{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_71946/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_71946","id":"gutenberg_71946","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/71946","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Methodist Church","Theology -- Early works to 1800","Theology -- History -- 18th century"],"text":"The Works of the Rev. John Wesley\n\n\n\n\n \u250c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2510\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Transcriber\u2019s Notes \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Punctuation has been standardized. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Most of the non-common abbreviations used to save space in \u2502\n \u2502 printing have been expanded to the non-abbreviated form for \u2502\n \u2502 easier reading. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 The author has used an asterisk (*) to indicate passages he \u2502\n \u2502 considers most worthy of attention. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 The text may show quotations within quotations, all set \u2502\n \u2502 off by similar quote marks. The inner quotations have been \u2502\n \u2502 changed to alternate quote marks for improved readability. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Non-printable characteristics have been given the following \u2502\n \u2502 Italic text: --> _text_ \u2502\n \u2502 emphasized text within \u2502\n \u2502 italics --> |text| \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 This book was written in a period when many words had \u2502\n \u2502 not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have \u2502\n \u2502 multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in \u2502\n \u2502 the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated \u2502\n \u2502 with a Transcriber\u2019s Note. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 The symbol \u2018\u2021\u2019 indicates the description in parenthesis has \u2502\n \u2502 been added to an illustration. This may be needed if there \u2502\n \u2502 is no caption or if the caption does not describe the image \u2502\n \u2502 adequately. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Footnotes are identified in the text with a superscript \u2502\n \u2502 number and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which \u2502\n \u2502 they appear. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Transcriber\u2019s Notes are used when making corrections to the \u2502\n \u2502 text or to provide additional information for the modern \u2502\n \u2502 reader. These notes are identified by \u2666\u2660\u2665\u2663 symbols in the \u2502\n \u2502 text and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which \u2502\n \u2502 they appear. \u2502\n \u2514\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2518\n\n\n\n\n THE\n\n WORKS\n\n OF THE\n\n Rev. JOHN WESLEY,\u00a0M.A.\n\n Late Fellow of _Lincoln-College_, OXFORD.\n\n\n VOLUME VI.\n\n\n BRISTOL:\n\n Printed by WILLIAM PINE, in _Wine-Street_.\n\n MDCCLXXII.\n\n\n\n\n THE\n CONTENTS\n Of the SIXTH VOLUME.\n\n\n An extract from Mr. LAW\u2019s _Serious Call_ to a _Holy Life_.\n\n\n CHAPTER XVIII.\n\n _Recommending devotion at three o\u2019clock, called in scripture the\n |ninth hour| of the day. The subject of prayer at this hour\n may be |resignation| to the divine pleasure. The nature and\n duty of conformity to the will of God in all our actions and\n designs._\n\n\n CHAPTER XIX.\n\n _Of the excellency and greatness of a devout spirit._\n\n\n An Extract from Mr. LAW\u2019s Later Works.\n\n An extract from the case of reason, or natural religion, fairly\n and fully stated. In answer to a book, entitled _Christianity\n as Old as the Creation_.\n\n\n _The introduction, shewing the state of the controversy._\n\n\n CHAPTER I.\n\n _Enquiring, whether there be any thing in the |nature| and\n |condition| of man, to |oblige| him to think, that he is not\n to admit of any doctrines or institutions, as revealed from\n God, but such as his own reason can prove to be necessary from\n the nature of things._\n\n\n CHAPTER II.\n\n _Shewing from the |relation between God and man, that human\n reason cannot be a competent judge of the |fitness| and\n |reasonableness| of God\u2019s proceedings with mankind, either\n as to the |time|, or |matter|, or |manner| of an external\n revelation_.\n\n\n CHAPTER III.\n\n _Shewing how far human reason is able to judge of the\n reasonableness, truth, and certainty of divine revelation._\n\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n\n _Of the state and nature of reason, as it is in man; and how its\n perfection in matters of religion is to be known._\n\n\n CHAPTER V.\n\n _Shewing that all the |mutability| of our tempers, the\n |disorders| of our passions, the |corruption| of our\n hearts, all the |reveries| of the imagination, all the\n |contradictions| and |absurdities| that are to be found in\n human life, and human opinions, are in effect the mutability,\n disorders, corruption, and absurdities of |human reason|._\n\n\n An extract from Mr. LAW\u2019s Serious Answer to Dr. \u2666Trapp\u2019s four\n sermons, on the sin, folly, and danger of being Righteous\n overmuch.\n\n\n Some animadversions upon Dr. \u2666Trapp\u2019s late reply.\n\n \u2666 \u201cTrap\u2019s\u201d replaced with \u201cTrapp\u2019s\u201d\n\n\n A short but sufficient confutation of Bishop Warburton\u2019s\n projected defence (as he calls it) of Christianity, in his\n divine legation of Moses in a letter to the Right Reverend the\n Lord Bishop of London.\n\n\n Illustration: (\u2021 decoration)\n\n\n\n\n An Extract from Mr. LAW\u2019s\n SERIOUS CALL\n TO A HOLY LIFE.\n\n\n CHAPTER XVIII.\n\n _Recommending devotion at three o\u2019clock, called in scripture the\n |ninth hour| of the day. The subject of prayer at this hour\n may be |resignation| to the divine pleasure. The nature and\n duty of conformity to the will of God in all our actions and\n designs._\n\n1. *\u00a0THERE is nothing _wise_, or _holy_, or _just_, but the _great\nwill_ of God. This is as strictly true as that nothing is infinite and\neternal but God.\n\n*\u00a0No beings therefore, whether in heaven or on earth, can be wise, or\nholy, or just, but so far as they conform to _this will_ of God. It\nis conformity to this will, that gives virtue and perfection to the\nhighest services of angels in heaven; and it is conformity to the\nsame will, that makes the ordinary actions of men on earth become an\nacceptable service to God.\n\n*\u00a0The whole nature of virtue consists in conforming, and the whole\nnature of vice in declining from the will of God. All God\u2019s creatures\nare created to fulfil his will; the _sun_ and _moon_ obey his will,\nby the necessity of their nature; _angels_ conform to his will, by the\nperfection of their nature: if therefore you would shew yourself not\nto be a _rebel_ and _apostate_ from the order of the creation, you must\nact like beings both above and below you; it must be the great desire\nof your soul, that God\u2019s will may be done by you on earth, as it is\ndone in heaven. It must be the settled purpose of your heart, to _will_\nnothing, _design_ nothing, _do_ nothing, but so far as you have reason\nto believe, it is the will of God.\n\n2. \u2019Tis as necessary to think thus of God and yourself, as to think\nthat you have any dependance upon him. And it is as great a rebellion\nagainst God, to think that your will may ever differ from his, as to\nthink that you have not received the power of _willing_ from him.\n\nYou are therefore to consider yourself as a being, that has no other\nbusiness in the world, but to be that which God requires you to be;\nto have no tempers, no rules, no designs of your own, but to fill\nsome _place_, and act some _part_ in strict conformity, and thankful\nresignation to the divine pleasure.\n\nTo think that you are your own, or at your own disposal, is as absurd\nas to think that you created yourself. It is as plain that you are thus\nGod\u2019s, that you thus belong to him, and are to act and suffer all in\nthankful resignation to his pleasure, as that in him you _live, and\nmove, and have your being_.\n\n3. *\u00a0_Resignation_ to the divine will, signifies a chearful approbation,\nand thankful acceptance of every thing that comes from God. It is not\nenough patiently to submit, but we must thankfully receive, and fully\napprove of every thing, that by the order of God\u2019s providence, happens\nto us.\n\n*\u00a0For there is no reason why we should be patient, but what is as\nstrong a reason why we should be thankful. If we were under the hands\nof a wise and good _physician_ that could not mistake, or do any thing\nto us, but what tended to our benefit; it would not be enough to be\npatient, and abstain from murmuring against such a physician; it would\nbe as much a breach of gratitude, not to be thankful for what he did,\nas it would be to murmur at him.\n\n*\u00a0Now this is our true state with relation to God; we cannot be said so\nmuch as to _believe_ in him, unless we believe him to be of _infinite\nwisdom_. Every argument therefore for patience under his disposal of\nus, is as strong an argument for thankfulness. And there needs no more\nto dispose us to this gratitude towards God, than a full belief in him,\nthat he is this being of infinite wisdom, love and goodness.\n\nDo but fully assent to this truth, and then you will cheerfully approve\nof every thing that God has already approved for you.\n\nWhen you are satisfied that God does not only do that which is wise,\nand good, but which is the effect of infinite wisdom, and love in the\ncare of you; it will be as necessary to be pleased with every thing\nwhich God chuses for you, as to wish your own happiness.\n\n4. Whenever therefore you find yourself disposed to _murmuring_, at\nany thing that is the effect of God\u2019s providence over you, you must\nlook upon yourself as _denying_ either the wisdom or goodness of God.\nFor every complaint supposes this. You would never complain of your\n_neighbour_, but that you suppose you can shew either his _unwise_,\n_unjust_, or _unkind_ behaviour towards you.\n\nNow every impatient reflection under the providence of God, is the same\naccusation of God. A complaint always supposes _ill usage_.\n\nHence you may see the great necessity of this thankful state of heart,\nbecause the want of it implies an accusation of God\u2019s want either of\nwisdom, or goodness in his disposal of us. It is not therefore any high\ndegree of perfection, founded in any uncommon _nicety_ of thinking, but\na plain principle founded in this plain belief, that God is a being of\ninfinite wisdom and goodness.\n\n5. This resignation to the divine will, may be considered in two\nrespects: _first_, As it signifies a thankful approbation of God\u2019s\n_general_ providence over the world: _secondly_, As it signifies a\nthankful acceptance of his _particular_ providence over us.\n\n*\u00a0_First_, Every man is, by the first article of his creed, obliged to\nacknowledge the wisdom and goodness of God, in his _general providence_\nover the world. He is to believe that it is the effect of God\u2019s\ngreat wisdom and goodness, that the world itself was formed at such a\nparticular time, and in such a manner: that the general order of nature,\nthe whole frame of things, is contrived and formed in the best manner.\nHe is to believe that God\u2019s providence over states and kingdoms, times\nand seasons, is all for the best: that the revolutions of state, and\nchanges of empire, the rise and fall of monarchies, persecutions,\nwars, famines and plagues, are all permitted, and conducted by God\u2019s\nprovidence, to the general good of man in this state of trial.\n\nA good man is to believe all this, with the same fullness of assent, as\nhe believes that God is in every place, tho\u2019 he neither sees, nor can\ncomprehend the manner of his presence.\n\n*\u00a0This is a noble magnificence of thought, a true greatness of mind, to\nbe thus affected with God\u2019s general providence, admiring and magnifying\nhis wisdom in all things; never murmuring at the course of the world,\nor the state of things, but looking upon all around, at heaven and\nearth, as a pleased spectator; and adoring that invisible hand, which\ngives laws to all motions, and over-rules all events to ends suitable\nto the highest wisdom and goodness.\n\n6. It is very common for people to allow themselves great liberty in\nfinding fault with such things, as have only God for their cause.\n\n*\u00a0Every one thinks he may justly say, what a _wretched, abominable\nclimate_ he lives in. This man is frequently telling you, what a\n_dismal, cursed_ day it is, and what intolerable _seasons_ we have.\nAnother thinks it is hardly worth his while to live in a world so full\nof changes and revolutions. But these are tempers of great impiety, and\nshew that religion has not yet its seat in the heart.\n\nIt sounds indeed much better to murmur at the course of the world, than\nto murmur at providence; to complain of the seasons and weather, than\nto complain of God; but if these have no other cause but God, it is a\npoor excuse to say, that you are only angry at the things, but not at\nthe cause and director of them.\n\nHow _sacred_ the whole frame of the world is, how all things are to\nbe considered as God\u2019s, and referred to him, is fully taught by our\nblessed Lord in the case of _oaths_: _But I say unto you, swear not at\nall; neither by heaven, for it is God\u2019s throne; nor by the earth, for\nit is his footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the\ngreat king; neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst\nnot make one hair white or black_, Matthew v. 37. That is, because the\nwhiteness or blackness of thy hair is not thine, but God\u2019s.\n\n*\u00a0Here you see all things in the whole order of nature, from the\nhighest heavens to the smallest hair, are to be considered, not\nseparately as they are in themselves, but as in some relation to God.\nAnd if this be good reasoning, thou shalt not swear by the _earth_, a\n_city_, or thy _hair_, because these things are God\u2019s, and in a certain\nmanner belong to him; is it not the same reasoning to say, Thou shalt\nnot murmur at the _seasons_ of the earth, the _states_ of cities, and\nthe change of _times_, because all these things are in the hands of God,\nhave him for their author, are directed and governed by him to such\nends as are most suitable to his wise providence?\n\n*\u00a0For whoso murmurs at the course of the world, murmurs at God that\ngoverns the course of the world. Whoso repines at _seasons_ and\n_weather_, and speaketh impatiently of times and events, repines and\nspeaks impatiently of God, who is the sole Lord and Governor of _times_,\n_seasons_, and _events_.\n\n7. *\u00a0As therefore when we think of God himself, we are to have no\nsentiments but of praise and thanksgiving; so when we look at those\nthings which are under the direction of God, we are to receive them\nwith the same tempers.\n\n*\u00a0And tho\u2019 we are not to think all things right, and just, and lawful,\nwhich the providence of God permits; for then nothing could be unjust,\nbecause nothing is without his permission; yet we must adore God in the\ngreatest public calamities, the most grievous persecutions, as things\nthat are suffered by God, like _plagues_ and _famines_, for ends\nsuitable to his wisdom and glory in the government of the world.\n\n*\u00a0There is nothing more suitable to the piety of a reasonable creature,\nor the spirit of a Christian, than thus to approve, admire, and glorify\nGod in all the acts of his general providence; considering the whole\nworld as his particular family, and all events as directed by his\nwisdom.\n\n*\u00a0Every one seems to consent to this, as an undeniable truth, _That\nall things must be as God pleases_. And is not this enough to make\nevery man pleased with them himself? And how can a man be a peevish\ncomplainer of any thing that is the effect of providence, but by\nshewing that his own _will_ and _wisdom_ are of more weight with him,\nthan the will and wisdom of God? And what can religion be said to have\ndone for a man, whose heart is in this state?\n\nFor if he cannot thank and praise God as well in calamities and\nsufferings, as in prosperity and happiness, he is as far from the piety\nof a Christian, as he that only loves them that love him, is from the\ncharity of a Christian. For to thank God only for such things as you\nlike, is no more a proper act of piety, than to believe only what you\nsee, is an act of faith.\n\n8. Thus much concerning resignation to the divine will, as it signifies\na thankful approbation of God\u2019s _general providence_: it is now\nto be considered, as it signifies a _thankful_ acceptance of God\u2019s\n_particular providence_ over us.\n\n*\u00a0Every man is to consider himself as a particular object of God\u2019s\nprovidence, under the same care and protection of God, as if the\nworld had been made for him alone. It is not by chance that any man\nis born at such a _time_, of such _parents_, and in such _place_ and\n_condition_. It is as certain, that every _soul_ comes into the body at\nsuch a time, and in such circumstances, by the express _designment_ of\nGod, according to _some purposes_ of his will, and for some _particular\nends_; this is as certain, as that it is by the express designment of\nGod, that some beings are _angels_, and others are _men_.\n\n9. The scriptures assure us, it was by divine appointment, that our\nblessed Saviour was born at _Bethlehem_, and at such a time. Now altho\u2019\nit was owing to the dignity of his person, and the great importance\nof his birth, that thus much of the divine counsel was declared to the\nworld concerning the time and manner of it; yet we are as sure from\nthe same scriptures, that the _time_ and _manner_ of every man\u2019s coming\ninto the world, is according to the _direction_ of divine providence,\nand in _such time_, and _place_, and _circumstances_, as are directed\nand governed by God for _particular ends_ of his wisdom and goodness.\n\nThis we are as certain of from plain revelation, as we can be of any\nthing. *\u00a0For if we are told, that not a _sparrow falleth to the ground\nwithout our heavenly Father_, Can any thing more strongly teach us,\nthat much greater beings, such as human souls, come not into the world\nwithout the care and direction of our heavenly Father? If it is said,\n_The very hairs of your head are all numbered_, Is it not to teach us,\nthat nothing, not the _smallest_ things imaginable, happen to us by\n_chance_? But if the smallest things we can conceive, are declared\nto be under the divine direction, need we, or can we be more plainly\ntaught, that the greatest things of life, such as the _manner_ of\nour coming into the world, our _parents_, the _time_, and other\n_circumstances_ of our birth, and condition, are all according to\nthe _direction_, and _appointment_ of divine providence.\n\n10. When the disciples put this question to our blessed Lord concerning\nthe blind man, _Master, Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he\nwas born blind?_ He made this answer, _Neither hath this man sinned,\nnor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest\nin him_, John ix. 2,\u00a03. plainly declaring, that the particular\ncircumstances of every man\u2019s birth, the body that he receives, and\nthe state of life into which he is born, are appointed by a secret\nprovidence, which directs all things to their particular _times_, and\n_seasons_, and _manner_ of existence, that the wisdom and works of God\nmay be made manifest in them all.\n\nAs therefore it is certain, that all that is particular in our state,\nis the effect of God\u2019s particular providence over us, and intended for\nsome particular ends, both of his glory and our own happiness, we are,\nby the greatest obligations, called upon to resign our will to the will\nof God in all these respects; thankfully approving and accepting every\nthing that is particular in our state; praising and glorifying his name\nfor our birth of such _parents_, and in such _circumstances_; being\nfully assured, that it was for some reasons of infinite wisdom and\ngoodness, that we were so born into such particular states of life.\n\n11. If the man above-mentioned was born blind, that the _works of God\nmight be manifested in him_, had he not great reason to praise God, for\nappointing him in such a particular manner to be the instrument of his\nglory? And if one person is born _here_, and another _there_; if one\nfalls amongst _riches_, and another into _poverty_; if one receives\nhis flesh and blood from these _parents_, and another from those, for\nas particular ends as the man was born blind; have not all people the\ngreatest reason to bless God, and to be thankful for their particular\nstate and condition, because all that is particular in it, is as\ndirectly intended for the glory of God, and their own good, as the\n_particular blindness_ of that man, who was so born, that the _works\nof God might be manifested in him_?\n\n*\u00a0How noble an idea does this give us of the divine omniscience,\npresiding over the whole world, and governing such a long chain\nand combination of seeming accidents, to the common and particular\nadvantage of all beings? So that all persons, in such a wonderful\nvariety of causes and events, should fall into such particular states,\nas were foreseen and fore-ordained to their best advantage, and so\nas to be most serviceable to the wise and glorious ends of God\u2019s\ngovernment of all the world!\n\n12. *\u00a0Had you been any thing else than what you are, you had, all\nthings considered, been less wisely provided for than you are now; you\nhad wanted some circumstances that are best fitted to make you happy\nyourself, and serviceable to the glory of God.\n\n*\u00a0Could you see all that which God sees, all that happy chain of causes\nand motives which are to move and invite you to a right course of life,\nyou would see something to make you like that state you are in, as\nfitter for you than any other.\n\n*\u00a0But as you cannot see this, so it is here that your _trust_ in God\nis to exercise itself, and render you as thankful for the happiness of\nyour state, as if you saw every thing that contributes to it with your\nown eyes.\n\n*\u00a0But now, if this is the case of every man in the world, thus blessed\nwith some particular state that is most convenient for him, how\nreasonable is it for every man to will that which God has already\nwilled for him? And by a trust in the divine goodness, thankfully adore\nthat wise providence, which he is sure has made the best choice for him\nof those things which he could not chuse for himself.\n\n13. Every uneasiness at our own state, is founded upon comparing it\nwith that of other people; which is full as unreasonable, as if a man\nin a _dropsy_ should be angry at those that prescribe different things\nto him, from those which are prescribed to people in _health_. For\nall the different states of _life_ are like the different states of\n_diseases_; and what is a remedy to one man, may be poison to another.\n\n*\u00a0So that to murmur because you are not as some others are, is as if a\nman in one disease should murmur that he is not treated like him that\nis in another; whereas, if he was to have his will, he would be killed\nby that which will prove the cure of another.\n\n*\u00a0It is just thus in the various conditions of life; if you complain at\nany thing in your state, you may, for ought you know, be so ungrateful\nto God, as to murmur at that very thing which is to prove the cause of\nyour salvation.\n\nHad you it in your power to get that which you think it so grievous to\nwant, it might perhaps be that very thing which would expose you to\neternal damnation.\n\n*\u00a0So that, whether we consider the infinite goodness of God, that\ncannot chuse amiss for us, or our own great ignorance of what is most\n\u2666advantageous to us, there can be nothing so reasonable, as to have\nno will but that of God\u2019s, and desire nothing for ourselves, in our\n_persons_, our _state_, and _condition_, but that which the good\nprovidence of God appoints us.\n\n \u2666 \u201cadtageous\u201d replaced with \u201cadvantageous\u201d\n\n14. *\u00a0Farther, as the good providence of God introduces us into the\nworld, into such states and conditions as are most convenient for us;\nso the same unerring wisdom orders all events and changes in the whole\ncourse of our lives, in such a manner, as to render them the fittest\nmeans to exercise and improve our virtue.\n\nNothing hurts us, nothing destroys us, but the ill use of that liberty\nwith which God has entrusted us.\n\n*\u00a0We are as sure that nothing happens to us by chance, as that the\nworld itself was not made by chance; we are as certain that all things\nhappen, and work together for our good, as that God is goodness itself.\nSo that a man has as much reason to _will_ every thing that happens to\nhim, because God wills it, as to think that is wisest which is directed\nby infinite wisdom.\n\nThe providence of God is not more concerned in the government of\n_night_ and _day_, and the variety of _seasons_, than in the common\ncourse of events, that seem most to depend upon the meer wills of men.\nSo that it is as strictly right, to look upon all worldly changes,\nall the various turns in your own life, to be the effects of divine\nprovidence, as the rising and setting of the sun, or the alterations\nof the seasons of the year. As you are therefore always to adore the\nwisdom of God in the direction of these things; so it is the same\nreasonable duty, always to magnify God, as an equal director of every\nthing that happens to you in the course of your own life.\n\n15. There is nothing that so powerfully governs the heart, as a true\nsense of God\u2019s _presence_; and nothing so constantly keeps us under a\nlively sense of the presence of God, as this holy resignation, which\nattributes every thing to him, and receives every thing as from him.\n\nCould we see a _miracle_ from God, how would our thoughts be affected\nwith an holy awe and veneration of his presence! But if we consider\nevery thing as God\u2019s doing, either by order or permission, we shall\nthen be affected with _common things_, as they would be who saw a\n_miracle_.