himself in reli- 
 gion, as all their learned men united ; even supposing them met 
 together in a general council, with all possible marks of solemnity 
 and grandeur*. 
 
 Here we see a person merely for his want of literature made 
 as good a judge in religion as a general council of the most 
 learned men, acting with the utmost solemnity. We see a council 
 ; ,n its utmost perfection contemptuously compared to, and even 
 made less considerable than a private illiterate person. And tin's 
 we may fairly suppose was intended to shew your contempt of 
 the English convocation. But a few weeks after, when you had 
 another design in your head, you tell us to this purpose, that you 
 disregarded the writings of a single person of no figure in the 
 learned world, to pay your respect to the comraittee as a body, 
 ' which, as such, is much more considerable in your eyes." So 
 that here an illiterate person is made a great judge in religion in re- 
 gard tc a body of learned men, because he is illiterate; and here 
 that same person is made of no consideration in points of religion 
 in regard to a body of learned men, merely because he is private 
 and illiterate. 
 
 It will be of no advantage to your lordship to say that you. have 
 only replied to the Dean, in relation to me, in the same words that 
 he used to you in relation to Mr. Sykes. 
 
 For, my lord, that reply might be proper enough from the Dean, 
 if he judged right of Mr. Sykes's performance ; it being very reason- 
 ' able to overlook an adversary that has neither truth, abilities, or re, 
 putation to support his cause. 
 
 But though this might be right in the Dean, who pays a true 
 regard to the authority and learning of great men, yet it cannot be 
 defended by your lordship. For though my learning or repu- 
 tation were ever so low, they are so far from unqualifying me for 
 religious enquiries, that if you would sincerely stand to what 
 you have said, you ought, for the want of these very accomplish- 
 ments, to esteem me the more, and even chuse me out as a corres- 
 pondent in this debate. 
 
 * Answer to Repr. p. 98.
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley . 359 
 
 But however, without any farther regard to the opinion your 
 lordship lias either of me or my abilities, I shall proceed to the most 
 impartial examination of your book that I possibly can. 
 
 Of the Nature of the Church. 
 
 JL O begin with your lordship's description of a church ; " The 
 number of men, whether small or great, whether dispersed or 
 united, who truly and sincerely are subjects to Christ alone in 
 matters of salvation *." 
 
 The learned committee calls this your lordship's description of a 
 church. 
 
 Your lordship answers : " I wonder to hear this called my de- 
 scription of a church ; whereas I pretend in those words to describe 
 no other, but the universal invisible church. It is a descripti 
 not of a church, in our modern way of speaking, but of the church, jF 
 the invisible church of Christ f." 
 
 May not we also wonder, my lord, that you should so describe 
 the church, that it will not bear being called a church ? If I sho-j'ld 
 say it is a description of no church, I have your lordship's confes- 
 sion, that it is not a church ; so that it is something betwixt a & 
 church and no church^ that is, it is the church. 
 
 Suppose, my lord, somebody or other should have a rnind to be 
 of your church, if he betakes himself to a church, he is wrong ; 
 you do not mean a church, but the church. Your lordship ow;!3 
 that this is not a description of a church in the modern way 
 speaking; I humbly presume to call upon your lordship to sV 
 that it is a description according to the ancient way of speaking. 
 To call the number of believers the invisible church, is a way of 
 speaking no more to be found in the Scriptures, tKan the company 
 of prseadamites. 
 
 There is, no doubt of it, an invisible church, i.e. a number of 
 beings that are in covenant with God, who are not to be seen by 
 human eyes ; and we may be said to be members of this invisible 
 church, as we are intitled to the same hopes and expectations. 
 
 * Serin, p. 17. t Answer to Rpr p. 70. 
 
 VOL. I. B b
 
 370 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadky. 
 
 But to call the number of men and women who believe in Christ, 
 and observe his institution^, whether dispersed or united in this 
 visible world, to call these the invisible church, is as false and 
 groundless as to call them the order of angels, or the church of 
 seraphims. The profession of Christians is as visible as any other 
 profession, and as much declared by visible external acls ; and it is 
 as proper to call a number of men, practising law or physic, an 
 invisible society of lawyers and physicians, as to call the church 
 on earth the invisible church. For all those acts and offices which 
 prove people to be Christians, or die church of Christ, areas visible 
 and notorious as those which prove them to be of any particular 
 secular employment. Would it be proper to call the number of 
 infidels and idolaters the invisible church of the devil ? Are they 
 not visibly under the dominion of the powers of darkness ? Are 
 they not visibly out of Christ's church ? Must it not therefore be 
 as visible who is in this church, as who is not in it ? 
 
 If any one should tell us that we are to believe invisible Scrip- 
 tures, and observe invisible sacraments, he would have just as much 
 reason and Scripture of his side as your lordship has for this doc- 
 trine. And it would be of the same" service to the world to talk 
 of these invisibilities, if the canon of Scripture was in dispute, as 
 to describe this invisible church, when the case is, with what visible 
 church we ought to unite. 
 
 Our Saviour himself tells us, that " the kingdom of heaven 
 " is like unto a net that was cast into the sea, and gathered of 
 ' every kind ; which, when it was full, they drew to shore, 
 " and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the 
 " bad away." And then says, " so shall it be at the end of the 
 " world*." 
 
 This, my lord, is a description of the state of Christ's church, 
 eiven us by himself. Is there any thing in this description that 
 should lead us to take it for an invisible kingdom, that consists of 
 one particular sort of people invisibly united to Christ? Nay, is it 
 not the whole intent of this similitude to teach us the contrary, 
 that his kingdom is to consist of a mixture of good and bad sub. 
 jects till the end of the world ? The kingdom of Christ is said 
 here to gather its members as a net gathers all kinds of fish ; it is 
 chiefly compared to it in this respect, because it gathers of all 
 kinds ; which I suppose is a sufficient declaration that this king.* 
 
 * Matt. xiii. 47.
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 371 
 
 dom consists of subjects good and bad, as that the net that gathers 
 of every kind of fish, takes good and bad fish. Let us suppose 
 that the church of Christ was this invisible number of people united 
 to Christ by such internal invisible graces ; is it possible that a 
 kingdom consisting of this one particular sort of people invisibly 
 good, should be like a net that gathers of every kind of fish ? 
 If it was to be compared to a net, it ought to be compared to 
 such a net as gathers only of one kind, viz. good fish, and 
 then it might represent to us a church that has but one sort of 
 members. 
 
 But since Christ, who certainly understood the nature of his 
 own kingdom, has declared that it is like a net thr.t gathers of 
 every kind of fish ; it is absurd to say, that it consists only of 
 one kind of persons, (viz. the invisibly good) as to say, that the 
 ret which gathers of every kind, has only of one kind in it. Far- 
 ther ; " when it was full they drew it to shore, and gathered the 
 *' good into vessels, but cast the bad away ; so shall it be at the 
 " end of the world." Now as it was the bad as well as the 
 good fish which filled the net, and the church is compared to the 
 net in this respect ; so it is evident that bad men as well as goo;i 
 are subjects of this kingdom. And I presume they are members 
 of that kingdom which they fill up, as surely as the fish must be 
 in the net before they can fill it. All these circumstances plainly 
 declare that the church or kingdom of Christ shall consist of a 
 mixture of good and bad people to the end of the world. 
 
 Again : Christ declares, ** that the kingdom of heaven is like to 
 " a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, and sent his 
 < c servants out into the highways, who gathered together all as 
 " many as they found, both good and bad, and the wedding was 
 " filled with guests *." 
 
 Nothing can be more evident than that the chief intent of 
 this parable is to shew that the church of Christ is to be a mix- 
 ture of good and bad people to the end of the world. It is like 
 a feast where good and bad guests are entertained ; but can it be 
 like such a feast, if only the invisibly virtuous are members of it ? 
 If the subjects of this kingdom are of one invisible kind, how can 
 they bear any resemblance to a feast made up of all kind? of guests ? 
 Nay, what could be thought of more unlike to this kingdom, if 
 it was such a kingdom as you have represented it ? 
 
 * Matt. xxii. z, 
 B b2
 
 372 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 How could our blessed Saviour have more directly guarded 
 against such a description of his kingdom as your lordship has 
 given us, than he has done in these parables ? He compares it to 
 a quantity of good and had fish in a net, to a number of good and 
 bad guests at a feast. Are there any words that could more fully 
 declare his meaning to be, that his kingdom consisted of good and 
 bad subjects ? Could any one mwre directly contradict this ac- 
 count of our Saviour, than by saying that his kingdom is an invi- 
 sible kingdom, consisting of a particular sort of people invisibly 
 virtuous ? 
 
 Your lordship professes a mighty regard for the Scriptures, and 
 a great dislike to all doctrines that are not delivered there ; pray, 
 my lord, produce but so much as one text of Scripture ; tell us 
 the Apostle or Evangelist that ever declared the number of believers, 
 whether dispersed or united on earth, to be the universal invisible 
 church ; shew us any one passage in Scripture which teaches us, 
 that none are of the church of Christ, but those who have such in- 
 visible virtues, and cannot be known to be so. 
 
 There is as much authority from Scripture to prove that the 
 church is a kingdom without any subjects, as that they are only of 
 it, who have such invisible graces. And it is as easy to prove from 
 those sacred writings, that neither Christ or his Apostles were ever 
 visible on earth, as that the number of people on earth who believe 
 in Christ constitute the invisible church. 
 
 In the parables above mentioned it is out of all doubt that our 
 Saviour describes his universal kingdom or church : it is also cer- 
 tain that the universal invisible church, which you call Christ's 
 church, cannot be this universal church that is made up of a mix- 
 ture of good and bad members. I therefore beg of your lord- 
 ship to let us knew where Christ has taught us that he has two 
 universal churches on earth ; for if you cannot shew that he has 
 declared that he has these two universal churches, you must allow 
 that this which you have described, is a church of your own setting 
 up, not only without any authority, but even' against the express 
 word of Scripture. 
 
 Your lordship says, that the doctrines which the learned com- 
 mittee have condemned, if they be of that evil tendency, must be 
 so either with regard to the universal invisible churchy made up of 
 all these wha sincerely in their hearts believe in Christ, or with re- 
 spect to the universal visible church made up of all, who in alt
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 373 
 
 countries (whether sincerely or insincerely) openly profess to believe 
 in Christ, or with respect to some particular visible church *. 
 
 It may be justly expected, my lord, that you should shew us 
 some grounds for this distinction. Where does our blessed Lord 
 give us so much as the least hint that he has founded two universal 
 churches on earth ? Did he describe his church by halves when he 
 likened it to a net full of all kinds of fish ? Has he any where 
 let us know that he has another universal kingdom on earth be- 
 sides this, which, in the variety of its members, is like a net full 
 of all sorts of good and bad fish ? 
 
 Let your lordship, if you can, shew any subtilties in popery 
 which are more of human invention, or more- contrary to Scrip- 
 ture, than this refined distinction. The opus opera turn ia the 
 sacraments, the temporal satisfactions for sins, works of supere- 
 rogation, or any of the nicest arts of Jesuitism are not less founded 
 in Scripture than this nice distinction of injuring either the univer- 
 sal invisible, or the universal visible, or a particular visible church. 
 For, my lord, rhe church of Christ is as truly one and the same 
 church, as the sacrament of baptism is one and the same baptism ; 
 and he no more instituted several sorts of churches, than he insti- 
 tuted several kinds of baptism. 
 
 Pray, my lord, therefore be no longer angry at human arts 
 in religion ; why may not popery have its peculiarities in doctrine 
 as well as your lordship ? The church of Rome, with all its addi- 
 tions and corruptions, and pompous ornaments, is as much like the 
 church as it was in the Apostle's times, as your invisible church 
 is like that which Christ declared to be his church. When they 
 set out the church as infallible, they do but reason like your lord- 
 ship, when you describe it as invisible. 
 
 That there are good and bad church-men, is past all doubt ;. 
 but that people are of the church by means of invisible virtues, 
 is as false as that only good men came to the feast in the Gospel. 
 We ajre assured that " many are called, bul few are chosen ;" 
 i.e. that many shall be made membeis of Christ's church, but 
 few shall be saved ; and who these few are that truly work out 
 tlieir salvation, may be invisible to us ; but those many that were 
 called, that is, who were in the church, though they \!id not live 
 up to all the intents of church-communion, yet were as truly of 
 the church, as the bad fish were really in the net. 
 
 * Afitwer to Repr. p. 5.
 
 37 ! Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadty. 
 
 But to proceed : I shall illustrate this reply of your lordship con- 
 cerning an universal visible, and universal invisible, and particular 
 visible church, with the following instances. 
 
 Let us suppose any one was charged with writing against the 
 sacraments ; if he should with your lordship reply, that this 
 charge against him must either relate to universal visible sacra- 
 ments, or universal invisible sacraments, or particular visible 
 sacraments, he would have just as much Scripture or reason to 
 support that distinction, as your lordship has for dividing the 
 church into universal visible and universal invisible, and particular 
 visible. For the profession of Christianity, or church-membership, 
 is as external and visible a thing, as the sacraments are external 
 visible institutions. So that it is as contrary to Scripture, and as 
 mere an human invention to make pretence of an universal invi- 
 sible church, when the dispute is concerning Christ's church on 
 earth, as it is to have recourse to invisible sacraments, if the ques- 
 tion was concerning Christ's sacraments. 
 
 r l hey are both equally external and visible ; and as the sacra- 
 ments may he received without any spiritual advantage, so per- 
 sons may be of the church, and yet not be saved. And as tha 
 sacraments are not less sacraments, though they may not convey 
 the designed benefits to the receiver; so neither are such a num- 
 ber of people not of the church, though they do not obtain 
 that salvation which is the intended consequence of church- 
 communion. 
 
 Your lordship cannot give any one reason for introducing 
 this distinction with regard to the church, which will not equally 
 hold for the same distinction in regard to the sacraments ; and 
 there is exactly the same Quakery and fanaticism in one doctrine 
 as the other. 
 
 For as it is the sacraments which chiefly constitute the church, 
 so no distinctions or divisions can with any tolerable propriety be 
 applied to the church, but such as may be also applied to the 
 sacraments that constitute the church. And therefore the terms 
 universal and particular, visible and invisible, have no more to do 
 with Christ's church which he has instituted in this world, than 
 with the two sacraments which he also instituted, baptism, and the 
 supper of the Lord. 
 
 Again : if any one was accused of writing against the Christian 
 revelation, he might answer with your lordship, if this accusation 
 be true, it must be so either with regard to God's universal visibly 
 
 4-
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 37 5 
 
 revelation in all the canonical books, or w,ith regard to bis uni- 
 versal invisible revelation whereby he speaks inwardly to all sin- 
 cere people, or with respect to some particular part of his visible 
 revelation. Let all the world judge whether if a person so ac- 
 cused should make this reply, it would not plainly appear either 
 that he was a downright enthusiast, or a crafty dealer in cant and 
 artificial words. I am sure your lordship cannot shew that you 
 have more authority to divide the church on earth into universal 
 visible and universal invisible, and particular visible, than he had 
 to divide the Christian revelation into visible and invisible. Nei- 
 ther was it less to the purpose for such a one to talk of invisible 
 Scriptures, if he was accused of denying the Gospel of St. John, 
 than it is for your lordship under your present accusation to have 
 recourse to the invisible church ; but your lordship will find no 
 advantage in this retreat. 
 
 Again ; suppose a person was charged \vith writing treason 
 against the government, and in his defence should thus distinguish; 
 the treason that I am charged with against the government, must 
 relate either to universal government in this world, or to universal 
 government in the other world, or to some particular government 
 in this world. 
 
 It would be as ingenuous, as sincere, and as pertinent for a 
 person ihus accused to talk of governments that had no relation 
 to the case, but in his own imagination, as for your lordship in the 
 present dispute to talk of universal visible, and universal invisible, 
 and particular visible churches. For besides this, that there is no 
 foundation for such a distinction, yet if there was such an in- 
 visible chu: ch, how is it possible your lordship should hurt it ? 
 How is it possible the learned committee should mean to charge 
 you with injuring it? They might as well think your lordship 
 capable of forming a design to arrest a party of spirits, as to attack 
 an invisible church that neither you nor they know any thing of, 
 or where to find. 
 
 Your lordship saith, " That if you have unjustly laid any thing 
 down in this description of the invisible church, to the prejudice 
 or injury of any particular visible church, you acknowledge that 
 it is your part to answer for it *." 
 
 I believe it appears already that your lordship has a great deal 
 to answer for upon this head; and I shall now farther shew that 
 
 * Answer to Rep. p. 70.
 
 376 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 you have set up this invisible church in opposition to all other 
 churches whatever. This will appear from the following passage 
 in your sermon: " This enquiry will bring us back to the* firs,t, 
 which is the only true account of the church of Christ or kingdom 
 of Christ in the mouth of a Christian, viz. the number of men, 
 whether small or great, &c *." 
 
 We have your lordship's confession that you only here pretend 
 to describe the universal invisible church of Christ ; you also here 
 plainly declare, that " it is the only true account of Christ's church 
 or kingdom in the mouth of a Christian. " 
 
 Is not this, my lord, expressly declaring that any other account 
 of Christ's church is not a true one ? for you say this is the only 
 true one. Is it not directly affirming that any other description 
 of Christ's church cannot become the mouth of a Chtistian? for 
 you say that it is the only true one in the mouth of a Christian. 
 So that if we call the universal visible church the church of Christ, 
 we give a false account of Christ's church, and such a one as is 
 unfit for the mouth of a Christian. 
 
 Could your lordship have thought of any thing more shocking, 
 than to say that the description of your invisible church is the only 
 true account of Christ's churck, and fit for the mouth of a Chris- 
 tian, when our Saviour has given us a quite contrary account of it 
 from his own mouth? He compares it to a net full of good and 
 bad fish, to a feast full of good and bad guests; this surely, my 
 lord, is not an account of your invisible church, where there 
 are only invisible members. Your lordship cannot say that Christ 
 has here described the invisible church ; you directly say that 
 your description of the invisible church is the only true account 
 of Christ's church in the mouth of a Christian; and conse- 
 quently this account which our Saviour himself has given of his 
 church, stands condemned by your lordship as a false account of 
 Christ's church, unfit for the mouth ef a Christian. I appeal to 
 the common sense of every reader, whether I have laid any thing 
 to your charge but what your own express words amount to. The 
 fhort is this ; if Christ has in these parables described the universal 
 church as usible, then it is plain that this account of Christ's 
 church is a false one in the mouth of a Christian ; for you sav 
 
 " \ * * 
 
 your account of the invisible church is the only true account of 
 Christ's church in the mouth of a Christian ? so that nothing can 
 
 * Pa-e 16.
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 377 
 
 secure this account which our Saviour has given of his church 
 from your lordship's censure, but shewing that it is the very same 
 account of the invisible church that you have given ; which I be. 
 lieve is more than your lordship will undertake to prove ; it being 
 as hard to prove that a net full of good and bad fish, or a feast 
 full of good and bad guests should represent an invisible kingdom 
 of only one sort of subjects, as that the net and feast, though both 
 full, should represent a kingdom that had not one subject in it. 
 
 If a fanatic should describe the Christian sacraments as spi- 
 ritual and invisible sacraments, and then affirm that that was the 
 only true account of Christian sacraments in the mouth of a Chris- 
 tian, could we charge him with less than writing against all sacra- 
 ments but invisible sacraments ? It is just thus far that your lord- 
 ship has proceeded against the external visible church : you have 
 declared the invisible one to be the only true church fit to be spoke 
 of by a Christian, which I think is laying down a position highly- 
 injurious to the visible church, since it is here condemned as false 
 in the mouth of a Christian. 
 
 From all this it appears that the learned committee have justly 
 disliked your lordship's description of the church of Christ. 
 
 First ; as you describe it as an invisible church, directly con- 
 trary to the Scripture representations of it, as given by our Saviour 
 himself. 
 
 Secondly ; as it is in disparagement of the article of our church, 
 which gives quite another description of the church. 
 
 That the church described in the article falls under your lord- 
 ship's censure, is very plain. For you declare that your descriptioir 
 of the invisible is the only true account of Christ's church; therd- 
 fore the description in the article cannot be a true one, because it is 
 different from yours, which is the only true one. 
 
 Secondly ; you declare that you consider the church under this 
 description, viz. as invisible, because every other notion of it i$ 
 made up of inconsistent images * : therefore the account of the 
 church in the article is thus inconsistent. 
 
 Now what does your lordship answer here? Only this, that 
 the article speaks of the visible church, and you speak of the in- 
 visible one f. 
 
 This answer, my lord, proves the charge upon you to be just. 
 For since you own that you describe another church than that 
 
 * Scrm. p. io. t Answer to Rep. p. 78.^
 
 378; Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadky. 
 
 which is described in the article, and expressly affirm that your 
 account of this other church is the only true account of Christ's 
 church in the mouth of a Christian ; you plainly declare that the 
 other church is a false one in the mouth of a Christian. Yet 
 your lordship rests satisfied with this reply, as if you had cleared 
 yourself by it ; whereas this is the very charge itself, that you 
 have described the church otherwise than it is in the article, and 
 have called this different and new account of it the only true ac- 
 count of it ; and if it be the only true one, then that which is 
 given in the article must be a false one. 
 
 Your lordship goes on, " The article declares what it is that 
 makes every such congregation the visible church of Christ; and 
 I describe what it is that makes every particular man a member 
 of Christ's universal invisible church. The article describes those 
 outward acts which are necessary to make a visible chuich; and 
 I describe that inward sincerity and regard to Christ himself, which 
 make men members of the invisible church of Christ. And 
 where is the contradiction contained in all this * ?" 
 
 Suppose, my lord, any one should affirm that there is a sincere, 
 invisible bishop of Bangor, who is the only true bishop of Bangor 
 in the mouth of a Christian. Would your lordship think here 
 was no reflection intended upon yourself? Would you think 
 this account no contradiction to your right as bishop of Bangor ? 
 Does your lordship believe such an assertion could come from 
 any one that owned your right to your bishopric, and was a 
 friend to you in it ? Would you imagine that nothing was meant 
 iBgainst you, because the other bishop was said to be invisible ? 
 -Your lordship cannot but know, that though he is said to be invi- 
 sible, yet if he is the only true bishop of Bangor in the mouth of 
 a Christian, then any other bishop of Bangor, whether visible or 
 invisible, must be a false one in the mouth of a Christian. 
 
 Thus it is your lordship has dealt with the visible church; 
 you have set another up as the only true r.hurch, and yet think all 
 is well ; that there is no contradiction, because you call this other 
 an invisible church ; whereas if it be the only true churh, it con- 
 tradicts every other church in the highest sense. And though it 
 does not contradict it as a visible church, yet it does as a true 
 church, which is of more consequence. 
 
 Your lordship here puts a question in favour of the visible 
 church. " Can it be supposed by this learned body, that a man's 
 
 * Answer to Rep. p. 79.
 
 Mr. Lav's third Letter to Bishop Hcadley. 379 
 
 being of the invisible church of Christ, is inconsistent with his join- 
 ing himself with any visible church*?" 
 
 No, my lord, it cannot he suppose;!. It cannot be supposed by 
 any body that a man's being of the invisible church is inconsistent 
 with his joining himself to the Royal Society or College of Physi- 
 cians. But pray, my lord, is this all that your invisible church 
 will allow of? Dare your lordship proceed no farther, than only 
 to grant that it is no inconsistency, no contradiction for a member 
 of your invisible church to join with any visible church? If 
 you would sincerely shew that you have said nothing to the preju- 
 dice of the visible church, you ought to declare that the meir.bers 
 of your invisible church, may not only consistently join with that 
 which is visible, but that it is their duty, and that they are obliged 
 to join with it in order to be of yours that is invisible. For if 
 you have set up an invisible church, which will excuse its mem- 
 bers from being of any that is visible, then you have plainly de- 
 stroyed it, by making it useless. And it is but a poor apology for it 
 to say there is no inconsistency in joining with it, afcer you have 
 made it needless and unnecessary to join with it. And it will be 
 pretty difficult to give a consistent reason why any person should 
 join himself to a needless church. 
 
 Your lordship has here made great discoveries of the nature of 
 your invisible church, which appears to have nothing visible or ex- 
 ternal in it. 
 
 For first, you declare that the article describes one church and 
 you another. But how does this appear ? How does your lord- 
 ship prove this ? 1st. " Because the article declares what it is that 
 makes every such congregation the visible church f." Now, my 
 lord, if this shews that the article does not describe your church, 
 then it is plain that the article here describes something that does 
 not belong to your church ; for if it equally belonged to your 
 church, it could be no proof that it did not describe your 
 church. But you expressly say that it describes a different church 
 from yours ; therefore it must describe something that do^s not be- 
 long to yours. 
 
 Now if that which makes any congregation the visible church, 
 be not necessary to make persons members of your church, it 
 follows that they may be members of yours, without being of any 
 visible church. 
 
 * Answer toRepr. p. 79. t Ibid.
 
 380 Mr. Latfs third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 Again ; another reason why the article does not describe your in- 
 visible church is this: because it describes " those outward acts, 
 which are necessary to make a visible church." These outward 
 acts are, the " pleaching the pure word of God, and administer- 
 ing the sacraments." Now, my lord, seeing these outward acts 
 shew that the church here described is not your invisible church, 
 does not this evidently declare that such outward acts are not ne- 
 cessary to your church? For if they did equally belong to both 
 churches, and were alike necessary to them, how could they more 
 describe one than another ? But you say, it is the mentioning of 
 these outward acts, that shews that your invisible church is not 
 described ; therefore it is plain that you do not include these out- 
 ward acts as essential to your invisible church, and consequently 
 it is a church to which neither public worship, nor visible sa- 
 craments are necessary. For if these outward acts are necessary 
 to your invisible church, why does not your lordship mention 
 them as such ? You own you describe what it is that makes every 
 particular man a member of the invisible church ; yet you not 
 only take no notice of these outward acts, but' say that the article 
 describes not your church, because it mentions these outward acts, 
 which is a demonstration that these outward acts do not belong to 
 your church. 
 
 Farther ; when the learned Committee had charged your lord- 
 ship with the omission of " preaching the word and administring 
 of the sacraments," you answer, " they might have added, he 
 omits likewise the very public profession of Christianity) And 
 is not the reason plain ? because I was not speaking of the visible 
 church ; to which alone, as such, visible outward signs, and verbal 
 professions belong : but of the universal invisible church *." 
 
 My lord, the reason is very plain, and it is as plain that is not a 
 good reason. For if the preaching of "the word, the administring 
 of the sacraments, and rhe public profession of Christianity, be ne- 
 cessary to make any ne a member of your invisible church, then 
 there was as good reason to mention them in your description, as 
 if you had been describing the visible church. 
 
 If they are not necessary, then you have set up a church exclu- 
 sive of the visible church. The case stands thus ; if these outward 
 acts be as necessary to make persons be of the invisible as of the vi- 
 sible church, then they ought to come equally into the description, 
 
 * Answer to Repr p. So.
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop HoadkiJ. 38 1 
 
 of both churches, being equally necessary to both : if you say they 
 are not equally necessary, then you must allow that there is no ne- 
 cessity that the members of your church should be in any external 
 communion. 
 
 It is therefore no apology to say that you describe the invisible 
 church, unless you will say that a man may be of it without anv 
 outward act?, or communion with any visible church. If a person 
 may be of this invisible church without having any thing to do 
 with visible sacraments, or worship in a visible communion, then 
 YOU have an excuse why you did not mention these outward pro- 
 fessions in your description of the church ; but if he cannot be 
 of this invisible communion without observing these outward 
 ordinances, then it was as necessary to mention these outward or- 
 dinances in your account of this church, as if you had been de- 
 scribing a church, which consisted of nothing else but outward or- 
 dinances. 
 
 So that the short of the case is this ; if the observation of ex- 
 ternal ordinances be not necessary to make men members of your 
 invisible church, then indeed there is a plain reason why your lord- 
 ship should omit them ; and it is also plain that this doctrine 
 sets aside the Gospel, if this invisible church, the " only true 
 church in the mouth of a Christian," be excused from Gospel or- 
 dinances. But if these external ordinances be necessary to constitute 
 the invisible church, then there was as plain a reason to mentiort 
 them, in the description of your church, as if you had been de- 
 scribing the visible church. 
 
 So that if your lordship will give a good plain reason why 
 you have omitted these outward acts, it must be because they 
 do not belong to it; for otherwise the calling it invisible is 
 no excuse, unless it lias no occasion for such outward per- 
 formances. 
 
 And indeed this has appeared to be your doctrine in almost 
 every page, that you set up tin's invisible church in opposition to 
 outward and visible ordinances. For you all along set out the 
 opposition or difference betwixt the visible and invisible church 
 in respect to external ordinances: thus the one is visible, " be- 
 cause to it alone belong external signs, or verbal professions *." 
 The other is invisible for the want of these. Yet- this invisible 
 church thus destitute, and even necessarily destitute of external 
 
 * Answer to Repr. p. Si.
 
 332 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadky. 
 
 ordinances, is by you called, the " only true church in the mouth. 
 of a Christian." 
 
 One may, I acknowledge, easily conceive in one's mind a 
 number of people, whose internal and invisible graces may entitle 
 them to the favour of God ; and these may be called an invisible 
 number, or congregation, or church, because it is invisible to us 
 where it is, or how great it is. But then, my lord, it is a great mis- 
 take if this invisible church is opposed to, or distinguished from the 
 visible church in respect of external ordinances. For in these things 
 they are both equally obliged to be visible. And the invisible 
 church is not so called, in contradistinction to those who attend 
 visible communions, and observe external ordinances, but in con- 
 tradistinction to those who are invisibly bad, and are not what their 
 external profession promises. This is the only number of people 
 or church, which the invisible church is opposed to. For as the 
 invisible church intends a number so called, because of their invisi- 
 ble graces ; so this invisibly good church can be truly opposed only 
 to the invisibly bad church, or such as are not such persons in- 
 wardly, as they profess to be outwardly. 
 
 But, contrary to this, your lordship has all along considered 
 and described this invisible church in opposition to the visible, 
 and made those outward acts which are necessary to the visible 
 church, so many marks to distinguish it from that which is in- 
 visible. Thus you say that you " was not speaking of the 
 visible church, to which alone, as such, visible outward signs, 
 or verbal professions belong: but of the universal invisible 
 church*." 
 
 Here you plainly make external signs, and outward professions 
 distinguish the visible from the invisible church ; whereas it is not 
 invisible in this respect, as being without these external profes- 
 sions, or in contradistinction to a visible church ; but it is only 
 invisible in those graces, which human eyes cannot perceive. 
 Thus they are said to be the invisible church, because they are a 
 number of men, who are such inwardly, as they profess to be 
 outwardly. But this shews that they cannot be so called in con- 
 tradistinction to outward professions, since they must have an out- 
 ward profession themselves before they can be inwardly sincere in 
 it; and consequently they are not opposed to, or distinguished 
 from a number of outward professors, for this they are obliged to 
 
 * Answer to Repr. p. .81.
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadlcy. 383 
 
 be themselves, but from a number of outward professors, who are 
 not sincere in what they outwardly profess. 
 
 If I should describe charitable men to be an invisible church of 
 persons sincerely well affected to mankind, and this in contra- 
 distinction to others who are externally charitable, and perform 
 outward acts of love. Or if I should describe chaste men to be 
 an invisible church of persons inwardly chaste and pure, and this 
 in contradistinction to others externally chaste and visibly pure as 
 to outward acts; I should just have the same authority either from 
 reason or Scripture to set up these invisible churches of charitable 
 and chaste men, in opposition to persons outwardly charitable and 
 chaste, as your lordship has to set up this invisible sincere church in 
 contradistinction to the visible external church. For, first, this 
 sincerity no more makes a ehurch, than charity and chastity make 
 a church, or than honesty makes a man a member of a corporation, 
 or an officer in the army ; these being private personal virtues, do not 
 constitute a church or society, but concern men, as men, in every 
 estate of life. 
 
 Secondly, Outward ordinances, and visible professions are as 
 necessary to make men true Christians, as outward acts of love, 
 and external purity are necessary to make men charitable or chaste. 
 For Christianity as truly implies external acts and professions, as 
 chastity implies outward purity. 
 