\n\nFor as there is nothing to affect you in a miracle, but as it is the\n_action_ of God, and bespeaks his presence; so when you consider God,\nas _acting_ in all things, and all events, then all things will become\nvenerable to you, like _miracles_, and fill you with the same awful\nsentiments of the divine presence.\n\n16. Now you must not reserve the exercise of this pious temper to any\nparticular times or occasions, or fancy how _resigned_ you will be to\nGod, if such or such trials should happen: for this is amusing yourself\nwith the _notion_ of resignation instead of the virtue itself.\n\nDon\u2019t therefore please yourself with thinking, how piously you would\nact and submit to God in a _plague_, a _famine_, or _persecution_; but\nbe intent upon the perfection of the present day; and be assured, that\nthe best way of shewing a _true zeal_, is to make _little things_ the\noccasions of _great piety_.\n\n*\u00a0Begin therefore in the smallest matters, and most ordinary occasions,\nand accustom your mind to the daily exercise of this pious temper, in\nthe lowest occurrences of life. And when a _contempt_, an _affront_,\na little _injury_, _loss_, or _disappointment_, or the smallest events\nof every day, continually raise your mind to God in proper acts of\nresignation, then you may justly hope, that you shall be numbered\namongst those that are resigned, and thankful to God in the greatest\ntrials and afflictions.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIX.\n\n _Of the excellency and greatness of a devout spirit._\n\n\n1. I\u00a0HAVE now finished what I intended in this treatise. I have\nexplained the nature of devotion, both as it signifies a life devoted\nto God, and as it signifies a regular method of prayer. I have now\nonly to add a word or two in recommendation of a life governed by this\nSpirit.\n\nAnd because in this _polite_ age, we have so _lived away_ the spirit\nof devotion, that many seem afraid even to be suspected of it,\nimagining _great devotion_ to be great _bigotry_; that it is founded\nin _ignorance_ and _poorness_ of spirit; and that _little_, _weak_, and\n_dejected_ minds, are generally the greatest proficients in it.\n\nIt shall here be shewn, that great devotion is the _noblest_ temper of\nthe _greatest_ and _noblest_ souls; and that they who think it receives\nany advantage from _ignorance_, are themselves entirely ignorant of the\nnature of devotion, the nature of God, and the nature of themselves.\n\nPeople of _fine parts_ and _learning_, or of great knowledge in\n_worldly matters_, may perhaps think it hard to have their _want_ of\ndevotion charged upon their _ignorance_. But if they will be content\nto be tried by reason and scripture, it may soon be made appear,\nthat a _want_ of devotion, wherever it is, either amongst the learned\nor unlearned, is founded in _gross ignorance_, and the _greatest\nblindness_ and _insensibility_ that can happen to a rational creature.\n\nAnd that devotion is so far from being the effect of a _little_ and\n_dejected_ mind, that it must and will be always _highest_ in the most\n_perfect_ natures.\n\n2. And _first_, Who reckons it a sign of a _poor, little_ mind, for a\nman to be full of _reverence_ and _duty_ to his parents, to have the\ntruest _love_ and _honour_ for his _friend_, or to excel in the\n_highest instances_ of gratitude to his benefactor?\n\nAre not these tempers, in the _highest_ degree, in the most exalted and\nperfect minds?\n\nAnd yet what is _high devotion_, but the highest exercise of these\ntempers, of _duty_, _reverence_, _love_, _honour_, and _gratitude_\nto the amiable, glorious _parent_, _friend_, and _benefactor_ of all\nmankind?\n\nIs it a true greatness of mind, to reverence the authority of\nyour parents, to fear the displeasure of your friend, to dread the\nreproaches of your benefactor; and must not this _fear_, and _dread_,\nand _reverence_, be much more just, and reasonable, and honourable,\nwhen they are in the _highest degree_ towards God?\n\nSo that as long as _duty_ to parents, _love_ to friends, and\n_gratitude_ to benefactors, are thought great and honourable tempers,\ndevotion, which is nothing else but duty, love, and gratitude to God,\nmust have the highest place amongst our highest virtues.\n\nIf a _prince_, out of his _mere goodness_, should send you a pardon by\none of his _slaves_, would you think it a part of your duty to receive\nthe _slave_ with marks of _love_, _esteem_, and _gratitude_, for his\nkindness of bringing you so great a gift, and at the same time think\nit a _meanness_ and _poorness_ of spirit, to shew _love_, _esteem_, and\n_gratitude_ to the prince, who of his own goodness freely sent you the\npardon?\n\nAnd yet this would be as reasonable, as to suppose that love, esteem,\nhonour, and gratitude, are _noble tempers_, and instances of a _great\nsoul_, when they are paid to our fellow-creatures; but the effects of\na poor, ignorant mind, when they are paid to God.\n\n3. Even that part of devotion which expresses itself in _sorrowful_\nconfessions, and _penitential_ tears of a broken and contrite heart,\nis very far from being any sign of a _little_ and _ignorant_ mind.\n\nFor who does not acknowledge it an instance of an _ingenuous_,\n_generous_, and _brave_ mind, to acknowledge a fault, and ask pardon\nfor any offence? And are not the _finest_ and _most improved_ minds,\nthe most remarkable for this excellent temper?\n\nIs it not also allowed, that the _ingenuousness_ and _excellence_ of a\nman\u2019s spirit is much shewn, when his sorrow and indignation at himself\nrises in proportion to the folly of his crime, and the _goodness_ and\n_greatness_ of the person he has offended?\n\nNow if things are thus, then the _greater_ any man\u2019s mind is, the\nmore he _knows_ of God and himself, the more will he be disposed to\nprostrate himself before God in all the _humblest acts_ and expressions\nof repentance.\n\nAnd the greater the _generosity_ and _penetration_ of his mind is,\nthe more will he indulge a _passionate, tender_ sense of God\u2019s just\ndispleasure; and the more he knows of the greatness, the goodness, and\nperfection of the divine nature, the fuller of shame and confusion will\nhe be at his own sins and ingratitude.\n\nAnd on the other hand, the more _dull_ and _ignorant_ any soul is,\nthe more _base_ and _ungenerous_, the more _senseless_ it is of\nthe goodness of God, the more averse to _humble confession_ and\n_repentance_.\n\nDevotion therefore is so far from being best suited to _little,\nignorant_ minds, that a _true elevation_ of soul, a _lively sense_ of\nhonour, and _great knowledge_ of God and ourselves, are the greatest\nhelps that our devotion hath.\n\n4. On the other hand, it shall be made appear, that _indevotion_ is\nfounded in the most excessive ignorance.\n\nAnd, _first_, Our blessed Lord and his apostles were eminent instances\nof great devotion. Now if we will grant, (as all Christians must grant)\nthat their great devotion was founded in a true knowledge of the nature\nof devotion, the nature of God, and the nature of man, then it is plain,\nthat all those that are insensible of devotion, are in this excessive\nstate of ignorance; they neither know God, nor themselves, nor devotion.\n\nAgain, how comes it that most people have recourse to devotion, when\nthey are in sickness, distress, or fear of death? Is it not because\nthis state shews them _more_ of the want of God, and their own weakness,\nthan they perceive at other times? Is it not because their approaching\nend, _convinces_ them of something which they did not _half perceive_\nbefore?\n\nNow if devotion, at these seasons, is the effect of a _better\nknowledge_ of God and ourselves, then the neglect of devotion at other\ntimes is owing to ignorance of God and ourselves.\n\n5. Farther, as indevotion is ignorance, so it is the most _shameful_\nignorance, and such as is to be charged with the _greatest folly_.\n\nThis will fully appear to any one that considers by what rules we are\nto judge of the excellency of any knowledge, or the shamefulness of any\nignorance.\n\nNow _knowledge_ itself would be no _excellence_, nor ignorance any\n_reproach_ to us, but that we are _rational_ creatures.\n\nIt follows plainly, that knowledge which is most _suitable_ to our\nrational nature, and which most concerns us, as such, to know, is our\n_highest, finest_ knowledge; and that ignorance which relates to things\nthat are most _essential_ to us, as rational creatures, and which we\nare most concerned to know, is, of all others, the most _gross_ and\n_shameful_ ignorance.\n\n6. If a _gentleman_ should fancy that the _moon_ is no bigger than it\nappears to the _eye_, that it shines with its _own light_, that all\nthe _stars_ are only so many spots of light; if after reading books of\n_astronomy_, he should still continue in the same opinion, most people\nwould think he had but a poor apprehension.\n\nBut if the same person should think it better to provide for a _short\nlife_ here, than to prepare for a _glorious eternity_ hereafter;\nthat it was better to be _rich_, than to be _eminent_ in piety, his\n_ignorance_ and _dulness_ would be too great to be compared to any\nthing else.\n\nThat is the most clear and improved understanding, which _judges_ best\nof the _value_ and _worth_ of things; all the rest is but the capacity\nof an _animal_; it is but meer _seeing_ and _hearing_.\n\nIf a man had _eyes_ that could see beyond the _stars_, or pierce into\nthe heart of the earth, but could not see the things that were before\nhim, or discern any thing that was serviceable to him, we should reckon\nthat he had but a very _bad sight_.\n\nIf another had _ears_ that received sounds from the world in the _moon_,\nbut could hear nothing that was said or done upon earth, we should look\nupon him to be as _bad_ as _deaf_.\n\nIn like manner, if a man has a _memory_ that can retain a great many\nthings, if he has a _wit_ that is _sharp_ and _acute_ in arts and\nsciences, but has a _dull, poor_ apprehension of his _duty_ and\n_relation_ to God, of the _value_ of piety, or the _worth_ of moral\nvirtue, he may very justly be reckoned to have a _bad understanding_.\nHe is but like the man that can only _see_ and _hear_ such things as\nare of no benefit to him.\n\n7. To proceed: We know how our blessed Lord acted in an human body;\nit was _his meat and drink to do the will of his Father which is in\nheaven_.\n\nAnd if any number of heavenly spirits were to leave their habitations\nin the light of God, and be for awhile united to human bodies, they\nwould certainly tend towards God in all their actions, and be as\nheavenly as they could, in a state of flesh and blood.\n\nThey would certainly act in this manner, because they would know that\nGod was the _only good_ of all spirits; and that whether they were _in_\nthe body, or _out_ of the body, in _heaven_ or on _earth_, they must\nhave every degree of their greatness and happiness from God alone.\n\nAll human spirits therefore, the _more exalted_ they are, the more\nthey _know_ their divine original, the _nearer_ they come to heavenly\nspirits, the more will they live to God in all their actions, making\ntheir whole life a _state of devotion_.\n\nDevotion therefore is the greatest sign of a great and noble _genius_;\nit supposes a soul in its _highest state_ of knowledge; and none\nbut _little_ and _blinded_ minds, that are sunk into _ignorance_ and\n_vanity_, are destitute of it.\n\n8. If a human spirit should imagine some _mighty prince_ to be greater\nthan God, we should take it for a poor ignorant creature; all people\nwould acknowledge such an imagination to be the height of stupidity.\n\nBut if this same _human spirit_ should think it better to be devoted to\nsome mighty _prince_, than to be devoted to God, would not this still\nbe a greater proof of a poor, ignorant, and blinded nature?\n\nYet this is what all people do, who think any thing _better_, _greater_,\nor _wiser_ than a devout life.\n\nSo that which way soever we consider this matter, it plainly appears,\nthat devotion is an instance of _great judgment_, of an _elevated\nnature_; and the want of _devotion_ is a certain proof of the want of\n_understanding_.\n\nThe greatest spirits of the Heathen world, such as _Pythagoras_,\n_Socrates_, _Plato_, _Epictetus_, _Marcus Antoninus_, owed all their\ngreatness to the spirit of devotion.\n\nThey were full of God; their wisdom and deep contemplations tended\nonly to deliver men from the vanity of the world, the slavery of bodily\npassions, that they might act as _spirits_ that came from God, and were\nsoon to return to him.\n\n9. Let _libertines_ but grant that there is a God, and a providence,\nand then they have granted enough to justify the wisdom, and support\nthe honour of devotion.\n\nFor if there is an infinitely wise and good Creator, in whom we live,\nmove, and have our being, whose providence governs all things in all\nplaces, surely it must be the highest act of our _understanding_ to\nconceive rightly of him; it must be the noblest instance of _judgment_,\nthe most exalted temper of our nature, to worship and adore this\nuniversal providence, to conform to its laws, to study its wisdom, and\nto live and act every where, as in the presence of this infinitely good\nand wise Creator.\n\nNow he that lives thus, lives in the spirit of devotion.\n\nAnd what can shew such great parts, and so fine an understanding, as to\nlive in this temper?\n\nFor if God is _wisdom_, surely he must be the wisest man in the\nworld, who _most_ conforms to the wisdom of God, who _best_ obeys his\nprovidence, who enters _farthest_ into his designs, and does all he\ncan, that God\u2019s will may be done on earth, as it is done in heaven.\n\nA devout man makes a true use of his reason; he sees through the\n_vanity_ of the world, discovers the _corruption_ of his nature, and\nthe _blindness_ of his passions. He lives by a _law_ which is not\nvisible to _vulgar eyes_; he enters into the world of _spirits_; he\ncompares the greatest things, sets _eternity_ against time; and chuses\nrather to be for ever great in the presence of God when he dies, than\nto have the greatest share of worldly pleasures whilst he lives.\n\n11. _Lastly, Courage_ and _bravery_ are words of a great sound, and\nseem to signify an _heroic_ spirit; but yet _humility_, which seems to\nbe the _lowest, meanest_ part of devotion, is a more certain argument\nof a _noble_ mind.\n\nFor humility contends with greater enemies, is more constantly engaged,\nmore violently assaulted, suffers more, and requires greater courage to\nsupport itself, than any instances of worldly bravery.\n\nA man that dares be poor and contemptible in the eyes of the world, to\napprove himself to God; that resists and rejects all human glory; that\nopposes the clamour of his passions, that meekly puts up all injuries,\nand dares stay for his reward till the invisible hand of God gives\nto every one their proper places, endures a much _greater trial_, and\nexerts a _nobler fortitude_, than he that is bold and daring in the\nfire of battle.\n\nFor the boldness of a soldier, if he is a stranger to the spirit of\ndevotion, is rather _weakness_ than fortitude; it is at best but _mad\npassion_, and heated spirits, and has no more true valour in it than\nthe fury of a _tyger_.\n\nReason is our _universal law_, that obliges us in all places, and all\ntimes; and no actions have any honour, but so far as they are instances\nof our obedience to reason.\n\nAnd it is as _base_ to be bold and daring against the principle of\nreason and justice, as to be bold and daring in _lying_ and _perjury_.\n\nWould we therefore exercise a _true fortitude_, we must do all in the\nspirit of _devotion_, be valiant against the corruptions of the _world_,\nand the lusts of the _flesh_, and the temptations of the _devil_:\nfor to be daring and courageous against these enemies, is the noblest\nbravery that an human mind is capable of.\n\nI have made this digression for the sake of those, who think great\ndevotion to be _bigotry_ and _poorness_ of _spirit_; that by these\nconsiderations they may see, how _poor_ and _mean_ all other _tempers_\nare, if compared to it: that they may see all worldly attainments,\nwhether of greatness, wisdom, or bravery, are but _empty sounds_; and\nthere is nothing _wise_, or _great_, or _noble_, in an _human spirit_,\nbut rightly to _know_, and heartily _worship_ and _adore_ the great God,\nthat is the _support_ and _life_ of all spirits, whether in _heaven_,\nor on _earth_.\n\n\n\n\n An extract from the Rev. Mr. LAW\u2019s\n LATER WORKS.\n\n An extract from the Case of Reason, or Natural Religion, fairly\n and fully stated. In answer to a book, entitled _Christianity\n as Old as the Creation_.\n\n\n _The Introduction, shewing the state of the Controversy._\n\nTHE infidelity which is now openly declared for, pretends to support\nitself upon the _sufficiency_, _excellency_, and _absolute perfection_\nof reason, or natural religion.\n\nThe author with whom I am engaged, makes no attempt to invalidate\nthe _historical evidence_ on which Christianity is founded; but by\narguments drawn from the nature of God, and natural religion, pretends\nto prove that no religion can come from God, which teaches any thing\nmore than that, which is fully manifest to all mankind by the _mere\nlight_ of nature.\n\nHis chief principles may be reduced to these following propositions.\n\n1. That human reason, or natural light, is the _only means_ of knowing\nall that God requires of us.\n\n2. That reason, or natural light, is so full, sufficient, plain,\nand certain a rule in all religious duties, that no external divine\nrevelation can add any thing to it, or require us to believe or\npractise any thing, that was not as fully known before. A revelation,\nif ever made, can only declare those very _same_ things _externally_,\nwhich were before equally declared by the _internal_ light of nature.\n\n3. That this must be the case of natural and revealed religion, unless\nGod be an arbitrary being. For if God be not an arbitrary being, but\nacts according to the reason and nature of things; then he can require\nnothing of us by revelation, but what is already required by the nature\nand reason of things. And therefore, as he expresses it, _reason and\nrevelation must exactly answer one another like two tallies_\u00b9.\n\n \u00b9 Page 60.\n\n4. That whatever is at any time admitted as matter of religion, that is\nnot manifest from the reason of the thing, and plainly required by the\nlight of nature, is gross superstition.\n\n5. That it is inconsistent with the divine perfections, to suppose,\nthat God can by an external revelation give any religious knowledge, at\n_any time_, to _any people_, which was not equally given at _all_ times,\nand to _all_ people.\n\nThis is the state of the controversy. As to the railing accusations,\nwhich this author pours out, at all adventures, upon the clergy, I\nshall wholly pass them over; my intention being only to appeal to the\nreason of the reader, and to add nothing to it, but the safe, unerring\nlight of divine revelation.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER I.\n\n _Enquiring, whether there be any thing in the |nature| and\n |condition| of man, to |oblige| him to think, that he is not\n to admit of any doctrines or institutions, as revealed from\n God, but such as his own reason can prove to be necessary from\n the nature of things._\n\n\nI BEGIN with enquiring what there is to _oblige_ a man to hold this\nopinion, because if there is not some strong and plain proof arising\nfrom the _nature_ and _condition_ of man, to _oblige_ him thus to abide\nby the sole light of his own reason; it may be so far from being a duty,\nwhich he owes to God, that it may be reckoned amongst his most criminal\npresumptions. And the pleading for this authority of his own reason;\nmay have the guilt of pleading for his greatest vanity. And if, as\nthis writer observes, _spiritual pride be the worst sort of pride_,\u00b9 a\nconfident reliance upon our own reason, as having a right to determine\nall matters between God and man, if it should prove to be a _groundless\npretension_, bids fair to be reckoned the highest instance of the\n_worst_ kind of the worst of sins.\n\n \u00b9 Page 150.\n\nEvery other instance of vanity, every degree of personal pride, and\nself-esteem, may be a pardonable weakness in comparison of this. For\nhow small is that pride which only makes us prefer our own personal\nbeauty or merit to that of our fellow-creatures, when compared with a\nself-confiding reason, which is too haughty to adore any thing in the\ndivine counsels, which it cannot fully comprehend; or to submit to any\ndirections from God, but such as its own wisdom could prescribe? Thus\nmuch is certain, that there can be no _medium_ in this matter. The\nclaiming this authority to our own reason, must either be a very great\nduty, or among the greatest of sins.\n\nIf it be a _sin_ to admit of any _secrets_ in divine providence, if it\nbe a _crime_ to ascribe wisdom and goodness to God in things we cannot\ncomprehend: if it be a _baseness_ and _meanness_ of spirit to believe\nthat God can teach us _better_ or _more_ than we can teach ourselves:\nif it be a _shameful apostacy_ from the dignity of our nature, to\nsubmit to any _mysterious providence_ over us, to comply with any other\nmethods of _homage_ and _adoration_, than such as we could of ourselves\ncontrive and justify; then it is certainly a great duty to assert and\nmaintain this authority of our own reason.\n\nOn the other hand; if the profoundest humility towards God, be the\nhighest instance of piety: if every thing within us and without us, if\nevery thing we know of God, every thing we know of ourselves preaches\nup humility to us, as the foundation of every virtue, as the life\nand soul of all holiness: if _sin_ had its beginning from _pride_,\nand _hell_ be the effect of it, if _devils_ are what they are through\nspiritual pride and self-conceit, then we have great reason to believe,\nthat the claiming this authority to our reason, in opposition to the\nrevealed wisdom of God, is not a frailty of _flesh_ and _blood_, but\nthat same spiritual pride which turned _angels_ into _apostate_ spirits.\n\nSince therefore this appealing to our own reason, as the absolutely\n_perfect rule_ of all that ought to pass between God and man, has an\n_appearance_ of a pride of the _worst_ kind, and such as unites us\nboth in temper and conduct with the fallen spirits of darkness, it\nhighly concerns every pleader on that side, to consider what grounds\nhe proceeds upon, and to ask himself, what there is in the _state_ and\n_condition_ of human nature, to oblige him to think, that nothing can\nbe _divine_ or _holy_, or _necessary_, in religion, but what _human_\nreason dictates?\n\nI hope the reader will think this a fair state of the case, and that\nall the light we can have in this matter, must arise from a thorough\nconsideration of the _state_ and _condition_ of man in this world.\nIf without revelation he is free from mysteries as a _moral_ and\n_religious_ agent, then he has some plea from his state and condition\nto reject _revealed_ mysteries.\n\nBut if in a state of natural religion, he can\u2019t acknowledge a divine\nprovidence or worship God, without _as much_ implicit faith, and\nsubmission of his reason, as any revealed mysteries require; then\nhis _state_ and _condition_ in the world, condemns his refusal of\nany revelation sufficiently attested to come from God. This enquiry\ntherefore into the state and condition of man, being so plainly the\ntrue point of the controversy, I hope to obtain the reader\u2019s impartial\nattention to it.\n\nHad mankind continued in a state of _perfect innocence_, without ever\nfailing in their duty either to God or man, yet even in such a state,\nthey could never have known what God would or would not reveal to them,\nbut by some express revelation from him. And as God might intend to\nraise them to some higher, and unknown state of perfection; so he might\nraise them to it by the revelation of such things as their own reason,\nthough uncorrupt, yet could not have discovered.\n\nBut if man, in a state of _innocence_, could have no pretence to set\nhimself against divine revelation, and make his own reason the _final\njudge_ of what God could, or could not reveal to him; much less has he\nany pretence for so doing in his present state of _sin_, _ignorance_,\nand _misery_. His _nature_ and _condition_ is so far from furnishing\nhim with reasons against revelation, against any _supernatural_ help\nfrom God; that it seems to be inconsolable without it; and every\ncircumstance of his life prepares him to hope for terms of _mercy_\nand deliverance from his present guilt and misery, not according to\n_schemes_ of his _own_ contrivance, not from his _own knowledge_ of\nthe _nature_, and _reason_, and _fitness_ of things, but from some\n_incomprehensible depth_ of divine goodness.\n\nFor if sin, and misery, and ignorance, cannot convince us of our own\nweakness, cannot prepare us to accept of any _methods_ of _atoning_ for\nour guilt, but such as our own disordered reason can suggest, we are\nnot far from the hardened state of those miserable spirits, that make\nwar against God.\n\nFor to insist upon the _prerogative_ of our own nature, as qualifying\nus to make our own peace with God, and to reject the _atonement_ which\nhe has provided for us, because we esteem it more fit and reasonable,\nthat our _own repentance_ should be sufficient without it, is the same\nheight of _pride_ and _impiety_, as to affirm, that we have no need of\nany repentance at all.\n\nFor as mankind, if they had continued in a state of _innocence_, could\nnot have known how their innocence was to be rewarded, or what changes\nof state God intended them for, but as revelation had discovered these\nthings unto them: so after they were _fallen_ into a state of guilt and\nsin, they could never know what _misery_ it would expose them to, or\n_when_, or _how_, or whether they were ever to be delivered from it,\nand made as happy as if they had _never_ sinned; these are things that\nnothing but a revelation from God could teach them.\n\nSo that for a sinner to pretend to appoint the _atonement_ for his own\nsins, or to think himself able to tell what it _ought_ to be, is as\nfoolish and vain a presumption, as if man in _innocence_ should have\npretended to appoint his own method of being changed into a _cherub_.\n\nThe writers against revelation appeal to the _reason_ and _nature_ of\nthings, as _infallibly_ discovering every thing that a revelation from\nGod can teach us.\n\nThus our author; _If the relations between things, and the fitness\nresulting from thence, be not the sole rule of God\u2019s actions, must not\nGod be an arbitrary being? But if God only commands what the nature of\nthings shew to be fit, it is scarce possible that men should mistake\ntheir duty; since a mind that is attentive can as easily distinguish\nfit from unfit, as the eye can beauty from deformity_\u00b9.\n\n \u00b9 Page 30.\n\nIt is granted, that there is a fitness and unfitness of actions\nfounded in the nature of things, and resulting from the relations that\npersons and things bear to one another. It is also granted, that the\nreasonableness of most of the duties of children to their parents, of\nparents to their children, and of men to men, is very apparent, from\nthe relations they bear to one another; and that several of the duties\nwhich we owe to God, plainly appear to us, as soon as we acknowledge\nthe relation that is between God and us.\n\nBut then, this _whole argument_ proves directly the contrary to that\nwhich this author intended to prove by it.\n\nI here therefore join with this author; I readily grant, that the\nnature, reason and relations of things and persons, and the fitness\nof actions resulting from thence, is the _sole rule_ of God\u2019s actions.\nAnd I appeal to this one common principle, as a sufficient proof that\na man cannot thus abide by the _sole light_ of his own reason, without\ncontradicting the nature and reason of things, and denying this to be\nthe _sole rule_ of God\u2019s actions.\n\n*\u00a0For if the _fitness_ of actions is founded in the _nature_ of things\nand persons, and this fitness be the _sole rule_ of God\u2019s actions, it\nis certain that the rule by which he acts, must in many instances be\n_entirely_ inconceivable by us, so as not to be known _at all_, and in\nno instances _fully_ known, or _perfectly_ comprehended.\n\n*\u00a0For if God is to act according to a _fitness founded_ in the _nature_\nof things, and nothing can be fit for him to do, but what has its\nfitness founded in his own _incomprehensible_ nature, must he not\nnecessarily act by a rule _above_ all human comprehension? If he must\ngovern his actions by his own nature, he must act by a _rule_ that is\njust as _incomprehensible_ to us as his own nature.\n\n*\u00a0And we can be no farther _competent judges_ of the _fitness_ of the\nconduct of God, than we are competent judges of the divine nature; and\ncan no more tell what is, or is not _infinitely wise_ in God, than we\ncan raise ourselves to a _state_ of infinite wisdom.\n\nSo that if the _fitness_ of actions is founded in the _particular\nnature_ of things and persons, and the fitness of God\u2019s actions must\narise from that which is _particular_ to his nature, then we have from\nthis argument, the _utmost certainty_ that the _rule_ or _reasons_ of\nGod\u2019s actions must in many cases be entirely inconceivable by us, and\nin no cases perfectly apprehended; and for this very reason, because he\nis not an _arbitrary being_, that acts by _mere will_, but is governed\nin every thing he does, by the reason and nature of things.\n\nHow mistaken therefore is this author, when he argues after this manner.\n_If God requires things of us, whose fitness our reason can\u2019t prove\nfrom the nature of things, must he not be an arbitrary being?_ For how\ncan that prove God to be an arbitrary agent, which is the necessary\nconsequence of his not being arbitrary?\n\nSupposing God not to be an _arbitrary being_, but to act constantly,\nas the perfections of his own nature make it _fit_ and _reasonable_ for\nhim to act, then there is an utter impossibility of our comprehending\nthe reasonableness and fitness of many of his actions.\n\n*\u00a0For instance; look at the _reason_ of things, and the _fitness_ of\nactions, and tell me how they moved God to create mankind in the state\nand condition they are in. Nothing is more above the reason of men,\nthan to explain the reasonableness of God\u2019s providence in creating\nman of such a _form_ and _condition_, to go through _such_ a state\nof things as human life is. No revealed mysteries can more exceed the\ncomprehension of man, than the state of human life itself.\n\nShew me according to what _fitness_, founded in the _nature_ of things,\nGod\u2019s infinite wisdom was determined to form you in such a manner,\nbring you into such a world, and suffer and preserve _such a state_\nof things, as human life is, and then you may have some pretence to\nbelieve no revealed doctrines, but such as your own reason can deduce\nfrom the nature of things.\n\nBut whilst your own _form_, whilst _creation_ and _providence_ are\ndepths which you cannot thus look into, \u2019tis strangely absurd to\npretend, that God cannot reveal any thing to you as a matter of\nreligion, except your own reason can shew its foundation in the nature\nand reason of things.\n\n_Revelation_, you say, is on your account, and therefore you ought to\nsee the _reasonableness_ and _fitness_ of it. And don\u2019t you also say,\nthat God has made you for your _own sake_; ought you not therefore to\nknow the reasonableness and fitness of God\u2019s forming you as you are?\nDon\u2019t you say, that providence is for the _sake_ of man? Is it not\ntherefore fit and reasonable, in the nature of things, that there\nshould be no _mysteries_, or _secrets_, in providence, but that man\nshould so see its methods, as to be able to prove all its steps to be\nconstantly fit and reasonable?\n\nDon\u2019t you say, that the _world_ is for the _sake_ of man; is it not\ntherefore fit and reasonable that man should see, that the _past_ and\n_present_ state of the world has been such as the reason and fitness of\nthings required it should be?\n\n*\u00a0Now if the _imperfect_ state of human nature, the _calamities_ of\nthis life, the _diseases_ and mortality of human bodies, the _methods_\nof God\u2019s continual providence in governing human affairs, are things\nthat as much concern us, as any methods of revealed religion; and if\nthese are things that we cannot explain, according to any _fitness_ or\n_unfitness_ founded in the _nature_ of things, but must believe a great\ndeal more of the infinite wisdom of God, than we can so explain; have\nwe any reason to think, that God cannot, or ought not to raise us out\nof this unhappy state of things, help us to an higher order of life,\nand exalt us to a nearer enjoyment of himself, by any means, but such\nas our own poor reason can grope out of the nature and fitness of\nthings?\n\nNow what is the reason, that all is thus mysterious and unmeasurable\nby human reason, in these matters so nearly concerning human nature?\n\u2019Tis because God is not an _arbitrary being_, but does that which the\n_incomprehensible perfections_ of his own nature, make it _fit_ and\n_reasonable_ for him to do. Do but grant that nothing can be _fit_ for\nGod to do, but what is _according_ to his own _infinite perfections_:\nlet but this be the _rule_ of his actions, and then you have the\n_fullest_ proof, that the fitness of his actions must be above our\ncomprehension, who can only judge of a _fitness_ according to our _own\nperfections_; and then we must be surrounded with mystery for this very\nreason, because God acts according to a _certain rule_, his own nature.\n\n_Again_: What is the nature of a human soul, upon what _terms_, and\nin what manner it is _united_ to the body, how far it is _different_\nfrom it, how far it is _subject_ to it, what powers and faculties\nit _derives_ from it; are things wherein the _wisdom_ and _goodness_\nof God, and the _happiness_ of man are deeply concerned. Is it not\nnecessary that these things should have their foundation in the\n_reason_ and _fitness_ of things? And yet what natural reason,\nuninspired from above, can shew that this _state_ of soul and body is\nfounded therein?\n\n*\u00a0_Again_: The origin of _sin_ and _evil_, or how it entered into the\nworld consistently with the infinite wisdom of God, is a mystery of\n_natural religion_, which reason cannot unfold. For can we shew from\nthe _reason_ and _nature_ of things, that it was _fit_ and _reasonable_,\nfor the providence of God to suffer sin to enter, and continue in the\nworld? Here therefore the man of natural religion must drop his method\nof reasoning from the fitness of things, and that in an article of the\nhighest concern to the moral world, and be as mere a believer, as he\nthat believes the most incomprehensible mystery of revealed religion.\n\nNow as there have been in the several ages of the world, some\n_impatient_, _restless_ and _presuming_ spirits, who, because they\ncould not in these points explain the justice of God\u2019s providence, have\ntaken refuge in horrid _atheism_, so they made just the same _sober\nuse_ of their reason, as our _modern unbelievers_, who because they\ncan\u2019t comprehend the _fitness_ and _necessity_ of certain Christian\ndoctrines, resign themselves up to an hardened _infidelity_. For it\nis just as reasonable to allow of no mysteries in _revelation_, as to\nallow of no mysteries in _creation_ and _providence_.\n\nAnd whenever this writer shall think it proper to attack _natural_\nreligion with as much freedom as he has _revealed_, he need not enter\nupon any _new_ hypothesis, or _different_ way of reasoning. For the\nsame turn of thought, may soon find materials in the natural state\nof man, for as large a bill of complaints against natural religion,\nand the mysteries of providence, as is here brought against revealed\ndoctrines.\n\nTo proceed: If the _fitness of actions is founded in the nature and\nrelation of beings_, then nothing can be fit for God to do, but so far\nas it is fit for the _Governor of all created beings_, whether on earth,\nor in any other part of the universe; and he cannot act fitly towards\nmankind, but by acting as is fit for the Governor of all beings.\n\n*\u00a0Now what is fit for the _Governor of all created_ nature to do in\nthis or that particular part of his creation, is as much above our\nreason to _tell_, as it is above our power to _govern_ all beings. And\nhow mankind ought to be governed, with relation to the whole creation,\nof which they are so small a part, is a matter equally above our\nknowledge; because we know not how they are a part of the whole, or\nwhat relation they bear to any other part, or how their state affects\nthe whole, or any other part, than we know what beings the whole\nconsists of.\n\nNow there is nothing that we know with more certainty than that God is\ngovernor of the _whole_, and that mankind are a _part_ of the whole;\nand that the uniformity and harmony of divine providence, must arise\nfrom his infinite wise government of the _whole_; and therefore we have\nthe utmost certainty, that we are _vastly incompetent_ judges of the\nfitness or unfitness of any methods that God uses in the government of\nso small a part of the universe, as mankind are.\n\n_Again_: If the _fitness of actions is founded in the relations of\nbeings to one another_, then the fitness of the actions of God\u2019s\nprovidence over mankind, must be in many instances altogether\nincomprehensible to us.\n\nFor the relation which God bears to mankind, as their _all-perfect\nCreator_ and continual _Preserver_, is a relation that our reason\nconceives as imperfectly, and knows as little of, as it does of any\nof the divine attributes. When it compares it to that of a _father_\nand his children, a _prince_ and his subjects, a _proprietor_ and his\nproperty, it has explained it in the best manner it can, but still has\nleft it as much a _secret_, as we do the divine nature when we only say,\nit is _infinitely_ superior to every thing that is _finite_.\n\nBy the natural light of our reason we may know with certainty, several\n_effects_ of this relation, as that it puts us under the care and\nprotection of a wise, and just, and merciful providence, and demands\nfrom us the highest instances of humility, adoration and thanksgiving.\nBut what it is in its own nature, what kind of state, it is to\nexist in and by God, what it is to see by a _light_ that is his, to\nact by a power from him, to live by a _life_ in him; are things as\nincomprehensible to reason, _left to itself_, as what it is to be in\nthe _third heavens_, or to hear words that cannot be uttered.\n\nBut if this relation consists in these _inconceivable_ things, in a\ncommunication of _life_, _light_ and _power_, if these are enjoyed in\nGod, and in ourselves, in a manner not to be explained by any thing\nthat we ever heard, or saw; then we must necessarily be poor judges of\nwhat is fit for God to require of us, because of this _relation_. It\nteaches us nothing but the superficialness of our own knowledge, and\nthe unfathomable depths of the divine perfections.\n\nHow little this writer has considered the nature of this _relation_\nbetween God and man, may be seen by the following paragraphs. _The Holy\nGhost_, says he, _cannot deal with men as rational creatures, but by\nproposing arguments to convince their understandings; and influence\ntheir wills, in the same manner as if proposed by other agents_. As\nabsurd, as to say, God cannot _create_ us as rational beings, unless\nhe creates us in the same _manner_, as if we were created by other\nagents. For to suppose that other agents can possibly act upon our\nunderstanding, and will, in the _same manner_ that God does; is as\ngross an absurdity, as to suppose that other agents can create us in\nthe same manner that God creates us.\n\nAnd to _confine_ the manner of the Holy Ghost\u2019s acting upon us, to the\nmanner of our acting upon one another by _arguments_ and _syllogisms_,\nis as great a weakness, as to _confine_ the manner of God\u2019s creating us,\nto the manner of our making a _statue_ with _tools_ and _instruments_.\n\nBut he proceeds and says, _For to go beyond this, would be making\nimpressions on men, as a seal does on wax; to the confounding of their\nreason, and their liberty in chusing; and the man would then be mearly\npassive, and the action would be the action of another being acting\nupon him, for which he could be no way accountable_\u00b9.\n\n \u00b9 Page 199.\n\nHere you see the Holy Spirit has but these two possible ways of acting\nupon men, it must either only propose an argument, just as a man may\npropose one, or it must act like a _seal upon wax_.\n\nI only ask this writer, whether God communicates _life_, and _strength_,\nand _understanding_, and _liberty of will_ to us, only as men may\ncommunicate any thing to one another? or as a seal acts upon wax? If so,\nit may be granted, that the Holy Ghost cannot act upon us any other way.\n\nBut it must be affirmed, that we do, by a continual influx from God,\nenjoy all these powers, and receive the continuance of all these\nfaculties from him, not as men receive things from one another, nor\nas _wax_ receives the _impression_ of the _seal_, but in a way as much\nabove our conception, as creation is above our power; if we have all\nour _power_ of acting, by a _continual communication_ from him, and yet\nas free agents, have all our _light_ from him, and yet are _accountable\nintelligent_ beings; then it must be great weakness to affirm, that\nthe Holy Ghost cannot act upon us in the same manner: for it would be\nsaying, God cannot act upon us as he does act upon us.\n\nThe short of the matter is this. Either this _writer_ must affirm, that\nour _rational nature_, our _understanding faculties_, our _power_ of\naction, our _liberty_ of will, must _necessarily_ subsist without the\n_continual action_ of God upon them, or else he must grant, that God\ncan _act_ upon our _understandings_ and _wills_ without making us as\n_merely passive_ as the wax under the seal.\n\nThis writer says, _Though the relation we stand in to God, is not\nartificial, as most are amongst men\u2015\u2015yet this does not hinder, but\nthat we may know the end he had in being related to us as Creator and\nGovernor, and what he requires of his creatures and subjects_. But\nhow are we to know this? _This_, says he, _the divine nature_, which\n_contains in it all perfection and happiness, plainly points out to\nus_\u00b9.\n\n \u00b9 Page 29.\n\nIf he had said, since God must act over us as Creator and Governor,\naccording to his own infinite _perfection and happiness_, therefore\nhis conduct over us may be _very mysterious_, he had drawn a _plain_\nconclusion. But he proves all to be plain, because God is to govern\nus according to something that is not plain, according to his own\n_incomprehensible nature_.\n\nHis argument therefore proceeds thus. God must govern us according to\nhis own _infinite perfection and happiness_; but we _do not know_ what\nhis infinite perfections and happiness are:\n\nTherefore we _plainly know_ how he is to govern us.\n\nNow if this writer is capable of taking such an argument as this to be\ndemonstrative, it is no wonder that all his principles of religion are\nfounded upon demonstration.\n\nBut if he knows no more of what arises from the _relation_ between God\nand his creatures, than he has here demonstrated, he might be very well\ncontent with some farther knowledge from divine revelation.\n\nIt is because of this incomprehensible relation between God and his\ncreatures, that we are unavoidably ignorant of what God may justly\nrequire of us either in a state of _innocence_ or _sin_. For as the\nfitness of actions between beings _related_, must result from their\nrespective natures, so the incomprehensibility of the divine nature,\non which the relation between God and man is founded, makes it utterly\nimpossible for mere natural reason to say, what _kind_ of _homage_, or\n_worship_, he may _fitly_ require of man in a state of _innocence_; or\nwhat _different_ worship and homage he may, or must require of men, as\n_sinners_.\n\nAnd to appeal to the infinite perfections of God, as _plainly\npointing this out_, is the same extravagance, as to appeal to the\n_incomprehensibility_ of God as a plain proof of our comprehending what\nGod is.\n\nAs to the obligations of moral or social duties, which have their\nfoundation in the several relations we bear to one another, these are\nthe same in the state of _innocence_ or _sin_, and we know that we\ntruly act according to the divine will, when we act according to what\nthese relations require of us.\n\nBut the question is, What distinct kind of _homage_, or _service_, or\n_worship_, God may require us to render to him, either in a state of\n_innocence_ or _sin_, on account of that relation he bears to us as an\nall-perfect Creator and Governor?\n\nBut this is a question that God alone can resolve.\n\nHuman reason cannot enter into it, it has no principle to proceed upon\nin it. For as the _necessity_ of divine worship, so the _particular\nmanner_ of it, must have its reason in the divine nature.\n\n_Sacrifice_, if considered only as an _human invention_, could not\nbe proved to be a reasonable service. Yet considered as a _divine\ninstitution_, it would be the greatest folly not to receive it as a\nreasonable service. For as we could see no reason for it, if it was\nof human invention, so we should have the greatest reason to comply\nwith it because it was of divine appointment. Not as if the divine\nappointment altered the _nature_ and _fitness_ of things; but because\nnothing has the _nature_ and _fitness_ of divine worship, but as it is\nof divine appointment.\n\nMan therefore, had he continued in a state of innocence, and without\nrevelation, might have lived in an awful fear, and pious regard of God,\nand observed every duty both of moral and civil life, as an act of\nobedience to him. But he could have no foundation either to invent any\nparticular _manner_ of divine worship himself, or to reject any that\nwas appointed by God, as _unnecessary_. It would have been ridiculous\nto have pleaded his innocence, as having no need of a divine worship.\nFor who can have greater reason, or be fitter to worship God, than\ninnocent beings? It would have been more absurd, to have objected the\nsufficiency of their reason; for why should men reject a _revealed\nmanner_ of divine worship, because God had given them reason of their\nown, sufficient for the duties of social and civil life?\n\nAnd as reason in a state of innocence and perfection, could not have\nany pretence to appoint the manner of divine worship, so when the state\nof innocence was changed for that of sin, it became more difficult for\nbare reason to know what kind of worship could be acceptable to God\nfrom sinners.\n\nFor what the _relation_ betwixt God and sinners makes it fit for God to\nrequire or accept of them, cannot be determined by human reason.\n\nThis is a _new state_, and the foundation of a _new relation_, and\nnothing can be fit for God to do in it, but what has its _fitness\nresulting_ from it. We have nothing to help our conceptions of the\nfore-mentioned _relative characters_ of God, as our _Governor_ and\n_Preserver_, but what we derive from our idea of human _fathers_\nand _governors_: which idea only helps us to comprehend these\n_relations_, just as our idea of human power helps us to comprehend the\n_omnipotence_ of God. For a father or governor, no more represents the\n_state_ of God as our _Governor_ and _Preserver_, than our living in\nour father\u2019s _family_, represents the _manner_ of our living in God.\n\nThese relations are both very plain, and very mysterious; they are very\nplain, as to the _reality_ of their existence; and highly mysterious\nand inconceivable, as to the _manner_ of their existence.\n\nThat which is _plain_, in these relative characters of God, plainly\nshews our obligations to every instance of _duty_, _homage_, _love_,\nand _gratitude_.\n\nAnd that which is _inconceivable_ in them, is a solid foundation of\nthat _profound humility_, _awful reverence_, _internal piety_ and\n_tremendous sense_ of the divine Majesty, with which devout persons\nthink of God, and assist at the _offices_ of religion. Which excites in\nthem a higher zeal for doctrines and institutions of divine revelation,\nthan for all things human; that fills them with reverence for all\n_things_, places, and offices, that are either by divine or human\nauthority, appointed to assist their desired intercourse with God.\n\nAnd if some people, by a _long_ and _strict_ attention to _reason_,\nand the _fitness_ and _unfitness_ of things, have at last arrived\nat a demonstrative certainty, that all these sentiments of piety and\ndevotion, are mere _bigotry_, _superstition_, and _enthusiasm_; I\nshall only now observe, that _youthful extravagance_, _passion_, and\n_debauchery_, by their own _natural tendency_, without the assistance\nof any other guide, seldom fail of making the same discovery. And\nthough it is not reckoned any reflection upon _great wits_, when they\nhit upon the same thought, yet it may seem some disparagement of that\n_reason_ and _philosophy_, which teaches _old men_ to think the same of\nreligion, that _passion_ and _extravagance_ teach the young.\n\nTo return: As there is no state in human life, that can give us a true\nidea of any of the fore-mentioned relative characters of God, so this\nrelative state of God towards sinners is still less capable of being\ncomprehended by any thing observable in the relations, betwixt a judge\nand criminals, a _creditor_ and his debtors, a _physician_ and his\npatients, a father or prince, and their disobedient children and\nsubjects.\n\nFor none of these states separately, nor all of them jointly considered,\ngive us any full idea, either of the _nature_ and _guilt_ of sin or how\nGod is to deal with sinners, on the account of the relation he bears to\nthem.\n\nTo ask, whether _sin_ hath solely the _nature_ of an offence, against\na prince or a father, and so is pardonable by mere goodness; whether it\nis like an _error_ in a _road_ or _path_, and so is entirely at an end,\nwhen the right path is taken; whether its guilt hath the nature of a\ndebt, and so is capable of being discharged, just as a debt is; whether\nit affects the soul, as a _wound_ or _disease_ affects the body, and so\nought only to move God to act as a good physician? All these questions\nare as vain, as to ask, whether knowledge in God is really _thinking_,\nor his nature a real _substance_. For as his knowledge and nature\ncannot be strictly defined, but are capable of being signified by the\nterms _thinking_ and _substance_, so the nature of sin is not _strictly\nrepresented_ under any of these characters, but is capable of receiving\n_some representation_ from every one of them.\n\nWhen sin is said to be an offence against God, it is to teach us, that\nwe have infinitely more reason to dread it on _God\u2019s account_, than to\ndread any offence against our parents, or governors.\n\nWhen it is compared to a _debt_, it is to signify, that our sins make\nus accountable to God, not in the _same manner_, but with the same\ncertainty, as a debtor is answerable to his creditor; and because it\nhas some likeness to a debt, that of ourselves we are not able to pay.\n\nWhen it is compared to a _wound_, or disease, it is not to teach us,\nthat it may as justly and easily be healed as bodily wounds, but to\nhelp us to conceive the greatness of its evil; that, as diseases bring\ndeath to the body, so sin brings a worse kind of death upon the soul.\n\nSince therefore the _nature_ and _guilt_ of sin can only so far be\nknown, as to make it highly to be _dreaded_, but not so known as to be\n_fully_ understood, by any thing we can compare to it:\n\nSince the _relation_ which God bears to _sinners_, can only be so known,\nas to make it highly reasonable to prostrate ourselves before him, in\nevery instance of humility and penitence; but not so fully known as to\nteach us, in what manner, God must deal with us: it plainly follows,\nthat if God is not an _arbitrary_ being, but acts according to a\n_fitness resulting_ from this relation, he must, in this respect, act\nby a _rule_ known only to himself, and such as we cannot _possibly_\nstate from the _reason_ and _nature_ of things.