 Now, my lord, suppose the question was, whether adultery or 
 fornication, or any other impurity was lawful, and that the world 
 was divided upon this controversy ; would he not be an excellent 
 preacher of chastity, that should never tell us whether any or all 
 of these were unlawful, but should pretend to decide the contro- 
 versy, by telling the world, that chaste men, is an invisible church 
 of persons inwardly pure, and this in contradistinction to persons 
 externally pure? Suppose he should tell them that their title to 
 chastity did not depend upon their being or not being of the 
 number of any outwardly pure or impure persons, but upon their 
 inward purity ; what apology could even charity itself make for 
 such a teacher ? 
 
 The controversy on foot is this; whether external communion 
 with any sort of fanatics be lawful ? Whether it be as safe to be 
 in one external visible communion as in another? The world is 
 divided upon this subject, and your lordship comes in to end the 
 controversy. But how ? Is it by examining the merits of the con, 
 tending parties ? Is it by telling -us what is right and what is
 
 584 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 wrong in the different communions? Is it by telling us that one 
 external communion is better than another ? Is it by shewing us 
 that any is dangerous ? Is it by directing us with which we ought 
 to join, or indeed that we ought so much as to join with any ? No: 
 this right and wrong, or good and bad in external communions, 
 though it was the whole question, is wholly skipt over by your 
 Jordship ; and you preach up an invisible church as the " only true 
 church in the mouth of a Christian," and this in contradistinction 
 to all visible churches : and only declare that our title to God's fa- 
 vour cannot depend upon our being or continuing in any particular 
 method, but upon our sincerity. 
 
 Your lordship says ; " I have laid down a description of the uni* 
 vevsal invisible church or kingdom of Christ *." Your lordship 
 had been as well employed if you had been painting of spirits, or 
 weighing of thoughts. " The main question," you say, " is 
 \vhether this description be true anu jusfr." 
 
 This, my lord, is not the main question ; nor indeed does it con- 
 cern us at all whether your lordship is ingenious, or not, in this de- 
 scription. 
 
 v For suppose your lordship had been describing an invisible king 
 to the people of Great Britain, do you think the main ques- 
 tion amongst the lords and commons would be, whether you had 
 hit off the description well? No, my lord, the main question would 
 be, to what ends and purposes you had set up such a king, and 
 what relation the subjects of Great Britain had to him, whether 
 they might leave their visible, and pay only an internal allegiance 
 to your invisible king. If your lordship should farther describe 
 him as the only true king in the mouth of a Briton, I believe it 
 would be thought but a poor apology to appeal to your fine 
 painting, that you had described him justly, and set him out as 
 invisible. The application is here very easy ; it is a very trifling 
 question, and only concerns your lordship's parts, whether your 
 description of your invisible church be just or not ; but it is the 
 use and end of setting up this church, which is any matter of 
 question to us. Your lordship might erect as many churches as 
 you please, if you did it only for speculative amusement, and to 
 try your abilities in fine drawing ; but you pretend to unsettle the 
 Christian church, by your new buildings, or to destroy the dis- 
 tinction between the church and conventicle, by your invisibles, 
 
 * Page 78. t Ibid,
 
 Mr. "Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 385 
 
 \ve must beg your lordship's excuse, and can no more admire the 
 beauty or justness of*your fine descriptions, than you would ad- 
 mire a just description of an invisible diocese, if it was set out in 
 order to receive your lordship. 
 
 You add; " but of this (description) they (the Committee) 
 have not said one word ; but rather chosen to go off to an article 
 of the church of England, which defines not the universal in- 
 visible church." And your lordship (might as well observe, that 
 they have not said one word about Plato's republic. For how 
 they should imagine that you was describing an invisible church, 
 or if they did, why they should trouble their heads with such a 
 description, is not easily conceived. 
 
 For, my lord, it it was your primary intention only to appear 
 in defence of an universal invisible church, what can we conceive 
 in our minds more surprizing ? What can be more extraordinary 
 than that a visible bishop at a visible court, should with so much 
 solemnity preach in defence of a church which can neither be de- 
 fended nor injured? Are there any rights in your invisible church 
 which can possibly be lost ? If not, to what purpose does your 
 lordship come in as a defender ? Can the sight of any men find 
 it, the malice of any men attack it, or the good-will of any men 
 support it? No: yet though it is as invisible as the center of the 
 earth, and as much cut of oar reach as t'ae stars, yet your lordship 
 has very pathetically preached a sermon and published some vo- 
 lumes, lest this invisible church, which nobody knows where to 
 find, should be run away with. 
 
 Should the same Christian zeal induce your lordship to appear 
 at some other solemn occasion in the cause of the winds, your 
 pains would be as well employed ; for it would be as reasonable 10 
 desire that they might rise and blow where they list, as that an 
 invisible church, no where to be known or found by us at present, 
 may not be injured. 
 
 If therefore the learned Committee has so far forgot that visible 
 church of which they are members, as to have Engaged wifh your 
 lordship about your invisible church, the dispute would have been 
 to as much purpose, as a trial in Westminster-hall about the phi- 
 losopher's stone. 
 
 But you complain that they rather chose to go off to an articls 
 of the church of Eng'and. My lord,- this is very hard indeed, 
 that they should go off to the church of England, when you had 
 an invisible church ready for them ; or that this learned body ca i. 
 
 VOL. I. C c
 
 386 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadlcy. 
 
 not dispute about churches, but they must needs bring the church 
 of England into the question. 
 
 Suppose, as in the aUove-mentioned instance, your lordship 
 should lay down a fine and just description of your invisible king 
 of Great-Britain, a number of tories should, instead of exa- 
 mining the truth of your description, go off to the acts of settle- 
 ment, which declare a visible king of Britain : this would be to 
 use your lordship just as the learned Committee have done ; who, 
 instead of dwelling upon the beauty and justness of this descrip- 
 tion, have gone off to an old article in the church of England, 
 which indeed only describes an old -.ashioned visible church, as 
 churches went in the Apostle's days : that is, f a congregation of 
 faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and 
 the sacraments duly administered *." 
 
 I am of opinion that the apostolical church would not have 
 thought themselves too invisible to be thus described, or that this 
 was too visible a description of the church of Christ to take in its 
 sincere members. 
 
 Whether therefore your lordship has given a true description of 
 the invisible church, that is, a church of thoughts and sentiments, 
 I shall not consider, but thus much I must observe, that it is a 
 very false description ; first, as it pretends to describe THE 
 church "r-, " and the only true church in the mouth of a Chris- 
 tian." For the church of Christ, as has been shewn, is as truly 
 a visible external society, as any civil or secular society in the 
 world : and it is no more distinguished from such societies by the 
 invisibility, than by the youth or age of its members. 
 
 The holy consecrated elements differ from common bread and 
 \vine, but theydo not so differ from it, as to erase to be as visible 
 as common bread and wine. Thus the holy catholic church, 
 rhe. kingdom of Christ, differs from worldly societies and king- 
 doms, but not in point of visibility, but in regard to the ends and pur- 
 poses for which it is erected, viz. the eternal salvation of mankind. 
 
 Secondly, This description contradicts the nineteenth article of 
 the church of England. For though it is not set up as another 
 visible church, so as to contradict it in the point of visibility, yet 
 seeing it is described as THE church, and " the only true church," 
 it plainly contradicts it in point of truth ; for if it be the only 
 true church, every other must be a false one. 
 
 Artie's 19. I Answer to Repr. j. 70.
 
 Mr. Laws third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 337 
 
 Thirdly, This description is a mere speculative conjecture, 3 
 creature of the imagination, which can serve no purposes, but is 
 entirely foreign to the present dispute, and must be so to any dis- 
 pute which ever can arise between contending communions. It 
 no more serves to inform any one whether lie should go to the 
 visible church or visible conventicle, than whether he should study 
 the law or physic. It may indeed serve to make persons regard-* 
 less of any visible church, but can be of no use to them, if they 
 desire to know with what visible church they ought to join. 
 
 It may now be worth our while to observe how your lordship 
 came by this account of Christ's kingdom, which you say is the 
 only true one. " Jesus answered, my kingdom is not of this 
 " world," is the text to your sermon. You say, you " have 
 chosen these words ia which our Lord declares the nature of his 
 kingdom *." 
 
 Now my lord, one would imagine, that you hereby mean, 
 that our Lord has in these words declared what his kingdom is ; 
 for without this, it cannot be true that he hath declared the 
 " nature of his kingdom." Whereas it is so far from being true 
 that he hath in these words declared what his kingdom is", that he 
 has only, and that in one jrarticular respect, declared what it h 
 not. If he had said that his kingdom was not a Jewish kingdom^ 
 would this be declaring the nature of his kingdom ? If a person 
 should say that his belief was not the belief of the church of 
 England, would he in these words declare the Mature of his be-^ 
 lief? Would it not still be uncertain whether he was an Aiian or 
 Socinian, or something different from them both ? Thus our Sa- 
 viour's saying that his " kingdom is not of this world," no more 
 declares the nature of his kingdom, than a person by saying sucli 
 a one was not his son, would in these words declare how many 
 children he had. 
 
 " My kingdom is not of this world," are very indeterminate 
 words, and capable of several meanings, if we consider them ia 
 themselves. But as soon as we consider them as an answer to a 
 particular question, they take one determinate sense. The ques- 
 tion was, whether our Saviour was the (temporal) king of the 
 Jews ? " Jesus answered, my kingdom is not of this world." 
 Now as these words may signify no more than the denial of what 
 was asked j as there is nothing in them that necessarily implies 
 
 * Sermon, p. 10, 
 C C 2
 
 38S Mr. Law's third Letter to $iskop Headley. 
 more, than that he was not a king as the Jewish or other tem- 
 poral kings are ; as the question extends the answer no farther 
 than this meaning ; so if we enlarge it, or fix any other meaning 
 to it, it is all human reasoning, without any warrant from the 
 text. 
 
 Now, taking the words in this sense, what a strange conclusion 
 is this that your lordship draws from it : that because Christ said 
 his kingdom was not a temporal kingdom, as the Jewish and 
 other kingdoms were ; therefore his kingdom is invisible. Is it 
 denied to be a temporal kingdom, because a temporal kingdom is 
 visible ? If not, it will by no means follow, that it must be in- 
 visible, because it is said not to be temporal. Must it be in every 
 respect contrary to a temporal kingdom, because it is said not te 
 be temporal ? Then it must have no subjects, because in temporal 
 kingdoms there are subjects ; then there must be no king, because 
 in such kingdoms there are kings. I suppose the sacraments may 
 in a very proper sense be said to be not temporal institutions, 
 though they are as external and visible as any thing in the world ; 
 and consequently the church may be not temporal in a very proper 
 sense, without implying that it must therefore be invisible. In- 
 deed I cannot conceive how your lordship could have thought of a 
 more odd conclusion, than this which you have drawn from them. 
 If you had concluded that because Christ's kingdom is not a tem- 
 poral kingdom, therefore its members are all of an age ; it had been 
 as well as to say, therefore they are invisible. 
 
 Nothing can be more surprizing than to see your lordship 
 throughout your whole sermon describing this kingdom, with all 
 the accuracy and exactness imaginable, and even demonstrating 
 every particular circuir stance of its nature, from this little nega- 
 tive, that it is not a temporal kingdom. Your lordship must be 
 very excellent at taking a hint, or you could never have found out 
 this kingdom of God so exactly from so small a circumstance. It 
 seems had this little text been alUthe Scripture that we had left in 
 the world, your lordship could have revealed the rest by the help 
 of it. For there is nothing that relates to this kingdom, or the 
 circumstances of its members, but you have purely by the strength 
 of your genius, unassisted by any other Scripture, proved and de- 
 irionstrated from this single passage. 
 
 If a foreigner should tell your lordship that his house in his 
 own country was not as the houses are in this kingdom, would it 
 not be very wonderful in your lordihip, to be able to demonstrate
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 389 
 
 its length and breadth, to tell how many rooms there are on a 
 floor, and to describe every beauty and convenience of the struc. 
 ture, merely from having been told that it was not like the houses 
 in this kingdom ? But it would not be more wonderful than to see 
 your lordship describe the nature of Christ's kingdom, and ex- 
 plain every circumstance that concerns its members, from having 
 been told this negative circumstance. Nor indeed is it much to be 
 wondered, seeing you set out upon this bottom, if you give as 
 false an account of Christ's kingdom, as you would do of an house, 
 that you only knew what it was not. 
 
 Again, you say, " As the church of Chiist is the kingdom of 
 Christ, he himself is King; and in this it is implied, that he is 
 himself the sole Law-giver to his subjects, and himself the sole 
 judge of their behaviour in the affairs of conscience and salva- 
 tion*." 
 
 What a pretty fine-spun consequence is this, to be drawn from 
 the above-mentioned text ! Your lordship here advances a mere 
 human speculation founded upon no other authority, than the un- 
 certain signification of the words King and Kingdom ; you say it 
 is in this implied, that because Christ is king of his kingdom, he 
 is sole law-giver to his subjects. Pray, my lord, why is it in this 
 implied ? Do the words king and kingdom always imply the same 
 thing ? Has a king in one kingdom the same powers, which every 
 king hath in another kingdom ? Has the king of England the 
 same power which a king of France, or any sovereign hath in his 
 kingdom ? Would it be any reason why the king of England 
 should be sole law-giver to his subjects, because there are kings 
 who are sole law-givers to their subjects ? Now if the word king, 
 does not necessarily imply the same power in every kingdom, how. 
 can there be any conclusion, that because Christ is king of his 
 kingdom, he is sole law-giver to his subjects ? Yet your lordship's 
 whole argument is founded upon this weak and false bottom, that 
 the word king is to be taken in one absolute and fixed sense: for 
 you expressly say it is in this implied, that because he is king, 
 he is s;;le law-giver. Now it is impossible it should be implied 
 in this, unless the word king always implies the same power : 
 for if there be any difference in the constitutions of kingdoms, 
 though they all have kings, then it is plain nothing ce: taiu as to 
 the nature and condition of any kingdom can be drawn from its 
 
 * S?rm. p. II.
 
 39O Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadlcy. 
 
 having a king. But your lordship has described the constitution 
 of Christ's kingdom, the circumstances of its subjects, and in short 
 every thing that can concern if, as absolutely, and with as much 
 certainty, from Christ's being king of it, as if the word king had 
 but one meaning, or every king the same power. 
 
 Again, you tell us; " The grossest mistakes in judgment about 
 the nature of Christ's kingdom or church, have arisen from hence, 
 that men have argued from other visible societies, and other visible 
 kingdoms of this world, to what ought to be visible and sensible in 
 his kingdom." 
 
 Is it thus, my lord ? Are all our gross errors owing to this way 
 of reasoning ? How then comes your lordship to fall into this 
 grossest of errors ? How come you to state the very nature of 
 Cruises kingdom from the consideration of temporal kingdoms, 
 or absolute monarchies ? How come ybu to argue from the relation 
 between a king and his kingdom, to what ought to be in Christ's 
 spiritual kingdom? Are not kings and kingdoms temporal insti- 
 tuiions ? Is not the relation betwixt a king and his kingdom a 
 temporal relation ? How then can you argue from these temporal 
 kingdoms to any thing concerning Christ's kingdom ? Why will 
 your lordship fall into so gross an error, as to assert that Christ 
 inust be sole law-giver to iiis subjects, because there are some 
 temporal kings who are sole law-givers to their subjects ? Is there 
 any consequence in this argument ? Nay, are not all our errors 
 owing to tin's mistaken way of arguing ? 
 
 The only way to know the constitution of this kingdom, is not 
 to reason from what is implied in the words king and kingdom, 
 for they do not imply any fixed or absolute sense, but from the 
 laws and institutions of it, whether they admit of or require the 
 authority of under magistrates. Thus, if it appears that Christ 
 has commissioned others to act in his name, to exercise authority in 
 his kingdom, and govern his subjects in such a manner as he 
 has commissioned them to govern ; is it any answer to this, to say 
 that the church is a kingdom, and Christ is a king, and conse- 
 quently sole law-giver in it ? Is there nothing in this text, *' What- 
 V soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, Sec." 
 because Christ is king of his church ? 
 
 The whole scheme of all your doctrines is raised out of this 
 single text, " My kingdom is not of this world;" which certainly 
 implies no more than if Christ had said, '* I arn. not the temporal 
 king of the Jews." Let us therefore: see how your lordship's doc-
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 39 1 
 
 trines appear, if we bring them to the principle from whence you 
 had them : as thus, Jesus is not the temporal king of the Jews, 
 therefore there is no such thing as church authority, no obligation 
 to join in any particular communion. Jesus is not the temporal 
 king of the Jews, therefore absolutions, benedictions, and excom- 
 munications are dreams and trifles; therefore no succession or 
 order of clergy is better than another. 
 
 Jesus is not the temporal king of the Jews, therefore the in- 
 visible church is the only true church in the mouth of a Christian ; 
 therefore sincerity alone, exclusive of; any particular communion, 
 is the only tide to God's favour. Now if the Papists should say, 
 Jesus is not the temporal king of the Jews, therefore there is a 
 purgatory, therefore we are to pray to saints ; they would shew as 
 much true logic and divinity as your lordship has shewn in the 
 proof of your doctrines from the above-mentioned text. And I 
 dare say, that every reader of this controversy knows that you have 
 not pretended to any other proof from the Scriptures for your doc- 
 trine, than what your oratory could draw from this single text. 
 
 This, therefore, I hope every reader will observe, that all which 
 you have advanced against the universally received doctrines of 
 Christianity, is only an harangue upon this single text, which every 
 one's common sense will tell him contains nothing in it that can 
 possibly determine the cause which you are engaged in. For 
 who can imagine that it is as well to be a sincere Turk as a sincere 
 Christian ; or that a sincere Quaker is as much in the favour of 
 God as a sincere churchman, because our blessed Lord told Pilate 
 that his kingdom was not of this world ; and that in such a 
 manner, and upon such an occasion, as only to imply that he was 
 not that king which he enquired after ? Who can conceive that 
 there is no particular order of the clergy necessary, no necessity of 
 any particular communion, no authority in any church, nor any 
 signirkancy in the sacerdotal powers, for this reason, because there 
 is a text in Scripture which denies that Christ was the temporal 
 king of the Jews. 
 
 Your lordship has said much of the plainness and simplicity of 
 the Gospel, and of its peculiar fitness to be judged of, by the 
 ordinary common sense of mankind ; yen have also interposed in 
 this controversy, to deliver them from the authority cf the church, 
 and turn them loose to the Scriptures. But, my lord, if this text, 
 <; My kingdom is not of ihis world," which seems to common 
 sense to contain only the denial of a particular question, can- 
 
 J
 
 392 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadky. 
 
 tains, as you have pretended, the whole Christian religion ; and 
 every other seemingly plain part of the Gospel is to take its mean- 
 ing from this passage ; if it be thus, my lord, what can we conceive 
 more mysterious than the Scripture ? or more unequal to the com- 
 mon, ordinary sense of men ? 
 
 For how should it come into a plain honest man's head, that 
 this text, which is nothing but the denial of a certain question, 
 should be the key to all the rest of Scripture ? How should he 
 know that the plainest texts in Scripture were not to be under- 
 stood in their apparent meaning, but in some sense or other 
 given them from this text ? Thus, when it is said, " Go ye and 
 " disciple all nations, and lo I am with you to the end of the 
 " world." The first apparent sense of these words is this, that 
 as Christ promise.! to be with the Apostles in the execution of 
 their office both as to authority and power, so he promises the 
 same to their successors the bishops, since he couM no other- 
 wise be with them to the end of the world, than by being with 
 their successors. Now, my lord, how should an ordinary thinker 
 know that this plain meaning of the words was to be neglected, 
 and that Ire was to go to the above-mentioned text to learn to 
 understand, or rather disbelieve them ? For v/hat is there in this 
 text, " My kingdom is not of this world," to shew either that 
 Christ did not authorize the Apostles to ordain successors, who 
 should have his authority, or that the bishops alone are not such . 
 successors? Is there any thing in this text which ran anyway 
 determine the nature, the necessity, or the signifkancy of such a 
 succession ? 
 
 Again it is said, ' that there is no other name under heaven 
 " given unto men, whereby they may be saved, but Jesus Christ." 
 Now how should a man that has only common sense imagine, 
 that he must reject thjs plain meaning of the words, and believe 
 that a sincere Turk is as much in the favour of God as a sincere 
 Christian, for this only reason, because Christ's kingdom is not of 
 this world-? It must not be common ordinary sense which can 
 reason and discover at this rate. 
 
 Lastly, it is said, " Whatsoever ye shall bind en earth, shall 
 " be bound in heaven, &c." Now how shall any one that has 
 only sober sense find out, that there is nothing at all left in this 
 text, that it only gave something or other to the Apostles, but 
 gives no authority to any persons now } because the kingdom of 
 Chiist is not of this world?
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to ftishop Hoadley. 393 
 
 Our Saviour told his disciples that they were not of this world ; 
 but is that an argument that they therefore became immediately 
 invisible? Was neither St. Peter nor St. Paul, &<;. ever to be seen 
 afterwards? Why then nvist the kingdom of Christ become im- 
 mediately invisible because it is said not to be of this world any 
 more than its first members were invisible, who were also declared 
 to he not of this world ? 
 
 Had St. Peter and St. Paul no visible power and authority over 
 the presbyters and deacons, because they were not of this world ? 
 If they had, why ITU not some persons have authority over others 
 in Christ's kingdom, though it is not of this world ? 
 
 For our blessed Lord'o saying that his disciples were not of this 
 world, does as strictly prove that St. Peter and St. Paul had no 
 distinct powers from p. osbyters and deacons, as his saying that his 
 kingdom was not of this woild, proves that there is no real or 
 necessary difference betwixt bishops and presbyters in his kingdom. 
 And it is as good logic to say the disciples of Christ were not of 
 this world, therefore there was no necessity that some should have 
 been Apostles, and others presbyters, &c. as to say Christ's king- 
 dom is not of this world, therefore there is no necessity that some 
 shoula be bishops, and others presbyters in it. 
 
 I have been the more particular in examining the text to your 
 sermon, and bringing your doctrines close to it, that every reader 
 who has com'mon sense may be able to perceive that they have 
 no more relation to that text from which you be thought to have 
 them, than If you had deduced them from the first verse in the first 
 chapter of Genesis. 
 
 And yet thus much every reader must have observed, that it is 
 your explication of this text alone, which has led you to coad^rni 
 all that authority, to censure all those institutions as dreams and 
 trifles which the Holy Scriptures, and the fiist ami purest ages 
 of Christianity have taught us to esteem as sacrcrf in themselves, 
 being ordained by God ; and of the greatest benefit to us, being 
 means of obtaining his grace and favour. 
 
 Thus far concerning: the nature of Christ's church.
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 Of Church Authority. 
 
 J. COME now to consider what your lordship has delivered upon 
 the article of church authority, as it is invested in the governors 
 of the church. And here I have little else to do, but to clear it 
 from those false characters under which you have been pleased 
 to describe it. 
 
 Thus you begin : " If there be an authority in any to judge, 
 censure, or punish the servants of another master, in matters 
 purely relating to conscience and eternal salvation ; then Christ 
 has left behind judges over the consciences and religion of his 
 people; then the consciences and religion of his people are sub- 
 ject to them whom he has left judges over them ; and then there 
 is a right in some Christians to determine the religion and con- 
 sciences of others. And what is more, if the decisions of any 
 men can be made to concern or affect the state of Christ's subjects 
 with regard to the favour of God, then the salvation of some 
 Christians depends upon the sentence passed by others *." 
 
 Here is the sum of what you have advanced from reason and 
 the nature of the thing against the authority of church governors ; 
 which you would have pass for a strict proof, that if they have 
 any authority in matters purely relating to conscience derived to 
 them from Chrisr, that then their authority can damn or save at 
 pleasure. 
 
 But, my lord, in this same strict way of reasoning, and by 
 only using your own words, I will as plainly prove that a father 
 hath not authority even to send his children of an errand. 
 
 For, " If the Christian religion authorises a father to judge 
 the servants of another master in matters purely relating to mo- 
 tion, then Christ has left behind him judges over the motion of 
 his people, then the motion of his people is subjected to them 
 whom he has left judges over it, and then there is a ri^ht in some 
 Christians to determine the motion of others. And what is 
 more, if the determinations of any men can concern or affect the 
 state of Christ's subjects with regard to motion, then the lives of 
 some Christians depend upon the determination passed by orhers i 
 
 * Answer to Repr. p. 37.
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 895 
 
 because they may determine them to move from the top of a pre. 
 cipice to the bottom." 
 
 Here, my lord, I freely leave it to the judgment of common 
 sense, whether I have not in your own words proved it as absurd 
 and unreasonable that a father should have any power over his 
 son, so as to send him of an errand, as to allow the church to have 
 authority in matters of conscience and salvation ; and the conse- 
 quence, according to your argument, is equally dreadful in both 
 cases : for it is as plain that if fathers have authority in matters 
 of motion, then they mav move their sons to the bottom of a 
 precipice; as that if the church hath authority in matters of sal- 
 vation, then it may save or damn at pleasure ; and it is as well 
 proved that fathers have no authority in matters of motion, be- 
 cause they have no authority to command their children to destroy 
 themselves, as that the church hath no authority in matters of con- 
 science and salvation, because they have not an authority to damn 
 people for ever: for there is the same room for degrees in the au- 
 thority of the church, which there is for degrees in the authority 
 of parents ; and it is as justly concluded that parents have no 
 authority in matters of any particular nature, because they have 
 not unlimited authority in things of that particular nature, as that 
 the church hath no authority in matters of conscience and salva- 
 tion, because it has not an absolute unlimited authority in these 
 matters. 
 
 Yet this is the whole of your argument against church autho- 
 rity, that it cannot relate to matters of conscience and salvation, 
 because an authority in these matters is an absolute authority over 
 the souls of others ; which is just as true, as if any one should de- 
 clare that a father hath.no authority in matters purely relating to ^ 
 the body of his son, because an authority in these matters is aa 
 absolute authority to dispose of his body as he pleases. 
 
 Suppose it should be said that a father hath authority over his 
 son in civil affairs; will it be an argument that he hath no such, 
 authority,, because he has not all, or an unlimited authority in 
 civil affairs? Will it be an argument that he has no authority in 
 such matters, because his son is not wholly and entirely subjected 
 to him in such matters ? Has a father no right to choose an em- 
 ployment for his son, or govern him in several things of a civil 
 nature, because he cannot oblige him to resign his title to his 
 estate, or take from him the benefit of the laws of the land ?
 
 596 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadlcy. 
 
 If he has an authority in these matters, though not all, why 
 cannot the governors of the church have an authority in matters 
 of conscience, though they have not all, or an unlimited authority 
 in matters of conscience ? How does it follow that they have no 
 such authority, because Christians are not wholly and absolutely 
 subjected to them in such matters? Why can there not be bounds 
 to an authority in matters of conscience, as well as bounds to an 
 authority in civil affairs ? And if a father may have authority over 
 his son in civil affairs, though that authority is limited by the laws 
 of the land, and the superior authority of the civil magistrate; 
 why may not the church have an authority in matters of conscience 
 and salvation, though that authority is limited by the Scriptures, 
 and the supreme authority of God? 
 
 He therefore who concludes the church hath no authority in 
 matters of salvation, because it cannot absolutely save or damn 
 people, reasons as strictly as he who concludes a person has no 
 authority in civil affairs, because he cannot grant or take away 
 civil privileges of the highest nature. 
 
 What therefore your lordship has thus logically advanced against 
 the authority of the church, concludes with the same force against 
 all authority in the world. For if the church hath no authority 
 in matters of conscience, for this demonstrative reason, because it 
 hath not an unlimited authority in matters of conscience, then it 
 ig also demonstrated that no persons have any authority in any par- 
 ticular matters, because they have not an absolute unbounded au- 
 thority in those particular matters. 
 
 As thus; a prince hath no authority to oblige his subjects to 
 make war against such a people, because he had not unlimited 
 authority to oblige his subjects to fight where, and when, and 
 with whom he pleases. 
 
 A father hath no authority over the persons or affairs of his ehil* 
 dren, because he cannot dispose of the persons and affairs of his 
 children in what manner he will. 
 
 Masters have no authority to command the assistance of their 
 se 1 vants, because they cannot oblige them to assist in a rebellion or 
 robbery. 
 
 Thus are all these particular authorities as plainly confuted by 
 your argument, as the authority of the church is confuted by it. 
 
 But now, my lord, have neither masters, nor fathers, nor princes, 
 any authority in these particular matters, because they have no
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley* 391 
 
 authority to command at any rate, or as they please in these mat- 
 ters ? If they have, why may not the governors of the church 
 have an authority in matters of conscience though they cannot 
 oblige conscience at any rate, or as they please ? Why may not 
 they have an authority in matters of salvation, though they have 
 not power absolutely to damn or save ? 
 
 Your lordship would therefore have done as much justice to 
 truth, and as much service to the world, if, instead of calling 
 Christians from the authority of the church, you had publicly de- 
 clared that neither masters, nor fathers, nor princes, have, pro- 
 perly speaking, any real authority over their respective servants, 
 sons, and subjects, and that because they are none of them to be 
 obeyed but in such and such circumstances, and upon certain sup- 
 posed conditions^ For you have plainly declared there is no au- 
 thority in the church, that it has no power of obliging, because 
 we are only to obey upon terms and certain supposed conditions. 
 If therefore this conditional obedience proves that there is, pro- 
 perly speaking, no authority in the church, then that conditional 
 obedience of servants, sons, and subjects, proves that neither 
 their masters, fathers, or princes, have any authority properly 
 speaking. 
 
 You say ; " If there be a power in some over others in matters 
 of religion, so as to determine these others, then all communions 
 are upon an equal foot, without any regard to any intrinsic good- 
 ness ; or whether they be right or wrong ; then no religion is in 
 itself preferable to another, but all are alike with respect to the 
 favour of God*." 
 
 Now, my lord, all this might, with as much truth, be said of 
 any other authority, as of church authority. 
 
 As thus : " If there be a power in the prince, or in some over 
 others in matters of war and fighting, so as to determine those 
 others, then all wars and fightings are upon an equal foot, with- 
 out any regard to any intrinsic goodness ; or whether they be right 
 or wrong ; then no wars or fightings are in themselves preferable 
 to others, but all are alike with respect to the favour of God." 
 
 And now, my lord, what must we say here ? Has the prince 
 no right or power to command his subjects to wage war with such 
 a people ? Or if he has this power over them, does this make all 
 wars alike ? Does this authority leave nothing to the justice or 
 
 * Answer to Repr. p, 1 14.
 
 398 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Uoadky. 
 
 equity of wars, but make all wars exactly the same with regard 
 to the favour of God ? 
 
 Does this authority of the prince make all engagements equally 
 lawful to the subject that engages by his authority ? Js he neither 
 more or less in the favour of God, for whatever cause he fights 
 i i, because he has the authority of his prince ? Is it as pleasing 
 to God that under such authority he should make war upon the 
 innocent, plunder and ravage the fatherless and widows, as engage 
 in the cause of equity and honour ? 
 
 Now, my lord, if all wars are not alike to the persons who 
 are concerned in them, as to the favour of God ; if there can he 
 any cases supposed, where it is not only lawful, but honourable 
 and glorious for soldiers to disobey the orders of their prince ; 
 then it is past doubt, that soldiers may and ought to have some 
 regard to the nature and justice of the orders they have from their 
 prince. 
 
 But we have your lordship's assurance, that if they may have 
 any regard to the nature and justice of their orders, then there is 
 an end of all authority, and an end of all power of one man over 
 anotheY in such matters. 
 
 So that you have as plainly confuted all authority of the prince 
 over his soldiers in matters purely military, as you have confuted 
 all authority of the church in matters purely of conscience. For 
 it is plain to every understanding, that if there is an end of all 
 authority in religion, because persons may have some regard to 
 the intrinsic goodness of things *, that therefore there is an end of 
 all regal authority over soldiers, if soldiers may have any regard 
 to the nature and justice of their military orders. 
 
 Your argument against church authority consists of two parts ; 
 the first pare is taken from the nature of authority, and proceeds 
 thus : " If there be an authority in matters of conscience, it 
 must be an absolute authority over conscience, so as to be obeyed 
 in all its commands, of what kind soever ;" which is as false as 
 if it were said, that if a father hath authority over the person of 
 his son, then he hath an absolute authority to do what he will 
 with his person ; or if he hath authority over his son in civil affairs, 
 then he hath an absolute unlimited authority in the civil affairs 
 of his son. 
 
 * Answer to Repr. p. 115.
 
 Mr. LaiSs third Letter to Bishop Hoadky. 393 
 
 The other part of your argument is taken from the nature of obe- 
 dience, and proceeds in this manner : " If persons may have some 
 regard to the inninsic goodness of things in religion, then there is 
 an end of all authority in matters of religion ; which is as false as to 
 say that if a soldier may have some regard to the nature and justice 
 of the military orders of his prince, then there is an end of all autho- 
 rity of the prince over his soldiers in military affairs ; or if a servant 
 may have some regard to the lawfulness of the commands of his 
 master, then there is an end of all authority of masters over their ser- 
 vants as to such matters." 
 
 So that if there be such thing as authority either in masters, or fa- 
 the:s, or princes, then both parts of your argument arc confuted ; for 
 none of these have any other than a limited authority, nor do their 
 respective servants, sons, or subjects, owe them any other active 
 obedience, hut such as is conditional. 
 
 Now if it can he anv way proved that obedience to our masters, 
 parents, and princes is a very great duty, and disobedience a very 
 great sin, though they cannot oblige us to act against the laws of 
 God, or the laws of our country ; then it will folljow that obedience 
 to our spiritual governors may be a very g'est duy, and disobedi- 
 ence a very great sin, though they cannot oblige us to submit to 
 their sinful or unlawful commands. 
 
 And if common reason, the laws of God and our country be suffi- 
 cient to direct us where to stop in our active obediehce to our 
 masters, fathers, or princes, though they have authority from 
 God to demand our obedience, the same guides will with the 
 same certainty teach us where to stop in our obedience to the 
 authority of the church, though that authority be set over us bv 
 God himself. 
 
 Though this might be thought sufficient to shew the weakness * 
 of your arguments against the authority of the church, yet I 
 I shall beg leave to examine them a little farther in another 
 manner. 
 
 You say the authority which you deny, is only an authority in 
 matters relating purely to conscience and eternal salvation, an au- 
 thority whose laws and decisions affect the state of Christ's sub- 
 jects with regard to the favour of God; and the reason of your 
 denying it is this ; that if this authority, or laws, or deci- 
 sions of men can concern or affect the siate of Christ's sub- 
 jects with regard to the favour of God, then the eternal sal-
 
 400 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadlci/. 
 
 vation of some Christians depends upon the sentence passed by 
 others*. 
 
 In order to lay open the weakness of this reasoning, I shall state 
 the meaning of the propositions of which it consists. 
 
 And first, I suppose an authority may be properly said to affect 
 the state of people with regard to the favour of God, when their 
 obedience to such an authority procures his favour, and their 
 contempt of it raises his displeasure ; and I believe that this is not 
 only a proper sense, but the only proper sense which the words are 
 capable of. 
 
 It is certainly true that the authority of our bkssed Saviour was 
 an authority which affected the state of the Jews with regard to the 
 favour of God; but yet it no otherwise affected their state, than as 
 their obedience to his authority was pleasing to God, and their dis- 
 obedience to it the cause of his farther displeasure. This is the only 
 way in which the authority of Christ affected the state of people 
 with regard to the favour of God ; and therefore is the only manner 
 in which any other authority can be supposed to affect persons with 
 regard to the favour of God. 
 
 Secondly ; any things or matters may be properly said to relate 
 to conscience and eternal salvation, when the observance of them 
 is a means of obtaining salvation, and the neglect of them an 
 hindrance to our salvation. Thus baptism, and the supper of the 
 Lord, are matters relating to conscience and eternal salvation ; but 
 then they are only so for this reason, because the partaking of these 
 sacraments is a means of obtaining salvation, and the refusal of them 
 is an hindrance of our salvation. He therefore who hath authority 
 in such things, as by our observing of them we promote our salva- 
 tion, and by our neglecting of them we hinder our salvation, he has 
 in the utmost propriety of the words, an authority in matters of 
 conscience and salvation. 
 
 Hence it appears, that it is not peculiar or appropriate to the au- 
 thority of the church alone, to relate to matters of conscience and 
 eternal salvation, but equally belongs to every other authority which 
 can be called the ordinance of God. 
 
 Now all lawful authority, whether of masters, fathers, or 
 princes, is the ordinance of God ; and the respective duties of 
 their servants, children, and subjects, are as truly matters of consci- 
 ence and eternal salvation, as their observance of any part of 
 
 * Answer to Rcpr. p. 18.
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Iloadley. 401 
 
 the Christian religion is a matter of conscience and eternal salva- 
 tion : and it is not more their duty to receive the sacrament, or 
 worship God in any particular manner, than to obey their respec- 
 tive governors ; nor does it more concern or affect their state with 
 regard to the favour of God, whether they neglect those duties 
 which particularly regard his service, or those duties which they 
 owe to their proper governors. So that conscience and eternal 
 alvaiion is equally concerned in both cases. 
 
 For things may as well be matters of conscience and eternal 
 salvation, though they are of a civil or secular nature, as the 
 positive institutions of Christ are matters of conscience and sal- 
 vation. 
 
 For baptism has no more of religion in its own nature, nor has 
 of itself any more concern with our salvation, than any action 
 that is merely secular or civil. But as baptism by institution be- 
 comes our duty, and so is a matter of conscience and salvation, 
 so when actions merely secular and indifferent are by a lawful au- 
 thority made our duty, they are as truly matters of conscience and 
 salvation, as any parts of religion. 
 
 The difference between a spiritual and temporal authority does 
 not consist in this, that one relates to matters of conscience and 
 salvation, and concerns and affects our state with regard to the 
 favour of God, and the other does not ; but the difference is this, 
 that one presides over us in things relating to religion and the ser- 
 vice of God, the other presides over us in things relating to civil 
 life ; and as our salvation depends as certainly upon our,behaviour 
 in things relating to civil life, as in things relating to the service 
 of God, it follows that they aie both equally matters of con- 
 science and salvation : and as the temporal authority is the ordi- 
 nance of God, to which we are to submit, not only for wratli, 
 but also for conscience sake, it undeniably follows that this tem- 
 poral authority as truly concerns and affects our state with regard 
 to the favour of God, as any authority in matters purely relating 
 to religion. For such an authority could in no other sense affect 
 our state with regard to the favour of God, than by our obedience 
 or disobedience to it ; but our state with regard to the favour of 
 God is as truly affected by our obedience or disobedience to our 
 lawful sovereign, as by our observing or neglecting any duty in 
 the world ; and consequently the temporal authority as truly affects 
 our state with regard to the favour of God, as any authority in 
 matters of religion. 
 
 VL. i. D d
 
 402 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 Seeing therefore by an authority in matters of conscience and 
 salvation, by an autln - : -.y which can affect our state with regard 
 to the favour of God, nothing more is implied than an authority 
 to which our obedience is a duty, and our disobedience a sin, 
 which is the case of every lawful authority ; it plainly appears, 
 that all those frightful consequences, those dangers to the souls of 
 men, which you have charged upon such church authority, are as 
 truly chargeable upon masters, fathers, and princes, and makes 
 their several authorities as dangerous powers over the salvation of 
 others, as the authority of the church. 
 
 Thus, when your demonstration proceeds in this manner ; if 
 there be an authority in some over others in matters purely relating 
 to conscience and salvation, then the salvation of some people will 
 depend upon others. Which, if we set in a true light, ought to 
 proceed thus ; if there be an authority in matters of religion, to 
 .which our obedience is a duty* and our disobedience a sin, then 
 the salvation of some people depends upon others. 
 
 But, my lord, what a sagacity must he have who can see this 
 dismal consequence ? Who can see that masters, fathers, and 
 princes have a power over the souls of others, either to damn or 
 save them, because obedience to their authority is a duty, and dis- 
 obedience a sin ? 
 
 Your lordship cannot here say, that an authority in matters 
 purely relating to conscience and eternal salvation, is not expressed 
 high enough, by being described as an authority to which our 
 obedience is a duty, and our disobedience a sin. For, my lord, 
 no authority, however concerned in things of the greatest im. 
 portance in religion and salvation, can possibly be an authority of 
 an higher nature, than that authority to which our obedience is a 
 duty, and our disobedience a sin. It was in this sense alone that 
 the authority of our Saviour himself affected the state of the 
 Jews with regard to the favour of God ; his authority was of an 
 high and concerning nature to them only for this reason, because 
 their obedience to it was their duty, and their disobedience their 
 
 sin, 
 
 If we now consider this authority in the church in this true 
 manner in which it ought to be considered, your lordship's 
 argument against it either proves a deal too much, or nothing 
 
 at all. 
 
 Thus, if the consequence be just, that if it be sin to disobey 
 the church, then the church hath a power. of damning us j theo
 
 Mr. Laic's third Letter to Bishop Hoadky, 403 
 
 it is as good a consequence in regard to other authority : as thus , 
 it is a sin to disobey our parents, therefore our parents have a 
 power of damning us ; it is a sin to disobey our prince, therefore 
 our prince lias a power of damning us. These consequences are 
 evidently as just and true, as that other drawn from church au- 
 thority ; so that all those dismal charges which you have fixed upon 
 church authority, are as false accounts of it, as if you had asserted 
 that every father, or master, or prince, who demands obedience 
 from his child, servant, or subject, in point of duty, or by de- 
 claring that their disobedience is a sin, does thereby prove himself 
 to be a pope, and to have the souls of others at his disposal : 
 for it is out of all doubt, that if the governors of the church, 
 by demanding obe<!ience to them in point of duty, or by declaring 
 disobedience to be sin, do thereby assert the claims of popery, 
 and assume a power to dispose of the souls of the people ; that 
 any other authority which requires this obedience as a duty of 
 conscience, and forbids disobedience as sin, does thereby claim 
 the authority of the pope, and pretend to a power over the souls 
 of others. 
 
 So that if your lordship has destroyed church authority, which 
 pretends obedience to be a duty, as a popish claim ; you have also 
 as certainly destroyed every other authority which demands obedi- 
 ence as a duty, as being equally a popish presumption. 
 
 Whenever therefore you shall please to call away servants, 
 children, or subjects, from their respective masters, fathers, and 
 princes, you have as many demonstrations ready to prove them all 
 Papists, if they will stick by their obedience to them as a duty of 
 conscience, and to prove their governors all popes, if they declare 
 their disobedience to be sin, as you have to prove church au- 
 thority to be a popish claim. And I must beg leave to affirm, 
 that they are as much misled who follow your lordship against 
 the authority of the church, as if they should follow you in the 
 same argument against owning any authority of their parents and 
 princes. 
 
 The intent of all this is only to shew, that though there is an 
 authority in the church to which our obedience is a duty, and our 
 disobedience a sin (which is as high an authority as can be claimed) 
 yet this authority implies no more a frightful power of disposing 
 of our souls, than any other lawful authority, which is a sin to 
 disobey, implies such a power, 
 
 Dd2
 
 404 Mr. Law's third letter to Bishop 
 
 For where is the danger to our souls ? How is our salvation 
 made subject to the pleasure of our church governors, because 
 God has appointed them to direct us in the manner of worshipping 
 him, and to preside over things relating to religion, and made it 
 our duty to obey them ? How does this imply a dangerous power 
 over our salvation ? If we sin against this authority, we endanger 
 our salvation, as we do by neglecting any other ordinance of God : 
 and our damnation is no more effected by any power in the per- 
 sons, whom we may be damned fr disobeying, than a person 
 that is damned for killing his father, is damned by any power of 
 his father's. 
 
 Neither is it in the power of the governors in the church, 
 though they have authority in matters of salvation, to make our 
 salvation any more difficult to us, than if they had no such au- 
 thority. 
 
 For all their injunctions must be either lawful or unlawful ; if 
 they are lawful, then by our obedience to an ordinance of God, 
 we recommend ourselves to the favour of God ; and sure there i 
 no harm in this authority thus far. And if their commands are 
 unlawful, then, by our not obeying them, we still please God, 
 in cruising rather to obey him than men, where both cannot be 
 obcved. And where, my lord, is the terror of this authority so 
 much complained of? How does this make our salvation lie at the 
 mercy of our church governors ? We are still as truly saved or 
 damned by our own behaviour, as though they had no such au- 
 thority over us ; and though we may make their authority the oc- 
 casion of our damnation, by our rebelling against it, yet it is 
 only in such a manner as any one may make baptism, or the 
 supper of the Lord, the occasion of his damnation, by a profane 
 refusal of them. 
 
 Upon the whole of this matter, it" appears, first, that when 
 the authority of the church is said to bo an authority in matters 
 of conscience and salvation, or an authority which concerns and 
 afreets our state with regard to the favour of God j that this is 
 the only true meaning of those propositions, viz. an authority iiv 
 matters of religion, to which obedience is a duty, and disobedience 
 a sin. 
 
 Secondly ; That this authority, to which we are thus obliged, 
 is as consistent with our working out our own salvation, and no 
 more puts our soirls into the disposal of such authority, than 
 our salvation is at the mercy of our parents <uid princes, be-
 
 Mr. Laws third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 405 
 
 cause to obey their authority is a great duty, and to disobey it, a 
 great sin. 
 
 Y-'>ur lordship has yet another argument against church authority, 
 taken from the nature of our reformation, which it seems cannot 
 be defended, if there was then this church authority we have beea 
 pleading for. 
 
 Thus you say ; " If there be a church authority, I beg to 
 know, Ivow can the Reformation itself be justified * ?" 
 
 My lord, I cannot but wonder this should be a difficulty with, 
 your lordship, who has writ so famous a treatise to inform people 
 Low they not only may, but ought in point of duty to get rid of a 
 real authority ; I mean in your Defence of Resistance. 
 
 1 suppose it is taken for granted, that James the second \vas 
 Icing of England, that he had a regal authority over all the people 
 of England, and that they all of what station soever were his 
 subjects ; yet granting this regal authority in him, and this state 
 of subjection in all the people of England, your lordship knows 
 how to set aside that government, and set up another government ; 
 and even to make it our duty as men and Protestants to set up an- 
 other government. 
 
 Now since you know how to get rid of this authority in so 
 Christian and Protestant a manner, one cannot but wonder how 
 you should be at a loss to justify the Reformation, without sup* 
 posing that the church at that time had no authority. 
 
 For did you ever justify die Revolution, because James the 
 second had no kingly authority, or that the people of England 
 vere not his subjects ? Nay, did you not defend it upon the quite 
 contrary supposition, that though James Dhe second had a regal 
 authority, though all the .people .of England were his sul'jects, 
 and had swore to be his faithful subjects, yet, in spight of all 
 these considerations, did you not assert that .they not only might, 
 but ought to set him aside and chuse another governar in his 
 stead ? 
 
 And yet after all this, you know not how to defend the Re- 
 formation, it is a perfectly lost .cause, and not a word to be said 
 for it, unless we suppose that there was no authority in the church 
 when we reformed from it. Surely if your lordship loved to de- 
 feud the Reformation, as well as yo.u loved to defend the Revoliu 
 
 " Answer to Repr. p. 117,
 
 406 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 tion, you would not have so many reasons for one, and none 
 for the other. 
 
 For supposing an authority in the church, will not tyranny, 
 breach of fundamentals, and unlawful terms of communion, de- 
 fend our departure from a real authority in the church, as well 
 as any grievances or oppressions will defend our leaving a real 
 authority in the state ? 
 
 What a pitiful advocate, what a betrayer of the rights of the 
 people would you reckon him, who should say, If there was any 
 regal authority in James the second, if the people of England were 
 his subjects ; I beg to know, how can the Revolution itself be 
 justified ? 
 
 Yet just such an advocate are you, just such a betrayer of the 
 Reformation ; you cannot defend it, it has no bottom to stand 
 upon ; and if there was any authority in the church before the Re. 
 formation, you beg to know, " how the Reformation itself can 
 be justified ?" 
 
 My lord, I do not urge this to shew either that the Revolution 
 and Reformation are equally justifiable, or that they both are to 
 be justified upon the same reasons : but to shew that your lord, 
 ship from your own principles needed not to have wanted as good 
 reasons for the Reformation, as you have produced for the Re- 
 volution, even supposing the church of Rome had as real an au- 
 thority over us as James the second had, and that we were as 
 truly in a state of subjection to that church before the Reforma- 
 tion, as we were in a state of subjection to that king before the 
 Revolution. 
 
 Again, you proceed thus ; " For there was then (at the time of 
 the Reformation) a church, and an order of chuichmen, vested 
 with all such spiritual authority, as is of the essence of the church. 
 There was therefore a church authority to oblige Christians : and 
 a power in some over others. What was it therefore to which 
 we owe this very church of England 1* ?" 
 
 Now, my lord, I hope you will grant, that just at the time of 
 the Revolution, " there was then a king, vested with all such civil 
 authority as is of the essence of a king. There was therefore a regal 
 authority to oblige the people of England, and a power in one 
 over others. What was it therefore to which we owe this very 
 Revolution in England ?'' 
 
 * Answer to Repr. p. n$J
 
 Mr- Laic's third Letter to Bishop Hoadlcy, 407 
 
 I suppose you will say that we owe it, not to any want of 
 authority in the late king James, but to his abuse of his autho- 
 rity : why therefore is it not as easy to account for the Reforma- 
 tion, not from the want, but the abuse of authority in the church 
 of R >me ? Is it an argument that the people of England were no 
 subjects, under no government, nor had any king, because they 
 \v>uii! no longer submit to the oppressions and grievance^ of a late 
 reign, but asserted their liberties, and appealed to the conditions 
 of t'ic original contract ? 
 
 If not, why is it an argument that the church had no authority, 
 because some years ago the people of England would no longer 
 sv.bir.it to the corruptions and unlawful injunctions of the church 
 of Rome, but appt-aled to the Scriptures, and the practice of the 
 first and piuest ages of Christianity ? 
 
 If A our lordship was so entirely consistent with yourself as 
 you tell us you are; if you never pursued an argument farther 
 ti an the plain reason of it led you ; how is it possible that you, 
 wh'.have so strenuously defended the resistance of people against 
 a legal king *, (for so you expressly call him) should declare that 
 our separation from the church of Rome cannot be justified, with- 
 out supposing that the church of Rome had never any authority 
 over us ? 
 
 For supposing that church had been really our sovereign in af- 
 fairs of religion, is it not strange that you, who have asserted that 
 our " present settlement is owing entirely to the taking up arms, 
 and adhering to such as were in arms against their sovereign f,'* 
 should yet declare that our opposing the church of Rome, cannot 
 be justified but by supposing, that she never had any sovereignty 
 over us ? 
 
 Is it not yet stranger, .that you, who have defended the Re- 
 solution by comparing it to the Reformation, should yet declare 
 that the Reformation cannot be justified without supposing that 
 the church of England was under no authority of the church of 
 Rome ? 
 
 For, my lord, if the church of England had not been under 
 the authority of the church of Rome, how could our opposing 
 that church be compared to the resisting of king James ? How 
 could our separation from that church be a defence of our with- 
 drawing our allegiance from king James,' without supposing that 
 
 * Sev. Tracts, y. 331, . + Ibid. p. 366.
 
 408 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop 
 
 the church before that separation had as real and legal authority as 
 that king had before the Revolution ? 
 
 Your words are these ; " Why should that (i. e. resistance) b 
 absolutely and entirely condemned, as a damnable sin, any mor* 
 than church separation, by which we got rid of the tyranny of 
 Rome ?" And again, " all church reformation, is not church 
 destruction ; Why therefore must all resistance be called re- 
 belliwi * ?" 
 
 Now is it not very strange, my lord, that after this, you should 
 assert that the church had no authority before the Reformation ; 
 and that if it had any authority, then our separation from it cannot 
 be justified ? Is not this very strange, after you had used it as *a 
 argument to justify the withdrawing of our allegiance from king 
 James the second ? 
 
 For let us suppose with yen, that there was no church authority 
 at the time of the Reformation, and then see how excellent an ar- 
 gument you have found out in defence of the Revolution, tfhich, 
 upon this supposition, must proceed in this manner. 
 
 The church of England might separate from tl*e -ehdrch of 
 Rome, who had no authority over her ; therefore the |>eopk ef 
 England might resist their legal king, who had a regal authority 
 over them. Again, the clergy of England, who were no subject* 
 of the church of Rome, might separate from that church > thefe- 
 fore the people of England, who were subjects to king James th 
 second, might withdraw their alkgiance from him. 
 
 Thus absurd Is yeuV argument made, by supposing that th 
 church had riot as rea-1 and rightful an authority before the Re* 
 formation, as James the seeorid had before the Revolution. 
 
 Further ; Let us suppose with your Jordship, that " if there 
 \vas a real authority m -the church at the time of the Reformation, 
 then the Reformation has no bottom) but is altogether wnijus'ti* 
 fcable ;" let us suppose that this doctrine is true, and then see bovfr 
 consistently you have argued upon this supposition. 
 
 You say the Reformation cannot be justified ; it has no tottorH 
 to stand upon, if the church df Rome had a real authority ; yet 
 this opposition, which is so entirely wrong, because an opposi*- 
 tion to authority, is brought ' by you as a parallel ca*se to prove 
 that the resistance against the authority of king James was en* 
 th ely right. This Reformation, which, if it w^s brotsght abqut 
 
 SCY. Tracts, p. 334.
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop lloadley* 409 
 
 against any church authority, is said to be for that very reason 
 without any bottom, and to have no foundation, is used by your 
 lordship to point out the true bottom and firm foundation of the 
 Revolution. 
 
 And here let all the world judge whether reason and religioa 
 aloue can induce any one to maintain the truth, the justice, the 
 honour, the Christianity of the Revolution, as founded upon resist- 
 ance to a legal king; and yet condemn at the same time tht 
 Reformation, as having neither reason, nor truth, nor justice to 
 support it, as founded upon a departure from a real authority in 
 the church of Rome. For reason and religion do as plainly give 
 leave to depai t from the highest authority in the church, when thd 
 laws of God cannot be observed without departing from it, as in 
 any other case ; and there is no more necessity of supposing car 
 proving that there was no rightful authority in ihe church, to jus- 
 tify our departing from it, than it is necessary to prove such a per- 
 son not to be my father, or to have no authority over me, in order 
 to justify my disobeying his unlawful commands. 
 
 Again, your lordship is farther at a toss about the Reformation, 
 tvhich cannot possibly be justified, if afterwards an authority in iau 
 ters of consciences and salvation, be still claimed. 
 
 Thus you say ; " Nor can I ever understand, upon this bottom, 
 (viz. the claiming such authority) what it was that could move or 
 justify those, who broke off from the tyranny of the church of 
 Rornej unless it be sufficient to say, that it was only that power 
 might change hands *." 
 
 Here yor lerdship cannot conceive any thing more unjustifiable 
 than the Reformation, if church authority is still to be kept 4$>; 
 fcojr tfan you upon this claim assign any other pretence for ref vnu- 
 jng, but only that power might change hands. 
 
 Did your lordship then never hear of the justice of removing oae 
 authority, and setting up another ? Can you think of no case, whera 
 equity, honour, and duty called upon a people to resist one power, 
 ad yl make another to succeed ? 
 
 Now if this practice can be equitable and honourable, ami in 
 inserted to be so by your lordship, can it be conceived iliat reasoa 
 alone should induce you to load the Reformation with so muck 
 guilt -and injustice, to condemn it as so groundless an undertaking^ 
 because -though k set aside the tyrannical authority of thechur-ck 
 
 * Answer to Rep. p. 48.
 
 '410 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadtey. 
 
 of Rome, yet it asserted a true church authority, and made obedi- 
 ence to it necessary to obtain rhe favour ol* God. 
 
 Suppose some friend to the Revolution, after hearing that the 
 Prince of Orange was proclaimed king, and a regal authority set 
 .tip, should then have said in your lordship's words, " 1 can never 
 understand, upon this bottom, what it was that could ino.e or 
 justify those, who broke off from the tyranny of the late king 
 James ; unless it was sufficient to say, that it was only that power 
 might change hands." 
 
 I appeal to your lordship, whether any thing could he more ex- 
 travagant and senseless than such a declaration as this from a friend 
 to the Revolution. , 
 
 And I as freely appeal to the common sense of every one, whe- 
 ther your own declaration, expressed in ihe same words, with regard 
 to the Reformation, sets you out to any better advantage in relation 
 to that. 
 
 For it is full as good sense to say, where is the justice of the Re- 
 volution, or what foundation has it, in the reason of things, if 
 there is still a king to be acknowledged, and a regal authority to 
 be submitted to ; as to call out for the. justice, and equity, and 
 reason of the Reformation, if there is still a church authority 
 which we are obliged to obey. And it is as certainly the shame, 
 and reproach, and injustice of the Revolution, that a government 
 and regal authority is still maintained, as it is the shame, and re- 
 proach, and injustice of the Reformation, that a church authority is 
 Still asserted. 
 
 And there was no more necessity in the nature or reason of the 
 thing, that the Reformation should disown all authority properly 
 so called, in matters of religion, than that the Revolution should 
 have rejected all authority, properly so called, in civil affairs. 
 Neither does the Reformation any more contradict itself, or un- 
 dermine its own foundation, and give the Papists an advantage, 
 over it, by claiming and asserting a church authority, than the 
 Revolution contradicted irself, or conspired its own ruin, by set- 
 ting up a king, and maintaining a government in the state. And 
 it had been just as wise, as prudent, and politic management, if 
 the. Revolution had set up no government, but left every man 
 to himself in civil affairs, in order to have prevented the return of 
 the late king James; as if the Reformation had maintained n 
 church authority, but left every person's religion to himself, in 
 order to keep out Popery. And it is just as much matter of joy
 
 Mr. Ldw's'ihird Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 41 1 
 
 and triumph to the Papists, to see this authority asserted in the 
 church of England, as it was matter of joy to the late king James 
 to find that a regal authority was set up against him. 
 
 But to go on ; your argument, when put in form, will proceed 
 in this manner. 
 
 The church of England departed from the authority of the 
 church of Rome, therefore we may lawfully depart from any- 
 church authority. And again; at the Reformation we lawfully se- 
 parated from the communion of the church of Rome, there- 
 fore we may as lawfully separate from any particular com- 
 munion. 
 
 And now, my lord, can any argument he more trifling, or drawr 
 more absurd consequences after it, than this? And yet, absurd as 
 it is, it is one of your best, and which you seem to take great delight 
 in : thus are we told in almost every page, that if we will stand by 
 the reason and justice of the Reformation, we must give up all au- 
 thority in matters f religion ; and not pretend to a necessity of be- 
 ing of any particular church, if we would justify our leaving tho 
 Romish church. 
 
 But pray, my lord, you have told us, that the people of England 
 of all stations did lawfully and honourably, &c. resist the late' 
 king James ; but does it therefore follow that they may as law- 
 fully and honourably resist king George ? If not, how does it 
 follow that because we might justly separate from the church 
 of Rome, therefore others may as justly separate from the church 
 of England ? 
 
 Is it inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution to declare 
 men rebels, because it was founded (as you affirm) upon resist- 
 ance? If not, why must it be inconsistent with the principles of 
 the church of England, to declare any people schismatics, be- 
 cause she separated from the church of Rome ? Now if you 
 will say that all who take arms at any time against any king, are 
 justified by those who took arms against the late king James ; then 
 you would have some pretence to make our separation from the 
 church of Rome a justification of every other separation in the 
 world. But since you cannot say this, but have pretended to 
 demonstrate the contrary, that though sometimes resistance is not 
 rebellion, yet sometimes resistance certainly is rebellion, you are 
 particularly hard to the Reformation, to make it either unjustifiable 
 in itself, or else to be a justification of every other pretended re- 
 formation.
 
 4 12 Mr. La-js's third Letter to Bishop Haadleg. 
 
 But however, as hard as you are upon the Reformation in this 
 place, making it, considered as a separation, a defence of all other 
 separations from the church of England; yet you yourself, to shew 
 yeur equal regard to both sides of a contradiction, have asserted the 
 contrary, and declared that " as all resistance is not rebellion, so 
 neither is all separation schism." 
 
 Now, I suppose, when you say that all resistance is not rebel. 
 lion, it is certainly implied that some resistance may be rebellion ; 
 and likewise by declaring in the same manner all separation not 
 to be schism, it iwust as necessarily be implied that some separa- 
 tion may be schism. Here therefore you plainly teach us that 
 some separation may be schism, and some sq)aration may not be 
 schism; yet your present argument is founded upon the con. 
 trary supposition, that either all separations are lawful, or none are 
 lawful; for it is the constant complaint in eveiy chapter of your 
 book, that the church of England should assert amy necessity 
 or obligation upon others of conforming to he'-, when she herself 
 denied the necessity of her conforming to the church of Rome. 
 So that the lawfulness or justice of her separation from Rome, is 
 urged to shew the equal lawfulness and justice of all separations 
 from the church of England ; which argument is plainly founded 
 upon this proposition, that all separations from any churches, are 
 either equally lawful, or equally unlawful. Which is directly 
 contrary to this other proposition, that some separation may be 
 schism, and some separation may not be schism. Which contra- 
 diction is just as palpable, as if you had said, all resistance is not the 
 sin of rebellion; yet all resistance is either equally lawful, or equally 
 unlawful. 
 
 But to go on, you say that " all resistance is not rebellion," 
 and for a proof of it, say, that " all church separation is not 
 *chism ;" which plainly implies, that there is at least as much dif- 
 ference betwixt some separations from different churches, as there 
 is betwixt some armed assistances against different kings. Now, 
 if, according to your lordship, there is as much difference betwixt 
 resistances, 3$ there is betwixt -an action that is a duty, and aa 
 action that is a sin, and you have proved this difference, by com- 
 paring those resistances to different sorts of separations, then it 
 will necessarily follow that there may be, nay must be, as much 
 difference betwixt one separation and another separation, as there 
 is betwixt one action that is a duty, and another action that is a 
 sin. This being the true state of the case, your lordship's ar-
 
 Mr. Let-to 1 * third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 41 S 
 
 gtrment in defence of the separatists taken from our separation 
 from the church of Rome, will stand thus: 
 
 We separated from the church of Rome, because such separation 
 was our duty, therefore the fanatics may separate from the 
 church of England, though such separation is a sin: which is as 
 rational an argument, as if it should he said, such a one killed a 
 man lawfully, therefore any one else may kill a man unlawfully. 
 For if some separation may be a duty, and some separation a sin, 
 it is as false and ridiculous to infer, that if our separation is just, 
 it justifies all other separations ; as to conclude, that because we 
 may do our duty, others may transgress their duty. For there 
 being manifestly, and from your own acknowledgment, this great 
 difference between one separation and another separation, that one 
 separation in such circumstances, will no more justify a separation 
 in other circumstances, than the lawfulness of killing a man in 
 some cases, will prove it lawful to kill a man in all other cases. 
 
 Now if your lordship has any demonstrations ready, to shew 
 that resistance in some circumstances is a Christian duty, and re- 
 sistance in some other circumstances is a damnable sin ; and that it 
 may be as great a sin to to resist some princes, as it is a duty to resist 
 others ; if you can help us to any plain rule, any certain signs to 
 know an honest Christian resister, from a resister who is a rebel 
 and in danger of damnation ; 1 hope there may be found as plain 
 rules to shew us who separates lawfully, and who separates unlaw- 
 fully, from any particular church. If you can give any reasons 
 why the late king James might be resisted then, and yet shew it 
 a sin to resist king George now, it is something strange that you 
 cannot find any reasons, why it was our duty to separate from the 
 church of Rome then, and yet shew it is a sin to separate from the 
 church of England now. 
 
 F&r I would suppose at least, that there is as much difference 
 between separating from the church of England, and separating 
 from the church of Rome, as there is betwixt resistance against 
 a good king, and resistance against a tyrannical oppressor; and if 
 there be this difference, then you must allow, that it is as false to 
 argue from the lawfulness of separating from one church, to the 
 lawfulness of separating from the other, as it would be to argue, 
 that because oppressive tyrants may be resisted, therefore just and 
 good kings may be resisted. I have been the longer in examining 
 this doctrine in this particular view in relation to resistance, that 
 it may be seen with how much truth you say, you have ** recom-
 
 414 . Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoa'dky. 
 
 mended such principles as serve to establish the interest of our . 
 common country and our common Christianity, of human society 
 and true religion, upon one uniform, steady, and consistent foun- 
 dation *." 
 
 For it is evidest that these principles, if put in practice, di- 
 rectly tend to the utter ruin of our common country, and our 
 common Christianity: for I have shewn that all the arguments 
 which you have advanced against church authority, if they have any 
 force, conclude with the same force against all sorts of authority in 
 the world. 
 
 I shall now proceed to a most remarkable evasive denial of every 
 thing you have said relating to church authority > from your own 
 mouth. 
 