\n\nFor if the nature of things, and the fitness of actions resulting from\ntheir relations, is to be the rule of our reason, then _reason_ must be\nhere at a full stop, and can have no more knowledge to proceed upon, in\nstating the _nature_, the _guilt_, or proper _atonement_ of sin in men,\nthan of sin in _angels_.\n\nFor _reason_ can no more tell us what the _guilt_ of sin is, what\n_hurt_ it does us, how far it _enters_ into, and _alters_ our\nvery nature, what _contrariety to_, and _separation_ from God, it\nnecessarily brings upon us, or what _supernatural_ means are, or are\nnot, necessary to abolish it; our _reason_ can no more tell this,\nthan our _senses_ can tell us, what is the _inward_, and what is the\n_outward_ light of angels.\n\nAsk reason what _effect_ sin has upon the soul, and it can tell you no\nmore, than if you had asked, what effect the _omnipresence_ of God has\nupon the soul.\n\nAsk reason, and the nature of things, what is, or ought to be, the\n_true nature_ of an atonement for sin, how far it is like _paying_ a\n_debt_, or _healing_ a _wound_, or how far it is different from them?\nAnd it can tell you no more, than if you had asked, what is the _true\ndegree_ of power that _preserves_ us in existence, how far it is _like_\nthat which at first created us, and how far it is _different_ from it.\n\nAll these enquiries are, by the nature of things, made impossible to\nus, so long as we have no light but from our own natural capacities,\nand we cannot take upon us to be _philosophers_ in these matters,\nbut by deserting our reason, and giving ourselves up to _vision_ and\n_imagination_.\n\nAnd we have as much authority from the nature of things, to appeal to\n_hunger_ and _thirst_, and _sensual pleasure_, to tell us _how_ our\nsouls shall live in the beatific presence of God, as to appeal to our\n_reason_ and _logic_, to demonstrate how sin is to be _atoned_, or the\nsoul _prepared_, and _purified_, for future happiness.\n\nFor God has no more given us our reason to _settle_ the nature of an\natonement for sin; or to find out what can, or cannot, take away its\nguilt, than he has given us _senses_ and _appetites_ to state the\nnature, or discover the ingredients of future happiness.\n\nAnd he who rejects the _atonement_ for sins made by the Son of God,\nas _needless_, because he cannot prove it to be _necessary_, is as\nextravagant, as he that should deny that God created him by his _only\nSon_, because he did not remember it. For our memory is as proper a\nfaculty to tell us, whether God at first created us, by his only Son,\nas our _reason_ is to tell us, whether we ought to be restored to God,\nwith, or without the mediation of Jesus Christ.\n\nWhen therefore this writer says, _Can any thing be more evident, than\nthat if doing evil be the only cause of God\u2019s displeasure, the ceasing\nto do evil, must take away that displeasure?_\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 Page 4.\n\n*\u00a0Just as if he had said, if conversing with a _leper_ has been the\nonly cause of a man\u2019s getting a _leprosy_, must not departing from\nhim, be the removal of the _leprosy_? For if any one, guessing at the\n_guilt_ of sin, and its _effects_ on the soul, should compare it to\na _leprosy_ in the body, he can no more say, that he has reached its\n_real, internal_ evil, than he, that comparing the happiness of heaven\nto a crown of glory, can be said to have described its real happiness.\n\nThis _writer_ has no occasion to appeal to the nature of things, if\nhe can be thus certain about things, whose nature is not only obscure,\nbut _impossible_ to be known. For it is as impossible for him to know\nthe _guilt_ and _effects_ of sin, as to know the shape of an angel.\nIt is as impossible to know by the mere light of reason, what God\u2019s\n_displeasure_ at sin is, what _separation_ from sinners it implies, or\nhow it _obliges_ God to deal with them; as to know what the internal\nessence of God is. Our author therefore has here found the utmost\ndegree of evidence, where it was _impossible_ for him to have the\n_smallest degree_ of knowledge.\n\nIf a man, having _murdered_ twenty of his fellow-creatures, should\nafterward be sorry for it, and wish that he had a power to bring them\nto life again, or to create others in their stead, would his ceasing to\nkill, and wishing he had a power to create others in their stead, put\nhim just in the _same state_ with God, as if he had never murdered a\nman in his life? But unless this can be said, it cannot be said that\nrepentance is sufficient to put a man in the _same state_, as if he\nnever had sinned.\n\nThe writer has two more objections against the atonement for sin, made\nby Jesus Christ. _First_, as it is an _human sacrifice, which nature\nitself abhors_: and which was looked upon as the great abomination of\nidolatrous _Pagan_ worship.\n\nThe _cruelty_, _injustice_, and _impiety_, of shedding human blood in\nthe sacrifices of the _Pagans_ is fully granted; but _reason_ cannot\nthence bring the smallest objections against the sacrifice of Christ.\n\nFor how can reason be more disregarded, than in such an argument as\nthis? The _Pagans_ were unjust, cruel, and impious, in offering human\nblood to their false gods; therefore the true God cannot receive any\n_human_ sacrifice, or allow any persons to die, as a punishment for sin.\n\nFor, if no human sacrifice can be fit for God to receive, because\nhuman sacrifices, as parts of _Pagan_ worship, were unjust and impious;\nthen it would follow, that the _mortality_, to which all mankind are\nappointed by God, must have the _same cruelty_ and _injustice_ in it.\nNow that _death_ is a punishment for sin, and that all mankind are\nby death offered as a _sacrifice_ for sin, is not only a doctrine of\nrevealed religion, but the plain dictate of reason. But if reason must\nacknowledge the death of all mankind, as a sacrifice for sin, then it\ncan have no just objection against the sacrifice of Christ, _because_\nit was _human_.\n\nI need not take upon me to prove the _reasonableness_ of God\u2019s\nprocedure in the _mortality_ of mankind; revelation is not under any\nnecessity of proving this; because it is no difficulty that arises from\nrevelation, but equally belongs to natural religion; and both of them\nmust acknowledge it to be reasonable; not because it can be proved to\nbe so from the nature of things, but is to be believed to be so, by\nfaith and piety.\n\nBut if natural religion, will not suffer us to think it _inconsistent_\nwith the justice and goodness of God, to appoint all mankind victims\nto death on the account of sin, then _natural_ religion, can have\nno objection against the sacrifice of Christ, as it is an _human\nsacrifice_.\n\nAnd all that _revelation_ adds to _natural_ religion, on the point of\n_human_ sacrifice, is only this; the knowledge of _one_, that gives\n_merit and effect_, to all the rest.\n\n_Secondly_, It is objected, that the atonement made by Jesus Christ,\nrepresents God as punishing the _innocent_ and acquitting the _guilty_;\nor, as punishing the innocent _instead_ of the guilty.\n\nBut this proceeds all upon mistake: for the atonement made by Jesus\nChrist, though it procures pardon for the guilty, yet it does not\nacquit them, or excuse them from any punishment, or suffering for sin,\nwhich _reason could impose upon them_. Natural religion calls men to\nrepentance for their sins: the atonement made by Jesus Christ does not\nacquit them from it, or pardon them without it; but calls them to a\n_severer_ repentance, than natural religion alone prescribes.\n\nGod therefore does not by this proceeding, shew his _dislike_ of the\n_innocent_ and his _approbation_ of the _wicked_.\n\nFor how can God be thought to punish our blessed Saviour out of\n_dislike_, if his sufferings are represented of such infinite merit\nwith him? Or how can he shew thereby his _approbation_ of the guilty,\nwhose repentance is not _acceptable_ to him, till recommended by the\ninfinite merits of Jesus Christ?\n\nAs to the fitness of our Lord\u2019s sufferings, as God and man; and the\n_nature_ and _degree_ of their worth; reason can no more enter into\nthis matter, or _prove_ or _disprove_ any thing about it, than it can\nenter into the state of the whole creation, and shew, how it could, or\ncould not, be in the whole, better than it is.\n\nFor you may as well ask any of your _senses_, as ask your _reason_ this\nprincipal question, _Whether any supernatural means be necessary for\nthe atonement of the sins of mankind?_ Or, supposing it necessary,\nwhether the _mediation_, _death_, and _intercession_ of Jesus Christ,\nas God and man, be that true supernatural means?\n\nFor as the fitness or unfitness of any _supernatural_ means, for the\natonement of sin, must result from the _incomprehensible relation_\nGod bears to sinners, as it must have such _necessity_, and _dignity_,\nas this relation _requires_, it necessarily follows, that if God acts\naccording to _this relation_, the _fitness_ of his actions cannot be\naccording to our comprehension.\n\nAgain: Supposing some _supernatural means_ to be necessary, for\ndestroying the guilt and power of sin; or that the _sufferings_, and\n_intercession_, of the Son of God incarnate, is that true supernatural\nmeans, it necessarily follows, that a revelation of such, or any other\n_supernatural_ means, cannot possibly be made obvious to our reason and\nsenses, as the things of human life, or the transactions amongst men\nare; but can only be so revealed, as to become just occasions of our\n_faith_, _humility_, and _pious resignation_, to the divine wisdom and\ngoodness.\n\nFor, to say that such a thing is _supernatural_, is only saying, that\nit is something, which, by the _necessary state_ of our own nature, we\nare as incapable of knowing, as we are incapable of seeing _spirits_.\n\nIf therefore supernatural things are by the letter of scripture ever\nrevealed to us, they cannot be revealed to us as they are in their _own\nnature_: for if they could, such things would not be _supernatural_.\n\nIf an _angel_ could appear to us, as it is in its own nature, then we\nshould be _naturally_ capable of seeing angels; but, because our nature\nis not _capable_ of such a sight; therefore, when _angels_ appear\nto men, they must appear, not as they are in themselves, but in some\n_human_ or _corporeal_ form.\n\nIt is just thus, when any _divine_ matter is revealed by God; it can\nno more possibly be revealed to us, as it is in its _own nature_,\nthan an _angel_ can appear to us, as it is in its own nature; but such\nsupernatural matter can only be revealed to us, by being represented to\nus, by its likeness to something, that we already _naturally_ know.\n\nThus revelation teaches us this _supernatural_ matter; that Jesus\nChrist is making _perpetual intercession for us in heaven_: for\nChrist\u2019s _real state_, or _manner_ of existence with God in heaven,\nin regard to his church, cannot, as it is in its _own nature_, be\ndescribed to us; it is in this respect ineffable, and incomprehensible.\nAnd therefore, this high and inconceivable manner of Christ\u2019s existence\nwith God in heaven, in regard to his church, is revealed to us under an\nidea, that gives us the truest representation of it, we are capable of.\n\nBut if any one should thence infer, that the Son of God must therefore\neither be always upon his knees, or _prostrate_ in some humble form of\na supplicant, he would make a very weak inference.\n\nBecause this revealed idea of Christ, as a perpetual Intercessor in\nheaven, is only a comparative representation of something, that cannot\nbe _directly_ and _plainly_ known as it is in its own nature; and only\nteaches us, how to believe something, though imperfectly, yet _truly_\nof an incomprehensible nature.\n\nAgain: When it is by the letter of scripture revealed to us, that the\nblessed Jesus is the one _Mediator_ between God and man; that he is\nthe _Atonement_, the _Propitiation_, and _Satisfaction_ for our sins:\nthese expressions only teach us _as much_ outward knowledge of so great\na mystery, as human language can represent. But they do not teach us\nthe perfect nature of Christ\u2019s state between God and sinners. For that\nbeing a _supernatural_ matter, cannot by any outward words be revealed\nto us as it is in its _own nature_, any more than the _essence_ of God\ncan be made _visible_ to our eyes of flesh.\n\nBut these expressions teach us thus much with certainty, that there is\nin the _state_ of Christ between God and sinners, something infinitely\nand inconceivably beneficial to us; and _truly answerable_ to all that\nwe mean by _mediation_, _atonement_, _propitiation_, and _satisfaction_.\n\nAnd though the _real, internal manner_, of this mediation and atonement,\nas it is in its own nature, is _incomprehensible_, yet this does not\nlessen our knowledge of the truth and certainty of it, any more than\nthe _incomprehensibility_ of the divine nature, lessens our certainty\nof its real existence.\n\nAnd as our idea of God, though consisting of incomprehensible\nperfections, helps us to a real and certain knowledge of the divine\nnature; and though all mysterious, is yet the solid foundation of all\npiety; so our idea of Jesus Christ, as our _Mediator_ and _Atonement_,\nthough it be incomprehensible as to its real nature, yet helps us to a\n_certain_ knowledge of Christ, as our _Mediator_ and _Atonement_; and,\nthough full of mystery, is yet full of motives to the highest piety,\nlove, and gratitude unto God.\n\nAll objections therefore, raised from any difficulties about the nature\nof _atonements_, _propitiations_, and _satisfactions_, as these words\nare used in common language, are vain, and entirely groundless.\n\nFor all these objections proceed upon this supposition, that\n_atonement_, or _satisfaction_, when attributed to Jesus Christ,\nsignify neither more nor less, than when they are used as terms in\n_human laws_ or in _civil_ life; take away this supposition, and all\nobjections are entirely removed with it.\n\nTo return: I have granted this writer his great principle, _That the\nrelations of things and persons, and the fitness resulting from thence,\nis the sole rule of God\u2019s actions_: and I have granted it upon this\nsupposition, that it thence follows, that God must act according to\nhis _own nature_; and therefore nothing could be fit for God to do, but\nwhat had the reason of its fitness in his own nature: and if so, then\nthe _rule_ of his actions could not fall within our comprehension. And\nconsequently, _reason alone_, could not be a competent judge of God\u2019s\nproceedings; or say, what God might, or might not, require of us: and\ntherefore I have, plainly turned his main argument against himself, and\nmade it fully confute that doctrine, which he intended to found upon it.\n\nBut though I have thus far, granted the _nature_ and _relations_\nof things and beings, to be the rule of God\u2019s actions, because that\nplainly supposes, that his _own nature_ must be the rule of his actions;\nyet since our _author_, and other modern opposers of revealed doctrines\nof religion, hold it in another sense, and mean by it, I know not what\n_eternal, immutable_ reasons and relations of things, _independent_\nof any being, and which are a _common rule and law of God and man_, I\nentirely declare against it, as an erroneous and groundless opinion.\n\nThus, when this writer says, _If the relations between things, and the\nfitness resulting from thence, be not the sole rule of God\u2019s actions,\nmust he not be an arbitrary being?_ As he here means some _eternal,\nimmutable relations, independent_ of God; so, to suppose, that God\ncannot be a _wise_ and _good_ being, unless such eternal, independent\nrelations, be the _sole rule_ of his actions, is as erroneous, as\nto affirm, that God cannot be _omniscient_, unless _mathematical\ndemonstrations_ be his _sole manner_ of knowing all things. And it\nis just as reasonable to fix God\u2019s knowledge _solely_ in mathematical\ndemonstrations, that we may thence be assured of his _infallible\nknowledge_, as to make I know not what independent relations of things,\nthe _sole rule_ of his actions, that we may thence be assured, he is\nnot _arbitrary_, but a wise and good being.\n\nAnd we have as strong reasons to believe God to be, in the highest\ndegree, _wise_ and _good_, without knowing on what, his wisdom and\ngoodness is _founded_; as we have to believe him to be _omniscient_,\nand _eternal_, without knowing on _what_ his _omniscience_ is founded;\nor to _what_, his eternity is owing. And we have the same reason to\nhold it a vain enquiry, to ask what obliges God to be _wise_ and _good_,\nas to ask what obliges him to be _omniscient_, or _eternal_.\n\nAnd as it would be absurd to ascribe the _existence_ of God to _any\ncause_, or found it upon any _independent relations_ of things, so it\nis the same absurdity, to ascribe the infinite wisdom and goodness of\nGod to _any cause_, or found them upon any independent relations of\nthings.\n\nNor do we any more _lose_ the notion, or _lessen_ the certainty of the\ndivine wisdom and goodness, because we cannot say on _what_ they are\nfounded, than we _lose_ the notion of God, or render his existence\n_uncertain_, because it cannot be founded on any thing.\n\nAnd as in our account of the existence of things, we are obliged to\nhave recourse to a being, whose existence must not be ascribed to _any\ncause_ because every thing cannot have a cause, no more than every\nthing can be created, so in our account of _wisdom_ and _goodness_,\nthere is the same necessity of having recourse to an infinite wisdom\nand goodness, that never _began_ to be, and that is as different as\nto its _manner_ of existence, from all other wisdom and goodness, that\nhave a beginning, as the _existence_ of God is _different_ from the\nexistence of the creatures.\n\n*\u00a0But if it be necessary to hold, that there is an infinite wisdom and\ngoodness that _never began_ to be, then it is as necessary to affirm,\nthat such wisdom and goodness can no more be _founded_ upon the\n_relations_ of things, than the _unbeginning existence_ of God can be\n_founded_ upon the existence of things. And to seek for any _reasons_\nof a wisdom and goodness that was always in the _same infinite_ state,\nis like seeking the cause of that which can have no cause, or asking\n_what_ it is that _contains_ infinity.\n\n*\u00a0When therefore this writer saith, _Infinite wisdom can have no\ncommands, but what are founded on the unalterable reason of things_;\u00b9\nhe might as justly have said, an _infinite Creator_ can have no\npower of creating, but what is founded on the _unalterable nature_\nof creatures.\n\n \u00b9 Page 247.\n\n*\u00a0For the _reason_ of things, is just as unalterable, as the _nature_\nof creatures. And if the reasons and relations of things are nothing\nelse but their _manner_ of existence, or the _state_ of their nature,\ncertainly the relations of things must have the same _beginning_, and\nthe same _alterable_ or unalterable nature, as the things from whence\nthey flow. Unless it can be said, that a thing may exist in _such a\nmanner_, though it does not exist at all.\n\nWhen therefore he says again, _That the will of God is always\ndetermined by the nature and reason of things_;\u00b9 It is the same as\nif he had said, the _omnipotence_ of God is always determined by the\n_nature_ of _causes_ and _effects_. For as all causes and effects are\nwhat they are, and _owe_ their _nature_ to the omnipotence of God, so\nthe relations of things are what they are, and owe their nature to the\nwisdom and will of God.\n\n \u00b9 Page 65.\n\nNor does this dependance of the relations of things on the will of God,\ndestroy the nature of relations, or make them doubtful, any more than\nthe existence of things depending on the _power_ of God, destroys the\ncertainty of their existence, or renders it doubtful. For as God cannot\nmake things to exist, and not to exist at the same time, though their\nexistence depends upon his power, so neither can he make things to have\nsuch relations, and yet not to have such relations at the same time,\nthough their relations depend upon his will.\n\nSo that the ascribing the relations of things to the will of God,\nbrings no uncertainty to those duties of life, which flow from such\nrelations, but leaves the state of nature with all its relations, and\nthe duties which flow from them, in the greatest certainty, so long as\nnature itself is continued; and when that either _ceases entirely_, or\nis only _altered_, it is not to be wondered at, if all its relations\ncease, or are altered with it.\n\nOur author says, _Dare any one say, that God\u2019s laws are not founded on\nthe eternal reason of things?_\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 Page 425.\n\n*\u00a0I dare say it with the same assurance, as that his _existence_ is\nnot founded on the _eternal existence_ of things. And that it is the\nsame extravagance to say, that God\u2019s laws are founded on the _eternal\nreasons_ of things, as to say, that his _power_ is founded on the\n_eternal capacities_ of things. For the _capacities_ of things have\njust the same _solidity_ and _eternity_, as the relations of things\nhave, and are just such _independent realities_ as they are: and are\njust the same _proper materials_ to found the omnipotence of God upon,\nas the relations of things are, to found his infinite wisdom upon.\n\nAnd as we can say, that the _omnipotence_ of God in preserving and\nsupporting the creation, will certainly act _suitably_ to itself, and\n_consistent_ with that omnipotence which first made things be what\nthey are, and put nature into such a state as it is in; so we can say,\nthat the _infinite wisdom_ of God in giving laws to the world, will act\n_suitably_ to itself, and _consistent_ with that wisdom which at first\nmade the nature and relations of the rational world be what they are.\n\nBut then as the _omnipotence_ of God, though it acts suitably to the\nstate of the creation, and the nature of causes and effects, which\nit first ordained, yet cannot be said to be founded upon the nature\nof causes and effects, because neither causes nor effects have _any\nnature_, but what they _owe_ to omnipotence; so the infinite wisdom\nof God, though in giving laws to the world, it acts _suitably_ to the\nnatures and relations of rational beings, yet cannot be said to be\n_founded_ upon such relations, because such relations are the _effects_\nof the divine wisdom, and owe their existence to it.\n\nAnd the _reason_ or _relations_ of things shew God\u2019s _antecedent_\nwisdom, and are effects of it, just as the nature of _causes_ and\n_effects_ shew his _antecedent_ power, and are the effects of it.\nAnd as he is infinitely powerful, but not from the nature of causes\nand effects; so he is infinitely wise, but not from the _reason_ and\n_nature_ of things.\n\nAgain; if God is _infinite_ wisdom, then his wisdom cannot be founded\non the relations of things, unless things _finite_, and relations that\nbegan to be, can be the foundation of that wisdom which is infinite,\nand could not begin to be.\n\nTherefore to ask, _what_ it is founded upon, when it can have no\nfoundation upon _any thing_, is asking, what an _independent_ being is\ndependent upon, or _how_ that began, which could have no beginning?\n\nAnd to ask the reason or foundation of _any one_ of the divine\nattributes, is the same as asking the reason or foundation of them all.\nAnd to seek for the reason or foundation of all the divine attributes,\nis seeking for the cause of God\u2019s existence.\n\nAnd as we do not come to God\u2019s existence, till we come to the _end_ of\n_causes_, so nothing that is divine, can be attributed to any cause.\n\nNor is it any more a contradiction to say, there is something whose\nnature is without any cause or foundation of its existence, than to say,\nsomething exists without ever _beginning_ to exist. For as nothing can\nhave a beginning, but as it proceeds from some cause; so that which can\nhave no beginning, can have no cause. If therefore the divine wisdom\never _began_ to be _infinite_, and we could know when that beginning\nwas, we should have some pretence to search for that, upon which its\ninfinity was _founded_; but if it never could begin to be, then to seek\nfor its reason, or foundation, is seeking for its beginning.\n\nThis writer affirms, that God\u2019s wisdom and goodness must be founded on\nthe nature and reason of things, otherwise it could not be proved, that\nGod was not an _arbitrary being_.\n\n*\u00a0Now to seek for reasons to prove that God is not an arbitrary being,\nthat is, a being of the _highest freedom_ and _independency_, that does\nevery thing according to his _own will_ and _pleasure_, is as vain, as\nto seek for reasons to prove, that _all things_ are not the effect of\nhis _will_. For if every thing besides God, received its existence from\nhim; if every thing that exists, is the effect of his will, and he can\ndo nothing, but because he wills the doing it, must he not be free and\narbitrary in as _high a manner_, as he is powerful?\n\nThis _writer_ says, _It is not in our power to love the deity, whilst\nwe consider him to be an arbitrary being, acting out of humour and\ncaprice._\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 Page 31.\n\nBut if God\u2019s _will_ is as _essentially_ opposite to _humour_ and\n_caprice_, as his _omnipotence_ is to _weakness and inability_; then\nit is as absurd to suppose, that God must act according to humour and\ncaprice, because he acts according to his own will, as to suppose that\nhe must act with inability, because he acts by his omnipotence.\n\nAnd if the will of God, _as such_, is in the highest state of\nperfection, then we have the _highest reason_ to love and adore God,\nbecause he is arbitrary, and acts according to his _own all-perfect\nwill_. And if it be asked, what it is that makes the will of God\n_all-perfect_, it may as well be asked, what it is that makes him\nomnipotent, or makes him to exist. For, as we have not found out a God,\ntill we have found a being that has no _cause_; so we have not found\nthe _will_ of God, till we have found a _will_, that has no _mover_, or\n_director_, or _cause_ of its perfection. For that _will_ which never\nbegan to be, can no more be any thing, but what it is in itself, than\nit can begin to be.\n\nThat which makes people imagine, that _will alone_ is not so adorable,\nis because they consider it as a blind imperfect faculty that wants to\nbe directed. But what has such a will as this to do with the _will_ of\nGod?