 A remarkable Evasion of your Lordship's, in relation to 
 Church Authority. 
 
 JL HE learned Committee charged your lordship with '* deny, 
 ing all authority to the church, and leaving it without any autho- 
 rity to judge, censure, or punish offenders in the afrairs of con- 
 science and eternal salvation t." To support this charge, they 
 quoted these words of your sermon ; " Christ is sole Law-giver 
 to his subjects, and himself sole Judge of their behaviour in the 
 afrairs of conscience and salvation ; in these points he hath left 
 behind him no visible human authority." 
 
 Now how is it that your lordship has cleared yourself from this 
 charge ? Why truly by declaring, that by a denial of all church 
 authority, you only meant to deny to the governors of the church 
 a power of passing the irreversible sentence, or that Christ has 
 left no visible authority here to judge people at the last day. 
 When you talked so much of church authority in matters of re- 
 ligion, and of " an authority left behind," it was very reasonable 
 to think that you was speaking of an authority which related to 
 the church in this world. But it seems, all you have denied in 
 relation to church authority, is only this, that any one but 
 
 * Preface te Com. Rights of Subjects, f R?prs. j, 4.
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hcadley^ 41 
 
 Christ shall pass the irreversible sentence, or judge us at<,lhe 
 last day. "? 
 
 For you say; " As Chi 1st is to pass the irreversible sentence, 
 thus he is judge alone. And what I affirm of him, I deny of 
 others in the same sense in which I affirm it of him : and in no 
 other sense can I be supposed to deny it, because it answers no 
 purpose *." 
 
 Therefore when you say no men have any authority in affairs 
 of religion and conscience, you only say that no men have autho- 
 rity to pass the irreversible sentence at the last day. For you 
 declare that thus it is that Christ alone is Judge, and you only 
 deny that of others, which you affirm of him, and consequently 
 the only authority which you deny them, is that of judging the 
 world at the last day. 
 
 . Strange ! my lord, that after so many elaborate pages for eccle- 
 siastical liberty, so many compliments received for your successful 
 attacks upon church authority, that after all, you should declare 
 that you have not so much as touched upon church authority, but 
 have only been labouring to demonstrate that the judgment of die 
 last day is committed to Christ alone. 
 
 Christ," you say, " is in no other sense judge of the be- 
 haviour of Christians in these points, than as their condition must 
 and will be determined by his sentence : And when I deny this of 
 men, I do not, I cannot mean to deny this of them in any other 
 sense but that in which I affirm it of Christ f." 
 
 So that when you in plain words seem to deny all authority in, 
 the church, as by saying that Christ alone is judge of the be- 
 haviour of Christians in matters of religion, and that he has left 
 behind him no visible human authority in these points, and suchlike 
 phrases, as seem to ordinary understandings to deny all rule and 
 authority in the church, you only mean that no one but Christ is 
 to pass the sentence at the last day. This is the key your lord, 
 ship has given us to you writings, which indeed gives them quite 
 another face, and makes them such a course of amusements as 
 exceeds all which have yet been seen in that kind, as will appear 
 from the following particulars. 
 
 Thus when you say, that in the affairs of conscience and sal- 
 vation, Christ hath left no visible human authority behind him ; the 
 meaning is this, that Ctirist hath left nobody behind him in this 
 
 * Answer to Repr. f . 33 i Ibidi p. 46* 
 
 i
 
 41 JWV. Law's third Letter to Bishop Iloadley. 
 
 world to pass the irreversible sentence in the next world, i. e. hath 
 left no one to do that here, which cannot be done till hereafter. 
 This is the sublimest sense which this passage is capable of, from 
 your own construction. 
 
 Again ; you say, the church of Christ is the number of persons 
 who are sincerely and willingly subjects to him as their law-giver- 
 and judge*; which, according to this new key, is to be thus 
 understood : the church of Christ is the number of persons who 
 will sincerely and willingly submit to the sentence of Christ at the 
 last day. For you say, we are to submit to him as our judge ; and 
 you expressly say, he is in no other sense judge of the behaviour 
 of Christians, than as he is to pass the irreversible sentence ; 
 therefore if we are to be willingly and sincerely subject to him 
 as judge, our obedience or subjection to him as judge, can be no 
 otherwise expressed, than by our submission to his sentence then 
 pronounced. 
 
 So that this definition conies at last to signify a number of per- 
 sons who sincerely and willingly submit, some to be saved, and 
 some to be damned at the last day ; for this will be the effect of 
 Christ's sentence as judge. 
 
 This is as sound divinity as if I should define the church of 
 Christ to be a number of persons who sincerely and willingly sub- 
 mit, some to live, and some to die. 
 
 Again, you say, that your doctrines relating to the authority of 
 the church, is the very foundation on which the church of Eng- 
 land stands ; and that they are so necessary for its continuance, that 
 without them it is impossible to defend its cause against the Roman 
 catholics. 
 
 Now your doctrine concerning church authority, you have over 
 and over declared to be only this, that Christ alone shall judge the 
 world at the last day. For you expressly say, that you deny the 
 church an authority of judging in no other sense, than in the sense 
 in which you affirm it of Christ. 
 
 Now, my lord, how comes this doctrine to be the support of 
 the church of England ? How can it possibly have any relation to 
 the merits of the cause ? Does it foljovv that the pope had no legal 
 authority in England, that transubstantiation is false, that purga- 
 tory is a groundless fiction, and prayers to saints are unlawful, be- 
 cause Christ alone shall judge the world ? This is what you have 
 
 * Serm. p. 35.
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 4 It 
 
 affirmed of Christ, this is all which you have denied of men j and 
 this doctrine it seems about church authority, as you are pleased to 
 call it, is the only support of t : .e church of England, and the very 
 foundation on which it stands. 
 
 A Roman catholic tells me, that transubstantiation is true ; I 
 answer him no, that cannot be, and that for this re-son, because 
 no order of men shall judge us at the last day, Christ alone 
 should do it. Could any thing be more extravagant, or more 
 foreign to the purpose, than such an answer as this to a Roman 
 catholic ? And yet, according to your account of the matter, this 
 is the only answer which can be defended. For you have denied 
 no authority to the church, but that which peculiarly belongs to 
 Christ as judge at the last day; and yet you say that your doctrine 
 relating to church authority, is the very foundation and support of 
 the reformation. 
 
 Now if this doctrine be our only defence against the church of 
 Rome, and what alone supports us against that church, then the 
 Presbyterians, the Independents, Quakers, and all sorts of fanr.ics, 
 who own this doctrine, that Christ alone shall pass the last sen- 
 tence, are by it as well defended against the church of England, as 
 she is against the church of Rome; so that it makes us as much 
 wrong in regard to the Dissenters, as it makes us right in regard 
 to the Papists; and though it should give us victory over the 
 Papists, yet it makes us fall a conquest to the fanatics. For it 
 is certainly as proper for a Quaker to reply to the church of Eng- 
 land that his reformatibn is justified against the authority of the 
 church of England, because Christ alone shall judge the world at 
 the last day, as for the church of England to make that answer to 
 the church of Rome. 
 
 Your lordship says, for you to deny church authority in any 
 other sense, answers no purpose. Pray, my lord, what purpose 
 docs this manner of denying answer ? Here is a dispute about 
 church authority, and the powers of ecclesiastical governors : your 
 lordship interposes, and declares that no men shall pass the irre- 
 versible sentence at the last day. To what purpose, my lord, is 
 this declaration ? Does it strike any light into the controversy, or 
 any way point out the merits of the cause ? Does this inform us 
 whether there is any such thing as church authority, or where it 
 is seated ? If two families were trying their title to the same 
 estate, and the judge should pretend to determine the matter, by 
 saying that God alone is sole proprietor of all things, it would bs 
 VOL. I. E e
 
 418 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 as much to the purpose as to tell us in the controversy about 
 church authority, that Christ abne shall jwlge.-the world. Does 
 this any way prove that there is no human authority in the church, 
 or that Christians are no way concerned with it ? What an excel- 
 lent argument is fhis ? Christ alone shall judge the world, there- 
 fore no men have any authority in religion, therefore it can no way 
 affect you with regard to the favour of God, whether you submit 
 or not, to such, human authority. 
 
 Whether your lordship is forced upon this method of explaining 
 yourself, by any other motives than those of sincerity and con- 
 viction, , is what I shall not presume to say; but I b.elieve, if a 
 person should be called to account for saying the king had no 
 right to create peers, and should afterwards defend himself, by 
 s-aying that he only meant he could not create in that sense in 
 which God alone could create, 1 am apt to think such a defence 
 would be no great recommendation' of his sincerity. But, my 
 lord, it would be as proper and as ingenuous for a person so 
 accused to make such a defence, or rather such an escape, as 
 for your 'lordship, after the most express repeated denials of all 
 church authority, to declare that you only meant to exclude it 
 from passing the irreversible sentence at the last day. And the 
 nature of church authority is as much settled and determined by 
 this declaration, as the king's power in his kingdom, as to 
 the creation of peers, is declared by saying that God alone, can 
 crea'e. 
 
 For is it any argument that no persons have any particular au- 
 thority to baptize others, to admit to the holy sacrament, and ex- 
 clude unworthy persons from it, because they are not to judge 
 the world at the last day ? Is it a proof that bishops have no au- 
 thority, to .ordain, to confirm, 'no commission from God to take 
 care of religious matters, and see that all things in the divine ser- 
 vice be done decently and in order, because Christ alone is to pass, 
 judgment upon all at the last day ? Does it follow that men are 
 under no church authority, but may choose any government, or 
 no government, as they please, because Christ alone shall call the 
 .world to judgment? There is as much logic in saying that Jesus 
 Christ suffered Knder Pontius Pilate, therefore bishops have no 
 more authority than laymen, as to say they have no authority in 
 religious affairs, because Christ is to judge the world.. 
 
 ..Yet- you say this was the only proper sense in which you could 
 be supposed to deny it. Now, my lord, I should have thought 
 
 2
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadhy. 41 
 
 it had been more to the purpose to have denied church authority 
 in some such sense, as it had been falsely claimed by somebody or 
 other, that it might have been said that you had an adversary 
 somewhere or other. But in this matter you have not so much as 
 an adversary in this world: for no one pretends to be judge as 
 Christ is judge, or sets up the authority of the church in opposi- 
 tion to the last tribunal ; yet this is the only manner of judging, 
 the only sort of authority which you say you have denied to 
 others ;. therefore you have only denied that which was never 
 claimed; you have only denied that which no more relates to 
 church authority, than it relates to church music. The pope 
 himself neither pretends to pass sentence at the last day, nor that 
 his judgments here will have any effect in the next world; but 
 conditionally, that is, clave non errante. Now this is not a sense 
 in which Christ alone is judge, therefore it is not a sense in which 
 you have denied it to others. So that notwithstanding this long 
 elaborate treatise against church tyranny and popish claims, po- 
 pery itself is as safe and sound as ever it was* For you have 
 denied this power of judging in no other sense, than as you have 
 affirmed of Christ, as he is to pass the last irreversible sentence at 
 the day of judgment ; but the pope does not claim it in that sense, 
 therefore the papal power is untouched by your lordship. 
 
 Here I must observe how your lordship has evaded the great 
 points in dispute, both concerning the nature of the church, and 
 church authority. When you was charged with describing the 
 church contrary to Scripture, and the article in the church of 
 England, your answer was, that you had only described the in- 
 visible church ; which was saying in other words, that in a dis- 
 pute amongst visible churches, and about church-communion, you 
 described a church which had no relation to the matter^ nor ever 
 can have to any dispute amongst Christians. This, my lord, to 
 speak tenderly of ir, may be called only an evasion. 
 
 Again, as to church authority, your lordship has been charged 
 with denying it all, and leaving it no right to judge or censure m 
 the affairs of conscience. Your answer is this, that you have 
 only denied that Christ has left any men here to judge us at the 
 last day. That is, in a controversy about the existence of church 
 authority, the extent and obligation of its laws, you have only 
 denied such an authority as nobody claims, nor ever will be exe- 
 cuted till all visible churches and disputes about them will be at 
 an end, viz. the day of judgment. 
 
 e 2
 
 420 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop H&adley. 
 
 This, my lord, is another evasion, and that in the very chief 
 point in dispute, where sincerity should have obliged you to have 
 been open, dear, and express. But no sooner are you touched 
 upon this point, but you fly into the clouds, and the very Dissen- 
 ters themselves lose sight of you. 
 
 Thus when you had plainly said, that Christ hath left behind 
 him no visible human authority in the affairs of conscience, the 
 Dissenters might justly think they had nathing to be charged with 
 for their disobedience to bishops ; they might well think that they 
 were left to any government, or no government in religion, as 
 they pleased, since Christ had left no visible human authority ; 
 but then how must they be astonished, my lord, to find that your 
 issertion about church authority does not at all relate to the church 
 in this world, but to the exercise of a certain authority in the 
 next world, after all churches on the earth are at an end ? To find 
 that you have denied no authority to any men, but that which 
 peculiarly belongs to Christ at the last day : that is, that you 
 qenied no authority which ever was claimed either by protestant 
 or popish churches, or indeed which relates to the church in this 
 world ? 
 
 . Suppose, when his majesty was last at Hanover, any one should 
 have asserted, that the regency had no authority in civil matters ; 
 would the regency have thought it any excuse, if he had said that 
 he only meant they were not the governors of Hanover ? Yet, 
 my lord, it would be as proper an apology fov him who had 
 denied the power of the regency in Great Britain, to say he only 
 meant they had not the supreme power in Hanover, as for your 
 lordship, after a denial of all visible church authority in this world, 
 to say you only denied an authority to pass the irreversible sen- 
 tence in the next world. 
 
 Thas has your lordship left the Dispute, and only pretended to 
 deny that which nobody ever claimed, viz. that any men have 
 authority to judge the world in Christ's stead, or pass the irrever- 
 sible sentence at the last day. 
 
 Your lordship is here apprehensive that you shall be charged 
 fvith fighting without an adversary : and therefore you point out 
 several, and say, " I meant it against those who are so very free 
 in declaring others of Christ's subjects out of God's favour, and m? 
 obliging. Almighty God to execute the sentences of men/* 
 
 There has been indeed, my lord, a number of men ever since 
 Christianity appeared in the world, who had been very free in declaring
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 421 
 
 heretics and schismatics out of God's favour, and who have main- 
 tained that these heretics and schismatics, when censured by the 
 church, cannot he received into God's favour, but by their sub- 
 mitting to, and returning to the church. But now, if your lord- 
 ship means your doctrine against these, you are, still without an 
 adversary, and might as well mean it against nobody; for these 
 men never pretended to judge others in Christ's stead, or to erect 
 an ecclesiastical authority in opposition to the great tribunal, which 
 is the only authority you pretend to deny. 
 
 You go on : " If we had no such amongst protestants, yet it 
 might be pardonable to guard our people against the presumptions 
 of the Roman catholics, who assume to themselves that power of 
 judgment which Christ alone can have." 
 
 Surely your lordship must have so great an aversion to popery, 
 that you never could so much as look into their books ; for other- 
 wise I cannot conceive how you should not know that the Romart 
 catholics pretend to no power of judging so as to affect people, 
 but upon certain conditions, as clave non srrante ; but I suppose, 
 this is not a power of judging which belongs to our Saviour; 
 clave non err&nte has no place in his judgments. How then can 
 your lordship charge the papists with assuming his power, when, 
 that which they assume cannot be ascribed to him without blas- 
 phemy ? So that, my lord, it is just as pardonable to guard your 
 people against these presumptions, as it is to alarm, them with false 
 and imaginary dangers. 
 
 Again, you say : " But how lately is it that we have had people 
 terrified with this very presumption, even by protestants ; and 
 the terms of church power, and the spiritual fatal effects of 
 church censures made use of to frighten men into a separate com- 
 munion ?" 
 
 My lord, I shall not here enter into the merits of that contro- 
 versy which your lordship here points at, it being the doctrine 
 itself which your lordship blame*, and not the misapplication of 
 it. Thus you censure them, not because they would draw people 
 from a true church to a false one, but because they pretend to 
 frighten men out of one communion into another. This is your 
 lordship's heavy charge against them, that they should presume to 
 talk qf the differences of communions, and prefer one com- 
 munion to another. So that whoever thinks any way of worship 
 to be dangerous, and endeavours to withdraw ; people from it, 
 is here cen.suied by your loidbhip, as pretending to judge in
 
 422 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadky. 
 
 Christ's stead, and setting up an authority, in opposition to the 
 last clay. 
 
 Your lordship saitb, it is with this very presumption, (viz. that 
 they can pass the irresistible sentence,) that these men have en-r 
 deavoured to frighten people into a separate communion. If I 
 should say that it is upon presumption that Christ never appeared 
 in the world, that your lordship has delivered your late doctrines, 
 I should freely submit to the charge of calumny ; and I am sure 
 your lordship has ventured as far in saying that it was with this 
 very presumption that these men delivered such doctrines. And 
 your lordship has as much reason to charge them with atheism, as 
 with this very presumption ; for they no more presume to judge 
 in Christ's stead, or pass the irreversible sentence, than they pre- 
 sume there is no God. 
 
 Your lordship has still, it seems, another adversary, a late writer 
 (the Dean of Chichester) who has spoken unwarily of the effects 
 of the spiritual punishments the church inflicts, being generally 
 suspended till the offender comes into the other world *. 
 
 This fine censure is very modest, carrying it no farther than an, 
 unwary expression ; but presently the charge advances ; and, you- 
 say, if it be thus, you confess you think the condition of Chris- 
 tians much worse than the condition in which St. Paul describes 
 the Heathens, who are left to their own consciences, and the. 
 righteous judgment of God. So that at last it comes to this, that 
 the Dean has taught such doctrine as makes it more desirable to be 
 a Heathen than a Christian. 
 
 Let us therefore try how this charge is supported: the Dean 
 has said, the effects of spiritual punishments are generally sus- 
 pended till the offender comes into another world f; therefore, 
 says your lordship, the condition of Christians is much woise 
 .than that of Heathens; and the reason is this, because Heathens 
 are left to their ov\'n consciences, and the righteous judgment of 
 Goti ; so that if spiritual punishments signify any thing -to offenders 
 in the Other world, or have any effect there, then such people are, 
 in your lordship's judgment, not left to their own consciences, and 
 the righteous judgment of God. 
 
 Pray, my lord, how does it follow that if spiritual punishments 
 have any eiiect in the other world, that then offenders are not left 
 to the righteous judgment of God ? 
 
 * Answer toRepr. p. 35. i Serm. p.. 8.
 
 Mr. Laic's third Letter to Bishop lloadley. 423 
 
 Is it an argument that people are not left to the righteous judg- 
 ment of God, because they are to be punished in the other world ? 
 Or is it an argument that they are excluded from God's righteous 
 judgment, because they are not punished till they come thither ? I 
 should have thought it a plain argument for the direct contrary, 
 and that one could not give a stronger proof that such offenders 
 \ve r e left to the righteous judgment of God, than by saying that 
 the effects of such punishments are not felt till the offender comes 
 into the other world ; I should have thought this a manifest decla- 
 ration thai the offender was to fall to the righteous judgment of 
 God, since he was not to feel any punishment till he was fallen 
 into God's hands. If the Dean had intended to teach that church 
 punishments have no effect, but such as the righteous judgment 
 of God gives them, how could he have better signified his inten- 
 tion, than by declaring that'" the effects of such punishments are 
 generally suspended till the offender cornes into the other world ?'* 
 How could the Dean more expressly guard against any horrible 
 apprehensions of church censures, or more directly refer the eause 
 to God, than he has here done ? His words are a plain declara- 
 tion, that such offenders must fall to the righteous judgment of 
 God, since they are to fall into his hands before they feel the effects 
 of such punishment. 
 
 If any 'discontented offender against the church should tell me, 
 that if the censures of the church can signify any thing to him, 
 he should be glad to be a Heathen, and have his fate amongst 
 them ; would it not be sufficient matter of satisfaction to tell him, 
 that these punishments will have no effect but in the other world, 
 where there can be'no injustice ; and that it is the same" God who 
 judges the-Heathens, who will judge Christians? 
 
 Yet this declaration, which is the only ground for satisfaction 
 to men of conscience, under the censures of the church, is by 
 vour lordship pretended to be such an evil as to make us rather 
 resign our Christianity than submit to it. This is all which the 
 Dean has said to make it more desirable to be a Heathen than a 
 Christian. 
 
 Suppose, my Icrd, the matter had been worded stronger, and 
 instead of saying that " the effects of spiritual punishments are 
 generally suspended till the offenders come into the other world," 
 it had been said, " the spiritual censures of the church shall rise 
 in the judgment, and condemn offenders." If it had been thus 
 expressed, what complaints might you not have made against such.
 
 f 24 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadky. 
 
 unwary expressions ? What cruelties and hardships might you not 
 have charged on such doctrine ? And how advantageously might 
 you have compared the felicity of heathenism to such Christianity ? 
 
 But, my lord, that divine Person who has reserved to himself the 
 righteous judgment of the world, has yet declared to a certain ge- 
 neration, that " the men of Nineveh shall rise up in the judg- 
 ment with them, and condemn them, because those repented at 
 the preaching of Jonas, but these did not, though a greater than 
 Jonas was with them *." 
 
 Now, my lord, here lies the same objection against this doc- 
 trine whiph there does against the Dean's. For is it not full as 
 hard that the repentance of the men of Nineveh, or any where 
 else, should have any effect upon the impenitent at the day of 
 judgment, as that the censures of the church should have any 
 effect upon offenders in the other world f Is it not as cruel that 
 the impenitent shall have their guilt aggravated by other people's 
 preaching, or repentance, as by other people's censures ? And 
 would it not be as proper here to say, if this be so, happy they 
 who never heard of preaching or repentance, as to set forth the 
 happiness of Heathens, because they are free from church cen 
 gures ? If the sentence of the church will rise in judgment, and 
 condemn offenders, then you say such persons do not fall to the 
 righteous judgment of God. But is not this as true of the men 
 of Nineveh, that if they shall rise up in judgment, and condemn 
 the impenitent, that then such persons are not left to the righteous 
 judgment of God ? 
 
 So that had you been one of our Saviour's hearers, you must 
 have been as much astonished at his doctrine, as. at the Dean's 
 unwary expression, and have been obliged to say then, as you have 
 paid now, " that you have such notions of the goodness of God, 
 and of his gracious designs in the Gospe.1, that you think it your 
 duty to declare your judgment, that the supposition is greatly in- 
 jurious to the honour of God, and of the Gospel, and the thing 
 itself impossible to be conceived f' ? 
 
 Your lordship has here only advanced this argument against the 
 sign'.rkancy of phurch censures, but any on,e else may as justly 
 3ixl to as much purpose urge it against every part of Christianity. 
 
 Thus it may serve to prove that jt would be better never to 
 have had the Scriptures ; for if any texts of Scripture shall rise in, 
 
 * Mitt. xii. 4;. , t Aaswtr to Repr. p. 36.
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Headlcy. 425 
 
 judgment, and condemn those who disbelieved them, or dis- 
 regarded their doctrine, then it may he said, much happier are 
 the Heathens, who have nothing of this to fear from any Scrip- 
 tures, but are left to their own consciences, and the righteous 
 judgment of God. 
 
 Again ; as this argument proves even the Scriptures to be an 
 unhappiness, so will it prove every advantage in hwman life to be 
 a misery. 
 
 For it is certain that the examples of religious men, the good 
 advice of our friends, and the virtuous commands of our parent* 
 and governors, will, if neglected, affect our condition ; and 
 though, like the spiritual corrections of the church, they may not 
 be felt here, yet hereafter they will rise in judgment, and con- 
 demn us. May I not here say with your lordship, if the case 
 be thus ; if other people's wisdom, virtue, advice or commands 
 can affect our state in the next world, then moe happy are those 
 who never saw a good or wise man in their lives, and who have 
 nothing to fear from the advice or commands of any, but are left 
 to their own consciences, and the righteous judgment of God. 
 
 So that you cannot condemn the Dean's doctrine, as horrible, 
 without condemning it as an horrible thing that the men of 
 Nineveh should rise in judgment, and condemn the impenitent 
 Jews ; or an horrible thing that the light of the Gospel, the 
 blessings of Christianity, and the advantages of education should 
 have any effect in the next world upon those who despised them 
 in this world. 
 
 Of the Authority of the Church, as it relates to f 
 Excommunication. 
 
 Jl N order to vindicate this doctrine thoroughly, and shewf upon 
 what bottom it is founded, I shall, as briefly as I can, state the 
 nature and intent of spiritual punishments, and shew what effects 
 they have upon offenders in the other world ; from whence, I 
 persuade myself, it will farther appear that such effects do no more 
 exclude persons from the righteous judgment of God, than the 
 Heathens are excluded from his righteous judgment.
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bisliop Hoadley, 
 
 Now that corrupt members may be cut off from Christian com- 
 munion, till by their amendment they recommend themselves to 
 a re-admission, is plain from Scripture. This is even granted 
 by your lordship, that " Christians may set a mark upon .notoi. 
 rious offender?, even by refusing to them the peculiar tokens and 
 marks of Christian communion, as well as by avoiding their 
 company and conversation *." But then your lordship makes no 
 more of it, than a right which all Christians have to -avoid an 
 open, wilful, and scandalous sinner t ; so that this excommunica- 
 tion, considered as a church act, is only the same power in a 
 body or society, of avoiding persons they abhor, which is the com- 
 mon privilege of every single person, whether in or out of the 
 church, to shun those he dislikes. 
 
 And all the excommunication you allow, is this, that as private 
 persons have a right to shun and avoid those they dislike, so the 
 church may exclude such members as are disapproved of; and 
 that this judging, or excommunicating, is a right equally invested 
 in all Christians, and entirely without any effect upon the person 
 excommunicated, so as to make his condition either better or worse 
 before God. 
 
 I shall therefore, my lord, beg leave to shew that the power of 
 excommunication is a judicial power, which belongs to particular 
 persons, which they have a right to exercise frem the authority 
 of Christ ; and that persons so excommunicated are not to be 
 looked upon, as persons who are only to be abhorred and avoided 
 by Christians, as any man may avoid those he dislikes, but as 
 persons who are to be avoided by Christians, because they lie 
 under the sentence of God, and are by his authority turned out of 
 his kingdom. 
 
 That excommunication is a power which belongs only to par* 
 ticular persons, will appear from the nature of the thing itself, 
 as it is an exclusion of persons from the Christian worship : for 
 as only particular men can officiate in the Christian worship, and 
 admit people into communion ; so only those persons can refuse 
 the sacrament, and exclude offenders from communion. Nothing 
 can, be more plain, than that those who can alone administer the 
 sacrament, can alone exclude men from it. 
 
 All persons are admitted conditionally into the Christian co- 
 venant, and have only a title to the benefits of it, -or the ordinary 
 
 P. 39- * P- 43-
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 42 1 ? 
 
 means of grace, as they perform the conditions of their admis- 
 sion ; and those same persons who have alone the authority to 
 admit them into the church upon those conditions, have alone 
 the authority to exclude them for non-performance. And their' 
 act of exclusion is as effectual towards the taking from them all 
 the privileges of Christians, and as truly makes them aliens from 
 the kingdom of God, as their act of admission at first entitled 
 them to all the benefits of chuich-communion. For as they 
 have as much authority to exclude some, as they have to admit 
 others into the church, the authority being the same in both 
 cases, it must be in both cases equally effectual. 
 
 If your lordship will say that all people are equally qualified 
 fo admit persons into the church, that, " Go ye, and baptise 
 < all nations/' conferred the same powers on all Christians ; 
 then indeed it must be granted that excommunication, or ex- 
 clusion from the-church, is a right equally invested in all Chris- 
 tians. But as sure as Christ gave peculiar power to his Apostles, 
 as sure as they left particular men to succeed them in their 
 powers, so sure is it that only such successors can either admic or 
 exclude persons from Christian communion. 
 
 Secondly ; That excommunication belongs to particular per- 
 sons, will appear from the institution of it in Scripture. 
 
 " If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his 
 " fault between thee and him alone. But if he will not hear 
 ** thee, then take with thee one or two more. And if he should 
 ' neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church; but if he neglect 
 *' to hear the church, let him be unto thee as au heathen man, 
 '* and a publican. Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall 
 " bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever ye 
 ' shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven *.'* 
 
 Here, my lord, is as plain an institution of excommunication, 
 as can well be conceived, and he who can doubt of it, may doubt 
 whether baptism be instituted in Scripture. 
 
 First, we may observe that here is an authority, given to the 
 church over the offender, and that such an authority, as neither 
 belonged to private men, either separate or united logethei ; for 
 the offender here had first been admonished, by a single person, 
 then by " one or two more," i. e. an indefinite number, but 
 still heie is nothing granted but admonition ; but as soon as he is 
 brought before the church, there is an authority appears, and tile 
 
 * Matih. xviii. i.
 
 42$ Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 offender is to feel its sentence, " let him be unto thee as an 
 heathen." 
 
 Secondly ; That this authority did not belong to the church 
 considered only as a greater number of Christians, but as it signi- 
 fied particular persons who had this authority from Christ, for the 
 edification of his church. 
 
 For Christ expressly declares in the following verse, that 
 " where two or three are met together in his name, there is he 
 in the midst of them." 
 
 Here is the description of that church before whom the offender 
 was to be brought, and whose authority Christ promises to sup. 
 port ; it is two or three met together in his name. 
 
 Now the church had not this authority over the offender, con. 
 sidered as a number, L e. as two or three ; for we see that the 
 offender had been already before such a church ; he had been be. 
 fore two or three ; and after neglect of them, he was brought 
 before another two or three, met together in Christ's name. 
 Which is a plain proof that the offender was not censured by the 
 church, as it signifies a number of Christians, but as it implies 
 particular persons acting in the name of Christ, and with his au- 
 thority. 
 
 Thirdly ; \Ve may observe that the authority here granted to 
 the church is a judicial authority, such an authority as affects and 
 alters the condition of the person excommunicated, implied in 
 these words, < let him be unto thee as an heathen ;" that is, as 
 the bishop of Oxford observes, " in the most natural and common 
 sense of the words, they should look upon him no longer as a 
 member of the church, but place him among infidels * ;" and 
 again, " as reduced into the state of heathens f." 
 
 Now unless it can be said that a person who is turned out of 
 the kingdom of God, and reduced into the state of heathens, is 
 in the same condition which he was, when he was in the church, 
 and had a right to all the benefits of communion ; unless we can 
 say that a person thus rejected from the means of grace, by the 
 commission of Christ, is in. the same condition with him, who 
 is continued in the church by the same commission of Christ ; 
 it must be allowed that here is a judicial power granted to the- 
 church, and such as affects the condition of the offender in the 
 sight of God, 
 
 Church Gov. p. 351. + Ibid. p. 356.,
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 429 
 
 Fourthly ; It is to be observed that this authority of the church 
 is made judicial by the express promise of God to ratify and confirm 
 it. For after it is said, " let him he unto thee as an heathen," it is 
 declared that whatsoever they should thus bind on earth, should be 
 bound in heaven. 
 
 From all this, it plainly appears, that excommunication is as 
 truly a divine positive punishment, as baptism is a divine positive 
 blessing ; and that the one as certainly excludes us from the king- 
 <lom of God, as the other admits us into it. For since here is as 
 plainly Christ's express authority to take from some men the ordi- 
 nary means of grace, and exclude them from the common be- 
 nefits of Christianity, as there is his authority to " go and baptise 
 all nations;" I desire to know why one is not as truly a divine 
 positive institution as the other ? Is not Christ's authority as 
 effectual and significant in excluding, as in admitting persons 
 into his kingdom ? Is not that same power as able to take away 
 the privileges of church-membership, as it was at first to grant 
 them ? 
 
 If therefore there be any blessing or happiness in our being 
 admitted into the church ; there must be as much misery and 
 punishment in our exclusion out of it. For as it implies the loss 
 of all those privileges and favours we were made partakers of, by 
 our admission into the church ; so we must jieeds be punished in 
 the same degree that we were happy. 
 
 If therefore baptism, a divine positive institution to admit U 
 into the privileges of Christianity, makes any alteration in our 
 condition, as to the favour of God, i. e. if we are brought any 
 nearer to God by baptism, than we were before ; then it plainly 
 follows excommunication, a divine positive institution, which 
 deprives us of all these privileges of Christianity, and, as thcr 
 bishop of Oxford expresses it, " reduces offenders into the state of 
 " heathens," must needs affect our condition with regard to the 
 favour of God. , 
 
 For if there be any thing in baptism which is just matter of 
 joy, there is something equally terrible in excommunication ; 
 which, when rightly executed, as effectually makes us aliens 
 from the promises of God, as baptism, when rightly ad- 
 ministered, makes us children of God, and heirs of eternal 
 ^life. So that he who can ridicule and expose the terrors and 
 ffeets of excommunication, is acting just as Christian a part,
 
 430 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadlcy* 
 
 as lie who fleers at and despises the benefits and advantages 
 of baptism. 
 
 Seeing therefore the church hath as express an authority to 
 turn some men out of the church, as it hath to admit others 
 into it, it is as false an account of excommunication, to make it 
 only that common right which every man has, to avoid those he 
 dislikes; as if it should be said, that admission into the church by 
 baptism, implies no more, than that common right which every 
 man has to do offices for those he likes* Now, my lord, is bap- 
 tism to be administered, because persons may do good offices for 
 one another ? Is there a power in the church to increase its mem- 
 bers, by admitting others into communion, for this reason, be- 
 cause people have a common right to chuse their company ? 
 If not, my lord, how comes the exclusion of members to be nothing 
 but a common right of avoiding those we dislike ? Are not persons 
 excluded from all the benefits of their admission ? So that if there 
 was any authority required for the admission of persons into the 
 church, if this authority was only from God, it is certain that an 
 exclusion from these church-privileges cannot be executed but by 
 the same authority, which first granted them. For no person can 
 be deprived of any privileges, but by that power which at 
 first granted them. 
 
 , When therefore your lordship recurs to the common right 
 of persons to avoid, if they can, those they dislike, in order to state 
 the nature of excommunication ; it is just as much to the purpose, 
 as if I should get a chymist to examine the natural qualities of 
 water, in order to state the true efficacy of baptism : for men 
 no more act by any powers of their own when, they exclude 
 offenders, than they baptise others into communion by their 
 Own authority, or than water unites them to Christ by its natural 
 qualities. 
 
 , Yet your lordship sets forth the nature of excommunication, 
 and the right the church has to it, only from that " common 
 right, which all Christians have of avoiding, if they can, those 
 they dislike." Thus you s^y, the church may excommunicate, 
 because *' every person has a right to judge, nay he cannot help 
 judging of the behaviour of men*;" that "every man "will 
 judge him to be a murderer, who takes away his neighbour's life 
 unjustly." 
 
 Page 3.
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to "Bishop Hoadley. 451 
 
 This comes up as truly, to the nature of excommunication, 
 and is as just an account of it, as if any one should set forth the 
 authority of a British judge, and shew the extent of his judicial 
 power, by saying, he indeed may judge and condemn a murderer, 
 for this is the right of every person to judge, " and no one can 
 help judging and condemning a murderer." It is as consistent 
 with sense thus to set out the power of the judge, as it is 
 with reason and Scripture, to compare excommunication to 
 that private power of judging and thinking which every one 
 enjoys. 
 
 For, my lord, can it be supposed that when our Saviour tells 
 them, that they should reject such a person out of the church, 
 and look upon him as an heathen, and that he would bind, i. e, 
 confirm their sentence ; can it be supposed that he only m^ant 
 they might think and judge a wicked person to be a wicked per- 
 son, only in such a manner as every man cannot help thinking 
 and judging ? If our blessed Lord only here intended this, what 
 occasion was there for his promise to ratify their judgment ? \yhat 
 need is there' of an assurance, that they shall privately judge, what 
 they cannot help privately judging? Or indeeJ to what purpose 
 is any promise at all made here, if nothing is to be effected ? 
 If this sentence be only a private, unauthorized declaration, like 
 the opinion or judgment of private men, what room can there be 
 for this ratification of our Saviour ? If no effects are intended in 
 the judgment of the church, what can be the meaning of 
 this promise ? Or rather, since our Saviour has here instituted the 
 authority, and promised to ratify the exercise of it, how dares any 
 Christian to compare it to a private personal power of judging, 
 or declare that it is without any effect upon the condition of 
 Christians ? For, my lord, either something is here promised to 
 the sentence of the church, or there is not; if there is something 
 promised, then the sentence of the church is no more like 
 the personal sentence of private men, than the power of the judge 
 is like the power of a private man ; if you will say there is nothing 
 here promised in these words, " whatsoever yc shall bind on 
 " earth, shall be bound in heaven," &c. then you must say that 
 there is nothing at all meant in them; for it is impossible to shew- 
 that they can have any other meaning, than that of a promise ; 
 so that if no promise is made, they are certainly so many dead 
 letters.
 
 4321 Mr. Law's third tetter to "Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 Again ; That this is a judicial power, is also evident from the 
 case of the incestuous Corinthian. St. Paul says, '* what have I 
 ** to do, to judge them also which a r e without ?" Now the 
 Apostle could not have put this question, if by judging here had 
 been meant no authority, but a- private power of judging and 
 thinking a sinner to be a sinner. For a man can no more help 
 judging a murderer to be a murderer, which is without the 
 church, than if he were within the church. And it is as proper 
 for us to judge and think aright of those who are out of the 
 church, as of those who are within it. So that St. Paul could 
 not mean, what have I to do to think a murderer to be a mur- 
 derer which is without the church, it being every man's duty to 
 think as truly of all things and persons as he can. Seeing there- 
 fore he plainly intimates that he had a power of judging in the 
 church, which did not belong to him out of the church, it follows 
 that this power was judicial and authoritative : for a private power 
 of judging and thinking belongs to every man with regard to every 
 thing. 
 
 We shall more easily understand what is meant by the effects of 
 spiritual punishments, if we consider them under this division. 
 
 First, Such as are the primary and intended effects ; secondly, 
 such as are only the accidental effects of them. 
 
 Now as to the primary and intended effects of spiritual punish- 
 ments, they are these. 
 
 First, to preserve the honour of God and his church, that ill 
 members being cut off, it might be " presented a glorious church, 
 " not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing ; but that it might 
 ' be holy, and without blemish *." 
 
 Secondly, To reform offenders, and reclaim them from their 
 vices ; it is a discipline given to the church for the edification, and 
 not the destruction of its members. Thus St. Paul says, the 
 incestuous Corinthian was to be * delivered over to Satan, for the 
 " destruction of tlifc flesh, that his spirit might be saved in the day 
 " of the Lord f." 
 
 Thirdly, To preserve the rest of the church from the ill in- 
 fluence of their example, and that by such punishments exercised 
 upon others, they might fear and learn from thence not to 
 offend. 
 
 * Ephet. iv. 25. f i Cor.T. 5.
 
 Mr. Lattfs third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 433 
 
 These are die intended effects of the punishments which the 
 church inflicts, to preserve it a holy society, and save the souls of ' 
 its members. 
 
 God Almighty has instituted several means for the advancement 
 of virtue, and the salvation of mankind; and amongst others, he 
 has set up this authority of the church to promote the same ends, 
 It is his human, ordinary means for the preservation of his church; 
 and therefore, as it can operate infallibly, or affect people with a 
 divine certainty, it is only conditional, and is to prevail towards thq 
 salvation of mankind, as far as human and conditional means can 
 prevail. 
 
 And indeed it is an institution which has a very natural ten- 
 dency to produce the effects designed by it'. For, considering 
 Christianity as a covenant with God, wherein our title to happi- 
 ness depends upon our use of the ordinary instituted means of 
 grace, nothing can more naturally induce us to live werthy of 
 such means, than this authority in the church to withdraw them 
 upon our abuse, and expel us from the terms of the covenant. 
 Men would not dare to transgress, when they saw they could 
 neither break the laws, nor corrupt the faith of Christianity, with- 
 out being turned out of the church, by such a power as Christ 
 hath set up for that purpose, and with his promise to make good 
 its decrees. They must be very obstinate sinners who could be 
 content to lie under a sentence which as effectually takes from 
 them all pretensions to Christian happiness, as their baptism enti- 
 tled them to those pretensions at first. 
 
 The chief reason why sinners are generally so little affected 
 with the horror of their condition, is because they look upon 
 their punishment at the future judgment, as a great distance off; 
 and since they are within the church, and enjoy the ordinary 
 means of grace, they think they can repent in time. But now 
 Christ, by instituting this church authority, has suited his disci- 
 pline to the weakness and frailty of our nature; and they who 
 are only to be affected with things present, have a present judg- 
 ment to fear ; which, though it is only the judgment of men, 
 yet is the judgment of such men as are commissioned to pronounce 
 it in Christ's name, and with his promise to ratify and confirm it. 
 So that they have as much reason to look upon themselves as 
 effectually cast out by God in that sentence, as they were received 
 into covenant with God by baptism ; for there is the same divine 
 authority to support them both. 
 
 VOL. i. Ff
 
 434 Mr* Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley* 
 
 As to those orhcr effects of spiritual punishments in the other 
 world, they are not the intended, hut accidental effects of such 
 punishments, which are brought upon offenders by their own 
 wicked behaviour under them. 
 
 71uis the salvation of mankind is the primary intended effect 
 of Christianity ; yet it may have such effect upon some men by 
 their own impiety in it, as to make it better for them if they had 
 never heard of the name of Chiist. For Christianity may be- 
 come so much a punishment to some persons in the other world, 
 that their condition may be less tolerable than that of Sodom and 
 Gomorrah. But then this is not the intended effect of Christianity, 
 but an accidental effect which such persons bring upon themselves; 
 who, by their own ill conduc r , turn a mercy into a judgment, and 
 nvakes that which was intended to save them, the accidental cause 
 of their greater ruin. 
 
 Thus it is with spiritual punishments ; they are the merciful 
 corrections of God intended to prevent our future misery, but if 
 disregarded, will certainly increase it. This will easily explain 
 what is meant by the effects of spiritual punishments in the other 
 world, or how they are suspended till the offender comes thither. 
 It is not the direct intended effect of church punishments to en- 
 crease the misery of sinners, or damn them in the other world ; 
 no more than it is the direct intended effect of Christianity to 
 enci ease people's damnation : but as Christianity if abused, will 
 be the accidental cause of their greater damnation who so abuse 
 it ; so the censures of the church, when despised, will have this 
 acci.lental effect, as to encrcase the punishment of those who so 
 despised them. This is the nature of those effects which 
 spii'uual punishments will have upon the impenitent in another 
 world. 
 
 As for instance, a person who is turned out of the church, may 
 all this while be lusty and strong, and flourish in all the advan- 
 tages of this hie ; but when he comes into the other world, he 
 may then find that the spiritual punishment was a sore evil, that 
 it is ratified by Christ, has encreased his guilt, and will be matter 
 of punishment for ever. 
 
 He will then find that the censure of the church has encreased 
 his guilt in these respects: 
 
 First, As it was a judicial sentence pronounced by Christ's au 
 thority, and therefore not to be despised or neglected without great 
 impiety ; so that; let the sinner have been what he will before,
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadh-y. 435 
 
 tvhen he continues in his sins in contempt of this tribunal set up in 
 Christ's name, his guilt is thereby exceedingly increased. 
 
 Secondly, As it is the most powerful means, and the very ut- 
 most which God can do to reclaim, or even terrify sinners from 
 their impiety, as it is the most awakening call to repentance, an 
 institution only less terrible than the last judgment ; those who are 
 not affected with it, must be rendered more odious in the sight of 
 God, ami made ripe for a severer punishment. 
 
 These, my lord, are the effects of spiritual punishments in the 
 other world; it is thus that they alter the condition of offenders 
 in the sight of God in regard to his favour. They are certainly 
 under greater displeasure, after they have despised the censures of 
 church authority, and have resisted an institution, which is the last 
 possible means to recover them. 
 
 In former times God has been pleased to send his prophets to 
 forewarn sinners of their destruction, as Jonah to the men of 
 Nineveh : but in the Christian dispensation, he governs us by his 
 ordinary providence ; and though he does not send express mes- 
 sengers to recal sinners, yet he has instituted a standing authority 
 in his church, to censure offenders, and give them up to destruc- 
 tion in his name, unless they immediately repenr. And what can 
 \ve think more dreadful than a sentence thus pronounced against us 
 by God's authority, and with his promise to confirm it ? 
 
 Was there any thing more awakening or more dreadfuHn the 
 preaching of Jonah, than in this declaration? Jonah could only 
 preach and declare, he could execute nothing himself; it was 
 his being sent in God's nair.e, which created all the terror, and 
 was the motive to repentance. Now, though the church can only 
 censure and declare, yet since it is as truly commissioned to censure 
 in God's name, as Jonah was sent in God's name, there is as 
 much reason to dread the consequences of neglecting the church, 
 as of not repenting at the message or preaching of any prophet 
 from God. 
 
 I must now beg leave here, my lord, to lament an assertion 
 from the hands of a Christian and Protestant bishop ; where you 
 declare, that the " excommunication of the incestuous Corinthiaa 
 neither added to God's displeasure, nor would the want of it have 
 at all diminished it. Neither if he had dietl in a:v impenitent 
 condition, would that sentence have had any effect in the ether 
 world*." 
 
 * Answer to Rcpr. p. jt^
 
 436 Mr. Law's third Letter- to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 This, my lord, plainly supposes, that there is neither authority 
 nor advantage in excommunication ; for if there were it is certain 
 that our abuse of it as an advantage, and our contempt of it as an 
 authority, must needs increase our guilt, and consequently God's 
 displeasure. Yet your lordship here teaches the world, that if the 
 incestuous Corinthian, though justly censured, and that by an 
 Apostle directing, and the whole congregation joining, had died 
 impenitent, " that sentence would have had no effect in the other 
 world." 
 
 Let us therefore suppose that some great patron of Christian 
 liberty had gone to the disconsolate Corinthian, sorrowing under 
 the sentence of die church, and should endeavour to quiet him 
 after this manner : 
 
 " Why do you disquiet yourself with vain fears about the cen- 
 sure of the church, which neither hath nor can have any effect 
 upon your condition as to the favour of God ? Let the apostle 
 and church be as solemn as they please in the denunciation ; let 
 them in the name of Christ deliver you over to Satan ; yet take, 
 courage, and fear nothing from all this ; for you may depend upon 
 it, that, after all, you are but just where you was, before this sen- 
 tence was passed. And if you die impenitent, you have no effects 
 of this censure to fear in the other world." 
 
 Now this is the doctrine your lordship has taught for the con- 
 solatioh of those who are, or are likely to be under the sentence 
 of the church ; which, if it be now sound doctrine, it was as 
 proper to be told the Corinthian then, as it is for your lordship 
 to teach it now. And if your lordship had lived then, it would 
 have been as proper to have told the Corinthian, as to tell us now ; 
 and you must have lain under the same Christian necessity of de- 
 livering him from vain fears, which now constrains you to .set all 
 at liberty from the like apprehensions. - 
 
 St. Paul, speaking of the sentence passed upon the Corinthians, 
 says, *' Sufficient to such a man, was this punishment*." Now, 
 my lord, if it have nothing of the nature of a punishment, if it has 
 no effect where it is inflicted, if the person said to be punished 
 can feel no effect from it, what strange language is this ? Can 
 that: be called a punishment, or a sufficient punishment, which 
 can -in np degree be^felt, which produces no effects, or makes no 
 alteration in the person where it falls ? 
 
 * z Cor. ii.
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 437 
 
 Again, St. Paul tells us, that he had amongst others which had 
 corrupted the faith, delivered Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan, 
 that they might learn not to blaspheme*." 
 
 Now if this sentence can have no effect, if it cannot signify any 
 thing to them, if they are just in the same condition after it, which 
 they were before, why should it teach them not to blaspheme ? 
 Why should a sentence which they had nothing to fear from make 
 them any longer afraid to continue in their errors ? Here was 
 therefore either a pious fraud made use of by the Apostle to fright 
 men from their heresies by something which was in itself vain and 
 insignificant, or else your lordship has mightily mistaken the 
 matter, in declaring that it is vain and insignificant. The Apostle 
 plainly inflicts these censures, as a terror to offenders, and to 
 frighten them from continuing in their evil courses ; but if, as 
 you say, persons be just in the same condition after this sentence 
 in which they were before, if it has no effect upon them, though 
 they are rightly censured, and yet die impenitent, which is what 
 you expressly say ef this Corinthian, then it is plain they are only 
 pretended terrors, and that when the Apostles use them as such, 
 they must be charged with using them as a pious fraud. And it 
 must be owned that your lordship has very frankly made the dis- 
 covery. 
 
 But whoever has piety enough to believe those first Ambassadors 
 of Christ, will clear them from such a charge, and rather think it 
 possible that you may mistake in your philosophy than they in 
 their divinity. 
 
 To proceed : You declare, that though the " incestuous Corin- 
 thian had died in an impenitent condition, the sentence of the 
 church would have had no effect in the other world :" by which 
 you must mean, that it could not affect his condition there, so as to 
 increase his punishment, and that because the *' sentence did not 
 add to God's displeasure, which he incurs solely upon account of 
 his own behaviour, and not the sentence of menf." As thus, I 
 suppose, your lordship means, that if an adulterer is censured by 
 the church, he is under God's displeasure solely on account of his 
 adultery, and not more so, on account of the sentence- of the 
 church ; which cannot make him more an adulterer, or more 
 guilty in the sight of God. It is for this reason that church cen- 
 sures are so insignificant, so void of all effect in the other world ; 
 
 j Tim. j. jg, i Page 37.
 
 438 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 because it is our sins alone, and not the sentence of men, which 
 loses us the favour of God. 
 
 Let us therefore, my lord, suppose that God himself had de 
 livered this sentence against the Corinthian which the church did, 
 your lordship's doctrine would have procured him the same ease 
 and quiet, and taught him to be no more concerned about if, than 
 if it had been a mere/:hurch censure. For it is as true in your 
 lordship's sense, that the sentence of God did not add to his dis- 
 pleasure against hipi, that he was not angry at him because of his 
 sentence, but upon account of the offender's behaviour. But, my 
 lordi will it therefore follow, that there is nothing to be dreaded 
 in such a sentence ? Will it follow, that if the person dies im- 
 penitent under it, that it will have no effect in the other world ? 
 Would your lordship go about, and preach liberty to persons 
 under such a sentence, and assure them that the sentence itself 
 could have no effect, that they were but just where they were be- 
 fore it was pronounced ? Would you think it proper to deliver 
 men from such apprehensions, and persuade them that they are in 
 no danger from the senter.ee of God ? And that because it is not 
 his own sentence, but their behaviour which encreases his dis, 
 pleasure ? 
 
 This may perhaps appear a little too shocking to set up for an 
 advocate for the laity against the sentence of God ; bur, my lord, 
 - if you was to do so, you would have the same argument to de- 
 fend yourself against any effect in the divine sentence, which you 
 now have against any effect in the sentence of the church. It 
 would be then as much to the purpose to say, that God is not 
 displeased with them, on the account of his own sentence, but 
 purely for their own behaviour; as it is to * tell offenders, that 
 it is not the sentence of the church, but their behaviour which, 
 brings them under the divine displeasure. 
 
 I must here therefore, my lord, beg leave to call this a strict de- 
 monstration, that if the sentence of the church is not to be feared, 
 if it hath no effect, because it is not the sentence, but our own 
 behaviour which alone procures us the divine displeasure ; if this be 
 true, it is demonstration, that if God himself was to pronounce 
 this church sentence, and turn offenders out of communion, that 
 fhere would be nothing to be feared from it, that it could have 
 no effect in the other world ; for Gou's displeasure against them 
 would not be occasioned by his own sentence, but by their beha- 
 viour. So that was the discipline of the church in God's owjj
 
 Mr. La-xfs third Letter to Bishop Hoadlcy. 439 
 
 hands, and were he with his own voice to threaten sinners, as the 
 church now doth, your lordship would be as much obliged to 
 comfort the laity against any apprehension of any effect from the 
 sentence itself, as you are now to deliver them from the fear of 
 man's judgment. 
 
 Again; if the sentence of the church is not to he dreaded, if it 
 can have no effect in the other world, because we incur the divine 
 displeasure solely on account of our own behaviour, then it is cer- 
 tain that the sentence of Christ himself at the last day can have no 
 effect in the other world. 
 
 If therefore any unwary divine should endeavour to alarm his 
 congregation with the effects of Christ's sentence at the last day, 
 your lordship has taught any one to reject the doctrine, as greatly 
 injurious to the honour of God ; and that such doctrine w^s also 
 impossible in itself to be conceived, he might presume strictly to 
 demonstrate *. 
 
 A sentence which makes not a tittle of alteration in the condition 
 of a man in the eyes of God, with regard to his favour or displea- 
 sure, cannot be said to have any effect in the other world t. But 
 the sentence of Christ at the last day is of this sort. 
 
 Therefore the sentence of Christ makes' not a tittle of alteration 
 in the condition of a man in the eyes of God with regard to his 
 favour or displeasure. 
 
 That the sentence of Christ aiakes no alteration in the condition 
 of a man with regard to the favour or displeasure of God, is plain 
 from hence ; that men incur the divine displeasure solely on account 
 of their own behaviour. 
 
 Thus, my lord, it is demonstratively certain, that as you have 
 argued against the effects of the church's sentence in the other 
 world, you have taught any one to argue against any effect in the 
 sentence of Christ in the next wrld; and consequently it must 
 be as unwary doctrine to frighten people with the effects of Grist's 
 sentence, as to terrify them with the effects of the sentence of the 
 church. And you have offeied such an argument tor the utter 
 insignificancy of ihis sentence, as would make it equally insigni- 
 ficant, and void of all effect, though it was pronounced by God 
 himself. So that as much as you often seem to expose it as the 
 sentence of weak and fallible men, yet your argument does not 
 reject it as a fallible sentence, but as it is a sentence fiooi having 
 
 Page 36. lb4.
 
 440 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 any effect. So. that if it was pronounced by God himself, it must 
 be as much without effect, and every sentence which ever can be 
 pronounced by God, must be without any effect as to his favour 
 or displeasure, because that is solely occasioned by our own be- 
 haviour. Therefoie an infallible sentence can no more have any 
 effect than a fallible one, because it is our behaviour alone which 
 can ;iffcct us. This, my lord, will be of great use to some people, 
 who will be glul to find that they have no more effects to fear from 
 God's sentence either in this world or the next, than your lordship 
 has from the church. 
 
 Again ; if there be no effect in the sentence of the church in the 
 other world, because our behaviour alone incurs the divine displea- 
 sure, then nothing which God inflicts upon us here can have any 
 effect in the other world. 
 
 If therefore God's judgments were visibly fallen upon some 
 town or country, and an unwary preacher should take occasion to 
 excite them to a speedy repentance, from the sad effects such 
 judgments would have in the other world, if they had not their 
 designed effects in this, and declare that if they died impenitent 
 under them in this world, they would feel worse effects of them 
 in the other world. v 
 
 A disciple of your lordship's might thus reprove the falseness 
 and cruelty of such doctrine. " How can you terrify people 
 with such vain fears about God's judgments r Is he provoked against 
 us by his own thunder and lightning? Do his own judgments add 
 any thing to his displeasure against us? Can any thing but our 
 \ own sins and behaviour create his displeasure ? Therefore we are 
 
 t? certainly in the same condition as to that which we were in before 
 
 I^^^K^v^. 
 his judgments fell upon us; and if we die impenitent under them, 
 
 they can have no effect in the other world. False then, and 
 ^greatly dishonourable to God is your doctrine, which supposes any 
 thing can have any effect of chat kind, but our own behaviour. 
 To alarm us, therefore, with the effects of such judgments, is to 
 put false fears into our minds, and teach us to dread tilings which 
 a;e impossible; for it is impossible that any thing but our own be- 
 haviour should increase our punishment." 
 
 Now, my lord, is it cruel and unwary doctrine to awaken sin- 
 ners under God's judgments to repentance, from a sense of the 
 worse erfecrs of those judgments in the other world, if they do 
 not bring them to repentance in this ? If it is not, I desire to 
 why it is not as reasonable to alarm people with >he effects
 
 Mr. Laiifs third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 of spiritual punishments, if disregarded, as with the effects of 
 God's judgments, if they are neglected? What is there in the 
 nature of the thing, why one punishment may have effect in the 
 other world, and not the other ? They are both equally God's 
 punishments, intended for the same ends. 
 
 When persons are rightly turned out of the church, and denied 
 the ordinary means of grace, they are as truly under God's special 
 judgment, as a country which is oppressed with famine or pesti- 
 lence ; the one is his instituted, ordinary judgment to terrify men 
 from iniquity ; the other is his extraordinary judgment, his mira- 
 culous call to repentance. It is therefore as sound a Christian 
 doctrine to say, that if persons die impenitent under God's extra- 
 ordinary judgment, that such judgment will have no effect in the 
 other world ; as to say, that if the incestuous Corinthian had 
 died impenitent under the just sentence of the church, z. e. God's 
 ordinary judgment, that such sentence or judgment would have 
 had no effect in the other world. And consequently to endeavour 
 to terrify sinners with the effects of God's judgments in the other 
 world, if they disregard them here, is as much condemned by your 
 lordship as the Dean of Chichester's doctrine concerning the effects 
 of spiritual punishments in the next world. 
 
 Lastly ; our blessed Saviour told the Jews, that if he had not 
 come, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their 
 sin: which plainly implies that his coming into the world altered 
 their condition as to the favour of God, because it made them more 
 guilty in his sight than they were before he came. Yet your lord- 
 ship's argument against the effects of church punishments directly 
 denies this doctrine. For your objection against any effects in 
 church punishments, is full as strong against any effects in Christ's 
 coming into the world. And if people may be more guilty in the 
 sight of God, after Christ is come, they may be more guilty after 
 they have been censured by the church, for the reason is the 
 same in both caies. For there can be no reason given why 
 Christ's coming should affect their condition, with regard to the 
 favour of God, but that he had a divine mission, and was an au- 
 thoritative call to repentance ; but this is equally true of excom- 
 munication, that it is a divine institution, an authoritative call to 
 repentance; therefore they must either both be allowed to- affect 
 people's condition with regard to the favour of God, or neither; 
 for the reason is exactly the same in both cases. 
 9
 
 442 .Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadky. 
 
 If therefore a learned pharisee, seeing a relenting publican 
 touched with this declaration of our Saviour's, should have re- 
 proved him after this manner ; 
 
 " You need not be concerned at this person's coming into the 
 world, for his coming does not increase God's displeasure against 
 you, which can only be raised by your own behaviour ; it is solely 
 on account of that, that you can be out of God's favour. Sinners 
 are out of God's favour, if this person had never come, and his 
 coming does not add to God's displeasure against them ; nei her if 
 they die in an impenitent condition after he is cnme, will his 
 coming have any effect in the other world, where their condition 
 will not be determined by his coming, but by their own beha- 
 viour." 
 
 I should be glad, my lord, to know what you could have said 
 against such a declaration, or how a person who would have told 
 the incestuous Corinthian, that if he died impenitent under the 
 censure of the church, that it would have no effect in the other 
 world, could have any thing to object to the phaiisee, who tells 
 the publican rf he died impenitent after Christ's coming, thai his 
 coming will have no effect in the other world. 
 
 The pharisee has exactly the same reason to tell the publican, 
 that he was neither the more nor the less out of G'>d's favour for 
 Christ's coming, than you have to tell the Corinthian that he was 
 neither the more nor the less out of God's favour for what was 
 done by the church. For the censure here was right and in. 
 fallible, and passed in the name and by the authority of Christ ; 
 it was passed by an Apostle, and you affirm, that Christ was in all 
 that the Apostles did ; therefore it may be truly said that Christ 
 himself came to the Corinthian in this sentence ; it was his au- 
 thority and infallibility which censured him ; and yet you say, that 
 if he had died impenitent under this censure, he had been just 
 where he was before, and it would have had no effect in the other 
 world. 
 
 Pray therefore, my lord, let us know how any one can be more 
 guilty for Christ's coming, or why it should have any effect in the 
 other world upon those who die impenitent. A few reasons 
 against this phaiisee would be so many leasons against your lord- 
 ship's doctrine. For Christ as truly comes to Christians in his 
 institutions, as he came to the Jews in person; and it is as dan- 
 gerous to disregard him in the one appearance, as in the other.
 
 3/r. Law's third Letter to Bishop Ihadley. 443 
 
 This account of excommunication will, I hope, be thought a 
 suffi< ient answer to your lordship's strict tlemonstration, th.it it has 
 no effects in the other world, nor adds any thing to God's displea- 
 sure. For from this it appears, that when you say, that " sup- 
 posing no such punishment inflicted upon a wicked Christian, he 
 is under the displeasure of almighty God to an equal degree, as he 
 would he if ir we-e inflicted *." It is as false as to say that a 
 wickt-d Je.v w> under the same displeasure of God hefore Curist 
 came, as he was afterwards; or that a person impenitent under an 
 extraordinary judgment, is no more out of God's favour afterwards, 
 tlia.i he was before, or if God had never visited him. It.is as 
 false as ;o say, that if God himself was to pronounce the sentence 
 of the chuich, that persons under it would be just in the same 
 degree of favour they were before, or that the sentence of Chiistat 
 the last day will have no effect. 
 
 The other part of your demonstration proceeds thus; excom- 
 munication has no effect, because, " supposing it wrongfully 
 inflicted upon a Christian, he is still equally in the favour of 
 Codf." 
 
 The whole of this argument amounts to this, that a right cen- 
 sure of the church hath no effect, because a wrong one hath not. 
 I should think any one in a mighty want of proof, who should 
 say that the excommunication of the incestuous Corinthian could 
 have n6 effect, because the excommunication of some virtuous per- 
 son will no: have any effect; yet this is your loidship's demon- 
 stration, that if can signify nothing when it is right, because it / 
 signifies nothing when it is wrong. 
 
 Is it an argument, my lord, that when a bullet flies through a 
 man's head, it has no effect upon him, because it will have no * 
 effect if it miss him ? Is it a proof that motion cannot produce 
 heat, because rest cannot produce heat ? 
 
 If not, how come^ it to be an argument that a right sentence 
 hath no effect, because a wrong one hath not the same effect ? 
 
 A right sentence is as opposite to a wrong one, as m ;tion is to 
 rest ; and it is as good sense to say motion has no such eff ct, 
 because rest has no such effect ; as to say a right sentence has no 
 effect, because a wrong one has not the same. 
 
 A right sentence is the only excommunication which Christ 
 bath instituted, and to which alone this eifect belongs ; but it u
 
 444 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Iloadky. 
 
 strange logic to infer, that this institution cannot have such an 
 effect, because something which Christ hath not instituted, hath 
 not the same effect. 
 
 A nrror.g sentence is as truly a breach and transgression of that 
 excommunication which Christ hath instituted, as adultery is a 
 breach of the seventh commandment; it is therefore as absurd to 
 say that chastity hath not such an effect, because adultery hath not 
 the same effect, as to affirm that a right sentence hath not such an 
 effect, because a violation of that right sentence hath not the same 
 effect. Your lordship's argument is this; that the sentence hath 
 not such an effect in some circumstances, because it hath not the 
 same effect in all circumstances: which resolves itself into this 
 proposition, " that nothing can produce any particular effect, un. 
 Jess*t produce the same effect in all circumstances." 
 
 Your lordship might as well have called it a demonstration 
 against all effects in the world, as against the effects of spiritual 
 censures; for there is nothing in the world, no powers either 
 natural, moral, or political, which produce their effects but in 
 some supposed right circumstances ; yet this ecclesiastical power 
 is demonstrated away by your lordship, because it does not pro- 
 duce the same effect in all circumstances. 
 
 Farther ; if there is no effect in a right sentence of the church, 
 because there is no effect in a wrong one, then it will follow that 
 there is no effect in either of the sacraments when rightly received, 
 because they want such effect in persons who do not lightly re- 
 ceive them. It may as often happen that the sacraments are ad- 
 ministered in wrong circumstances, and as void of that effect for 
 which they were intended, as anv vvrong sentence of the -church 
 be pronounced ; but does it therefore follow, that there is no~eifect 
 in the sacraments, that they are empty and useless to those who 
 receive them rightly, because they are so to those who receive them 
 otherwise? Your lordship must either affirm that the sacraments 
 have no effect, or that the opus operation is always effectual; for 
 if you say they have effect, though not always, then it is certain 
 that the sentence of the church may have effect, though not 
 always. Whether your lordship will own the popish doctrine of 
 the opus operatum y or deny the sacraments to be means of grace, 
 that is, to have any effect, I cannot tell; but sure I am, if you 
 do not hold one of these doctrines, you must own the sacraments 
 to have conditional effects in supposed circumstances, which will 
 sufficiently confute your own strict demonstration, that e\com-
 
 Mr. La~i?s third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 4*5 
 
 mnnication can have no effect, because it has not in all circum- 
 stances. 
 