\n\nFor if the will of God is as _perfect_ a _will_, as his omniscience\nis a _perfect knowledge_, then we are as sure, that the will of God\ncannot want any direction, or _will_ any thing amiss, as we are, that\nhis omniscience cannot need any information, or fall into any mistake.\nAnd if the _will_ of God wanted any direction or government, it is\nimpossible it should have it; for having no superior, it could only be\nso governed, because it _willed_ it, and therefore must be always under\nits own government.\n\nAll the perfection therefore that can be ascribed to God, must be\nascribed to his _will_, not as if it was the production of his will,\n(for nothing in God is produced) but as eternally inherent in it.\n\nAnd as God\u2019s will has thus all the perfection of the divine nature, and\nhas no rule, or reason, or motive to any goodness, that comes from it,\nbut its own _nature_ and _state_ in God: so this great will is the only\nlaw of all creatures, and they are all to obey and conform to it, for\nthis reason, because it is the will of God.\n\n*\u00a0Nothing has a _moral_ reason, or fitness to be done, but because it\nis the will of God that it should be done.\n\n*\u00a0It may be asked, Is there then no _reason_ or _nature_ of things?\nYes; as certainly as there are things. But the nature and reason of\nthings, considered _independently_ of the divine will, have no more\n_obligation_ in them, than a _divine worship_ considered independently\nof, and without any regard to the _existence_ of God. For the _will_\nof God is as absolutely necessary to found all _moral obligation_ upon,\nas the existence of God is necessary to be the foundation of religious\nworship. And the fitness of moral obligations, without the _will_\nof God, is only like the fitness of _religious_ worship without the\n_existence_ of God.\n\nAnd it is as just to say, that he destroys the _reason_ of religion,\nwho founds it upon the nature and existence of God, as to say, he saps\nthe foundation of moral obligations, who founds them upon the will of\nGod. And as religion cannot be solidly defended, but by shewing its\nconnexion with, and dependence upon God\u2019s existence; so neither can\nmoral obligations be asserted with reason, but by shewing them to be\nthe will of God.\n\nIt may again be asked, Can God make that fit in itself, which is in\n_itself absolutely_ unfit to be done?\n\nThis question consists of improper terms. For God\u2019s will no more makes\nactions to be fit _in themselves_, than it makes _things_ to exist\n_in, or of themselves_. No things, nor any actions have any _absolute_\nfitness, of and in _themselves_.\n\nA _gift_, a _blow_, the making a _wound_, or _shedding_ of _blood_,\nconsidered in themselves, have no _absolute_ fitness, but are fit or\nunfit according to a variety of accidental circumstances.\n\nWhen therefore God by his will makes any thing fit to be done, he does\nnot make the thing fit in _itself_, which is just in the _same state_\nconsidered in _itself_, that it was before, but it becomes fit for the\nperson to do it, because he can only be happy, or do that which is fit\nfor him to do, by doing the will of God.\n\nFor instance, the _bare eating_ a fruit, considered in _itself_, is\nneither fit nor unfit. If a fruit is appointed by God for our food,\nthen it is as fit to eat it, as to preserve our lives. If a fruit is\npoisonous, then it is as unfit to eat it, as to commit self-murder. If\neating of a fruit is prohibited by God, then it is as unfit as to eat\nour own damnation.\n\nBut in none of these instances is the eating or not eating, considered\nin _itself fit_ or _unfit_: but has all its fitness, or unfitness, from\nsuch circumstances, as are entirely owing to the will of God.\n\nSupposing therefore God to require a person to do something, which\naccording to his present circumstances, _without_ that command, he\nought not to do, God does not make that which is _absolutely_ unfit\nin _itself_, fit to be done: but only adds _new circumstances_ to an\naction, that is neither fit, nor unfit, moral, nor immoral in _itself_,\nbut because of its circumstances.\n\nAgain, it is objected, _If there is nothing right or wrong, good or bad,\nantecedently and independently of the will of God, there can then be no\nreason, why God should will, or command one thing, rather than another._\n\nIt is answered, _first_, That all goodness, and all possible perfection,\nis as _eternal_ as God, and as essential to him as his existence. And\nto say, that they are either _antecedent_ or _consequent_, _dependent_\nor _independent_ of his will, would be equally absurd. To ask therefore,\nwhether there is not something right and wrong, antecedent to the\nwill of God, is as absurd, as to ask for some antecedent cause of his\nexistence. And to ask, how God can be good if there is not something\ngood independently of him, is asking how he can be infinite, if there\nbe not something infinite independently of him. And to seek for any\nother _source_ or _reason_ of the divine goodness, besides the divine\nnature, is like seeking for some external cause and help of the divine\nomnipotence.\n\nThe goodness and wisdom, therefore, by which God is wise and good, and\nto which all his works of wisdom and goodness are owing, are neither\n_antecedent_, nor _consequent_ to his will.\n\n_Secondly_, Nothing is more certain, than that all _moral obligations_\nand _duties_ of creatures towards one another, _began_ with the\nexistence of moral creatures. This is as certain, as that all corporeal\nqualities and effects, _began_ with the existence of bodies.\n\nAs therefore nothing has the nature of a cause or effect, nothing has\nany quality of any kind in bodies, but what is entirely owing to matter\nso created and constituted by the _will_ of God; so no actions have any\n_moral qualities_, but what are wholly owing to that state and nature\nin which they are created by the will of God.\n\n*\u00a0Moral obligations therefore of creatures have the same _origin_,\nand the _same reason_, that natural qualities and effects have in the\ncorporeal world, _viz._ the sole will of God. And as in a different\nstate of matter, bodies would have had different qualities and\neffects; so in a different state of rational beings, there would be\ndifferent moral obligations, and nothing could be right or good in\ntheir behaviour, but what began then to be right and good, because\nthey then began to exist in such a state and condition of life. And as\ntheir state and condition could have no other cause or reason of its\nexistence, but the sole will of God, so the cause and reason of right\nand wrong in such a state, must be equally owing to the will of God.\n\nThe pretended _absolute independent fitnesses_, or _unfitnesses_\nof actions therefore _in themselves_, are vain _abstractions_, and\nphilosophical _jargon_, serving no ends of morality, but only helping\npeople to wrangle and dispute away that sincere obedience to God,\nwhich is their only happiness. But to make these imaginary _absolute\nfitnesses_ the _common law_ both of God and man, is still more\nextravagant. For if the _circumstances_ of actions give them their\n_moral nature_, surely God must first be in our circumstances, before\nthat which is a law to us, can be the same law to him.\n\nAnd if a father may require that of a son, which his son, because of\nhis _different state_, cannot require of his brother; surely that which\nGod may require of us, may be as different from that which a father may\nrequire of a son, as God is different from a father.\n\nAgain, if God is as much under a law as we are, then he is as much\nunder authority; for law can no more be without authority, than without\na law-giver. And if God and we are under the _same law_, we must be\nunder the _same authority_.\n\n*\u00a0But as God cannot be under any law in common with us his creatures,\nany more than he can be of the same rank or order with any \u2666of us; so\nneither can he be under any law at all, any more than he can be under\nany authority at all.\n\n \u2666 word omitted in text \u201cof\u201d\n\nAnd though God is not to be looked upon as an _arbitrary being_, in the\nsense of this author, who will not distinguish arbitrary from _humour_\nand _caprice_; yet in a true sense of the word, when applied to God, he\nmust be affirmed to be an arbitrary being, that acts only from himself,\nfrom his _own will_, and according to his _own pleasure_.\n\nAnd we have no more reason to be afraid to be left to a God without\na law, or to be left to his will and pleasure, than to be left under\nthe protection and care of a being, that is all love, and mercy, and\ngoodness. For as the existence of God, as such, necessarily implies the\nexistence of all perfection; so the will of God, as such, necessarily\nimplies the _willing_ every thing, that _all perfection_ can will.\n\nAnd as the existence of God, because it contains all perfection, cannot\nfor that reason have any external cause; so the will of God, because it\nis _all perfection_, cannot, for that reason, have any external _rule_\nor _direction_. But his own will is wisdom, and his wisdom is his will.\nHis goodness is arbitrary, and his arbitrariness is goodness.\n\nBut this writer does not only thus bring God into this state of law\nand obligation with us, but makes farther advances in the same kind\nof errors.\n\n_Hence_, says he, _we may contemplate the great dignity of our rational\nnature, since our reason for |kind|, tho\u2019 not for degree, is of the\n|same nature| with |that of| God\u2019s._\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 Page 24.\n\nHere you see _our reason_, that is, our _faculty_ of reasoning, (for\nreason cannot be called _ours_ in any other respect,) has no other\ndifference from reason as it is in God, but that of degree. But what\ngreater absurdity can a man fall into, than to suppose, that a being\nwhose existence had a beginning but a few years ago, differs only in a\ndegree from that which could not possibly have a beginning; or that a\n_dependent_ and _independent_ being, should not be different in _kind_,\nbut _only_ in degree?\n\nFor to say, that the faculties of a dependent and independent being,\nmay be of the same kind, is as flat a contradiction, as to say, the\nsame kind of thing may be dependent, and independent.\n\nReason belongs to God and man, just as _power_, _existence_, _life_,\nand _happiness_, belong to God and man; and he that can, from happiness\nbeing common to God and man, prove our happiness to be of the _same\nkind_ and nature with God\u2019s, may also prove reason in God and man to be\nof the same kind.\n\nThis writer indeed says, _Our happiness is limited, |because| our\nreason is so; |and that God has| unlimited happiness, |because| he\nalone has unlimited reason._\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 Page 24.\n\nBut if that which is _necessarily limited_, is different from that\nwhich is _necessarily unlimited_, then we have proof enough from this\nvery argument, that a reason _necessarily_ limited cannot be of the\n_same kind_ with that reason, which is _necessarily_ unlimited. Unless\nit can be said, that limited and unlimited, finite and infinite,\nbeginning and unbeginning, have no contrariety in _kind_, but only\ndiffer, as a _short_ line differs from a _long_ one.\n\n*\u00a0The truth of the matter is this; reason is in God and man, as\npower is in God and man. And as the divine power has some degree of\nlikeness to human power, yet with an _infinite_ difference from it:\nso that perfection which we call _reason_ in God, has some degree of\nlikeness to reason as it is in man, yet is _infinitely_ and beyond all\nconception different from it.\n\n*\u00a0And as our enjoyment of power is so limited, so imperfect, so\nsuperficial, as to be scarce sufficient to tell us, what power is, much\nless what omnipotence is; so our share of reason is so small, and we\nenjoy it in so imperfect a manner, that we can scarce think or talk\nintelligibly of it, or so much as define our own faculties of reasoning.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER II.\n\n _Shewing from the |relation| between God and man, that human\n reason cannot be a competent judge of the |fitness| and\n |reasonableness| of God\u2019s proceedings with mankind, either\n as to the |time|, or |matter|, or |manner| of an external\n revelation._\n\n\nAS our author has laid it down for an undeniable rule of God\u2019s actions,\nthat he must, if he be a wise and good being, act according to the\nrelation he stands in towards his creatures; I proceed upon this\nprinciple to prove the incapacity of _human reason_, to judge _truly_\nof God\u2019s proceedings in regard to divine revelation.\n\nFor if the fitness of actions _results from the nature and relations_\nof beings, then the _fitness_ of God\u2019s actions, as he is an _omniscient\nCreator_ and _Governor_, to whom every thing is _eternally foreknown_,\nover beings endued with _our freedom of will_, must be to us\nincomprehensible.\n\n*\u00a0We are not so much as capable of comprehending by our reason, the\n_possibility_ of this relation, or how the fore-knowledge of God can\nconsist with the free agency of creatures. We know that God fore-knows\nall things, with the same certainty as we know there is a God. And\nif _self-consciousness_ is an infallible proof of our own existence,\nit proves with the same certainty the freedom of our will. And hence\nit is, that we have a full assurance of the consistency of God\u2019s\nfore-knowledge with freedom of will.\n\n*\u00a0Now this _incomprehensible_ relation between an _eternally\nfore-knowing Creator and Governor_, and his free creatures, is the\n_relation_ from whence arises the fitness of God\u2019s providence over us.\nBut if the _relation_ itself is incomprehensible, then those actions\nthat have their fitness from it, must surely be incomprehensible.\nNothing can be fit for God to do, either in _creation_ or _providence_,\nbut what has its fitness founded in his _fore-knowledge_ of every thing\nthat would follow, from _every kind_ of creation, and _every manner_ of\nprovidence: but if nothing can be fit, but because it is according to\n_this fore-knowledge_ of _every thing_ that would follow from _every\nkind_ of creation, and _every manner_ of providence; then we have the\nutmost certainty, that the fitness of God\u2019s actions as a _fore-knowing\nCreator_, and _Governor_ of free agents, must be founded upon _reasons_\nthat we cannot possibly know any thing of.\n\n*\u00a0And a child that has but just learned to speak, is as well qualified\nto state the fitness of the laws of matter and motion by which\nthe whole vegetable world is preserved, as the wisest of men is\nqualified to comprehend, or state the fitness of the methods, which a\n_fore-knowing Providence_ observes over free agents. For every reason\non which the fitness of such a providence is founded, is not only\n_unknown_ to us, but by a necessity of nature _impossible_ to be known\nby us.\n\nFor if the _fitness_ of God\u2019s acting in this, or that manner, is\nfounded in his fore-knowledge of every thing that would _happen_, from\nevery _possible way_ of acting, then it is impossible for us to know\nthe reasons, on which the fitness of his actions is founded, as it is\nimpossible for us to be omniscient.\n\nWho can tell what _different kinds_ of rational creatures,\ndistinguished by variety of natures, and faculties, it is fit and\nreasonable for God to create, because he eternally foresaw what would\nbe the _effect_ of such different creations? Who can explain the\n_fitness_ of that vast _variety_ there is amongst rational creatures\nof the _same species_, or shew that all their different faculties ought\nto be as they are? And yet the _fitness_ of this providence has its\n_certain reason_ in the divine fore-knowledge, and it could not be fit,\nbut because of it.\n\nWho can tell what _degree_ of reason rational creatures ought to\nenjoy, or what degrees of _new_ and _revealed_ knowledge it is fit and\nreasonable for God to give, or not give them, because they seem, or\nseem not to themselves to want it, are disposed, or not disposed to\nreceive it? For as mankind cannot tell why it was fit and reasonable\nfor God to create them of such a _kind_, and _degree_, as they are of;\nso neither can they tell how God ought, or ought not to add to their\nnatural knowledge, and make them as _differently accountable_ for\nthe use of revealed rules of life, as for the use of their natural\nfaculties.\n\nAnd as the reason why God created them of _such_ a _kind_, and\nwith _such faculties_, was because of his own fore-knowledge of the\n_effects_ of such a creation; so if ever he does reveal to them any\n_supernatural_ knowledge, both the doing it, the _time_, the _matter_,\nand _manner_ of it, must have their fitness in his own _eternal\nfore-knowledge_ of the effects of such a revelation.\n\nThe reasons therefore on which the fitness of this or that revelation\ndepends, _why_ or _when_, of _what matter_, in _what manner_, and to\nwhom it is to be made, must, from the nature and reason of things, be\nas unsearchable by us, as the reasons of _this_ or _that_ creation of\nrational beings, at such a _time_, of such a _kind_, in such a _manner_,\nin such a _state_.\n\nThis may help us to an easy solution of the unreasonable questions,\nwhich this writer puts in this manner.\n\n\u201cIf the design of God in communicating any thing of himself to men\nwas their happiness, would not that design have obliged him, who\nat all times alike desires their happiness, to have at all times\nalike communicated it to them? If God always acts for the good of his\ncreatures, what reason can be assigned, why he should not from the\nbeginning have discovered such things as make for their good, but defer\nthe doing it till the time of _Tiberius_; since the sooner this was\ndone, the greater would his goodness appear?\u201d\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 Page 393.\n\nAnd again \u201cHow is it consistent with the notion of God\u2019s being\nuniversally benevolent, not to have revealed it to all his children,\nwhen all had equal need of it? Was it not as easy for him to have\ncommunicated it to all nations, as to any one nation or person? Or in\nall languages, as in one?\u201d\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 Page 196.\n\nNow all this is fully answered, by our author\u2019s own great and\nfundamental principle.\n\n\u201cFor if the relations between things and persons, and the things\nresulting from thence, be the sole rule of God\u2019s actions,\u201d\u00b9 as he\nexpressly affirms; then the _sole rule_ or reason of God\u2019s revealing\nany thing to any men, at any time, must have its _fitness resulting_\nfrom the divine fore-knowledge of the effects of _such_ a revelation,\nat _such_ a time, and to _such_ persons. If God does not act thus,\nhe does not act according to the relation betwixt a _fore-knowing\nCreator_, and his free creatures. But if he does act according to a\n_fitness resulting_ from this _relation_, and makes, or does not make\nrevelations, according to his own fore-knowledge of the fitness of\ntimes and persons for them; then to ask how a God, always equally good,\ncan make a revelation at any time, and not make the _same_ at _all_\ntimes, is as absurd as to ask, how a God, always equally good, can\nreveal that at one time, because it is a _proper_ time for it, and not\nreveal it at every other time, tho\u2019 improper for it.\n\n \u00b9 Page 28.\n\n*\u00a0God\u2019s goodness, directed by his own fore-knowledge of the _fitness_\nof times, and of the _state_ and _actions_ of free agents, deferred\na certain revelation to the time of _Tiberius_, because he _fore-saw_\nit would then be an act of the _greatest_ goodness, and have its\n_best effects_ upon the world: to ask therefore, _what reason can be\nassigned_, why so good a revelation was not _sooner_, or even from the\n_beginning_ made to the world, is asking, why God should act, according\nto his _own fore-knowledge_ of the _state_ and _actions_ of _free\nagents_, and order all things, according to a fitness resulting from\nsuch a fore-knowledge?\n\nThese questions suppose, that if God shewed his _goodness_ to mankind\nby a revelation at such time, he must be _wanting_ in goodness\nbefore that time, because he did not make it _sooner_; whereas if his\ndeferring it till _such_ a time, was owing to his _fore-knowledge_ of\nthe actions and state of free agents, and because it would then have\nits _best effects_, then God is proved to be equally good before he\nmade it, for this very reason, because he did not make it before its\n_proper_ time: and he had been wanting in goodness, if he had not\n_deferred_ it till that time.\n\nNow this appealing to God\u2019s fore-knowledge of the state and actions\nof _free agents_, as the cause of all that is particular in the _time_\nand _manner_ of any revelation, and deducing its fitness from thence,\ncannot be said to be _begging the question_, but is resolving it\ndirectly according to the _rule_, which this writer lays down for God\nto act by: that \u201cthe relations between things and persons, _and_ the\nfitness resulting from thence, must be the sole rule of God\u2019s actions.\u201d\n\nBut if this is the _sole rule_, then God in giving any revelation, must\nact as the _relation_ betwixt a _fore-knowing_ Creator and his _free_\ncreatures requires; and his actions must have their _fitness resulting_\nfrom his fore-knowledge of the _state_ and _actions_ of free agents.\nAnd if this is God\u2019s sole rule, then to ask why _this_ or _that_\nrevelation _only_ at _such_ a time, is to ask why God _only_ does that\nwhich is _fit_ for him to do? And to ask, why not the same revelation\nat any other time, is asking why God does not do that, which it is _not\nfit_ for him to do?\n\nThis writer asks, \u201cHow it is consistent with the notion of God\u2019s being\nuniversally benevolent, not to have revealed it to all his children,\nwho had equal need of it?\u201d But if they had _equal need_ of it, yet if\nthey were not _equally fit_ for it, but prepared only to have their\n_guilt_ increased by it, and so be exposed to a greater damnation; then\nGod\u2019s goodness to them is manifest, by withholding such information\nfrom them, and reserving it for those that would be made happier by it.\n\n_Judas_, _Pontius Pilate_, and the _Jews_ that called for our Saviour\u2019s\ncrucifixion, had _equal need_ of a Saviour with those that believed in\nhim. _Chorazin_ and _Bethsaida_ wanted the light of the gospel as much\nas those that received it. And if the rest of the world had been, at\nthat time, as much indisposed for the light of the gospel, as they were,\nGod\u2019s goodness had been, greater to that age, if he had reserved the\nlight of the gospel till a better age had succeeded.\n\nSo that this argument, founded on the _equal need_ of all, or former\nages, has no force, unless it could be shewn, that the same revelation\nmade to any of these former ages, would have produced all those good\neffects, which God foresaw would follow, from its being reserved for\nsuch a _particular time_ and _state_ of things and persons.\n\nHe asks again, \u201cWas it not as easy for God to have communicated it to\nall nations, as to any one nation or person? Or in all languages, as in\nany one?\u201d This argument is built upon this supposition, that God does\nthings because they are _easy_, or forbears things because they are\n_difficult_ to be performed. For it can be no argument, that God ought\nto have revealed such things to _all_ nations or persons, because it\nwas as _easy_ to him, as to do it to _any one_ nation or person; unless\nit be supposed, that the _easiness_ of a thing is a reason why God does\nit, and the difficulty of a thing a reason why he does not do it. But\nif this supposition be very absurd, then the argument founded upon it\nmust be liable to the same charge.\n\nBut if God does things, not because they are easy, but because they\nare infinitely good and fit to be done, then the reason why God has\nafforded different revelations, to different ages and persons, is this,\nthat his _manner_ of revealing every thing, might be worthy of his\nown _fore-knowledge_ of the effects of it, and that every thing that\nis particular in the _time_ or _manner_ of any revelation, might have\nits _fitness resulting_ from the _relation_ betwixt a good God and his\ncreatures, whose _changing_ state, _different_ conduct, tempers and\nactions, are all eternally fore-known by him.\n\nAgain, it is objected, that a divine revelation must either be the\neffect of _justice_, or else of _mercy_ and _free goodness_; but in\neither of these cases it ought to be _universal_; for justice must be\ndone to all. But if it is the effect of _mercy_ and _free goodness_,\nthis writer asks, \u201cHow a being can be denominated merciful and good,\nwho is so only to a few, but cruel and unmerciful to the rest?\u201d\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 Page 401.\n\nIt is answered, That there is neither _justice_ in God without mercy,\nnor _mercy_ without justice; and to ascribe a _revelation_ to either\nof them separately, in _contradistinction_ to the other, has no more\nreason in it, than to ascribe the _creation_ separately either to the\n_wisdom_ or _power_ of God, in contradistinction to the other.\n\n_Secondly_, A divine revelation is not owing barely to the _justice_\nor _free goodness_ of God, but to the goodness, mercy, and justice of\nGod, _governed_ and _directed_ by his eternal fore-knowledge of all the\neffects of every revelation, at any, or all times.\n\n*\u00a0God ordains a revelation in this, or that manner, time, and place;\nnot because it is a _justice_ that he cannot refuse, not because it\nis a matter of _favour_ or _free goodness_, and therefore may be given\nin any manner at pleasure; but because he has the whole _duration_\nof human things, the whole _race_ of mankind, the whole _order_ of\nhuman changes and events, the whole _combination_ of all causes and\neffects of human tempers, all the actions of free agents, and all the\nconsequences of every revelation, plainly in his sight; and according\nto this eternal fore-knowledge, every revelation receives every thing\nthat is _particular_ in it, either as to _time_, _matter_, _manner_, or\n_place_.