 Again ; I presume it may very justly be said, that the Christian 
 revelation has some effect towards the salvation of mankind ; but 
 then it hath not tin's effect always, and in all cases, it is only 
 effectual upon certain conditions. N-nv if excommunication can 
 have no effect, because it is not effectual when it is wrongfully 
 pronounced, then the Christian revelation can have no effect to- 
 wards saving those who embrace it as they should, because it has 
 no such effect on those who embrace it otherwise. The reason 
 of the thing is the same in both cases, and any one may as justly 
 set forth the vanity and insignificancy of the Christian revelation, 
 because it does not save all its professors, as your lordship exposes 
 the weakness and vanity of spiritual censjrcs, because they do not 
 absolutely, and in all cases, throw people out of God's favour. 
 
 I hope I have here said enough to vindicate the authority and 
 effects of the spiritual punishments of the church against all your 
 lordship has advanced against them. 
 
 I shall make an observation or two more upon this head, and 
 then proceed to the other parts of your answer. 
 
 You say, " the incestuous Corinthian was never the more or 
 the less in God's favour for what was done by the church *." 
 This doctrine I have already confuted, and shall now only set 
 this passage in another light. Let us suppose that you had said, 
 * that no man is more in God's favour for being rightly baptized 
 by the church." Now if a person is not more in God's favour 
 after he is rightly baptized by the church than he was before, 
 then it is certain that there is no need of baptism by the church ; 
 for any thing is sufficiently proved needless or useless in religion, 
 if it neither procures nor loses the favour of God. This is un- 
 deniably certain, that if we are not more in the favour of God for 
 being duly baptized by the church than if we were not baptized at.- 
 all, that then that baptism is a useless trifle. 
 
 Now this is the doctrine which your lordship has taught; for 
 he that says the incestuous Corinthian, though justly turned out 
 of the church, was neither the more or the less in God's favour 
 for what was done by the church, says likewise, that he who is 
 duly baptized into covenant with God by the church, is never 
 the more or the less in God's favour for being duly baptized by 
 
 * Answer to Rcpr p. 43.
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop H 
 
 the church. For if it be a mere trifle* and aitoge;her insignificant 
 to us, as to the favour of God, to be turned out of the church 
 by such an authority, it must he as mere a trifle to be a Imitted 
 into the church by the same authority, Sc* tha"t he who declare* 
 the one, plainly declares the other : for this is eviden'ly plain, 
 that :f nothing be lost as to the favour of God, by our being duly 
 turned out of the church, that then nothing is got as to the favour 
 of God, by our being duly admitted into the church. 
 
 For if our being in the church was any step towards God's 
 favour, or rendered us more acceptable to him, those degrees of 
 favour and acceptance must be certainly lost, by our losing that 
 which was the cause of them. 
 
 He therefore who asserts it is a trifle to be turned out of th 
 church, must also assert that it is as fruitless and trifling a thing 
 to be admitted into the church. So that all your lordship's raillery 
 and contempt thrown upon human excommunications, falls as 
 directly upon human baptisms, and makes them as truly fruitless 
 trifles without any advantage, as it makes excommunication a 
 trifle without any punishment. 
 
 This therefore is the sum of your new religion, set up out of 
 pure tenderness to the laity, to deliver them from the weight and 
 burden of ordinances ; this is to be their support against human 
 excommunications, human benedictions, human baptisms, &c. 
 that whether before or after baptism, whether before or after ex- 
 communication, they are still the same children pf God. 
 
 Again, you say, " If it be supposed (as it sometimes is upon 
 this subject) that a person behaves himself under the most unde- 
 served censures with any degree of impatience, pride, or stubborn- 
 ness, and that this displeaseth almighty God, it is plain that he 
 incurs no part of that displeasure upon account of the sentence of 
 men, but solely upon the account of .his own behaviour; it being 
 his own behaviour alone, and not the sentence of men, which has 
 any such effect." 
 
 Here, my lord, your philosophy is upon the stretch ; and rather 
 than a Christian institution should have any force or effect, you 
 have let it run such lengths, as to make even the ten command* 
 ments as mere trifles as the sentence of men. 
 
 As for instance ; suppose a person should tell a friend that he 
 had a great liking to some of his neighbour's goods, but that the 
 eighth commandment made him afraid to take them from him j 
 if his friend were but a master of your philosophy, he might
 
 A/r. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadlei/. 44t 
 
 soon convince him of the folly of such a fear. He might tell 
 him, that " if it be supposed (as it sometimes is supposed in this 
 case) that hy his manner of taking goods from his neighbour, 
 that he displeaseth almighty God ; it is plain that he incurs no 
 part of that displeasure upon account of the commandment, but 
 solely upon the account of his own behaviour; it being his own 
 behaviour alone, and not the commandment, which has any such 
 effect." He might also assure him that the commandment itself 
 cannot hurt him, that he is not more or less in God's favour for 
 what that commandment says, but purely for what he himself 
 does. 
 
 I now, my lord, freely submit it to the judgment of common 
 sense, whether your profound philosophy docs not as truly make 
 void and set aside the force and effect of the commandment, as 
 the effect of excommunication. 
 
 For it is plainly as reasonable to tell a thief that the eighth 
 commandment cannot hurt him ; that if he steals, it is not tha 
 commandment, but his own behaviour alone, which will have 
 any effect ; as to declare that an impenitent offender is neither 
 more or less in the favour of God for what is done by the church ; 
 because even supposing God to be angry at him for his behaviour 
 towards the sentence of the church, yet it is not the sentence, but 
 his own behaviour, which causes the divine displeasure ; therefore 
 the sentence, says your lordship, is a trifle without effect. And 
 therefore may it also be said that the eighth commandment is a 
 trifle without effect ; for it is as true of the commandment in this, 
 sense, and your, lordship is as much obliged to say that it is our 
 behaviour against the commandment, and not the commandment 
 itself, which will raise God's displeasure ; as to say it is our beha- 
 riour under the sentence, and not the sentence itself, which brings 
 God's displeasure upon us ; so that it is undeniably plain, that if 
 for this reason the sentence of the church be a trifle without any 
 effect, that for the same reason the commandment must be equally 
 a trifle, and equally without any effect. 
 
 And now, my lord, need we not heed the commandments, be- 
 cause it is not the commandments themselves which will have any 
 effect upon us ? Why then are we to be exhorted, and preached 
 up into a contempt of the senience of the church, because it is 
 not the sentence itself will have any effect upon us ? Is it safe 
 to sin against the authority of the commandment, because it is 
 pot the commandment itself whieh can punish us ? If not, where 
 *
 
 448 M\ Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 is the sense, or reason, or Christianity of telling us, that we need 
 not heed the sentence of the church, because the sentence itself 
 cannot punish us ? 
 
 Suppose some high churchman had writ a treatise against steal- 
 ing, and had carried the matter so far, as to talk of the fatal 
 effect which the eighth commandment would have upon offenders, 
 when it should rise up in judgment, and condemn them. 
 
 Would your lordship think yourself ohliged, in regard to the 
 liberty of those who want other people's goods, to tell them that 
 indeed they ought to take care to act with sincerity in their ac- 
 quiring the temporal things of this life ; that they ought to con- 
 sider with the utmost impartiality the nature of property, and the 
 conditions of that original contract which first settled the rights 
 and bounds of it, and gave every man a right in such or such a 
 part of the things of this life ; but that if they should through 
 impatience of want, or pride, or any other passion or prejudice, 
 make too free with their neighbour's property, and so displease 
 almighty God, would you think yourself obliged to tell them, 
 that the fatal effects of the eighth commandment, and its pretended 
 rising up in judgment hereafter, is all sham and banter ; and that 
 however God may be displeased with them, yet that command- 
 ment will have no effect upon them ? Would your love of liberty, 
 your concern for the laity, engage you to give so much comfort, 
 and preach such smooth things to such a class of people ? 
 
 Thus much may be fairly affirmed, that \au might as well de- 
 liver such a sort of people from their fear of the commandment, 
 as endeavour to persuade impenitent offenders not to fear the sen- 
 tence of the church. For as the guilt of stealing is aggravated 
 by being contracted against the authority of the eighth command- 
 ment, so the guilt of impenitence is heightened by a continuance 
 in it against that authority in the church, which is as truly founded 
 by God to prevent the growth of sin, as the eighth command- 
 ment was given by God to prevent stealing. So that he who 
 teaches offenders to disregard this sentence, which is authorized 
 by God to awaken and terrify them into repentance, does the 
 same as if he should teach thieves to disregard the eighth com. 
 mandmenr, which was 'given by God to affright people frora 
 Stealing. 
 
 If it should be here objected, that there is a very great differ- 
 ence betwixt the duty we owe to the eighth commandment, and 
 our duty to the sentence of the church ; because the command.
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley* 419 
 
 men! is always right and the same, whereas the church may err in 
 its sentence: 
 
 To this it may be answered, that granting all this, that the 
 church may sometimes err in its sentence; yet if it is ever in 
 the ricrht, if it ever can he a fault, or dangerous for sinners not 
 to suhmit to, and be corrected by it, this will condemn your doc- 
 trine, which sets it cut constantly, and in all circumstances, as a 
 dream and trifle, and without any effect. 
 
 Secondly ; here is no room left for you to plead the uncertainty 
 of the church's sentence in regard to the certainty of the com- 
 mandment, because you directly sec forth your doctrine in a case 
 (that of the incestuous Corinthian) where all was right and jusf, 
 and yet declare that in that case it was without any effects ; and 
 that if the incestuous Corinthian had continued impenitent under 
 it, and disregarded it as long as he had lived, it had signified no 
 more to him than if it had never been pronounced. And in thia 
 case, my lord, and upon this supposition, that the authority judges 
 and condemns such sinners as it ought to do, it is as abominable 
 to tell such that they have nothing to fear fioin the judgment of 
 the church, as to tell a thief that he has nothing to fear from 
 the eighth commandment. And I here challenge all the reason 
 which ever appeared against the doctiines of Christianity, to shew 
 me why it is not as agreeable to the Scripture to declare, that if 
 a thief lives and dies in his sins of stealing, that he has nothing to 
 fear from the eighth commandment ; as to declare that an impenitent 
 offender, though justly censured by the authoriry of the church, has 
 nothing to fear from such a censure, though he lives and dies in the 
 contempt of it. 
 
 Thirdly and lastly ; though the church may sometimes err in 
 its authority, and the commandment is always right; yet your 
 doctrine makes it as reasonable to declare the commandment with- 
 out any effect, as to declare the sentence of the church to bs 
 without any effect. For you do not say that excommunication 
 is a trifle without any effect, because it is a sentence which may 
 sometimes be wrong; but because, though we should displease 
 God under the sentence of the church, yec that displeasure would 
 not have been occasioned by the sentence, but by our behaviour 
 alone. And this doctrine plainly makes all the commandments 
 as mere trifles, and void of all effect, as it makes the sentence of 
 the church so. For it is as true in your sense, and you are as 
 much obliged to say> that if we sin against the commandments, 
 
 VOL. i. G g
 
 450 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley, 
 
 and incur the displeasure of God, that it is not the commandments, 
 but our behaviour alone which causes it : and so the command- 
 ments of God have no more to do with the favour of God, b\it 
 are as mere dreams without any effect, as the human excommuni- 
 cations you have so much exposed. This, my lord, is a very com- 
 pendious confutation both of the Law and the Gospel ; and is a 
 good reason why so many of those who have no regard for either, 
 but think zeal in religion a meanness of spirit, are yet great zealots 
 for your , lordship's opinions. 
 
 Of Church Authority, as it relates to external 
 
 inuriwn. 
 
 Ja. OUR lordship says, " I know of no church authority to 
 oblige Christians to external communion, nor any thing to 
 determine them but their own consciences*." But to shew your 
 desire to be informed, your lordship frequently calls upon the 
 Earned committee to declare what the authority of the church is. 
 It is something strange that you should have been so long writing 
 <k>wn the authority of the church, and yet not know what is meant 
 by church authority ; that you should take so much pains to oppose 
 (as you say) only absolute authority, and yet not know whether 
 there be any else, or what authority you have left in the church. 
 It is yet something stranger that a bishop of the church should 
 be frightening the laity from a kind of church authority which is 
 not claimed over them, and yet be at the same time pretendedly 
 ignorant of what sort of church authority they are under. Here 
 you have been preaching against that which they are not con- 
 cerned with ; but when you should tell them wh-it kind of autho- 
 rity they are concerned with, you have not one word of instruc- 
 tion ; but call upon the cammittee to declare whether there be any 
 such thing as chui eh. authority which is not absolute. My lord, if 
 there be not, to what purpose have yoa so often taken refuge in 
 the word absolute ? Or where is the honesty or reason qf saying 
 you have not denied all authority, but only that which is absolute, 
 
 * Aaswer to Repr. p, 1 13,
 
 Mr. Lavfs third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 451 
 
 if you believe there is no authority but what is absolute ? If there- 
 fore your lordship has made this distinction with any degree of 
 sincerity ; if you intended any thing more by it than an artful 
 playing with words, it plainly lies at your door to shew what au- 
 thority you have not touched ; and that in opposing that which 
 is absolute, you neither have, nor intended to oppose all autho- 
 rity and jurisdiction in matters of religion. But instead of this, 
 if the learned committee should explain to your lordship what 
 that authority is which is not absolute, you only venture so far as 
 to say, ' that if there is any such authority, you are, for ought 
 that you have said, at liberty to declare for it *." Mighty cauti- 
 ously expressed, my lord ! Had a courtier, who rather intends to 
 amuse than inform, and -talk artfully than sincerely, delivered him- 
 self in such inconclusive terms, it had not been much matter ekhef" 
 of wonder or complaint. But for a bishop, who makes sincerity 
 to be of more worth than all the Christian religion ; for this bi- 
 shop, in a cause which he declares himself ready to die in ; in 
 Such a cause as is of the last consequence to us all, as men, Ghris-*. 
 dans, and Protestants ; for this bishop to say, if there be such an 
 authority, instead of declaring whether there is or not ; and to 
 say, " he is at liberty to declare for it," instead of plainly saying 
 whether he ought or not ; however consistent it may be with 
 sincerity, I am sure it has too much the appearance of the 1 
 contrary. 
 
 For seeing you are charged with denying all authority in the 
 church, if you consulted plainness and sincerity, if you regarded 
 the information of the vulgar, and the peace of the church, which 
 way could these considerations lead you to defend yourself; but 
 either to shew that there was a real authority in the church,- which 
 you had not opposed ; or else plainly to own that you had denied 
 all authority, because all authority of every kind is to be denied? 
 But instead of declaring yourself openly and plainly for the sake 
 of truth, peace, and sincerity, you- take refuge in words, and 
 secure yourself behind a cloud of properlys and absolutelys, to 
 the disturbance of honest min^s, and to the satisfaction of the 
 prophane. 
 
 Since your lordship calls out so often to be told what that au- 
 thority is which obliges us to external communion, I shall beg 
 leave to offer these following considerations upon this head, anil 
 
 Answer to Repr. p. *}. 
 Cg 2
 
 45 Z J/r. Laic's third Letter to Bishop lloadley. 
 
 hope they will sufficiently both assert and explain that church au-' 
 thority or obligation which we are all under to join in external 
 communion. 
 
 Your lordship says, " I know of no church authority to ohlige 
 any Christians to external communion ; nor any thing to deter- 
 mine them, hut their own consciences *." I shall therefore beg 
 leave to observe to your lordship what authority there is to oblige 
 all Christians to external communion ; and to shew, that they are 
 no more left at liberty in this matter, than they are at liberty to steal 
 or murder. 
 
 I suppose it is not proper or true, to say, that you know of no 
 authority to oblige any Christians, or any thing to keep them from 
 the practice of stealing, but their own consciences, because there is 
 the express authority of God against this practice. Now if ic 
 would be improper and false to say this, because the authority of 
 God has so plainly appeared in it ; I shall- easily prove, that it 
 is as false and improper to say, that we have " nothing but our 
 consciences to determine us" in the case of external communion, 
 since the authority of God is as express in obliging us to this exter- 
 nal communion, as in requiring us to be just and honest in all our 
 dealings. 
 
 I desire no more to be granted me here, than that it is necessary 
 to be a Christian, a-nd that we are called upon by the autho- 
 rity of God to embrace this religion as necessary to salvation. This, 
 my lord, is the express dectrine of the Scriptures; so that I hope 
 I may presume upon it, as granted by your lordship, that there is an 
 authority to oblige people to be Christians, and that this authority, 
 wakes it a 1 - necessary, that they should be Christians, as it is neces- 
 sary to obey God, and to conform to his will. 
 
 1'irsr, If Christianity be a method of life necessary to salvation, 
 then are we necessarily obliged to external communion ; for we 
 can no other way appear to be Christians either to ourselves or 
 Qihers, but by this external communion. A person who lives in 
 acloyster, may as well be taken for a field general, as he who is- 
 not in external communion, for a Christian. For the Christian 
 religion is a method of worship distinct from all others, in those 
 offices and duties 'which constitute external communion ; so that 
 if you are so far obliged to be a Christian, as to serve God difV 
 fcvently from other people, you are obliged to external com-
 
 Mr. Lav's third Letter 'to Bishop Hoadley. *53 
 
 .reunion, because that service which distinguishes the Christian 
 worshipper from all other people, is such a service as cannot be 
 performed but in an external communion in such and such offices, 
 vjz. professions of faith, joint prayers, and the observance of the 
 sacraments. External communion is only another word for the 
 profession of Christianity, because the several duties and obliga- 
 tions which concern any one as a Christian, and distinguish him 
 from other people, are duties which as neces>ari!y imply external 
 communion, as walking implies motion. Therefore to ask whe- 
 ther a Christian he obliged to external communion, is to ask whe- 
 ther a person who is obliged to walk, be obliged to move. 
 
 The short is this : no man can be a Christian, but by taking 
 upon him the profession of Christianity ; the profession of Chris- 
 tianity is nothing else but external communion with Christians; 
 therefore it is as necessary to be in external communion, as to be 
 .a Christian. 
 
 I hope I need not prove to your lordship, that there is an au- 
 thority to oblige people to the profession of Christianity ; intending 
 here only to prove, that the same authority obliges us to external 
 communion. 
 
 Had your lordship therefore declared to the world, that you 
 know of no authority to oblige people to be Chrisiians, it had 
 been as innocent and true a declaration as this you have made 
 concerning external communion ; there being plainly the same 
 authority obliging us to the one, as to the other. For, my lord, 
 what is implied in external communion, but our communicating 
 with our fellow Christians in those acts of worship and divine 
 service which Christianity, requires of iis ? And what marks or 
 tokens can we shew of our Christianity, but that we are of the 
 number of those who are -baptized into Christ's church for the 
 joint worship of God in that particular service which the Christian 
 reiigion has taught us ? So that if we prove ourselves Christians, 
 we must prove ourselves in mis external communion, because to 
 be a Chiisiian implies no more, than the being of the number 
 of those who visibly unite and join in such acts and pffices of di. 
 vine worship as are proper to Christians. If therefore there be 
 no authority to oblige us to external communion, then no one is 
 obliged to be a Christian. 
 
 Secondly, If there be no authority ^ oblige, or any thing to 
 determine Christians to external communion but their own con-: 
 Sciences, then it is plain, u is \ja> lawful for all Christians to .be
 
 Mr. Law's third \Lettey.to Bishop Hoadley, 
 
 their own priests, and confine themselves to a private worship se- 
 parate from every Christian in the world, as to join in external 
 communion. For where there is no authority or obligation to 
 determine our practice, there the thing must needs be indifferent; 
 and to do it or let it alone, must be equally lawful, If there was 
 no authority which obliged us to be baptized, it would not only 
 be lawful to let it alone, but idle to trouble our heads about it. 
 Th.e same is true of this external communion; if we are under 
 no law concerning it, it is no part of our duty either to do it, or 
 let it alone. 
 
 It cannot here be said, that though we are not obliged to ex- 
 ternal communion with this or that church, yet we ought to join 
 with some particular persons, and not worship God constantly by 
 pui selves, and pei form no offices with other people. For if we 
 are obliged to communicate with any one person in the world, we 
 are to hold communion with the whole church of Christ, For 
 we are not obliged to communicate with this or that particular 
 person on account of any civil or natural relation, but as \ve are 
 Christians, and from the common nature of our Christianity. 
 Since therefore our obligation to communicate with any particular 
 persons d es not ai ~i se frm any private particular relation, but 
 from the common nature of our religion; this does equally oblige 
 us to hold communion with all Christians, as with any particular 
 Christians, they being all equally related to us as Christians ; and 
 consequently it is as necessary to hold communion with the external 
 visible church, as with any particular Christian. From this also 
 it i$ plain, that it is as lawful to avoid communion with every 
 particular Christian in the world, as to refuse communion with any 
 goynd part of the church on earth. 
 
 I beg of your lordship to produce but one argument why any 
 two or three should meet together for the service of God, which 
 will not equally prove it necessary that Christians should join in 
 external communion. May h all be laid aside, my lord ? Need 
 there be no more of this assembling ourselves together for the 
 performing of duties, which we thought we could not perform 
 separately ? 
 
 I have shewn in my second letter, that your lordship cannot, 
 consistently with your principles, urge any reasons to any Dissen* 
 teis to come over to, the church of England ; and here, my lord, 
 it will appear, that you have not one argument against the ab- 
 senters from all public worship. For it would be as odd and un*
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadky. 455 
 
 reasonable in your lordship to offer any argument to such an ab- 
 senter, why he should join in some public worship, after you have 
 denied any authority which obliges us to external communion, as 
 it would be for an Atheist who had denied the necessity of any re- 
 ligion, to persuade a man to be a sincere Mahometan. 
 
 If your lordship should tell this absenter from all communions, 
 that he ought to join with some community or other in the wor- 
 ship of God ; might he not fairly ask your lordship, how you 
 came to tell the world, that you " know of no authority to oblige 
 any Christians, or any thing to determine them to external com- 
 munion?" Can any one be obliged to join in divine service, who 
 is not obliged to external communion ? Could any one imagine, 
 that if he was not obliged to join in external communion, that it 
 was not lawful to stay at home ? Could he think, that when your 
 lordship was declaring against any obligation to church commu- 
 nion, that you meant he ought to join himself with some of the 
 Dissenters ? Had your lordship plainly declared, that no Christian 
 need read any book in the world, could you, consistently with 
 yourself, offer any arguments why he should read the Bible? Yet 
 this is as consistent as to desire any person to communicate with 
 any body of Christians, after you have plainly disowned any obli- 
 gation to external communion. 
 
 For whatever arguments your lordship can offer to an absenter 
 from all public worship, may be answ'ered in this manner. 
 " Either your arguments for my joining with any Christians, 
 are invented by yourself, and of your own making, or they are 
 not; if they are fictions of your lordship's, and destitute of any 
 foundation in the will or authority of God, then they are vain 
 and to no purpose ; but that all such arguments are mere fictions 
 and inventions of your own, is plain from your lordship's ex- 
 press declaration, that you " knew of no authority, or any 
 thing to oblige or determine Christians to external communion," 
 so that all the arguments you can offer for my external commu- 
 nion are declared by yourself to be such as are of no authority, 
 or have any thing in them to determine me to external com- 
 munion." 
 
 And indeed had your lordship first declared, that there was no 
 such thing as figure in bodies, and then pretended to prove that 
 the world is round, it would be no more miraculous, -han first to 
 give out, that no Christians are obliged to external communion, 
 and afterwards take upon you to persuade any one to join Jiimse.f
 
 456 Mr. Laii?s third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 to sorre body of Chris ians. Here therefore your lordship has so 
 preached up and advanced this kingdom of Christ, that consistently 
 with yourself, you cannot so much as requiie any one to be a 
 visible member of it, or offer the least shadow of an argument 
 why an a 1 senter should rather go to some church, than trust to his 
 own religion at home. Your lordship writ a treatise some years 
 ago, on the " Reasonableness ef Conformity to the Church of 
 England." But pray, my lord, where is the reasonableness of 
 conforming, if we are under no obligation to conform ? Where 
 is the reasonableness of doing that, which is not our duty to do ? 
 Where can be the reasonableness of going two or three miles to 
 church for the sake of external communion, if there be " no au- 
 thority, or any thing to determine us to external communion ?" 
 Can it be reasonable to spend our time, and some part of our 
 wealth, in making up such meetings, as God has not required at 
 our hands ? 
 
 Your lordship must therefore either retract what you have said, 
 and allow thac there is an authority to oblige us to external com- 
 munion, or acknowledge that no Christians are tinder any obli- 
 gations to serve God in any communion, but may confine them- 
 selves to a private religion, separate from every other Christian in 
 the world. That is, that no one is obliged to worship God in 
 the public assembly, or join with any one else in the service of 
 God. 
 
 Thirdly ; If there be no authority to oblige us to external com- 
 munion, then it may well be questioned how your lordship can 
 answer for your joining in external communion in the church of 
 England. Your lordship knows, that the communion of the 
 church of England gives great offence to the Papist and Protestant 
 Dissenters of all kinds ; how then can your lordship justify your 
 doing that which you need not do, which gives so much scandal 
 to so many tender consciences ? 
 
 Will your lordship be of a church, though it is this very church 
 communion that is so very offensive ? Your lordship knows that 
 the animosities and church divisions amongst Christians is one of 
 the most sore evils under the sun ; that all the party heats and 
 controversies is concerning whom we are to communicate with, 
 and in defence of |a:.iculiir external communions, Now, my 
 lord, what should thai Christian do who is all sincerity, who be- 
 lieves there is no obligation to external communion, and who sees 
 thai the pretended necessity of it, causes all the dirrerence and
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop llcadlcy. 57 
 
 division amongst Christians? Can that sincere person who believes 
 and knows all this, keep at the head of a particular communion ? 
 Can he support so unnecessary, so needless an evil ? Can that sin. 
 cere person be a bishop in that communion, which stands distin- 
 guished from other external communions, chiefly as it is episcopal 
 communion, when he allows there is no necessity of being in 
 communion either with bishops or any body else ? Could that 
 pope be reckoned sincere who should declare that he knew of no 
 authority, or any thing to determine him to exercise the papal 
 powers? Could he be a sincere Christian, if he yet continued to 
 exercise them to the scandal and offence of so many Christian 
 countries ? If he could, so might your lordship for continuing at 
 the head of an external communion, which divides and disturbs 
 Christians, though you know of no authority to oblige, or any 
 thing to determine you to this external communion. 
 
 Surely your lordship will have more compassion at last for your 
 dissenting brethren, more concern for the peace of Christ's king- 
 dom, than to keep up such unnecessary communions, and disturb 
 so many weak consciences by joining externally in the church of 
 England, when you know of no authority or any thing to oblige 
 you to join with any body. 
 
 Suppose the peace of Great-Britain was miserably destroyed by 
 party rage and dispute about the stars. Weuld your lordship 
 head one party of star-gazers against another? Would you join 
 yourself to such a vain and useless cause at the expence of the 
 public peace? Now, my lord, if there be nothing to oblige us to 
 external communion, it is all a trifle, and mere star-gazing; ami 
 a person who appears in the cause and at the head of this external 
 communion, can be no more a friend to Christianity, by keeping 
 up such an unnecessary cause of division, than he could be a good 
 subject, who should join in the needless idle quarrels of star-gazing 
 party-men. In a word, if your lordship knows of any thing that 
 obliges you to continue in the church of England, you ought not 
 to have said that you '* knew of no authority to oblige, or any 
 thing to determine any Christian to external communion:" but if 
 you know of nothing that obliges you to continue in the church 
 of England, then you ought rather to leave it, than to bear a part 
 in so needlsss a community, and which gives so much offence to 
 all those who dislike the terms of it. 
 
 Fourthly, If there be no authority to oblige us to external 
 communion, how comes there to be such a sin as schism ? How
 
 458 Mr, Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoeidley. 
 
 comes the schismatic, or divider of communions, to be so fre- 
 quently in the Scriptures ranked amongst the most guilty of- 
 fenders ? 
 
 Can it be a sin to be divided, unless we are under some obliga- 
 tion to be united? 
 
 It has been always granted, that schism is the separation of 
 ourselves from such a communion of Christians as we ought to 
 have held communion with. Now if separate worship from any 
 Christians in the world be the sin of schism, then there must be 
 some law that obliges those schismatics .to join with those Chris- 
 tians, from whom they separate, and consequently there is an au- 
 thority which obliges Christians to external communion. 
 
 Your lordship must either shew that schism does not consist in 
 refusing to communicate with some Christians, or that though it 
 be the damnable sin of schism to refuse communion with some 
 Christians, yet there is no authority to oblige us to external com- 
 munion with any Christians ; i. c. that though schism be a sin, yet 
 it is the transgression of no law. 
 
 The Apostle says, " Mark those who cause divisions contrary 
 " to the traditions which ye have learned of me, and avoid them." 
 My lord, what strange language is this, if there is nothing to 
 oblige us to external communion ? If there is no obligation to 
 be united, why must they be marked who cause divisions ? If 
 there be no authority that requires external communion at our 
 hands, why must those persons be avoided who prevent external 
 communion ? 
 
 Either the Apostle or your lordship must be mightily mistaken ; 
 the Apostle tells us that divisions in the church are contrary to the 
 doctrine which he had taught, and therefore there is the express 
 authority of the Apostle to oblige us to external communion. But 
 your lordship says there is no authority to oblige us to this duty, 
 therefore you must either maintain that the Apostle taught no such 
 doctrine, though he said he had, or that there is no authority inliis 
 doctrine to oblige us. 
 
 I suppose, my lord, that the Apostle by divisions here means 
 external visible divisions, because he bids them mark those who 
 cause them, and avoid them ; fur invisible internal divisions can 
 no more be marked, or invisible schismatics avoided, than we can 
 mark people's thoughts, or lock out a spirit. If therefore the 
 division here spoken of be external division, then the sin here con- 
 demncd ' 'Breach of external communion, and consequently we
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 459 
 
 are here required by the Apostle to join in external communion ; 
 unless we can suppose that the Apostle could condemn those who 
 were externally divided, without meaning that they ought to be 
 externally united. 
 
 Fifthly ; If there be no authority to oblige us to external com- 
 munion, then there is no authority to oblige us to be baptized. 
 For baptism is an external visible ordinance of God, which as 
 plainly implies external communion with others, as any contract 
 in the world implies correspondence with others. And any per- 
 son might as well be obliged to bargain and merchandize with 
 others, without being obliged to be concerned with others, as be 
 obliged to be baptized, without being obliged to external com- 
 munion. 
 
 For as we cannot baptize ourselves, this shews that the Chris- 
 tian religion is not suited to the state of single independent per- 
 sons, but requires our external communion to the performance of 
 its obligations. And as we cannot be baptized by others, but by 
 resigning up ourselves to the observance of new laws, this plainly 
 proves that the person is baptized into a state of society and ex- 
 ternal communion. That baptism does not leave the baptized 
 person to a separate independent worship, is very plain from the 
 following instances. 
 
 The church of England, in the office for baptism, thus ex- 
 presses herself: " We receive this person into the congregation of 
 " Christ's flock," ore. Again, * Seeing now this person is 
 " regenerated and grafted into the body of Christ's church, &c." 
 I should think it very plain, my lord, to every reader, that these 
 passages shew that baptism necessarily implies external communion, 
 and puts it out of the power of every baptized person to refuse 
 external communion, unless he will break through the conditions 
 of his baptism. For can we be " received into the congregation 
 " of Christ's flock," without being obliged to keep up this con- 
 gregation, or to perform any duties or offices considered as a con- 
 gregation or flock ? Can we, in any sense, be considered as a con- 
 gregation, or a flock, but in our communion in those offices, which 
 shew us to be Christ's flock ? Can we be said to be grafted into 
 " the body of Christ's church," if we are at liberty never to meet 
 as a church, or act as a church ? 
 
 The Apostle says, for " by one spirit we are all baptized intp 
 ** pne body *.'* What can more manifestly denote external com* 
 
 * I Cor. xii. 13.
 
 t 4jO Mr. Law's third Letter to JBis/iop, Tfoadky. 
 
 muniop, than this account of baptism ? Can we be baptized into 
 . one body, and. not be obliged to act as a body ? Can we act as a 
 .body, by running away from one another, and refusing to unite 
 in that service, into which we are baptized ? I suppose we are 
 here to be considered as a Christian body ; but how a number of 
 people can be a Christian body, who are not united in Christian 
 .worship, is hard to conceive. 
 
 When therefore you declare that you know of no authority to 
 oblige Christians to external communion, you desert the doctrines 
 of Christ, as plainly as if you said, that you know of no authority 
 .which obliges people to be baptized. 
 
 Sixthly, If there be no authority to oblige, nor any thing to 
 determine us to external communion, then there is no authority 
 to ,oblige, or any thing to determine us to communicate in the 
 blessed sacrament of the body nnd blood of Christ. For if there 
 . is any law which obliges us to join externally in the observance 
 of this institution, then it is out of all douht, that we are obliged 
 to external communion. Now if you will say that there is no 
 law of God as to this matrer, then the thing itself must needs be 
 indifferent, and private mass must be allowed to be as right and 
 lawful, as a joint communion in the holy sacrament. Either 
 therefore you must defend private mass, or shew some authority 
 against it ; if you can produce any authority against it, then you 
 -produce an authority for external communion, and contradict your 
 other declaration, where you give out' that you do not know of 
 .any thing to determine u to external communion. 
 
 From all this it plainly appears what kind of authority that is, 
 which obliges us to external communion ; it is that same authority 
 'which obliges us to be baptized, to receive the communion, to 
 profess the same faith, to worship God in the public assemblies, 
 and to avoid the sin of schism ; or, in a word, that same authority 
 which obliges us to be Christians. 
 
 For all the offices of Christian worship and devotion which 
 constitute external communion, ase every one expressly required 
 by God ; and therefore external communion, which consists only 
 of these offices, is equally required by God. 
 
 And this authority may be very justly called church authority, 
 because it arises from the very nature of the church, because it is 
 the institution of tiie churcli, from whence this obligation to com. 
 munion ariseth. F'or Christ has instituted this church in order to 
 oblige mankind to enter into it for the salvation of their souls :
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadky. 461 
 
 as the church therefore is instituted for this end, the existence of 
 the church lays an obligation upon all who have any opportunity 
 of entering into it ; and this obligation will last as long as the 
 church of Christ shall last. The short is this; God has insti- 
 tuted an order or society of people, for the particular manner of 
 serving and worshipping him ; this society is not a voluntary one, 
 which we may be members of, or not, as we please; but it 
 carries in its very nature and institution an authority obliging usi 
 all, as we hope for happiness, to be members of it ; we are* 
 oblijzed to be of the church, because Christ has instituted, the 
 
 o 
 
 church ; therefore it is the insmmion of the church, which lays 
 us under an obligation of entering into it ; and this, and no other, 
 is ;hat church authority which obliges all people to external com- 
 munion. 
 
 Farther ; This may be very properlv called church authority," 
 because it was in the church, or that order of men, which Chrht 
 had instituted, before the Scriptures were written. 
 
 When there was only this order of men, before the writings 
 of the New Testament weie in being, there was then this au- 
 thority arising from that insrituted order of men, which obliged 
 others to enter into communion with them ; therefore this av- 
 thority which began with the existence of the church, and flowed 
 from the very nature of the church, may very justly be called 
 church authority. 
 
 If it should be asked whether this authority he absolute ; I 
 answer, it is just as absolute as that authority which obliges us to 
 be baptized. Our Saviour has told us, that *' if we are not bap- 
 ' tized, we shall be damned:" here therefore is an authority for 
 baptism ; the Scripture has not said whether this be so absolutely 
 obliging, that there is no room in any case for a dispensation ; 
 therefore it is no case which concerns us. Now the authority 
 which obliges us to external communion, is just upon the same 
 terms ; the thing is as plainly required as baptism ; hut whether 
 in any cases it will be dispensed with, is what we have nothing to 
 do wich. If there be any' sincerity, any weakness, any igno- 
 rance, or the want of any thing which will excuse those who 
 refuse to be baptized, those same considerations may excuse the 
 refusal of external communion wirh the church. 
 
 This, my lord, is the nature of that church authority, which 
 obliges to external communion; it is that very same authority 
 which obliges us to the profession of Christianity, or to enter intw
 
 46$- Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Ho&dley. 
 
 covenant with God. For he who is in external communion with 
 the church of Christ, is of the church of Christ, or in covenant 
 with God ; and he who is not in external communion, is not of 
 the church of Christ, nor in covenant with God ; and conse- 
 quently it is that same authority which obliges us to be Chris, 
 tians, or in covenant with God, which obliges us to external 
 communion. 
 
 So that when you say, you " know of no church authority to 
 oblige, or any thing to determine people to external communion," 
 it is directly saying that you know of no church authority to 
 oblige, or any thing to determine them to the profession of Chris- 
 tianity, or to enter into covenant with God. 
 
 If your lordship should here say, that you only meant, you 
 know of no human authority to oblige people to external com- 
 munion, &c. 
 
 To this it may be answered, that you might as well have meant 
 nothing at all by it, as have meant this. For, 
 
 First, suppose the question had been, whether there be any 
 authority, or what authority it is, which obliges people to be 
 baptized ; and that in order to settle this point, you had here 
 declared, that " you know of no church authority to oblige, or 
 any thing to determine them to be baptized, but their own con- 
 sciences ;" 
 
 Could it be thought, my lord, after this, that you had not 
 denied all authority for baptism ? Could it be supposed, that by 
 this declaration, you only meant to deny, that the authority which 
 obliges us to be baptized, is human or civil authority ? Could 
 any one who only meant thus much express himself in this 
 manner ? 
 
 Yet thus it is that you have expressed yourself in the dispute 
 concerning our obligations to jCxternal communion, you know of 
 no church authority to oblige, or any thing to determine people to 
 it ; which makes it equally absurd to suppose, that you only deny 
 that our obligation to external communion arises from any human 
 or civil authority. 
 
 Secondly ; If you only meant to deny an human or civil autho- 
 rity in this matter, how came you not to say so ? How came you 
 not to tell us what divine or Scripture authority there is to oblige 
 us ? Is it not as proper and as necessary in a dispute about this au- 
 thority, to declare the true and right authority, as to protest against 
 the wrong authority ? But indeed nothing can be more trifling: 
 
 1
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadky, 46$ 
 
 than to say, that you have only denied any human or civil autho- 
 rity in this matter. 
 
 For, my lord, who ever imagined that our obligations to profess 
 Chiistianity, that is, to be members of Christ's church, could pro- 
 ceed from any human authority ? Human authority may and ought 
 to encourage us in the practice of our Christian duties ; but that 
 our obligation to serve God as Christians, that is, in the external 
 communion of the church, should arise from any human authority, 
 can be supposed by none, but those who imagine Christianity to 
 be a creature of the state. 
 
 Thirdly, You not only say that you " know of no church au- 
 thority to oblige," but also add these words, " nor any thing to 
 determine people to external communion, but their own con- 
 sciences." 
 
 Now, my lord, if you only meant to deny a human authority 
 in this matter ; if you intended to.own a divine authority to oblige 
 us to external communion ? how come you to express yourself 
 thus contrary to your meaning ; For if you believe there is a Scrip- 
 ture or divine authority which obliges us to external communion, 
 .surely this authority is something, and has some right to deter- 
 mine us to external communion ; yet you expressly say that you 
 do not know of any thing to determine Christians to external 
 communion. 
 
 If it was asked whether Christians are obliged to pray for their 
 enemies, and you should answer, I do not know any thing to 
 determine them to pray for their enemies ; would it not be non- 
 sense and contradiction after this declaration, to suppose that you 
 acknowledge that the Scriptures require Christians to pray for 
 their enemies ? 
 
 But to suppose that you acknowledge a divine or Scripture au- 
 thority which obliges to external communion, after you have ex 
 pressly declared that you do not know of any thing to determine 
 us to external communion, is equally contradictory. 
 
 Lastly ; you say you do not know of any thing to determine 
 Christians to external communion, hut their own consciences : 
 
 Now this farther shews that you deny all divine as well as hu- 
 man authority to determine us to external communion. For if 
 there was a divine law which required this practice, we are no 
 more left solely to our own consciences in this practice, than if it 
 Was determined by an express human law. For,
 
 464 Mr* Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadky. 
 
 Can it be said that the Jews had n6thing hut their own con- 
 sciences to determine them to abstain from blood ? Can it be said 
 that Christians have nothing but their own consciences to deter- 
 mine them to receive the holy sacrament ? If this cannot be said 
 because there is a divine law In both these cases, then it is as false 
 and absurd to say, that there is nothing but our own consciences to 
 determine us to external communion, if there be a divine autho- 
 rity which requires this practice. And consequently you have 
 plainly denied all divine or scripture authority for external com- 
 munion, when you say that you do not know of any thing to de- 
 termine people to external communion, but their own consciences. 
 The short is this ; if you will say that you own a divine and scrip- 
 ture authority which obliges us to external communion, and if 
 you will allow this authority to be something, then your contra- 
 diction in this matter is as palpable and gross as ever appeared, io 
 any writings ; for you have expressly said, that you do not know 
 of any thing to determine us to external communion : but if you 
 own a scripture authority that obliges us to external communion, 
 then your contradiction proceeds thus, that you do know of some- 
 thing, bnt you do not know of any thing to determine us to ex- 
 ternal communion. If you will not asseit both parts of this con- 
 tradiction, then you must stand to that which you have asserted, 
 viz. that you do not know of any thing to determine us to exter. 
 hal communion, which I have already shewn is the same thing as 
 declaring you know of no authority, or any thing to determine 
 people to profess Christianity, or enter into covenant with God. 
 But to proceed, 
 
 If you should say that you do not deny an authority that 
 obliges us to external communion in general, but only an au- 
 thority that can oblige us to any particular external communion : 
 
 To this I answer, that this is a groundless, false distinction ; 
 for our obligation to external communion with the church of 
 Christ in general, and our obligation to external communion with 
 this or that particular church, is exactly one and the sam ob- 
 ligation. 
 
 For we are not obliged to join with this or that particular 
 church for any private, particular reasons, but because we are 
 obliged to be Christians, or of the church of Christ. And as no 
 sound part of Christ's church is more his church than anotheor 
 sound part, so if we separate from any sound part, we are as truly
 
 . Law's third Letter to Pishop Hoadley. 465 
 
 out of Christ's church as if we hail separated from every parr. 
 And we can give no reasons for separating from such a part* but 
 such as will equally justify our separating from every part cf 
 Christ's church ; and consequently there can be no reasons offered 
 why we should be Christians, or of the church of Christ, but 
 will equally oblige us to enter into that particular part of Chris's 
 church which offers itself to us. For the whole intent of entering 
 into this or that particular church, is only to be a Christ : an, or of 
 the church of Christ, and therefore it must be one and the same 
 authority which obliges us to be Christians, that obliges us also to 
 be of any particular church. 
 
 There is a Scripture authority which obliges us to forgive our 
 enemies : now it would be as proper to say, that though there is 
 an authority which obliges us to forgive our enemies in general, 
 yet that authority does not oblige us to forgive our particular 
 enemies, as to say, that though we are obliged to be of the church 
 of Christ in general, yet we are not obliged to be of this or that 
 particular pare of Christ's church. 
 
 For the church of Christ in general as truly consists of these 
 particular parts, as our enemies in general consist of our particular 
 enemies. 
 
 So that as it is one and the same authority which obliges us to 
 forgive our enemies that obliges us to forgive our particular ene- 
 mies, so it is one and the same authority that obliges us to be 
 Christians, that obliges us also to communicate with that particular 
 sound part of Christ's church where we live. 
 
 There is therefore no room for this distinction, to sup 
 dial though we may be obliged to be of Christ's church, yet we HI. 
 not obliged to be of this or that particular sound parr of Ch istV 
 church; it being fully as absurd as to suppose that we may he- 
 obliged to be Christians, and yet not be obliged to be Chnstiaus. 
 
 When therefore you declare, that you know of no church au 
 thority to oblige, or any thing to determine us to external com- 
 munion, it will be to no purpose (o say, that you do not mean 
 communion with the church of Christ in general, but only with 
 any particular part of Christ's churchy for I have shewn, that this 
 distinction is false, and fully as absurd, as to imagine that we may 
 be obliged to obey Christ's commands in general, but not be obliged 
 to obey bis particular commands, 
 
 FVom what has been said upon this subject, these following pro- 
 positions are plainly true : 
 VOL. i. Hh
 
 466 Mr, Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 First; that as our entering into any particular part of the 
 church, implies our entering into the church of Christ, or irt 
 other words, our embracing Christianity, it evidently follows, that 
 the same authority which requires us to embrace Christianity, re- 
 quires us also to enter into that sound part of Christ's church where 
 we live. 
 
 Secondly ; that this authority does not arise from any human 
 laws, or the power which any men in what station soever have over 
 others, but is the authority of God, who has instituted this church, 
 in order to oblige all mankind to enter into it. 
 
 Thirdly ; that this authority from God may be very properly 
 called church authority, because God manifested this authority to 
 the world by the institution of the church, because it began with 
 the church, and flowed from its very nature ; mankind being there- 
 fore obliged to enter into this church, because there was such a 
 church instituted by God. 
 
 Fourthly ; that this account does not in the least make it either 
 unjust or improper, in our spiritual or temporal governors, to make 
 Jaws for our conformity to this or that part of Christ's church ; for 
 though the authority which makes it necessary that we should enter 
 into such a part of Christ's church is from God, yet this no more 
 excludes our governors from requiring the same thing by their laws, 
 than they are excluded from requiring us to observe any moral 
 duties, because the same moral duties are made necessary by the 
 authority of God. And as our violation of any moral duties that 
 are commanded, both by divine and human laws, receives an higher 
 aggravation, so the guilt of opposing any sound part of Christ's 
 church is enhanced by our breaking through the laws both of God 
 and man. 
 
 Fifthly ; from this account of the authority which obliges us 
 to external communion, it will be very easy to discover the weak- 
 ness and fallacy of several of your lordship's arguments upon this 
 
 Thus when you say, " It is evident that there is no choice of 
 judgment left to Christians, where there is a superior authority 
 'to oblige them; that in Italy, or Spain, or France, they are as 
 much obliged by the church authority in Italy, Spain, or France, 
 as Christians in England are obliged to a particular external 
 communion in England, by any human authority as such in, 
 England*.' 1 
 
 * Answer to Ilepr. p. iij.
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 467' 
 
 Now, my lord, what could you have thought of less to the pur- 
 pose, than these words thus put together ? For does any one say, 
 that our obligation to be of the church of England arises from, 
 any human authority, as such, in England ? No, my lord, if 
 human authority should not only desert the church, but make the 
 severest laws against it, yet we should be still under the same ne- 
 cessity of communicating with it; because that necessity is inde- 
 pendent of human laws, is founded upon the authority of God 
 and constantly obliges in the same degree, let the laws of the state 
 be what they will. 
 
 Granting therefore, my lord, that the human authority, as such, 
 in France or Spain, obliges the people of those kingdoms to con- 
 form to those churches as truly as the laws of England oblige the 
 people of England to conform to the church of England, what 
 follows ? Docs it follow that therefore the people of France or 
 Spain are as truly obliged to communion with the church in 
 those kingdoms, as the people of England are obliged to com- 
 munion with the church in England ? No, this will by no means 
 follow ; for since we should hold the same necessity of joining 
 with the episcopal church in England, though all the human laws 
 in England should forbid us, since we allow only an accidental 
 and conditional authority in human laws, as they establish any par- 
 ticular religion, it follows that in France and Spain, &cc. they 
 ought to- pay the same regard to human laws, and no more con- 
 tinut in their church because it is established, than we ought to 
 leave our church though it was persecuted. The short is this : 
 
 The church authority which obliges us to external communion 
 with any particular part of Christ's church, is that same divine 
 authority which calls upon us to be baptized, and enter into cove- 
 nant with God. 
 
 Now if human laws, whether of church or state, strike in with 
 this authority, then they oblige us, as they do in other cases, 
 where they require us to do that which the laws of God required 
 before ; but if human laws, whether of church or siace, require 
 us to enter into such a communion as hath not the authority of 
 Christ for it, or forbid our joining with such a communion as 
 is a true part of Christ's church, such laws are no more to be 
 observed, than if they had established idolatry, or forbid the wor- 
 ship of the true God. For human laws are not supposed 10 make 
 it our duty to enter into such a communion, Vat are applied as 
 proper means to induce us to do that which the laws of God had 
 
 Kh2
 
 468 #fr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadky. 
 
 made it our duty to do before. And it is undeniaMy true, that 
 though there should be ever so many human laws to com;-;; 's 
 to enter into any particular communion, that we must n : c= Tri- 
 ply with such laws, unless it be in regard to such a communion as 
 it was our duty to enter into, though no such human laws were in 
 being. 
 
 So that human laws create no necessity of external communion, 
 any more than they create the necessity of praying to God ; but 
 they may be applied as very proper means to induce people to 
 perform the duty of external communion, and to perform the duty 
 of prayer to God. 
 
 The question therefore in any country is not this, whether the 
 laws either of their church or state require us to enter into such a 
 communion, but whether it be such a communion as it would be 
 our duty to enter into, were there no human laws to enjoin it, 
 whether it be a part of Christ's church, which we are obliged to 
 enter into on pain of everlasting damnation. 
 
 When therefore you say, if the people of England are obliged 
 by an human authority, as such, to enter into the church of Eng- 
 land, then the people of France, Spain, and Italy, are as truly 
 obliged by the human authority there to enter into those particular 
 communions; you say exceedingly true, but to no more purpose 
 than if you had made the following declaration. 
 . If the people of England are obliged to enter into communion 
 with the church of England by any military authority, as such, 
 then the people of France, Spain, and Italy, are obliged to com- 
 munion with the churches in Spain, France, and Italy, by the 
 military authority, as such, in Spain, France, and Italy. 
 
 This, my lord, is as much to the purpose as what you have 
 said ; for our obligation to enter into a particular part of Christ's 
 church, is no more founded in any human laws, as such, than in 
 any military authority, as such ; but is founded in the will of 
 God, who has instituted the church on earth, and made our salva- 
 tion depend upsn our entrance into it. This is the authority 
 \yhich obliges, this is the necessity which lies upon us, to enter 
 into any part of Christ's church. 
 
 If therefore you would shew, that in Spaia, or France, &c. 
 they are under the same necessity of being of the church in those 
 kingdoms, which the people of England are of being members 
 of the episcopal church in England; you ought to shew that the 
 established church in Spain, or in France, is as truly a sound
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 469 
 
 part of the church of Christ, as the established church in England 
 is a sound pa 1 1 of the church of Christ ; and that the way of 
 worship (here, is as certainly that necessary method of salvation 
 which Christ has instituted, as the way of worship in the church 
 of England is that necessary method of salvation which Christ has 
 instituted. 
 
 For this is the only authority or necessity which obliges us to 
 enter into any church in any part of the world ; namely, a neces- 
 sity of being Christians, by entering into that church which 
 Christ has instituted ; so that if this same church be in Spain, and 
 France, and England, then there is an equal necessity of being 
 of the church in each kingdom ; but if the church in Spain be 
 not the church which Christ has instituted, and the church in 
 England be that church which Christ has instituted, then there is 
 as great a necessity of refusing to communicate with the church 
 in Spain, as of joining in communion with the church of 
 England. 
 
 This therefore being the nature of the authority or necessity 
 which obliges to external communion, nothing can be more 
 trifling,, than to argue from the necessity of complying with the 
 chuich in one kingdom, to a necessity of complying with the 
 church in all other kingdoms ; unless you could demonstrate, that 
 because the established church in one kingdom is the true church 
 of Christ, therefore the established church in every other kingdom 
 is the true church of Christ, 
 
 Yet your lordship has spent a great many pages in declaiming 
 against any authority or necessity which can oblige people to com- 
 municate with the church of England ; because then there would 
 be the same necessity that the people of Spain, and France, and 
 Italy, should communicate with the church in those kingdoms. 
 But I hope the most ordinary reader will be able to tell your 
 lordship, that there is no more good sense, much less divinity, in 
 this way of instructing the world, than if you had said, there is 
 no necessity that the people of England should believe things 
 which are true, because then the people of Spain will be under 
 the same necessity of believing things which are false; and again, 
 that there is no necessity that in this kingdom we should comply 
 with good laws, because in other kingdoms people will be under 
 the same necessity of complying with wicked laws. 
 
 But to conclude this point ; I have here stated the nature of 
 that authority or necessity which obliges us to external coinmu.
 
 
 4-7O Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Iloadley. 
 
 nion, that it does not arise from the laws of any men, whether 
 in church or state, but from the will and authority of Christ, 
 who has instituted such external communion, as a necessary me- 
 thod of salvation. 
 
 I have shewn also, that human laws, though they, as such, do 
 not create a necessity of external communion, yet they have a 
 very proper significancy, and arc as useful in this matter, as in any 
 other parts of our duty. 
 
 Of Sincerity, and private Judgment. 
 
 JlF you should here say, that hy denying the necessity of external 
 communion to arise from human laws, as such, I have resolved the 
 choice of a particular communion into private judgment ; 
 
 To this I answer, 
 
 First ; that by entering into any particular communion, we are 
 to understand the same thing as entering into the church of Christ, 
 or embracing the religion which Christ has instituted. 
 
 Secondly ; that when Christ came into the world, people were 
 left to their choice whether they would embrace Christianity. 
 
 Thirdly ; that Christianity is still upon the same terms with man- 
 kind, and it is still left to every one's private judgment whether he 
 will comply with the terms of salvation. 
 
 Fourthly ; that this does not destroy the force and obligations 
 of authority, or make it without any effect upon the condition of 
 men. For it does by no means follow, that there is no authority, 
 or that there are no effects to be feared from such authority, be. 
 cause men may disown it if they, please. For to say there is no, 
 thing in authority, that it is insignificant, and without any effect 
 upon the condition of men, if they may use their private judg. 
 inents, is as ridiculous as to say there is nothing in the happiness 
 of heaven, or torments of hell ; that they can have no effect upon 
 the condition of men, because men may judge of these tilings as 
 they please. 
 
 Fifthly j there is a choice of judgment left to us in every part 
 of our duty ; . 
 
 Whether we will believe a God,
 
 "Mr. Lay's third Letter to Bishop Hoadler/. 471 
 
 Whether we will worship him, 
 
 Whether we will believe in Jesus Christ, 
 
 Whether we will acknowledge a world to come, 
 
 Whether we will believe there is such a place as hell. 
 
 And now, my lord, is there no authority for these things, be- 
 cause we are not forced to believe them against our judgments ? 
 Have those who refused to believe in Christ nothing to fear from 
 his authority, because he appealed to their reason, and left them 
 to determine for themselves ? Is there no authority for the tor- 
 ments of hell, or nothing to be feared from that authority by those 
 who deny there is any such place ? 
 
 Now if there can he an authority in these matters, though the 
 use of private judgment is allowed in these same matters, if this 
 authority will condemn those who acted contrary to it, then it is 
 certain that there may be an authority or necessity which obliges 
 us to be of such a particular religion, though the exercise of our 
 private judgment is allowed in the choice of our religion ; and that 
 we may have as much to fear from acting contrary to such autho- 
 rity, though by following our own opinions, as they have who act 
 contrary to the will of God in any other respect, though by follow- 
 ing their own opinions. 
 
 So that an authority or necessity which obliges us to be of this 
 or that particular communion, that is, particular religion, is as con- 
 sistent with the exercise of private judgment, as the necessity of be- 
 lieving a God, and worshipping him, is consistent with the exercise 
 of our private judgment. 
 
 And if you will say, there is an end cf all authority, if men may 
 chuse one communion before another, you must also say, that if 
 men might consider whether they should follow Christ, then there ' 
 was an end of all authority in Christ over them. 
 
 And again ; if men may reason and consider whether there be a 
 God, or Providence, then there is an end of all necessity of believ- 
 ing either a God, or Providence. 
 
 If they may consider whether the Scriptures are the word of 
 God,or any particular doctrines be contained in Scripture,then there 
 is an end of all necessity of believing the Scriptures to be the word 
 of God, or of believing any particular doctrines to be contained in 
 Scripture. 
 
 If they may consider and examine whether any particular reli- 
 gion comes from God, then there is an end of all necessity of re- 
 ceiving any particular religion from God.
 
 4-72 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hdadley. 
 
 All this reasoning is full as just as to conclude that there is an end 
 of all authority to oblige people to any particular communion, if 
 they may consider the excellency of one communion above another, 
 which is what you over and over declare. 
 
 Now, my lord, let us suppose that the question was, whether it 
 be necessary to believe the Scriptures to be the word of God : would 
 it not become every honest man not only to assert this necessity, 
 but to shew wherein it is founded, and explain to every one 
 that authority which calls upon us to receive the Scriptures as the 
 word of God, and which will rise up in judgment against us, if 
 neglected. 
 
 And what might we not justly think of him, who, instead of 
 shewing the authority or necessity which obliges us to receive the 
 Scriptures as the word of God, should deliver himself in thi$ 
 manner ? 
 
 " You are reasoning whether there he any authority or necessity 
 which obliges you to receive the Scriptures as the word of God, 
 Whereas your very reasoning upon this matter, shews there is no 
 necessity or authority to which you are obliged to submit. For 
 since you are allowed to reason and enquire whether this be neces- 
 sary, ir is certain there is an end of all authority or necessity to 
 ob! ge you to receive the Scriptures as the word of God; and if 
 you do but sincerely follow your own private persuasions, you are 
 entitled to the same degrees of God's favour, whether you receive 
 the Scriptures as his word or not." 
 
 Now, my lord, thus it is that you have instructed the world 
 in relation to, the authority which obliges us to external commu- 
 nnr.. 
 
 The question is, whether there be any authority which obliges 
 
 to any particular external communion. 
 
 Now, my lord, what has any one to. do in this dispute, but to 
 
 w whether Christ ha.s instituted external communion, or not ? 
 For on this alone must the necessity of it depend. And if it ap- 
 pears that external communion be instituted by our Saviour as a 
 method of salvation, then it will follow that we are under a 
 necessity, as we hope for salvation, of being in that particular 
 method or manner of external communion, which Christ has in- 
 stituted ; so that unless it can be shewn that all pretended Christian 
 communions are as truly that method, or particular communion 
 which Chust has instituted, as any other communion is, it must
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 473 
 
 be as necessary to be in some one particular communion, as it is ne- 
 cessary to obey Christ ; and as dangerous to join in some other 
 communions, as it is dangerous to despise his authority. 
 
 But now your lordship, instead of considering what external 
 communion is instituted, and what necessity arises from such in- 
 stitution, or where we may find such external communion amongst 
 the many pretended Christian communions, has wholly passed 
 over this point, and determined the question, by telling us, that 
 since we ar.e allowed the use of our reason in the choice of religion, 
 it matters not what authority we oppose either of God or man; 
 and that there can be no necessity of our being of any par- 
 ticular communion, but where our private judgment sincerely di- . 
 rects us. 
 
 Thus you say ; " If the excellency of one communion above 
 another may be regarded, then there is an end of all human 
 authority to oblige us to one particular external communion*.'* 
 And to shew ihat you can as easily destroy all divine authority or 
 necessity of any particular communion, or religion, you tell us, 
 that " our title to God's favour cannot depend upon our actual 
 being or continuing in any particular method, but upon our real 
 sincerity f." So that here the sincerity of private judgment as 
 effectually destroys all divine authority and necessity of any parti- 
 cular communion or religion, as it destroys that which is human ; 
 and we are rendered as happy and as high in the favour of God foe 
 breaking his laws, as if we had observed them. 
 
 For here it is proved that there is no necessity of any particular 
 communion or religion, not because there is none instituted by 
 God, but because, whether instituted or not, our sincere perscasiotji 
 will equally justify us, whether it complies with or opposes such u> 
 stitution. 
 
 But to proceed, 
 
 I shall now shew how this doctrine of yours of sincentv e:;puic 
 all the terms of salvation, as delivered in Scripture. 
 
 In the Scripture we find that baptism is made a term of salva^ 
 tion ; but if sincerity without baptism be as certain a title to the 
 favour of God as sincerity with baptism, then it is plain, that 
 pot to be baptized is as much a condition or term of salvation, 
 as baptism is a term of salvation. For jf baptism with sincerity- 
 was more a term or condition of God's favour than no baptism 
 
 * Answer tpRepr. p. 115. + Prcserv. p. 9*.
 
 4*74 Afr. Xfl^V M//v2 Letter to Bishop Headlcy. 
 
 with sincerity, then it is certain that it is not sincerity alone that 
 procures the favour of God; and it is as certain, that if sincerity 
 alone procures us the favour of God, then baptism is no more a 
 term of salvation, than the refusal of baptism is a term of salva- 
 tion. So that this doctrine makes baptism and the refusal of bap- 
 tism either equally terms, or equally no terms of salvation ; equally 
 advantageous, or equally insignificant. 
 
 When therefore our blessed Saviour says, that 'except we are 
 baptized we cannot enter into the kingdom of God*, and he that 
 is not baptized shall be damned : according to this doctrine of yours, 
 %ve may also say just the contrary, that except we refuse baptism, 
 we cannot enter into the kingdom of God ; and he that is baptized 
 shall be damned. 
 
 This, my lord, is very shocking ; but I shall easily shew that 
 these assertions are as proper and as just as the contrary assertions, 
 if your doctrine of sincerity be right. 
 
 For, since your doctrine puts the sincere acceptance and the sin- 
 cere refusal of baptism upon the same foot as to the favour of God, 
 there can be no more danger in sincerely refusing baptism, than in 
 sincerely accepting of baptism. Now if there is no more danger in 
 the one practice than in the other, it must be plain to the most ordi- 
 nary understanding, that it is as just and proper to declare one prac- 
 tice dangerous as the other ; that is, it must be as proper to say, he 
 that is baptized shall be damned, as to say, he that is not baptized 
 shall be damned. 
 
 Now I know your lordship cannot, upon these principles, shew, 
 that it is more dangerous to refuse baptism sincerely, than to re- 
 \ ceive baptism sinceiely ; and so long as this is granted, you must 
 allow that it is as just to fix danger upon baptism itself, as upon 
 the want of baptism. And consequently all your reasonings upon 
 tliis subject are one continued censure-upon our blessed Saviour's 
 doctrine in relation to baptism, which according to your notions, 
 is only as just and proper as the quite contrary would have been. 
 
 Again, our Saviour tells us, that " except we eat the flesh of the 
 Son cf man, and drink hi,s blood, we have no life in us f." 
 
 Here we see the eating the flesh, and drinking the blood of the 
 Son of man, is an institute'! term of salvation, and insisted upon 
 by our Saviour ; but if. your doctrine be true, we may as well 
 declare the contrary to be a term of salvation, and say, ' except 
 
 Johoiii. $. i John vi.
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 475 
 
 we sincerely refuse to eat the flesh, and drink the blood of the 
 Son of man, we have no life in us." 
 
 For, my lord, if sincerity in refusing to eat this flesh, be the 
 same title to God's favour that the eating of it with sincerity is, 
 it is plain, there is no more advantage in eating, than in not 
 eating; and consequently it is as well to say, that except we for- 
 bear eating the flesh of the Son of man, we have no life in us, 
 as to say, that except we cat the flesh cf the Son of man, we have 
 no life in us, there being plainly from this doctrine, no more 
 danger in forbearing to eat, than in eating ; nor any more necessity 
 of eating, than of forbearing to eat, since both these practices 
 are equally good and advantageous with sincerity, and equally 
 bad and insignificant without it. 
 
 And now, my lord, let the world judge, whether you could 
 have thought of doctrine more contradictory to the express words 
 of our Saviour, and all the instituted terms of salvation, than this 
 of yours about sincerity, which makes it no more necessary to 
 observe the instituted terms of salvation, than to break them ; 
 and which also makes it as proper to declare it as dangerous to 
 observe such institutions, as to reject them. This I have shewn 
 particularly in baptism, where your doctrine makes it as proper 
 to say, he that is baptized shall be damned, as to say, that he 
 who is not baptized shall be damned; and in the same manner 
 does it tontiiidict and confound the Scriptures, and make the con- 
 trary to every institution as much a means of salvation, as the 
 institution itself. 
 
 Your lordship has given us a demonstration, as you call it, that 
 your doctrine of sincerity and private persuasion is right. / 
 
 Thus you ask: *' What is it that justified the Protestants in 
 setting up their own bishops? Was it, that the popish doctrines 
 were actually corrupt, or that the Protestants were persuaded in 
 their own consciences, that they were so ? The latter without 
 doubt." Arui then comes your demonstration, in this manner; 
 ** take away from them this persuasion, and they are so far from 
 being justified, that they are condemned for their departure ; give 
 them this persuasion again, they are condemned if they do not 
 separate*." 
 