\n\n*\u00a0All complaints therefore about that which is _particular_, or\n_seemingly_ partial in the time and manner of any revelation, are very\nunjustifiable; and shew, that we are discontent at God\u2019s proceedings,\nbecause he acts like himself, does what is best and fittest to be done,\nand governs the world, not according to our weak imaginations, but\naccording to his own infinite perfections.\n\n*\u00a0We will not allow a providence to be _right_, unless we can\ncomprehend the reasonableness of all its steps; and yet it could not\npossibly be right, unless its proceedings were as much _above_ our\ncomprehension, as our wisdom is _below_ that which is infinite.\n\nFor if the _relations_ of _things_, and _persons_, and the fitness\nresulting from thence, be the _rule_ of God\u2019s actions; then all the\nrevelations that come from God, must have their fitness resulting\nfrom the relation his fore-knowledge bears to the _various states_,\n_conditions_, _tempers_, and _actions_ of free agents, and the various\neffects of every manner of revelation.\n\nBut if God cannot act worthy of himself in any revelation, unless\nhe acts according to a fitness resulting from this relation; then he\nmust act by a _rule_ that lies out of our sight, and his providence in\nthis particular must be incomprehensible to us; for this very reason,\nbecause it has that very fitness, wisdom and goodness in it, that it\nought to have.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER III.\n\n _Shewing how far human reason is able to judge of the\n reasonableness, truth, and certainty of divine revelation._\n\n\nTHE former chapter has plainly shewn, from the state and relation\nbetween God and man, that we must be strangers to the true reasons on\nwhich a divine revelation is founded, both as to its _time_, _matter_,\nand _manner_.\n\nBut it is here objected, \u201cIf God by reason of his own perfections\nmust be thus mysterious and incomprehensible, both in the matter and\nmanner of divine revelation; how can we know what revelations we are\nto receive as divine? How can we be blamed for rejecting this, or\nreceiving that, if we cannot comprehend the reasons on which every\nrevelation is founded, both as to its matter and manner?\u201d\n\nIf a man may be blameable, or commendable, for his right or wrong\nbelief of a God; then a man may be accountable for a right or wrong\nbelief of such matters, as are in their own nature too mysterious\nfor his comprehension. And tho\u2019 a man knows the reasons of a divine\nrevelation, either as to its _matter_ or _manner_, as imperfectly as\nhe knows the divine nature; yet he may be as liable to account for\nbelieving _false revelations_, as for _idolatry_; and as full of guilt\nfor rejecting a _true revelation_, as for denying the only _true God_.\n\n_Secondly_, Tho\u2019 we are insufficient for comprehending the _reasons_,\non which the particular _matter_ or _manner_ of any divine revelation\nis founded; yet we may be so far sufficient judges, of the reasons for\n_receiving_ or not _receiving_ a revelation as divine, as to make our\nconduct therein justly accountable to God.\n\nFor if God can shew a revelation to proceed from him, by the _same\nundeniable_ evidence, as he shews the _creation_ to be his work; if he\ncan make himself as visible in a _particular extraordinary_ manner, as\nhe is by his _general_ and _ordinary_ providence; then, tho\u2019 we are as\nunqualified to judge of the mysteries of a _revelation_, as we are to\njudge of the mysteries in _creation_ and _providence_; yet we may be as\nfully obliged to receive a revelation, as to acknowledge the creation\nto be the work of God; and as highly criminal for disbelieving it, as\nfor denying a general providence.\n\n_Adam_, _Noah_, _Abraham_, and _Moses_, were very incompetent judges,\nof the reasons on which the particular revelations made to them were\nfounded; but this did not hinder their sufficient assurance, that such\nrevelations came from God, because they were proved to come from God in\nthe same manner, as the creation is proved to be the work of God.\n\nAnd as _Adam_ and _Noah_ must see every thing wonderful, mysterious,\nand above their comprehensions, in those new worlds into which they\nwere introduced by God; so they could no more expect, that he should\nrequire nothing of them, but what they would enjoin themselves, than\nthat their own _frame_, the _nature_ of the creation, the _providence_\nof God, or the _state_ of human life, should be exactly as they would\nhave it.\n\nAnd if their posterity will let no _messages_ from heaven, no\n_prophesies_ and _miracles_ persuade them, that God can call them to\nany duties, but such as they must enjoin themselves; or to the belief\nof any doctrines, but such as their own minds can suggest; nor to any\nmethods of changing their present state of weakness and disorder for\na happy immortality, but such as suit their own _taste_, _temper_,\nand way of reasoning; it is because they are grown senseless of the\nmysteries of creation and providence with which they are surrounded,\nand forget the awful prerogative of infinite wisdom, over the weakest,\nlowest rank of intelligent beings.\n\n*\u00a0And as we can only know what is worthy of God in creation, by knowing\nwhat he has created; so we can no other way know what is worthy of God\nto be revealed, but by a revelation. And he that pretends independently\nof any relation, to shew _how_, and in what manner God ought to make\na revelation worthy of himself, is as great a _visionary_, as he that\nshould pretend independently of the creation, or without learning any\nthing from it, to shew how God ought to have proceeded in it, to make\nit worthy of himself. For as God alone, knows how to create worthy of\nhimself, and nothing can possibly be proved to be worthy to be created\nby him, but because he has already created it; so God alone knows\nwhat is worthy of himself in a revelation, and nothing can possibly\nbe proved worthy to be revealed by him, but because he has already\nrevealed it.\n\nHence we may see how little this _writer_ is governed by the _reason_\nand _nature_ of things, who proceeds upon this as an undeniable\nprinciple, that we could not know a revelation to be divine, unless we\nknew, antecedently to revelation, what God could teach or require of\nus by it. Thus, says he, \u201cWere we not capable by our own reason of\nknowing what the divine goodness could command, or forbid his creatures,\nantecedently to any external revelation, we could not distinguish the\ntrue instituted religion, from the _many_ false ones.\u201d\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 Page 66.\n\nJust as wild and visionary, as if it was said, Were we not capable\nby our reason of knowing what kind or orders of beings God _ought_\nto create _independently_ of any thing we learn from the creation, we\ncould never prove this or that creation to proceed from him. Did we\nnot, antecedently to facts and experience, know by our own reason what\nought to be the method and manner of divine providence, we could never\nprove that the providence which governs nations and persons is a divine\nprovidence.\n\nAgain, He proceeds to shew, that a revelation from God cannot contain\nany thing, but what human reason can prove from the nature of things;\nbecause if God could require any thing more of us, than what our own\nreason could thus prove, he must require _without_ reason, and then\nthere is an end of all religion.\n\nNow this argument proceeds thus; If God does not act according to\nthe _measure_ of _human_ reason, he cannot act according to _reason\nitself_. If he requires any more of us, than what we _think_ the nature\nof things requires of us, then he cannot act according to the nature\nof things. If his wisdom is in any matters of revelation _greater_ than\nours; if it is not in every thing he reveals _measurable_ by ours, it\ncannot be wisdom at all, much less can it be infinite wisdom.\n\nThat is, if he is _more powerful_ than we are, he cannot be\n_omnipotent_; if he is _more perfect_ than we are, he cannot be\n_all perfection_; if he acts upon _greater_, or _higher_, or _more_\nreasonable motives than we do, he cannot be a _reasonable_ being.\n\nNow if these absurdities are not plain and manifest to every common\nunderstanding, it is in vain to dispute about any thing; but if\nthey are, then it is as plain, this writer\u2019s great argument against\nChristianity, and first principle of his _rational religion_, is in\nthe same state of undeniable absurdity.\n\nThus says he, \u201cNatural religion takes in all those duties which flow\nfrom the reason and the nature of things.\u201d\u00b9 That is, natural religion\ntakes in all those things that bare human reason can discover from\nthe nature of things. This is granted; but what follows? Why, says\nhe, \u201cConsequently, was there an instituted religion which differs from\nthat of nature, its precepts must be arbitrary, as not founded on the\nnature and reason of things, but depending on mere will and pleasure,\notherwise it would be the same with natural religion.\u201d\u00b2\n\n \u00b9 Page 114.\n\n \u00b2 Page 16.\n\nHere you see all the absurdities just mentioned, are \u2666expressly\ncontained in this argument, God is all _humour_ and _caprice_, if\nhis revelation is not strictly, in every respect, the same with human\nreason. That is, he is _without_ wisdom, _without_ reason, if his\nwisdom and reason exceed ours. He has _no reason_, nor _wisdom_, if\nhis reason and wisdom are _infinite_.\n\n \u2666 \u201cexpresly\u201d replaced with \u201cexpressly\u201d for consistency\n\n_Secondly_, This argument, if it were allowed, leads directly to\n_atheism_. For if a revelation cannot be divine, if it contains any\nthing mysterious, whose fitness and necessity cannot be explained by\nhuman reason, then neither _creation_ nor _providence_ can be proved to\nbe divine, for they are both of them more mysterious than the Christian\nrevelation.\n\nAnd if every thing is _arbitrary_, whose _fitness and experience_\nhuman reason cannot _prove_ and _explain_, then surely an _invisible\nover-ruling providence_ that orders all things in a manner, and for\nreasons, known only to itself; that subjects human life, and human\naffairs, to what changes it pleases; that confounds the best-laid\ndesigns, and makes great effects arise from folly and imprudence;\nthat gives not the race to the swift, nor the battle to the strong;\nthat brings good men into affliction, and makes the wicked prosperous;\nsurely such a providence must be highly arbitrary.\n\nAnd therefore if this argument is to be admitted, it leads directly\nto _atheism_, and brings us under a greater necessity of rejecting\ndivine providence, on the account of its mysteries, than of rejecting\na revelation that is mysterious in any of its doctrines. And if, God\ncannot be said to deal with us as rational agents, if he requires any\nthing of us, that our reason cannot prove to be necessary; surely he\ncannot be said to deal with us as rational agents, if he over-rules\nour persons and affairs, and disappoints our counsels, makes weakness\nprosperous, and wisdom unsuccessful, in a _secret_ and _invisible_\nmanner, and for reasons and ends that we have no means of knowing.\n\n*\u00a0There is nothing therefore half so mysterious in the Christian\nrevelation, as there is in that _invisible_ providence, which all must\nhold that believe a God. And tho\u2019 there is enough plain in providence,\nto excite the adoration of humble and pious minds, yet it has often\nbeen a rock of _atheism_ to those, who make their own reason the\nmeasure of wisdom.\n\nAgain, Tho\u2019 the _creation_ plainly declares the glory, and wisdom, and\ngoodness of God; yet it has more mysteries in it, more things whose\nfitness, expedience, and reasonableness, human reason cannot comprehend,\nthan are to be found in scripture.\n\nIf therefore he reasons right, who says, \u201cIf there may be some things\nin a true religion, whose fitness and expedience we cannot see, why not\nothers: nay, why not the whole; since that would make God\u2019s laws all of\na piece? And if the having of these things is no proof of its falshood,\nhow can any things fit and expedient (which no religion is without)\nbe a proof of the truth of any one religion?\u201d\u00b9 _If, I say, this is\nthe right reasoning, then it may be said_, \u201cIf there are things in the\ncreation whose fitness we cannot see, why not others: nay, why not the\nwhole; since that would make God\u2019s works of a piece? And if the being\nof such things as these in the creation, is not a proof of its not\nbeing divine, how can the fitness and expedience of any creation prove\nthat it is the work of God?\u201d\n\n \u00b9 First address to the inhabitants of London, Page 57.\n\nThus does this argument tend wholly to _atheism_, and concludes with\nthe same force against _creation_ and _providence_, as it does against\nrevelation.\n\nEither therefore there is nothing in the work of the creation,\nwhose fitness and expedience cannot be proved; nothing in God\u2019s\nprovidence over whole nations, and particular persons, whose fitness\nand expedience cannot be explained and justified by human reason, or\nelse neither creation nor providence can be ascribed to God.\n\nThe credibility of an external divine revelation with regard to human\nreason, rests wholly upon _such external_ evidence, as is a sufficient\nproof of the divine interposition. If there be no such external\nevidence possible; if God has no ways of acting so _peculiar_ to\nhimself, as to be a _sufficient_ proof to human reason of his action;\nthen no revelation can be sufficiently proved to be a divine, external\nrevelation from God.\n\nI appeal therefore to the miracles and prophecies on which Christianity\nis founded, as a sufficient proof, that it is a divine revelation. And\nshall here consider, what is objected against the sufficiency of this\nkind of proof.\n\n1. It is objected, That miracles cannot prove a _false_, or _bad_\ndoctrine, to be _true_ and _good_; therefore miracles, _as such_,\ncannot prove the truth of any revelation.\n\nBut though miracles cannot prove false to be true, or bad to be good;\nyet they may prove, that we ought to receive such doctrines, both as\ntrue and good, which we could not know to be true and good without such\nmiracles. Not because the miracles have any influence upon the things\nrevealed, but because they are God\u2019s testimony to the truth of that\nwhich he reveals.\n\nBut our author brings a farther objection against this use of miracles.\n\n\u201cIf, _says he_, evil beings can impress notions in mens minds as\nstrongly as good beings, and cause miracles to be done in confirmation\nof them; is there any way to know to which of the two, notions thus\nimpressed are owing, but from their internal marks of wisdom and\ngoodness?\u201d\n\nThis objection supposes, that no miracles, can be a sufficient proof of\nthe divinity of a revelation; because we do not know the extent of that\npower, which evil spirits have, of doing miracles. But this objection\nis groundless. For, granting that we do not know the extent of that\npower which evil spirits may have; yet if we know _enough_ of it to\naffirm, that the _creation_ is not the work of evil spirits; if we\ncan securely appeal to the creation, as _a sufficient proof_ of God\u2019s\naction and \u2666operation; then we are secure in appealing to miracles, as\na sufficient proof of a divine revelation.\n\n \u2666 \u201copperation\u201d replaced with \u201coperation\u201d\n\nFor, if the creation must be allowed to be the work of God,\nnotwithstanding any _unknown degree_ of power in evil spirits; if we\ncan as certainly ascribe it to God, as if there were no _such_ spirits;\nthen miracles may be as full a proof of the interposition of God, as if\nthere were no such spirits in being.\n\nI do not ask, Whether the _same divine_ perfection is necessary\nto foretel such things as are foretold in scripture, and work such\nmiracles as are there related, as is necessary to _create_? I do not\nask, Whether any power less than divine can do such things? I only ask,\nWhether there is any certainty, that the creation is the work of God?\nWhether we can be sure of the divine operation, from the existence of\nthat creation? Or, Whether we are in _doubt_ or _uncertainty_ about it,\nbecause we do not know the _degree_ of power, that may belong to evil\nspirits.\n\nFor if it can be affirmed, that the creation is the work of God,\nnotwithstanding our uncertainty about the degree of power that may\nbelong to evil spirits; then we have the same certainty, that the\n_prophecies_ and _miracles_ recorded in scripture, are to be ascribed\nto God, notwithstanding our uncertainty of the power of evil spirits.\n\nFor every reason for ascribing the creation to God, is the same reason\nfor ascribing such miracles and prophecies to God; and every argument\nagainst the certainty of those miracles and prophecies coming from God,\nis the same argument against the certainty of the creation\u2019s being the\nwork of God; for there cannot be more or less certainty in one case\nthan in the other.\n\nFor, if evil spirits have so the creation in their hands, that by\nreason of their power over it, no _miracles_ can prove the operation\nof God, then the operation of God cannot be proved from the creation\nitself.\n\nFor the creation cannot be proved to be the operation of God, unless it\ncan be proved that God _still presides_ over it.\n\nAnd if _all that_ which is extraordinary and miraculous may be\naccounted for, without the interposition of God; then nothing that is\nordinary and common according to the course of nature, can be a proof\nof the action of God. For there can be no reason assigned, why that\nwhich is _ordinary_ shall be ascribed to God, if all that is, or has\nbeen, or can be miraculous, may be ascribed to evil spirits.\n\nEither therefore it must be said, that there are, or may be miracles,\nwhich cannot be the effects of evil spirits; or else nothing that is\nordinary and common can be a proof of the operation of God. For if\nnothing miraculous can be an undeniable proof of God\u2019s action, nothing\ncreated can be a proof of it.\n\nThe matter therefore stands thus: There are, and may be miracles, that\ncannot be ascribed to evil spirits, without ascribing the creation to\nthem; and which can no more be doubted to come from God, than we can\ndoubt of his being the Creator of the world. There may be miracles\ntherefore, which, are as full a proof of the _truth_ of that which they\nattest, as the creation is of the _fitness_ of that which is created.\n\nAnd though the _matter_ of a revelation is to be attended to, that\nwe may fully understand it, and be rightly affected with it; yet the\nreason of our receiving it, must rest upon that _external authority_,\nwhich shews it to be of God.\n\nAnd the authority of miracles, sufficiently plain and apparent, are of\nthemselves a full reason for receiving a revelation, which both as to\nits _matter_ and _manner_, would not be approved by us without them.\n\nThe history of magical wonders, and extraordinary things done by evil\nspirits, is no objection against the sufficiency of that proof, that\narises from miracles. For the question is not, whether nothing that\nis extraordinary can be done by evil spirits, but whether nothing that\nis miraculous can, be a proof of its being done by God. For these two\ncases are very consistent. It may be very possible for evil spirits, to\ndo things extraordinary in _some circumstances_, as \u2666where people enter\ninto contracts with them, and resign themselves up to their power, and\nyet that miracle may in _other circumstances_, be a sufficient proof of\ntheir being done by God.\n\n \u2666 \u201cwere\u201d replaced with \u201cwhere\u201d\n\nAnd as miracles are the highest and most undeniable evidence of the\ntruth and divinity of any external revelation; so Christianity stands\nfully distinguished from all other religions, by the highest and most\nundeniable evidences; since it has all the proof that the _highest\nstate_ of miracles can give, and every other religion is without any\nsupport from them.\n\nAnd though this writer, with a boldness worthy of himself, often\nputs all _traditional religion_ upon a level; yet he might have shewn\nhimself as much a friend to truth as sobriety, by asserting, that all\n_arguments_ are equally conclusive, all _tempers_ equally virtuous,\nall _designs_ equally honest, and all _histories_ and _fables_ equally\nsupported by evidences of fact.\n\nTo give you one instance more of this writer\u2019s extravagant and\ninconsistent notions.\n\nHe makes _reason_, or _natural religion_, to be God\u2019s _internal\nrevelation_, differing _only_ from _external revelation in the manner\nof its being communicated_. He rejects _external revelation_ as\nunworthy of God, because it has not been sufficiently made known at\n_all times_, and in _all places_; yet he sets up an internal revelation,\nas worthy of God, which has never been made known to any _one man_ of\nany _time_ or _place_ in the world. For what one man ever knew that\n_reason_ was God\u2019s _internal revelation_, to which nothing could be\nadded by any external revelation?\n\nIt is a mighty complaint with our author against Christianity, that\nso much happiness should be deferred till the time of _Tiberius_, and\nthat it should be communicated to no greater a part of the world, than\nChristianity hath been. But is not this a _judicious_ complaint in\nthe mouth of a person, that is setting up a religion, that has been\ncommunicated to no body but himself.\n\nI know nothing that can be said for our author, in excuse of so much\nconfusion and self-contradiction, unless it be the particular hardships\nof his _sect_. The _free-thinking few_, he says, _are forced into\nan outward compliance_; and that which _forces_ a man into a state\nof hypocrisy, may force him into a great deal of confusion and\nself-contradiction.\n\nTo return: I have from a consideration of the state of man, and the\nseveral relations which God stands in towards his creatures, shewn that\nit is utterly impossible for human reason to be a competent judge of\nthe fitness, or unfitness, of all that God may, or may not require of\nus. The two following chapters shall state the nature and perfection of\nreason, as it is a faculty, or principle of action in human nature.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n\n _Of the state and nature of reason, as it is in man; and how its\n perfection in matters of religion is to be known._\n\n\nTHIS writer and others, who take to themselves the names of\n_free-thinkers_, make their court to the world, by pretending to\nvindicate the right that all men have, to judge and act according to\ntheir own reason. Though, I think, the world has no more to thank them\nfor on this account, than if they had pretended to assert the right\nthat every man has, to see _only_ with his _own eyes_, or to hear\n_only_ with his _own ears_.\n\nFor their own reason always did, does, and ever will, govern rational\ncreatures, in every thing they determine, either in speculation or\npractice. It is not a matter of _duty_ for men to use their own reason,\nbut of _necessity_: and it is as impossible to do otherwise, as for a\nbeing that cannot act but from choice, to act without choice.\n\nMan is under the same necessity of acting from his own choice, that\n_matter_ is of not acting at all; and a being, whose principle of\naction is reason and choice, can no more act without it, or contrary\nto it, than an extended being can be without extension.\n\nAll men therefore are equally reasonable in this respect, that they are,\nand must be, by a _necessity_ of nature, equally directed and governed\nby their own reason and choice.\n\n*\u00a0The dispute therefore betwixt Christians and _unbelievers_,\nconcerning reason, is not, whether men are to use their _own reason_,\nany more than whether they are to see with their _own eyes_; but\nwhether every man\u2019s reason must needs guide him, by its _own light_, or\nmust cease to guide him, as soon as it guides him by a light borrowed\nfrom revelation? This is the true state of the question, not whether\nreason is to be followed, but when it is _best_ followed? Not whether\nit is to be our guide, but how it may be made our _safest guide_?\n\n*\u00a0The _free-thinkers_, therefore, rather appeal to the passions, than\nreason of the people, when they represent the clergy and Christianity\nas enemies to reason, and themselves as friends and advocates for the\nuse of reason.\n\n*\u00a0For Christians oppose unbelievers, not because they _reason_, but\nbecause they reason _ill_. They receive revelation, not to suppress the\nnatural power, but to give new and heavenly light to their reason; not\nto take away their right of judging for themselves, but to secure them\nfrom false judgments.\n\nChristians therefore do not differ from unbelievers in the _constant\nuse_ of their reason, but in the _manner_ of using it: as _virtuous_\nmen differ from _rakes_, not in their desire of happiness, but in their\nmanner of seeking it.\n\nIt appears from what has been said, that every man\u2019s own reason is\nhis only principle of action, and that he must judge according to it,\nwhether he receives, or rejects revelation.\n\nNow although every man is to judge according to the light of his own\nreason, yet his reason has very little light that can be called its\nown. For, as we derive our nature from our parents, so that which\nwe generally call _natural knowledge_, or the light of nature, is a\nknowledge and light that is made natural to us, by the same authority,\nwhich makes a certain language, certain customs, and modes of behaviour,\nnatural to us.\n\nNothing seems to be our own, but a bare capacity to be instructed, a\nnature fitted for any impressions; as liable to be made a _Hottentot_,\nby being born among Hottentots, as to be a _Christian_, by being born\namong Christians.\n\nIt is not my intention by this to signify, that there is not a good and\nevil, right and wrong founded in the nature of things: but only to shew,\nthat we find out this right and wrong, not by any inward strength, that\nour natural reason of itself affords, but by such external means, as\npeople are taught articulate language, or the rules of civil life.