 You want to be shewn the fallacy in this demonstration, which 
 I hope I shall shew to your satisfaction. 
 
 * Preser. p. 85. Answer to Rep. p. joj. 
 9
 
 476 Mr. Laiifs third Letter to Bishop Hoadley, 
 
 It is granted, that corruption in religion is no justification of 
 those who leave it, unless they are persuaded of that corruption. 
 
 It is also granted, that they who are fully persuaded that a 
 religion is sinful, are obliged to separate from it, though it should 
 not be sinful. But then it does by no means follow, that they 
 who leave a true religion, and they who leave a false religion, 
 through their particular persuasions, are equally justified, or have 
 an equal title to the same degree of God's favour. 
 
 Here lies the great fallacy in this argument, that you use the 
 same word (viz. justified) in relation to both these people in the 
 very same sense ; whereas if they are justified, (if this word must 
 be used) it is in a. very different sense and different measure, and 
 are not entitled to the same degree of God's favour. Now, a 
 fallacy in this point destroys the whole demonstration, for the 
 question wholly turns upon this point, whether they who are 
 sincere in a true religion, and they who are sincere in a false 
 religion, are equally justified and entitled to the same degrees of 
 God's favour. 
 
 This very thing was objected to you by the learned Committee, 
 who said, " that an erroneous conscience was never, till now, 
 allowed wholly to justify men in their errors *." 
 
 To which you have no better answer to make than this, '* That 
 it must either justify them or not justify them. It must either 
 wholly justify them, or not justify them at all f. 
 
 My lord, I suppose a man is justified by his living soberly, 
 righteously, and godly in this present world. I ask therefore, does 
 his living soberly justify him wholly, or does it not justify him at 
 all? If it justifies him wholly, then there is no occasion of his 
 Jiving righteously and godly ; if it does not justify him at all, then, 
 there is no need of his living soberly. 
 
 Your answer to the Committee has just as much sense or divinity 
 in it, as there is in this argument. 
 
 Here I must desire, that it may be observed, that the question 
 is, not whether sincerity in any religion, does not recommend us 
 to the favour of God, but whether we are entitled to the same 
 degrees of God's favour,, whether we are sincere in a true or false 
 way of worship. 
 
 I shall therefore farther consider this point. 
 
 Repr. p. 7, i Answer to Repr. p. 95.
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishvp Hoadhy. 477 
 
 First, If true and right religion hath any thing in its own na- 
 ture to recommend us to God, then sincerity in this true and right 
 religion must recommend us more to God, than sincerity in a false 
 and wrong religion ; because we have a recommendation from 
 our religion, as well as from our sincerity in it. For instance; 
 if it be in any degree in the world more acceptable to God, that 
 we should follow Christ, than Mahomet, our sincerity in fol- 
 lowing Christ must recommend us to just so much more of God's 
 favour, than our sincerity in following Mahomet; as it is more 
 acceptable to him that we should follow one than the other. Now 
 to say that true and right religion has nothing in its own nature 
 to recommend us to God, is saying, that things true and right are 
 no more acceptable to God, than things false and wrong ; but as 
 it would be blasphemy to say this, so it is very little less to say, 
 that sincerity in a false and wrong religion is just the same justifi- 
 cation or recommendation te the favour of God, that sincerity 
 in the true and right religion is. 
 
 Farther ; The whole end and design of religion is, to recom- 
 mend us to the favour of God. If therefore we can suppose a 
 religion instituted by God, which does no more, as such, recom- 
 mend us to the favour of God, than a religion invented by men 
 or devils, as such, recommends us to the favour of God ; then 
 we must also suppose, that God has instituted a religion which 
 does not at all answer the general end and design of religion, viz. 
 the recommending us to the favour of God. 
 
 Unless therefore we will prophanely declare, that God has in- 
 stituted a religion, which, as such, does us no service, nor aay 
 better promotes the general end of religion, than any corrupt in- 
 ventions of men, we must affirm, that sincerity in his religion 
 will entitle us to greater degrees of his favour, than sincerity in a 
 religion not from him. 
 
 Secondly, If there- be any real excellency or goodness in one 
 religion which is not in another, then it is certain, that sincerity 
 does not equally justify us in any religion ; and on the contrary, 
 it is as certain, that if sincerity in any religion does entitle us to 
 the same degrees of God's favour, then there is no such thing as 
 any real excellency or goodness in one religion, which is not in 
 another. 
 
 When you was charged with destroying all difference between 
 religions by this accoum of sincerity, yoa retreat to an answer as
 
 473 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop 
 
 weak as could possibly have been thought of. Thus you say ; 
 " What I said about private persuasion relates to the justification 
 of the man before God, and not to the excellency of one com- 
 munion above another, which it leaves just as it found it*." 
 
 Here, my lord, you suppose that one religion may very much 
 exceed another religion in goodness and excellency, and yet that 
 this goodness and excellency has nothing to do wirh the justification 
 of persons; for you say, you \vas not speaking of the excellency 
 of one communion above another, but of what relates to the justi- 
 fication of a man, &c. which plainly shews that you do not 
 allow the excellency of religion to have any thing to do with the 
 justification of men; for if you did, it must have been necessary 
 to speak of the excellency of one religion above another, when 
 you was speaking of what it is which justifies a man before God. 
 
 Now, my lord, to grant that there is an excellency and good- 
 ness in some religion, and yet exclude this excellent and good re- 
 ligion, from having any more in it to justify and recommend us 
 to the favour of God, than what is to be found in any other re- 
 ligion less excellent; is just as good sense, as to allow, that some 
 food is much more excellent and proper than other food ; and 
 yet exclude this most excellent proper food, from having any- 
 thing in it to preserve health and strength, more than in any other 
 food. 
 
 For the goodness and excellency of religion, is as truly a rela- 
 tive goodness and excellency, as the goodness and excellency of 
 food is a relative goodness and excellency. And as that food can 
 only be said to be better than another food, because it has a better 
 effect upon the body than any other food ; so that religion can 
 only be said to be better than another, because it raises us higher 
 in the favour of God than any other religion. 
 
 It is therefore most certain, that if any one religion can be said 
 to be better than another, it must be, because one religion may be 
 of more advantage to us than another. 
 
 For as religion in general is good, because it does us good, and 
 brings us into favour with God ; so the particular excellency and 
 goodness of any religion, must consist in this, that it does us a more 
 particular good, and raises us to higher degrees of God's favour^ 
 than a less excellent religion would have done. 
 
 * Answer to Rapr. p. iij
 
 : Law's third Letter to Hishop Ifcadlcy. 479 
 
 So that when your lordship talks of the excellency of one re- 
 ligion above another, as having nothing in it, as such, to recom- 
 mend us to higher degrees of God's favour, or effect our justifica- 
 tion ; it is fully as absurd, as to say, that though one kind of 
 learning may be mare excellent than another kind of learning, 
 yet no men are more excellent or valuable for having one kind of 
 learning than another. 
 
 For as no kind of learning can be said to be peculiarly excel- 
 lent, but because it gives some peculiar excellency to those who 
 are masters of it ; so no kind of religion can be said to be more 
 excellent than another, unless those who profess ir, reap some 
 advantage from it, which is not to be had from a religion less 
 excellent. 
 
 From all this, it appears, first, that there can be no such thing 
 as any goodness or excellency in one religion above another, but 
 as it procures a peculiar good and advantage to those who pro- 
 fess it. 
 
 Secondly, That your lordship can allow no other goodness or 
 excellency in religion, even from your o\vn express words, but 
 what implies as great an absurdity, as to allow of good food, 
 good learning, or good advice, which can do nobody any good at 
 all. 
 
 For since you expressly exclude the goodness or excellency of 
 any religion from having any part in recommending us to the 
 favour of God, and will only allow it to carry us so far, as 
 sincerity in a worse religion will carry us ; it is certain, that this 
 good and excellent religion, is just as good as that, which does us 
 no good at all. 
 
 So that whether you will yet own that you have destroyed all the 
 difference betwixt religions, or not, I cannot tell ; yet I imagine 
 every one will see that you have only left such a goodness in one 
 religion above another, as can do nobody any good at all. 
 
 The short is this ; if you will own there is no excellency in 
 one religion above another, then you are guilty of making Chris- 
 tianity no better than Mahometanism ; but if you will acknow- 
 ledge a goodness and excellency in one religion above another, 
 and yet contend that it is sincerity alone, which does us any good, 
 or recommends us to the favour of God, in all religions alike ; 
 this is as absurd, as to say, such a thing is much better for us than 
 any other thing, and yel assert, that any other thing will do us as 
 inuch good as that.
 
 480 Mr. Law's third Letter to "Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 I have, I hope, sufficiently confuted your doctrine of sincerity^ 
 from the nature of religion. I shall now in a word or two exa- 
 mine it farther, by considering the nature of private persuasion, 
 which can do all these mighty things. 
 
 And, first, I deny that persuasion was the only thing which 
 justified the Protestants, or which recommends people to the 
 favour of God in the choice of a religion , and that, because if 
 their private persuasion was founded in pride, prejudice, worldly 
 interest, or any thing, but the real truth, and the justice of the 
 cause, that their private persuasion did not justify them before 
 God ; nor had they, upon this supposition, so good a title to his 
 favour, as those who did not reform. 
 
 If you say, that persons cannot be sincere in their persuasions, 
 who are influenced by pride, or prejudice, or any false motive, to 
 this I answer; 
 
 First, That according to your own principles, that man is to 
 be esteemed sincere, who thinks himself to be sincere. For, as 
 it is a first principle with you, that a man is justified in point of 
 religion, not because he observes what in its own nature is true 
 and right religion, but because he observes that which he thinks 
 to be true and right religion ; so according to this principle a 
 man is to be accounted sincere, not because he acts up to true 
 and just principles of sincerity, but because he thinks in his own 
 mind, that he does act up to such just and true principles of 
 sincerity. So that, my lord, sincerity it seems is as truly a pri- 
 vate persuasion, as religion is a private persuasion; and therefore 
 any one may as easily think himself truly sincere, and yet not 
 have true sincerity, as he may think himself in the true religion, 
 and yet not he in the true religion. 
 
 Unless therefore you will maintain, that a person who is mis- 
 taken in his sincerity, and mistaken iahis religion too, who hath 
 neither true religion, or true sincerity, hath as good a title to the 
 favour of God, as he who is truly sincere, and in a true religion, 
 you must give up this cause of sincerity. For it is demonstrable 
 from your own principles, that any one may as often happen to 
 be mistaken in his sincerity, and take that for sincerity which is 
 not sincerity, as he may be mistaken in his religion, and take that 
 for icligion which is not religion. 
 
 And consequently it is as reasonable to talk of sincere persons, 
 who a;e influenced by wrong motives, as to talk of persons being 
 juitifitd iu religion, who live in a false religion;
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop tioadley. 431 
 
 So that, my lord, this is the result of your doctrine, that per- 
 sons neither truly sincere, nor in the true religion, are yet entitled 
 to the same degrees of God's favour, with those who are truly sin- 
 cere in the true religion. 
 
 The short is this, according to a maxim of your own, you are 
 obliged to acknowledge that man to be sincere, who thinks him- 
 self to be sincere; because you say a man is to be esteemed re- 
 ligious, not because he- practises true religion, but because he 
 thinks he practises true religion ; therefore you must say, that 4 
 man is sincere, not because he is truly sincere, but because he 
 thinks himself to be sincere. 
 
 It is also as possible and as likely for a man to be mistaken, 
 in those things which constitute true sincerity, as in those things 
 which constitute true religion. 
 
 And therefore if this sincerity be the only and the same title 
 to God's favour in any religion, it follows that sincerity, though 
 influenced by false motives, and in a faise way of worship, is as 
 acceptable to God, as a sincere persuasion governed by right mo- 
 tives in a trtie and instituted way of worship. 
 
 So that all the fine things which you have said of sincerity, as 
 implying in it all which is rational and e.-scelient, are come to no- 
 thing ; and you are as strictly obliged to allow that man to be sin- 
 cere who mistakes the grounds and principles of true sincerity, 
 because he thinks himself to be sincere, as to allo\v that person to 
 be justified in his religion, who mistakes the true religion, because 
 Jae thinks himself in the true religion. 
 
 So that it is not sincerity as it contains all that is rational and 
 excellent which alone justifies, but as it may be an idle, vain, whim- 
 sical persuasion, in which people think themselves in the right. 
 This persuasion, though founded in the follies, passions, and pr 
 dices of human nature, consecrates every way of wt,-r- 
 roakes tne man thus persuaded, as acceptable to God, as he 
 through a right use of his reason, serves God in that method whittt 
 he has instituted. 
 
 t shall end this point with only this observation, that however 
 hearty a friend you may be to the Christian icligion yourself this 
 I dare say, that the heartiest enemy it has, will thank you for thus 
 defending it. And they who wish all the distinction be.wixt re^ 
 ligions confounded, and maintain that we have not). ing to hopr or 
 fear but from our own persuasions, are the only- persons who can 
 call you their proper defender. 
 VOL. I. 1 i
 
 48* Mr- Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadlcy. 
 
 Of the Reformation. 
 
 -I PROCEED now in a word or two to shew, that the necessity 
 of communion with any particular church, and the effects of ex- 
 communication, are perfectly consistent with the principles of the 
 Reformation. 
 
 You say, " If there he a church authority to oblige people to 
 external communion I beg to know how can the Reformation, 
 itself be justified.--For there was then an order of churchmen, 
 vested with all spiritual authority there was therefore a church 
 authority to oblige Christians, a power of some over others. 
 What was it therefore to which we owe this very church of 
 England * ?" 
 
 To this it may be answered, 
 
 First, that this argument proceeds upon a false supposition, 
 namely, that it is the laws of any men, which obliges us to ex- 
 ternal communion. Which I have already shewn to be as false, 
 as to suppose that it is the laws of any men which oblige us to 
 be Christians. 
 
 Secondly, That there may be a real and a great authority which 
 obliges us to external communion, though this authority be not 
 founded in any human laws, for there is as real and apparent an 
 authority for baptism, and the supper of the Lord, and other parts 
 of externaLcommunion, as if they were the express matter of any 
 human laws. 
 
 Thirdly, That the laws of men in this affair of religion, are of 
 the same obligation and force that they are in other matters. If 
 they command things indifferent, they are to be obeyed for the 
 authority of the command ; if they enjoin things in their own 
 nature good, the necessity of obedience is greater ; but if they 
 command things unlawful, we are not to comply, but obey God 
 rather than man. 
 
 Fourthly, The question therefore at the Reformation was not 
 whether the laws of the pope or the prince were on the side of 
 the church of Rome, hut whether that faith and those institutions 
 which constitute the Christian religion was with the Reformers, or 
 
 * Answer to Repr. p. u8.
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hcadlcy* 483 
 
 >vlth the Papists. For the church authority which obliged them 
 then, and which obliges us now, to external communion, was not 
 an authoiity which obliged them to comply with any number of 
 bishops, or any state laws, but to enter into communion with that 
 bishop or bishops who observed that way of worship which Christ 
 had instituted. The necessity of being in external communion, 
 does not oblige us to be in communion with the pope or any num- 
 ber of bishops, as such, whose authority we may happen to be born 
 under, but it obliges us to be in that communion which is that 
 way or method of salvation which Christ has instituted. 
 
 So that though we should grant, that at the Reformation we- 
 broke through the human laws of the church which required us to 
 continue in communion with the church of Rome, it will by no 
 means follow that we broke through that authority which obliges 
 us to external communion, because that authority is not founded in 
 any human laws, but is the authority of Christ, requiring us to ob- 
 serve all those things which constitutes external communion. For 
 as it is the authority of Christ which obliges us to be Christians, 
 so that same authority obliges us to enter into that communion, 
 where the institutions and faith of Christ are preserved. 
 
 When therefore you say, " if church authority (meaning human 
 laws) be a sufficient obligation upon them to determine them, then 
 our fore-fathers ought not in conscience to have separated from 
 the church of Rome *." 
 
 This, my lord, is no more to the purpose than if you had said, 
 if the king of France has a right to be obeyed all over Europe, 
 then all over Europe they ought in conscience to obey him. 
 
 For since it is neither pretended nor allowed, that human laws 
 are a sufficient obligation to external communion, to argue from 
 this supposition is as foreign to the purpose, as to suppose that 
 the king of France was governor of all Europe. 
 
 The next step you take is also very extraordinary, where hav- 
 ing rejected human authority from being a sufficient obligation 
 to external communion, you thus proceed, " but if men are their 
 own judges by the laws of God and of Christ in this matter ; if 
 they have a right to use their judgment and be determined by it 
 then here is a justification of the Reformation, and particularly 
 of the Protestant church of England f." 
 
 The most complaisant justification, :ny lord, that could possibly 
 
 * Page 1 18. t ibid.
 
 434 Mr. LH~JI?S third Letter to Bishop Hoadhy. 
 
 have been thought of, because it as peculiarly justifies all the 
 enemies of the church of England, of what kind soever, as it 
 justifies the Protestant church of England. 
 
 For your argument proceeds thus ; if there be no human au- 
 thority to which we are absolutely obliged to submit, hut have a 
 right to use our own judgments, then the Reformation is justified. 
 Here we see the doctrines of the reformed church are not taken 
 into the question ; she is not said to be justified, as being a true 
 church, or as preserving rhose orders and institutions, which consti- 
 tute the true church ; but is justified, because men may use their 
 reason, and not enter into any communion which human laws have 
 happened to establish. Now if we of the church of England are 
 justified in the choice of your religion, because no human laws have 
 an absolute power to oblige us to be of any particular religion, 
 then all people, whether Papists or Protestants, whether Quakers, 
 Ranters, Jews, Turks, and Infidels, are equally justified in the 
 choice of their particular ways of worship, because human laws 
 have not an absolute power to oblige them to be of any particular 
 religion. So that though you call this a justification of the Pro- 
 testant church of England, you might as justly have called it a jus- 
 tification of Quakers, Jews, Turks, and Infidels : for it is as truly 
 a justification of every one of them, as it is a justification of 
 the church of England. 
 
 But to proceed, How comes it, my lord, that the Reformation 
 is justified, because ptople may use their reason, and are not 
 under a necessity from human laws of being of this or that church ? 
 Why must the Reformation be right and just, because human 
 laws are not sufficient to hinder a reformation ? Is there no other 
 authority that can make any particular religion necessary, because 
 human authority cannot? May it not be our duty to be of this 
 communion, and a sin to enter into another communion, though 
 fcuman laws, as such, cannot make the one a duty, or the other 
 a sin ? Does baptism, the supper of the Lord, and a belief in 
 Jesus Christ, cease to be necessary, because that necessity does 
 not arise from human laws ? 
 
 Now if things may be necessary to salvation, though they are 
 not made so ly human authority, then it is no justification of 
 the Reformation to say, that the reformers might use their reason, 
 and not chuse that religion which human laws commanded them 
 to chusc -^ this vviii be no justification, till it appears, that they
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 435 
 
 chose that religion which the authority of GoJ require:! them to 
 c'huse. 
 
 For it would be nonsense to say people are justified for having 
 such a sort of baptism, because the necessity of baptism, does not 
 arise from human laws. Yet this is as good sense, as to say, such 
 a people are justified in their religion, because no religion is mad^ 
 necessary by human laws. For as they are only justified in point 
 of baptism, who observe such baptism, as the authority of God 
 has appointed, so are they only justified in their religion, who 
 enter into that religion which the authority of God has instituted. 
 
 But your lordship has no sooner shewn that human authority, 
 as fcHch, cannot oblige us to be of any particular religion, but you 
 presently congratulate your readers upon an entire freedom from all 
 authority in religion, and without once mentioning that the Re- 
 formarion is right and just because of the orders, doctrines, or in- 
 stitutions, which it maintains ; you say it is justified for such u 
 reason as justifies in an equal degree every religion, and every 
 change of religion in the world. You have so far justified it, a* 
 to shew that it is as well to be of it, as of any other church ; and 
 as well to be of any other church as of it. 
 
 Who would not think, my lord, that the instituted terms of 
 salvation had something to do with the justification of Christians? 
 Yet you can justify people without any regard to them. Who 
 would not think that a religion is unjustifiable, if it is contrary to 
 the religion instituted by Christ? Yet your lordship has justified 
 all changes in religion, without any regard to the institutions or* 
 Christ, solely for this reason, because men may use their own 
 judgment, and not submit to the laws of men, as such, in the 
 choice of religion. As if because they are not to be altogether 
 governed by the commands of men in the choice of a religion, 
 neither are they 10 be determined by the authority of God, or any 
 more tied down to his institutions, th:m to human laws. "Who 
 would think that no change in religion is dangerous, because re- 
 ligion is only instituted by God, and has his authority to make it 
 necessary ? Yet your lordship banishes all danger from every change 
 of religion, and pronounces the same safety in every opiui-m, be- 
 cause people are under no absolute human authority. 
 
 it is very surprizing, after all thi*, to see your lordship bre-ik- 
 'ing out into passionate expressions for the cause of the Refor- 
 ipution, and so often declaring that it is in: i;;c K..inr-
 
 iSfj Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 
 
 mation that you have taken so much pains, and with so much 
 pleasure, in your late writings. 
 
 Now it seems your adversaries have undermined the very foun- 
 dations of the reformed church of England ; and that in this 
 manner : 
 
 First, They justify the church of England, by shewing that it 
 maintains all those orders, institutions, and doctrines, which Christ 
 has made necessary to salvation ; that it is a true Church, because 
 it consists of all those things which by the institution of Christ 
 constitute a true church. 
 
 For this, your lordship rebukes them as enemies to the refor- 
 mation, as friends to Popery ; and declares, that the Protestants 
 are not justified because they have chosen a true and right religion, 
 but because they think they have chosen a true and right religion^ 
 
 Again, your adversaries insist upon the necessity of entering into 
 communion with the church of England, because it is a true church 
 of Christ; and declare those guilty of the heinous sin of schism, 
 who separate from her communion. 
 
 Here again you condemn them, as conspiring the ruin of the 
 Reformation, because if the Dissenters are not justified in their 
 separation from the church of England by their private persuasion, 
 neither is the church of England to be justified for its separation 
 from Rome. So that the difference between your lordship and 
 your adversaries in relation to the reformed church of England, 
 is this : 
 
 They support and recommend this church, because it containg 
 all the necessary doctrines and institutions of Christ, and conse- 
 quently give it an advantage over every other way of worship, 
 rvhicki is either conupted or defective in these doctrines and in- 
 stitutions of Christ. 
 
 But you support and recommend -it (pardon the expressions) 
 not from any thing which relates to it at ail, hut from private 
 persuasi :ogequemly allow every religion in the world to 
 
 be as just and good, and safe, if men are but so persua led. 
 
 They defend the church of England, by shewing what it is, and 
 "by asserting the truth of its doctrines. 
 
 You have no title to be mentioned amongst its- defenders-, hut 
 as you may be called a defender of Quakers and Fanatics, Jews 
 and Turks, and every religion in the world, which any one think* 
 to be right.
 
 Mr. 'Law's third Letter to Bishop Hoadley. 437 
 
 To proceed; As a farther defence of the Reformation, you 
 ask, " How did the first reformers behave themselves ? Did they 
 rsot think and speak of them (viz. absolution and excommuni- 
 cation) as having nothing to do with the favour of God, as hu- 
 man engines, and mere outcries of human terror ? And did they 
 mean by this to claim to themselves the right of absolution, which 
 they had denied to others, because they were fallible and weak 
 men; or to assert a power of excommunication, so as to affect 
 men's eternal salvation, to themselves in one church, which ;hey 
 had disregarded and trampled upon in another ? No : they treated 
 all excommunications as alike, and upon an e^ual foot ; and 
 could, upon no other account, neg'ect and disregard them as they 
 did, but because God had not given to any man the disposal of his 
 mercy or anger*." 
 
 The argument, my lord, here proceeds thus : First, That all 
 absolutions and excommunications must have been esteemed alike, 
 and equally insignificant by our reformers, because they were not 
 terrified at the excomunications of the church of Rome, nor 
 thought an absolution from that church necessary. 
 
 Secondly, That the Reformers having thus disregarded these 
 powers in that church, ought not to pretend that the same 
 powers have any more effect when they exercise them in this 
 church. 
 
 To this it may be answered, that if we ought not to pretend to 
 any effects in absolution or excommunication, because we disre- 
 gprded those powers as exercised by the church of Rome; that 
 then we ought not to pretend the necessity of any faith, because 
 we disregarded the faith of the Romish church ; nor the necessity 
 of any sacraments, nor the necessity of the canonical writings, be 
 cause we disregarded the canonical books of the church of Koine. 
 And it is as good sense to cry out here, " Did they not neat their 
 sacraments as mere inventions of men ? Did they mean by this to 
 claim to themselves a power to make sacr.-rnejus nrce->s^ry in one 
 church, which power they had trampled upon in another ? Did 
 they deny the necessity of seven sacraments there, in order to assert 
 the necessity of two sacraments here ? No : they treated ail sa<-ra- 
 inents as alike, and upon an ecjual foot, w,j>h respect to God's fa- 
 youi T and could upon no other account neglect and disregard ihem. 
 
 * Answer to Rejtr. p. J2| ? 121.
 
 J/r. Law's third Letter to Bishop Hcadlcy. 
 as they did, but because God's favour or displeasure was no ways 
 affected by any sacraments." 
 
 Here let common sense judge, whether this argument of yours 
 shewing (he unreasonableness of pretending to any signiftcancy in 
 excommunication, because we disregarded the excommunication of 
 the church of Rome, docs not prove it as unreasonable to insist 
 upon the necessity of any faith, or any sacraments, or any cano- 
 nical books, because we denied the Romish creed, the Romish sa- 
 craments, and amon of Scripture? 
 
 For our reformers no more intended to shew thai excommu- 
 nication was a dream and trifle, because they disregarded the ex- 
 communication of the church of Rome; than they intended to shew 
 th;rt all sacraments, all faith, and all Scripture, were dreams and 
 trifles, by their not owning either the sacraments, or the creed, or 
 the canon of the church of Rome. And, my lord, what a worthy 
 defender of Christianity and the Reformation would he be, who 
 
 uul ask us what we mean by the necessity of sacraments, or 
 faith, or Scupture, since we have not allowed the necessity either of 
 ihe Romish sacraments, faith, or Scripture? Yet such a defender 
 is your lordship, who contends that we ought to reject excommu- 
 nication as a trifle and a dream, because \ve disregarded the ex- 
 eommunfcation of '.he church of Rome. 
 
 I have now gone as far in the examination of your doctrines 
 as my jr.roscnt design will allow me, and am apt to think that in 
 this and my former letters, I have gone so far as to shew, that a 
 few more such defences of Christianity and the Reformation, as 
 /on have given us, would conipleat their ruin, as far as human 
 
 4iiS s c:in COir) pl c; ^ it 
 
 . i iv.d you mcaiu ever so much harm to Christianity and the 
 .i^ion. I bolic-vo no one who wishes their confusion, would 
 :!d have, taken a better way to obtain that end, 
 . . . you have lately written. 
 
 For hern --erv bitter enemy :o them both, who would not 
 
 think it sufficient, to ses Christianity and Mahometanrsha, the Re- 
 formation and Quakerism upon the same foot. 
 
 And he must be very slow of apprehension, who does not see 
 that to be plainly done, by resolving all into private persuasion, 
 nd making sincerity in every religion, whether true or false, 
 same title to the same degrees of God's favour.
 
 Mr. Law's third Letter to Bishop Ifdudky. 433 
 
 1 shall not with your lordship make any declarations about my 
 own sincerity ; I am content to leive that to God, and to let all 
 the \voiUi paj-s what judgment they piease about it. 
 
 I am your lordship's 
 
 Most humble servant,. 
 
 WILLIAM LAW. 
 
 
 vor. T. Kk
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 A' HE learned Committee observed to your lordship, that " ara 
 erroneous conscience was never, till now, allowed wholly to justify 
 men in their errors." 
 
 This observation I have shewn to be true and just, as it implies, 
 that though sincerity in an erroneous way of worship should in 
 some degree or other recommend men to the favour or mercy of 
 God ; yet it is not that entire recommendation to his favour, 
 which is effected by our sincere obedience in the true way of sal- 
 vation : that is, though it should justify them in some degree, 
 yet it cannot justify them in that degree, in which they are justi- 
 fied, who sincere/y serve God, in that true religion which he 
 himself has instituted. 
 
 Now our justification, as it is effected by the merits of Christ, 
 is in one and the same degree ; but as our justification is effected 
 t>y our own behaviour, it is as capable of different degrees, as OUF 
 \irtue and holiness is capable of different degrees ; and it is also 
 Accessary that our justification be more or less, according as our 
 holiness is more or less. 
 
 Yet in answer to this observation of the learned Committee, 
 you say, " it must either justify them, or not justify them ; it 
 must either justify them wholly, or not justify them at all." This, 
 my lord, is as contrary to the Scripture, as it is to the observation 
 of the Commitee. For, our blessed Saviour, speaking of the 
 publican, says, " I tell you, this man went down to his house 
 " justified, rather than the other *." 
 
 Here, my lord, is as plain a delaration of degrees in justifica- 
 tion, as can well be made, so far as justification can be effected by 
 cur own behaviour. 
 
 * Xukc jviii, J<TI &c*
 
 J)/r. Lav's third Letter to Bishop Ifoadle-y. 49 L 
 
 For, it is plain, the publican was not wholly justified, because,., 
 then there would be no need of his embracing Chris'tiamty ; it is 
 also plain, that he was justified in part, or else he could not be 
 said to be justified rather than the Pharisee. 
 
 If therefore your answer confutes the observation of the learned 
 Committee, it must also confute this passage of Scripture. 
 
 I shall only add one word in relation to another point. 
 
 I have already shewn the falseness and evil tendency of your 
 argument against excommunication, which you asserted to be a 
 dream and trifle, without any effect, because it is our own beha* 
 viour alone which can signify any thing to us with regard to the 
 favour of God. Now, my lord, this philosophy strikes at the 
 very vitals of the Christian religion : for, if this sentence can 
 have no effect, if it is a dream and trifle, because it is our beha- 
 viour alone on which the favour of God depends ; then how shall 
 we account for these passages of Scripture, which attribute our 
 justification to the merits and derth of Christ ? As thus ; 
 
 <c Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins *." 
 
 * In whom we have redemption, through his blood j\ >J 
 
 ' Being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath J ? M 
 
 It is the constant uniform doctrine of Scripture, that our recon- 
 ciliatioR. and peace with God, our justification and sanctification 
 before God, is owing to the merits and death of Christ. But if 
 what you have said be true, that it is our behaviour alone, which 
 procures the favour of God, then the blood of Christ must be as 
 truly without any effect, as excommunication is without any effect, 
 
 For if the favour of God depends entirely upon our behaviour 
 alone, then it can depend upon nothing else ; and if it depend 
 upon nothing else, then every thing else is equally trifling and 
 without any. -effect as to that purpose ; and consequently every pas- 
 sage in Scripture which ascribes our acceptance with God to the 
 merits and blood of Christ, is as mueh condemned by your doc- 
 trine, as the effects of excommunication are condemned by it. 
 
 Whether your lordship did not perceive the inconsistency of this 
 doctrine with that satisfaction and redemption which the Scriptures 
 teach ; or whether you knowingly intended to oppose this doctrine, 
 is what I shall leave to every one's own judgment. Thus much I 
 ghall only wy, that as you have here directly contradicted the first 
 
 * UaJ, i. 3, f Ephes. i. 7. J Rom. v. j.
 
 492 Mr. Law's third Letter to 'Bishop Iloadley. 
 
 principlg of the Christian religion, if it is not what you intended* 
 1 hope you wilf, for the sake of Christianity, venture to declare, 
 thit though you have asserted, (hat it is our behaviour alone, yet 
 it is not our behaviour alone, but more particularly the merits and 
 of Christ which recommends us to the favour of Got!. 
 
 OF VOL. K 
 
 J*rLntedby Law and Ci/bert, Sr. johr/s Square, London.

 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 Form L9-32m-8,'58(5876s4)444
 
 
 ^C SOUTHED BEGIONA. . 3RAP-' FAOU1 
 
 A 000 602 879 9 
 
 BT 
 1100 
 J72s 
 1812 

 
 * 

 
 m 
 

 
 ,