\n\nMen do not prefer virtue to vice, from a philosophical contemplation of\nthe fitness of the one, and the unfitness of the other; but because it\nis a judgment as early in their minds, as their knowledge of the words,\nvirtue and vice.\n\nAnd it can no more be reasonably affirmed, that our knowledge of God\nand divine things, our opinions of the excellency of this, or that\nvirtue, and of the immortality of our souls, are the effects of our\nnatural light; than it can be reasonably affirmed, that our living in\nsociety, and our articulate language are owing to the light of nature.\n\nFor, as all mankind find themselves in this state before any reasoning\nabout it; as education, and human authority have taught us language,\nand accustomed us to the rules and manners of a social life: so\neducation, and the same authority, have planted in our minds, certain\nnotions of God and divine things, and formed us to a belief of our\nsoul\u2019s immortality, and the expectation of another life.\n\nAnd mankind are no more left to find out a God, or the fitness of\nvirtue, by their own reason, than they are left by their own reason, to\nfind out who are their parents, to find out the fitness of speaking an\narticulate language.\n\nNow if this is the state of reason, as it is in man; if this is all the\nlight that we have from our own nature, a bare capacity of receiving\ngood or bad impressions, right or wrong opinions and sentiments,\naccording to the state of the world we fall into; then we are but\npoorly furnished, to assert the _absolute perfection_ of our own reason.\n\nIf our light is little more than the opinions and customs of those\namongst whom we live, and it be so hard for a man to arrive at a\ngreater wisdom, than the common wisdom of the _country_ which gave him\nbirth and education; how unreasonably do we appeal to the perfection\nof our reason, against the _necessity_ and _advantage_ of divine\nrevelation?\n\n*\u00a0If we are nothing without the assistance of men; if we are a kind of\nfoolish, helpless animals, \u2019till education and experience have revealed\nto us the wisdom and knowledge of our fellow-creatures; shall we think\nourselves too wise and full of our own light, to be farther enlightened\nwith a wisdom revealed to us by God himself?\n\nThis gentleman, speaking of education, saith, \u201cEducation is justly\nesteemed a second nature; and its force is so strong, that few can\nwholly shake off its prejudices, even in things unreasonable and\nunnatural.\u201d\n\nAll that I shall add to this account, is, that we are by the condition\nof human life, necessarily subjected to this _second nature_, and\ncannot avoid coming under its power.\n\nAnd here let me ask this pleader for the sufficiency of the light of\nnature, how those that resign themselves up to the light of their _own\nnature_, shall know, whether it is their _first_, or their _second_\nnature that directs them?\n\nHere are, it seems, _two natures_; they may be as different as good and\nevil; yet as they are both _natures_, both _internal light_, how shall\na man know which he follows? He does not know which was first, or why\nhe should call one first, and the other second; they are both internal,\nand without any thing to distinguish them. And as he is not to resist\nthe motions of nature, or stifle its directions; so he must be as\nobedient to the directions of the second, as of the first nature,\nbecause he does not perceive their difference, nor has any means to\ndistinguish their operations.\n\nHe therefore that asserts the light of nature to be a sufficient\nunerring guide in divine matters, ought either to shew, that our\n_second_ nature is as _safe_ a guide as the first; or that though it\nis nature, yet it has no _natural powers_ over us.\n\nFor since every man is _necessitated_ to take upon him a second nature,\nwhich he does not _know_ to be a second, or _when_ it began, or _how\nfar_ it has proceeded, or how _contrary_ it is to his first nature; he\nthat would prove the light of nature to be so perfect, that nothing can\nbe added to it, is obliged to prove, that our second nature, which we\nreceive by education, has the same degree of perfection. For so far as\nour second nature is different from the first, so far it has changed\nthe first; and if we are to follow nature exclusive of revelation,\nwe may take _revenge_, _self-murder_, _incontinence_, _sensuality_,\n_pride_, _self-conceit_, and a _contempt_ of all things sacred, to be\nthe true dictates of nature.\n\nFor it often happens to people, to be thus educated; so if education\nis a second nature, and nature is to be esteemed a _true_ and _perfect_\nguide; a man thus educated, has all his vices made so many glorious\nlaws of nature; and thro\u2019 the strength of his natural light, he\ncondemns humility, self-denial, and devotion, as foolish bigotry.\n\nThis writer says, \u201cNatural religion, _that is, the religion of nature_,\nis a perpetual standing rule for men of the meanest, as well as\nthe highest capacities, and carries its own evidence with it, those\ninternal, inseparable marks of truth.\u00b9 _But if education is a |second\nnature|, and, as this writer affirms, |has the force of a second nature\neven in things unreasonable and unnatural|; then this second nature\nhas not only its natural religion, which is also |a perpetual standing\nrule for men of the meanest, as well as the highest capacities; which\ncarries its own evidence with it, those internal, inseparable marks of\ntruth|; but it may also have a natural religion, both |unreasonable and\nunnatural|; since education has the force of nature even in things of\nthis kind._\u201d\n\n \u00b9 Page 243.\n\nAgain: If education has this force of nature even in things\nunreasonable and unnatural; if it is also absolutely necessary for all\nmen to come under the power of some second nature; what can be more\nvain, than to pretend to state the light, or rectitude of human nature,\nsince it must be for the most part in every man, as the uncertainty,\nvariety, happiness or unhappiness of education has rendered it?\n\nAnd our author can no more tell, what man would be without education,\nor what nature would do for those who had no foreign instruction, than\nhe can tell what sort of beings dwell in the moon. And yet he that does\nnot know this, how can he know what the light of nature is in itself?\n\n*\u00a0Again to declare the light of nature so perfect, as to be\nincapable of all improvement even by divine revelation, is no less an\nextravagance, than to declare the education of mankind to be perfect in\nthe same degree.\n\n*\u00a0For if nature not only wants, but cannot possibly avoid education;\nif this necessary unavoidable education becomes another nature,\nundiscernible from the first; then nothing can possibly be affirmed of\nthe perfection of the light of nature, but what must be affirmed in the\nsame degree of the perfection of education. And he that affirms that\nmankind have had, at all times, and in all places of the world, the\nsame sufficient, perfect light of nature, must affirm, that mankind\nhave had, at all times, and in all places of the world, the same\nperfect, unerring education.\n\n*\u00a0When therefore it is just, for all people to abide by the absolute\nperfection of their education, the infallible light of their second\nnature, as the unerring standard, of all that is moral, religious, and\ndivine; then it may be just to appeal to the natural light of all men,\nof all ages, and all places, as a sufficient teacher of all that ought,\nor ought not to be a matter of religion.\n\n*\u00a0For till it can be shewn, that men are not liable to a second nature\nfrom education; the state of nature must differ all over the world,\nand in every age of the world, just as the light, and advantages of\neducation, have differed in the several parts, and ages of the world.\n\n*\u00a0In a word, the religious and moral light of our first nature, is just\nas great as the first strength of infants; and the religious and moral\nlight of our second nature, is just as perfect as our education, and\nas much of our own growth, as the first language that we are taught to\nspeak.\n\nMay not therefore one justly wonder, what it is that could lead any\npeople into an imagination of the absolute perfection of human reason?\nThere seems no more in the state of mankind, to betray a man into this\nfancy, than to persuade him, that the reason of infants is absolutely\nperfect. For sense and experience, are as full and strong a proof\nagainst one, as against the other.\n\nBut it must be said for these writers, that they decline all arguments\nfrom facts and experience, to give a better account of human nature;\nbut with the same justice, as if a man was to lay aside the authority\nof history, to give you a truer account of the life of _Alexander_.\n\nTheir objection against revelation is founded upon the pretended\nsufficiency and perfection of human reason, to teach all men all that\nis wise, and holy, and divine, in religion. But how do they prove this\nperfection of human reason? Do they appeal to mankind as proofs of it?\nDo they produce any body of men in this or any other age, that without\nany assistance from revelation, have attained to this perfection of\nreligious knowledge? This is not so much as pretended to; the history\nof such men is entirely wanting. And yet the want of such a fact\nas this, has even the force of demonstration against this pretended\nsufficiency of natural reason.\n\nBecause it is a matter not capable of any other kind of proof, but\nmust be admitted as certainly true, or rejected as certainly false,\naccording as fact and experience bear witness for or against it.\n\n*\u00a0For an enquiry about the light, and strength, and sufficiency of\nreason, to guide and preserve men in the knowledge and practice of\ntrue religion, is a question, as _solely_ to be resolved by _fact and\nexperience_, as if the enquiry was about the _shape_ of man\u2019s body,\nor the _number_ of his senses. And to talk of a light and strength of\nreason, natural to man, which fact and experience have never yet proved,\nis as egregious nonsense, as to talk of natural senses, or faculties of\nhis body, which fact and experience have never yet discovered.\n\nFrom the bare consideration of a rational soul in union with a body,\nand bodily passions, we can neither prove man to be _strong_ nor _weak_,\n_good_ nor _bad_, _sickly_ nor _sound_, _mortal_ nor _immortal_: all\nthese qualities must discover themselves, as the _eye_ discovers its\ndegree of _sight_, the _hand_ its degree of _strength_.\n\nTo enquire therefore, whether men have by nature light sufficient to\nguide, and keep them in the true religion; is the same appeal to fact\nand experience, as to enquire, whether men are _mortal_, _sickly_, or\n_sound_: or how far they can _see_ and _hear_.\n\n*\u00a0As therefore these gentlemen are, in this debate, without any proof,\nor even pretence of proof, from experience, so their cause ought to be\nlooked upon to be as vain and romantic, as if they had asserted, that\nmen have senses naturally fitted to hear sounds, and see objects at all\ndistances, tho\u2019 experience has, from the creation to this time, proved\nthe quite contrary.\n\nFor he that asserts the sufficiency of reason, to guide men in matters\nof religion, is not only without any positive proof from experience on\nhis side, but has the history of all ages, for near six thousand years,\nfully demonstrating the quite contrary.\n\nIf some other enquirers into human nature, should affirm, that there is\nin mankind a _natural instinct_, sufficient to make every man, at all\ntimes, love every other man, with the _same degree_ of affection, as he\nloves himself; I suppose such an opinion would be thought too absurd to\nneed any confutation. And yet all the absurdity of it would lie in this,\nthat it affirmed something of the _sufficiency_ of a natural quality in\nman, which could not be supported by a single instance of any one man,\nand was contrary to the experience and history of every age of the\nworld.\n\nNow this is exactly the case of these gentlemen: their opinion\nhas neither more or less absurdity in it: they only affirm such a\nsufficiency of reason to be natural to all men, as cannot be supported\nby a single instance of any one man, that ever lived, and is fully\ncontradicted by the experience and history of every age since the\ncreation of the world.\n\nBy what has been said, I hope the reader will observe, that this\nenquiry about the perfection or imperfection, the strength or weakness,\nof reason in man, as to matters of religion, rests _wholly_ upon fact\nand experience; and that therefore all speculative reasonings upon\nit, are as idle and visionary, as a sick man\u2019s dreams about health;\nand are as wholly to be rejected, as any speculative arguments that\nshould pretend to prove, in spite of all facts and experience, the\n_immortality_, and _unalterable_ state of human bodies.\n\nOur author himself seems sensible, that the argument drawn from facts\nand experience, pressed hard upon his cause; and therefore has given\nthe best answer to it, he can yet think of.\n\n\u201cIt cannot, _says he_, be imputed to any defect in the light of nature,\nthat the _Pagan_ world ran into idolatry; but to their being entirely\ngoverned by priests, who pretended communication with their gods, and\nto have thence their revelations, which they imposed upon the credulous,\nas divine oracles.\u201d\n\nThe justness of this assertion will fully appear by the following\nillustration.\n\n\u201cIt cannot be imputed to any defect in the health and soundness of\nman\u2019s natural constitution, that the world has, in all ages, been\nover-run with distempers; but to their being entirely governed by\nphysicians, who pretended to I know not what secret knowledge of\nmedicines, which they imposed upon the sickly, as infallible remedies.\u201d\n\nFor, as a perfect state of health, conscious to itself of a sufficiency\nof natural strength to keep clear of all diseases, seems to be out\nof all danger from physicians; so had mankind been ever conscious\nto themselves, of a sufficient natural knowledge of what is true or\nfalse in religion; such _as enabled men of the meanest capacity to\ndistinguish between religion and superstition_,\u00b9 what _room_ had there\nbeen for frauds and impostures herein?\n\n \u00b9 Page 3.\n\n\u201cCan the superstition of the _Pagans_ be imputed to any defect or\ninsufficiency in the light of reason, when it was wholly owing to\ntheir abandoning that divine light; and in defiance of it, running into\nsenseless traditions?\u201d\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 Page 37.\n\nBut how came it, that they ran into senseless traditions? What was\nit that admitted these traditions as just and good? Why, it was that\nfaculty which judges of every thing, and which this writer recommends\nas an unerring guide. And to say, a man\u2019s superstition is not owing to\nany defect or weakness of his reason, but to his admitting senseless\ntraditions, is as vain, as to say, a man\u2019s false reasoning is not owing\nto any weakness of his reason, but to his proceeding upon foolish and\nabsurd arguments.\n\nHe proceeds thus: \u201cIt is certainly no good argument against the\nsufficiency of the divine light of nature, that men could not err,\nexcept they left it, and followed vain traditions.\u201d\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 Second Address, page 39.\n\nThis observation has just the same sense and acuteness in it, as\nif it had been said, _It is certainly no good argument against_ the\nsufficiency of the divine healthfulness _of human nature, that men\ncould not be sickly, except they left it_, and _fell into various\ndistempers: or, against the_ sufficiency of the divine strength of\nnatural courage, that men could not be timorous, till they left it, and\nfollowed vain fears. For, to prove that reason is sufficient, because\nevery thing that is absurd, is contrary to reason, is like proving our\nhealthfulness to be sufficient, because all distempers are contrary to\nit: or our courage to be sufficient, because fears and cowardice are\ncontrary to it.\n\nBesides, how is it that men leave their reason? Why, just as ignorant\nmen leave their knowledge; as dull people leave their wit, or cowards\nleave their courage. The first part of this paragraph tells you of a\nsufficiency of the divine light of nature: well; What has this divine\nlight of nature done? What sufficient effects has it had? Why, it has\ncovered all the world with darkness.\n\nAgain: Supposing that all mankind, even the wisest nations, have for\nthis six thousand years been thus imposed upon, not knowing how to\ndistinguish idle tales and senseless traditions from true religion; is\nnot this a noble foundation for this writer to build the _sufficiency\nof the divine light of nature upon_? For supposing it had been in the\ngreatest degree insufficient, what other effect could have followed\nfrom it, but only this, that _all mankind_, even the _wisest nations_,\nshould have been over-run with error? And is it not strange, that\neffects should bear no proportion to their causes; that the same things\nshould follow from the _sufficiency_ of the divine light of nature,\nwhich must have followed from its _greatest insufficiency_?\n\n*\u00a0And must not the enemies of _reason_ and _free-thinking_ be forced to\nconfess, that this writer hath chosen an excellent guide for himself;\nsince he so fully acknowledges, that no one yet has been rightly guided\nby it? Must not his present undertaking be granted to be the effect of\ncool and sober deliberation, since it only calls people of _all_, even\nthe _meanest capacities_, to such an use of their reason, as the wisest\nof men and nations have always been strangers to?\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER V.\n\n _Shewing that all the |mutability| of our tempers, the |disorders|\n of our passions, the |corruption| of our hearts, all the\n |reveries| of the imagination, all the |contradictions| and\n |absurdities| that are to be found in human life, and human\n opinions, are in effect the mutability, disorders, corruption,\n and absurdities of |human reason|._\n\n\nIT is the intent of this chapter to shew, that altho\u2019 common language\nascribes a variety of faculties and principles to the soul, imputing\nthis action to the blindness of our _passions_, that to the inconstancy\nof our _tempers_; one thing to the heat of our _imagination_, another\nto the coolness of our _reason_; yet, in strictness of truth, every\nthing that is done by us, is the action and operation of our reason,\nand is to be ascribed to it, as the sole principle from whence it\nproceeded, and by which it is governed and effected.\n\nAnd the different degrees of reason are in men, as the different\ndegrees of love and aversion; as the different degrees of wit, parts,\ngood nature, or ill nature, are in man.\n\nAnd as all men have naturally more or less of these qualities, so all\nmen have naturally more or less reason: and the bulk of mankind are as\ndifferent in reason, as they are in these qualities.\n\nAs love is the same passion in all men, yet is infinitely different; as\nhatred is the same passion in all men, yet with infinite differences;\nso reason is the same faculty in all men, yet with infinite differences.\n\nAnd as our passions not only make us different from other men, but\nfrequently and almost daily different from ourselves, loving and hating\nunder great inconstancy; so our reason is not only different from the\nreason of other men, but is often different from itself; by a strange\ninconstancy, setting up first one opinion, and then another.\n\nSo that when we talk of _human reason_, or a reason _common_ to mankind,\nwe talk of as _various_, _uncertain_, and _unmeasurable_ a thing,\nas when we talk of a _love_, an _aversion_, a _good nature_, or _ill\nnature_, common to mankind; for these qualities admit of no variation,\nuncertainty, or mutability, but such as they directly receive from the\n_reason_ of mankind.\n\nFor it is as much the reason of man that acts in all these tempers, and\nmakes them to be just what they are, as it is the reason of man that\ndemonstrates a mathematical proposition.\n\nWas our reason steady, there would be just the same steadiness and\nregularity in our tempers; did not reason fall into follies and\nabsurdities, we should have nothing foolish or absurd in our love\nor aversion. For every humour, every kind of love or aversion, is as\nstrictly the _action_ or _operation_ of our reason, as judgment is the\nact of our reason.\n\nAnd the tempers and passions of a child, differ only from the tempers\nand passions of a man, as the reason of a child differs from the reason\nof man.\n\nSo that our passions and tempers, are the natural real effects of our\nreason, and have no qualities, either good or bad, but such as are to\nbe imputed to it.\n\nA laudable good nature, or a laudable aversion, is only reason acting\nin a _certain manner_: a criminal good nature, or a criminal aversion,\nis nothing else but reason acting in another certain manner.\n\nBut still it is reason, or our understanding that is the _only\nagent_ in our bad passions, as well as good passions; and as much the\n_sole agent_ in all our passions and tempers, as in things of mere\nspeculation.\n\nSo that the state of reason in human life, is nothing else but the\nstate of human tempers and passions; and right reason in morality, is\nnothing else but right love, and right aversion.\n\nAll _that_ therefore which we commonly call the weakness, blindness,\nand disorder of our _passions_, is in reality the weakness, blindness,\nand disorder of our _reason_. For a right love, or wrong love, denotes\nonly reason acting in a _certain, particular_ manner.\n\nSo that if any thing can be said of love, aversion, good nature, or ill\nnature, as common to mankind; the same may be said of reason, as common\nto mankind.\n\nFor the distinction of our reason from our passions, is only a\ndistinction in language, made at pleasure; and is no more real than the\n_desire_ and _inclination_ are really different from the _will_. All\ntherefore that is weak and foolish in our passions, is the weakness and\nfolly of our reason; all the inconstancy and caprice of our humours and\ntempers, is the caprice and inconstancy of our reason.\n\nIt is not properly _avarice_ that makes men sordid; it is not\n_ambition_ that makes them restless; it is not _bribery_ that makes\nmen sell their consciences; it is not _interest_ that makes them lye,\nand cheat, and perjure themselves. What is it therefore? Why it is\nthat _absolutely perfect_ faculty, which our author sets up as the\n_unerring_ standard of all that is _wise_, _holy_, and _good_; it is\n_reason_, the _use of reason, human reason_, that does all this.\n\nFor whether any thing be fit to be done, it is as he says, \u201creason\nalone which must judge; as the eye is the sole judge of what is visible,\nthe ear of what is audible, so reason of what is reasonable.\u201d\n\nEvery thing therefore that is done, every thing that is chosen in human\nlife before any thing else, is as strictly chosen by reason, as every\nthing that is seen, is seen by the eye; and every thing that is heard,\nis heard by the ear.\n\nTo suppose that reason permits itself to be governed by passions or\ntempers, but is not the _immediate agent_ of all that is done by them,\nis as absurd, as to suppose that reason permits itself to be governed\nby the _hand_ when it is writing falsly, or the _tongue_, when it is\ntalking profanely, but it is not the immediate, direct agent of all\nthat is written and spoken by them.\n\n*\u00a0_Brutes_ are incapable of immorality, because none of their actions\nare the actions of _reason_: every thing therefore that is immorality,\nbaseness, or villainy in us, must be the act of our reason, otherwise\nit could no more be immoral, than the actions of brutes.\n\n*\u00a0If therefore, as this author often saith, reason be the only faculty\nthat distinguisheth us from brutes; it necessarily follows, that those\nirregularities, whether of humour, passions, or tempers, which cannot\nbe imputed to brutes, must be solely attributed to that faculty by\nwhich we are distinguished from brutes; and consequently, every thing\nthat is foolish, vain, shameful, false, treacherous, and base, must be\nthe acts of our reason; since if they were the acts of any thing else,\nthey could have no more vanity, falseness, or baseness, than hunger and\nthirst.\n\nIt is not my intent to condemn our common language, which talks of\nreason and the passions, as if they were as different as a _governor_\nand his _subjects_.\n\nThese forms of speech are very intelligible and useful, and give great\nlife and ornament to all discourses upon morality.\n\nBut when persons ascribe to reason, as a _distinct faculty_ of human\nnature, I know not what _absolute perfection_, making it as immutable,\nand incapable of any addition or improvement, as God himself: it is\nnecessary to consider reason, not as it is represented in common\nlanguage, but as it is in reality in itself.\n\nNotwithstanding therefore in common language, our passions, and the\neffects of them, are usefully distinguished from our reason, I have\nhere ventured to shew, that all the disorders of human nature, are in\neffect the disorders of human reason, and that all the perfection or\nimperfection of our passions is the perfection or imperfection of our\nreason.\n\nOur follies and absurdities of every kind are as necessarily to be\nascribed to our reason, as the _first immediate_ cause of them, as our\nwisdom and discretion are to be ascribed to it in that degree.\n\nThe difference between reason assenting to the properties of a _square_,\nand reason acting in motions of desire or aversion, is only this, that\nin the latter case, it is reason acting under a sense of its own good\nor evil, in the former case, it is reason acting under a sense of\n_magnitude_.\n\nAnd as the relations of magnitude, as they are the objects of our\nreason, are only the objects of its assent or dissent; so good and evil,\nas they are objects of our reason, are only the objects of its _desire_\nor _aversion_: and as the assent or dissent, in matters of speculation,\nwhether right or wrong, is solely the act of our reason; so desire or\naversion, in human life, whether right or wrong, is equally the act of\nour reason.\n\nWe often say, that our passions deceive us, or persuade us; but this\nis no more strictly so, than when we say, our _interest_ deceived, or\na bribe blinded us. For bribes and interest are not active principles,\nnor have any power of deception; it is only our reason that gives them\na false value, and prefers them to a greater good.\n\nIt is just so in what we call the deceit of our passions: they meddle\nwith us no more than bribes meddle with us; but that pleasurable\nperception, which is to be found in certain enjoyments, is by our\nreason preferred to that better good, which we might expect from\nself-denial.\n\nWe say again, that our passions paint things in false colours, and\npresent to our minds vain appearances of happiness.\n\nBut this is no more strictly true, than when we say, \u2666our _imagination_\nforms castles in the air. For the imagination signifies no distinct\nfaculty from our reason, but only reason acting upon our _own ideas_.\n\n \u2666 \u201cout\u201d replaced with \u201cour\u201d\n\nSo when our passions are said to give false colours to things, or\npresent vain appearances of happiness, it is only our reason acting\nupon its own ideas of _good_ and _evil_, just as it acts upon its own\nideas of _architecture_, in forming castles in the air.\n\nSo that all _that_ which we call different faculties, tempers, and\npassions, strictly speaking, means nothing else, but the various acts\nof one and the same rational principle, which has different names,\naccording to the objects that it acts upon, and the manner of its\nacting.\n\nIn some things it is called speculative, in others it is called\npractical reason. And we may as justly think our speculative reason is\na different faculty from our practical reason, as that our aversions,\nor likings, are not as fully to be ascribed to our reason, as\nsyllogisms and demonstrations.\n\n*\u00a0It was truly reason that made _Medea_ kill her children, that made\n_Cato_ kill himself, that made Pagans offer human sacrifices to idols;\nthat made _Epicurus_ deny a providence, _Mahomet_ pretend a revelation;\nthat made some men sceptics, others bigots; some enthusiasts, others\nprofane; that made _Hobbes_ assert all religion to be human invention,\nand _Spinosa_ to declare trees, and stones, and animals to be parts\nof God; that makes free-thinkers deny freedom of will, and fatalists\nexhort to a reformation of manners; that made _Vaux_ a conspirator, and\n_Ludlow_ a regicide; that made _Muggleton_ a fanatic; and _Rochester_\na libertine. It was as truly reason that did all these things, as it is\nreason that demonstrates mathematical propositions.\n\n_Medea_ and _Cato_ acted as truly according to the judgment of their\nreason at that time, as the confessor that chuses rather to suffer,\nthan deny his faith.\n\nHad not _Medea_ and _Cato_ thought it best to do what they did, at the\ntime they did it, they would no more have done it than the _confessor_\nwould chuse to suffer rather than deny his faith, unless he had judged\nbest so to do.\n\nAnd when we say reason governs the passions, it means no more,\nthan that reason governs itself; that it acts with deliberation and\nattention, does not yield to its first judgments, but uses second, and\nthird thoughts.\n\nSo that guarding against the passions, is only guarding against its own\nfirst judgments and opinions; that is guarding against itself.\n\nTo all this may, perhaps, be objected, that our passions arise from\nbodily motions, and depend upon the state of our blood and animal\nspirits, and therefore what we do under their commotions, cannot be\nattributed to our reason.\n\nIt is readily granted, that the body has this share in our passions\nand tempers: but then the same thing must be granted of the body,\nin all the acts and operations of the mind. So that if our desires\nand aversions cannot be imputed to our reason, because of the joint\noperation of the animal spirits in them; no more can syllogisms and\ndemonstrations be attributed to our reason, because the operation of\nbodily spirits concurreth in the forming of them.\n\nFor the most abstract thought, and speculation of the mind, has as\ntruly the _conjunct_ operation of bodily spirits, as our strongest\ndesires or aversions. And it is as much owing to the state of the body,\nthat such speculations are what they are, as it is owing to the state\nof the body, that such passions are what they are.\n\nFor the motions of the bodily spirits are inseparable from, and\naccording to, the state and action of the mind: when reason is in\nspeculation of a trifle, they concur but weakly; when reason speculates\nintensely, their operation is increased. And sometimes the attention of\nthe mind is so great, and has so engaged and called in all the animal\nspirits to its assistance, that the operations of our senses are\nsuspended, and we neither see, nor feel, till the attention of the mind\nhas let the spirits return to all the parts of the body.\n\nNow will any one say, that these intense thoughts are less the acts of\nthe mind, because they have a greater concurrence of bodily spirits,\nthan when it is acting with indifference, and so has a lesser quantity\nof bodily spirits?\n\nYet this might as well be said, as to say, that the assent or dissent,\nin speculation, is the act of our reason; but liking or disliking,\nloving or hating, are not the acts of our reason, because they have a\ngreater concurrence of bodily spirits.\n\nFor, as the mind is in a different state when it desires good, or\nfears evil, from what it is when it only compares two triangles; so\nthe motions of the bodily spirits, have only _such_ a difference, as\nis _correspondent_ to these two states of the mind. They act and join\nas much in comparing the triangles, as in the desire of good, or fear\nof evil. And the mind is just as much governed by the body, in its\npassions, as in its calmest contemplations.\n\nFor as the gentle operation of the animal spirits is then correspondent\nto the state and action of the mind; so in all our passions, the strong\nand increased motion of the animal spirits, is equally correspondent\nthereto.\n\nSo that reason is no more the agent, in our tempers and passions, than\nin our dry and sedate speculations.\n\nIt may happen, that a man may have as great an eagerness in solving\na mathematical problem, as another hath to obtain any great good, or\navoid any great evil.\n\nBut may it therefore be said, that it is not reason that solves the\nproblem, because the bodily spirits are so active in it?\n\nTo draw now some plain consequences from the foregoing account.\n\n_First_, If reason be the _universal agent_ in the natural man; if all\nthe difference among _such_ men, is only such a difference as reason\nmakes, then nothing can be more extravagant, than to affirm any thing\nconcerning the degree of perfection, or imperfection of reason, as\n_common_ to man. It is as wild and romantic, as to pretend to state the\nmeasure of folly and wisdom, of fear and courage, of pride and humility,\nof good humour and ill-humour, _common_ to mankind: for as these\nstates of the mind, are only so many different states of reason; so no\nuncertainty belongs to them, but what, in the _same degree_, belongs to\n_reason_.\n\n_Secondly_, Granting that all matters of religion must be agreeable\nto _right, unprejudiced_ reason; yet this could be no ground for\nreceiving nothing in religion, but what _human_ reason could prove\nto be necessary; for _human_ reason is no more _right, unprejudiced_\nreason, than a sinner is _sinless_, or a man an _angel_.\n\nGranting again, that a man may go a great way towards rectifying his\nreason, and laying aside its prejudices; yet no particular man can be a\n_better judge_ of the rectitude of his _own reason_, than he is of the\nrectitude of his own _self-love_, the brightness of his own _parts_,\nand the depth of his own _judgment_.\n\nFor there is nothing to deceive him in _self-love_, in the opinion of\nhis _own merit_, _wit_, and _judgment_, but what has the same power to\ndeceive him, in the opinion of his own reason. And if, as our author\nsays, \u201cIt be the fate of most sects to be the fondest of their ugliest\nbrats.\u201d\u00b9 None seem so inevitably exposed to this fatality, as those\nwhose religion is to have no form, but such as it receives from their\nown hearts.\n\n \u00b9 Page 184.\n\n_Thirdly_, A man that has his religion to chuse, and with this precious\nprivilege, that he need not allow any thing to be matter of religion,\nbut what his own reason can prove to be so, is in as fair a way to be\ngoverned by his _passions_, as he that has his _condition_ of life to\nchuse, with the liberty of taking that which his own reason directs him\nto.\n\nDoes any one suppose, that nothing but _reason_ would direct him in\nthe choice of his condition? Or that he would make the better choice,\nbecause he proceeded upon this maxim, that nothing could be right, but\nthat which was agreeable to his _own reason_? Or that his tempers, his\nprejudices, his self-love, his passions, his partiality, would have no\ninfluence upon his choice, because he had resigned himself up to his\n_own reason_?\n\nNow it is just the same in the choice of a religion, as in the choice\nof a condition of life: as it is not a matter of speculation, but\nof _good_ and _evil_; so if it is left to be determined by our _own\nreason_, it rather appeals to our _tempers_, than employs our reason;\nand to resign ourselves up to our own reason, to tell us what ought, or\nought not to be a matter of religion, is only resigning ourselves up to\nour tempers, \u2666to take what we _like_, and refuse what we _dislike_ in\nreligion.\n\n \u2666 removed duplicate \u201cto\u201d\n\n*\u00a0In a word; when _self-love_ is a proper arbitrator betwixt a man and\nhis adversary; when _revenge_ is a just judge of meekness; when _pride_\nis a true lover of humility; when _falshood_ is a teacher of truth;\nwhen lust is a fast friend of chastity; when the _flesh_ leads to the\nspirit; when _sensuality_ delights in self-denial; when _partiality_\nis a promoter of equity; when the _palate_ can taste the difference\nbetween sin and holiness; when the _hand_ can feel the truth of a\nproposition; then may _human reason_ be a proper arbitrator between God\nand man, the sole, final, just judge of all that ought, or ought not to\nbe a matter of a _holy_, _divine_, and _heavenly_ religion.\n\n_Lastly_, If this be the state of reason, then to pretend, that our\nreason, is too perfect to be governed by any thing but its own light,\nis the same extravagance, as to pretend, that our love is too pure to\nbe governed by any thing but its own inclinations, our hatred too just\nto be governed by any thing but its own motions. For if all that is\nbase and criminal in love, all that is unjust and wicked in hatred, is\nto be imputed to our reason; then no perfection can be ascribed to our\nreason, but such as is to be ascribed to our love and hatred.\n\n\n\n\n An Extract from Mr. LAW\u2019s\n SERIOUS ANSWER\n To Dr. TRAPP\u2019s Four Sermons,\n On the Sin, Folly, and Danger of being righteous over-much.\n\n\n1. *\u00a0MIGHT I follow the _bent_ of my own mind, I should be wholly\nemployed in setting forth the infinite love of God to mankind in\nChrist Jesus, and endeavouring to draw all men to the belief and\nacknowledgment of it. This _one great mercy_ of God, which makes the\n_one_ happiness of all mankind, so justly deserves all our thoughts\nand meditations, so highly enlightens, and improves every mind that\nis attentive to it, so removes all the evils of this present world, so\nsweetens every state of life, so inflames the heart with the love of\nevery divine and human virtue, that he is no small loser, whose mind is,\neither by writing or reading, detained from the view and contemplation\nof it.\n\n2. When the mystery of divine love was first manifested to the world,\nit produced its proper effects. It put an end to all _selfishness and\ndivision; for all that believed were of one heart and one spirit, and\nhad all things common_.\u00b9 And indeed, under the real influence and full\nbelief of this great mystery of divine love, there seems to be no room\nleft for any thing else amongst Christians, but returns of love to God,\nand flowing out of love towards one another.\n\n \u00b9 Acts ii. 44.\n\n3. *\u00a0It is so difficult to enter into controversy without being, or at\nleast seeming in some degree unkind to the person one opposes, that it\nis with great reluctance I have entered upon my present undertaking;\nhaving nothing more deeply riveted in my heart, than an universal love\nand kindness for all men, and more especially for those whom God has\ncalled to be my fellow-labourers, in promoting the salvation of mankind.\nBut however unwilling, yet I find myself obliged to consider and lay\nopen many grievous faults in the Doctor\u2019s discourse; and to shew to\nall Christians, that the dearest interests of their souls are much\nendangered by it.\n\n4. *\u00a0And this I must do with great plainness and sincerity in the love\nof truth, and under the direction of charity, saying nothing in the\nspirit of an _adversary_, sparing nothing thro\u2019 _respect of persons_,\nsacrificing nothing to the taste or temper of the world, but setting\nevery thing in that naked light, in which the Spirit of God represents\nit to my own mind.\n\n5. The Doctor undertakes to stir up, and alarm mankind with the _sin_,\n_folly_ and _danger_ of being _righteous over-much_. The text from\nwhich he has the title of his discourses is very unhappily chosen,\nand must be looked upon rather as a severe reproach, than any kind of\njustification of it. The text is indeed in the writings of _Solomon_,\nand as it stands there, has no hurt in it; because as the royal\npreacher sometimes introduces fools, and sometimes infidels making\ntheir speeches, so there is a necessity of supposing that to be the\ncase in the Doctor\u2019s text; not only from the context which plainly\nshews there are two persons introduced, the one _for_, the other\n_against_ righteousness; but because the words, otherwise, cannot\nbe taken in a sense that is tolerable, or consistent with the common\n_notions_ of piety.\n\n6. Is it not therefore strange, that the Doctor should think it right,\nto limit, explain, and model both the letter and spirit of the gospel\nby such a saying in the writings of _Solomon_ as must be ascribed to\nthe spirit and mouth of an infidel? Is it not stranger, that such a\ntext, so offensive to piety, should have not only been so long dwelt\nupon in the Doctor\u2019s three churches, but sent abroad into the world, as\na proper key to all the practical sayings, parables, and doctrines of\nJesus Christ?\n\n7. Supported by this text, the Doctor endeavours to deter and fright\nChristians from the sin, folly and danger of being righteous over-much,\nand from what he calls the baneful plague of enthusiasm. But then it is\nmatter of just complaint, that he does all this, without ever shewing\nin any part of his discourse, wherein true righteousness, or the right\nand sober spirit of piety consists. And if he supposed all his readers\nto be already well acquainted with the nature, and extent of Christian\nholiness, there would then have been little occasion for his present\nundertaking.\n\n8. But the Doctor overlooks this important matter. He neither supposes\nthem to have this knowledge, nor endeavours to help them to it; but in\na flow of zeal, reflects at large upon all attempts towards a piety,\nthat is not _modern, common_, and according to the present fashion of\nreligion in the world. Thus, you every where find severe reflections\ncast upon pretenders to piety, pretended spiritualists; great\naccusations of excesses, extraordinaries and by-paths; but no where a\nword or a hint, in favour of those, who would only be so extraordinary,\nand so much out of the _common_ paths, as the blessed saints and\nmartyrs of the primitive church were. No where are _such people_ told,\nthat he wishes them _God speed_, that _their zeal_ is much wanted both\namongst _clergy_ and _laity_, and that the gospel suffers because we\nknow not where to find living examples of its purity and perfection.\nNo where are they told, that he writes not against them, that he loves\ntheir spirit, and should be glad to add new fervours to it: nor what\nChristian perfection is, what a holiness of body, soul and spirit it\nrequires; how powerfully all are called to it, how earnestly all ought\nto aspire after it, and how sadly mistaken, what enemies to themselves\nthey are, who for the sake of any, or all the things in the world, die\nless purified and perfect, than they might have been.\n\n9. If we had to do with _one single_ person sincerely good, yet seeming\nto carry matters too high in some part of his duty, and intended\nprivately to dissuade him from such heights; yet even this, thus\nprivately done and to a person of piety, would be exceeding _dangerous_\nand _unjustifiable_; unless we took the utmost care at the same time,\nto _keep up_ the pious zeal of his mind, to shew him wherein true\nperfection consisted, and to encourage his utmost endeavours after it.\n\nBut if this caution, instruction and encouragement, cannot be omitted\nwithout great hurt to religion, when we speak only to a person of piety,\nand in private, about any religious _extremes_, what must be said of\nthe Doctor\u2019s conduct? Who to the world dead in trespasses and sin,\npreaches up the _sin_, _folly_ and _danger_ of _being_ righteous\nover-much? To the world _eating and drinking and rising up to play_, he\nharangues temperance, abstinence, mortification and severity of life!\nTo the world asleep, insensible, and careless, not only of the purity\nand perfection, but of the first principles of the gospel, he boldly\nand rashly approaches all appearances of holiness, that are uncommon\nand extraordinary! To _no_ part of the world does he represent or\npropose the _perfection_ of the gospel, or recommend it as that, which\ndeserves all that they can do, or suffer for the sake of it.\n\nThis, therefore, I am obliged to point out, as a _fundamental defect_\nin the Doctor\u2019s discourse, and such as renders it an evil _temptation_,\na dangerous _snare_, and fatal _delusion_ to all those who do not read\nit with a full, and thorough dislike.\n\n10. *\u00a0Coldness, indifference, and a lifeless, outward compliance\nwith the duties of religion: a slavery to ease, softness, and\nsensual pleasures: a criminal conformity to the spirit, fashions, and\ncorruptions of the world; unmortified passions; conniving at favourite\nsin; deep roots of pride, partiality, and self-love: an unawakened\nconscience; an insensibility of their corrupt, unreformed, unregenerate\nstate: a proneness to be content and satisfied with poor beginnings,\nnames and appearances of virtue; is perhaps the state of more than two\n_thirds_ of those that are looked upon to be the religious amongst us.\n\nNow the Doctor\u2019s discourse has a direct and natural fitness to lull\nall these people asleep, to \u2666suppress all stirring and intentions of\namendment, to keep up and nourish every disorder of their hearts, to\nincrease their blindness, and awaken nothing in them, but a _hurtful\nzeal_ to censure and condemn all those that are endeavouring to\npractise the _uncommon_ piety of the gospel.\n\n \u2666 The first line on page 144 \u201cupon the madness, danger, and\n folly of too much\u201d appears to be extraneous and inconsistent\n with the text flow, so has been removed. The catchword from\n the previous page appears at the start of line two.\n\nThere is scarce a reader amongst this number of people, whether he be\n_layman_ or _clergyman_, but will find this effect from the Doctor\u2019s\ninstructions; he will begin to take _fresh comfort_ in his state,\nto think himself _happy_ for having had no aspirings after high\nimprovements in piety; he will not only be content with his corruptions,\nbut be fixed and hardened against all _inward_ and _outward_ calls to\na solid piety; he will approve of the deadness and insensibility of his\nown heart, and acquiesce in it, as his just security, from the _sin_\nand _folly_ and _danger_ of being _righteous over-much_.\n\n11. Again, others there are, I make no doubt in all parts of the\nkingdom, both amongst clergy and laity, men and women, rich and poor,\nwhose consciences are greatly awakened, who see the general apostacy\nfrom the religion of the gospel, whose souls are wanting and wishing\nnothing so much, as to know how all that they _are_, all that they\n_have_, and all that they _do_, may be one continual sacrifice, and\nservice of love unto God; to know how, and in what manner, and to what\nextent, and by what means, they may and ought to _be perfect, even as\ntheir Father which is in heaven is perfect_.\n\nNow, who can help looking with _love_ and _compassion_ upon those poor\nsouls, longing for that which has been so long lost; asking after that,\nwhich scarce any one will tell them any thing of, and wanting to enter\nupon paths where there are few or no footsteps to be seen, nor any\ntravellers in motion?\n\nHad these awakened souls lived in the first ages of the church, nay, I\nmay say in almost any till these very last ages of it, their zeal had\nnot been in vain: they could have been at no loss to know _how_ they\nwere to proceed in their heavenly purpose; because they would have\nbeen immediately directed to some living examples of the perfect spirit\nof the gospel, who were publicly known and acknowledged by all to be\nsuch, who had the same undisputed right, to point out the Christian\nprofession, as _John_ the Baptist had to preach up _mortification_\nand _self-denial_. Every age, and every sex, priests and people of all\nconditions, had their known standards to resort to, where every one was\nsure to be guided, assisted, and encouraged to live up to that height\nof holiness.\n\n12. But now how does the Doctor deal with this sort of people? What\n_love_, _assistance_, and _encouragement_ does he reach out to them?\nWhy, truly, he considers them as a _deluded_, _weak_, or _hypocritical_,\nor _half-thinking_ people, that disturb the Christian church with their\nprojects; who are to be set right by returning to the instructions of\ncommon sense. He ridicules every step they must take in their intended\nprogress, by adding absurdities of his own invention to it. There is\nnothing for such people throughout his whole discourse, but reproaches,\nand discouragement.\n\nAre they desirous of all that _self-denial_, all such _mortification_\nof bodily appetites and sensual passions, as may best fit them to\nbe temples of the Holy Spirit? He ridicules them, as holding the\nsinfulness of _smelling a rose_.\n\nDo they begin to discover the _deep corruption_ of their nature,\nthe superficialness and weakness of their virtues, and to fear they\nhave as yet scarce come up to the righteousness of the _Scribes_\nand _Pharisees_? He tells them \u201cThe great enemy of souls adapts his\ntemptations to all sorts of tempers and dispositions.\u201d Those who are\ndisposed to be good and virtuous, if he cannot prevail with them to\nbe vicious, commonly so called, he labours to make them over virtuous,\nthat is vicious, tho\u2019 not commonly so called; and so involves them in\ndangers and mischiefs.\n\nAre they such as are desirous of reforming their own lives, by bringing\nall their actions to the standard of the gospel, and wholly intent upon\ntheir own advancement in merely _practical piety_?\n\nTo these he shews, that they are in the very paths that lead, and\nalways did lead to _fanatic madness_.\n\nThus says he, \u201cTo what a height of _fanatic madness_ in _doctrines_,\nas well as practice are some advanced, who set out at first with the\nappearance of more than ordinary sanctity in _practice only_?\u201d And\nagain, \u201cI do say that in all ages enthusiasts have been _righteous\nover-much_; they began with the last mentioned, and ended with the\nother; _and is it not so now_?\u201d\n\n13. Further, are there others, who begin to feel the _mystery_ of\ntheir redemption discovered in their own souls, so that they hunger\nand thirst after the manifestation of the divine life in them, desiring\nthat Christ may be wholly formed and revealed in them, that they\nmay _put on_ Christ, _be_ in him _new creatures_, led by his spirit,\n_growing_ in him as branches in the vine, hearing the word of God\nwritten and spoken in their hearts, in his light _seeing_ light, and\n_tasting_ in the inward man _the powers of the world to come_?\n\n*\u00a0For such as these, the Doctor has this instruction: \u201cThat there is,\nsays he, such a thing as the operation of the Holy Spirit upon our\nsouls, tho\u2019 we cannot distinguish it from the operations of our own\nminds, is not only granted, but insisted upon by all sincere and sober\nChristians. But what _reason_, what _scripture_, is there for this\ninward _seeing_, _hearing_, _feeling_?\u201d\n\n*\u00a0According therefore to the Doctor\u2019s divinity both reason and\nscripture require, that the true Christian be _inwardly blind_,\ninwardly _deaf_, and void of all inward _feeling_. For if neither\nscripture nor reason will allow of any inward senses, then they must\nboth of them require an _inward insensibility_. But as scripture\nfrom _Genesis_ to the _Revelation_, is full of proofs of these inward\nsenses, I shall not now produce them: I shall here only observe that\n_hardness of heart_ is a well known phrase of scripture, and every\nwhere _signifies_ some degree of _blindness_, _deafness_, and loss of\n_feeling_. I suppose it will not be said that it signifies blindness,\nor loss of _outward eyes_ and _ears_, or feeling: neither does it\nsignify a want of _human reason_, or natural _sagacity_; for _learned_,\n_polite_, and _ingenious_ men, are full as subject as others to this\nhardness of heart. Therefore the scripture is as open, as plain and\nexpress in declaring _for inward senses_, as it is in declaring against\nsuch a thing, as _hardness_ of _heart_. Hardness of heart is that to\nthe _inward_ senses, which a deep, or as we call it, _dead sleep_, is\nto the _outward_. It keeps our inward eyes, and ears, and feeling all\nlocked up.\n\n14. A broken and a contrite heart unlocks our inward senses, and makes\nus see, and hear, and feel the things, which could no more be seen,\nheard or felt before, than a man in a deep sleep can hear, and see, and\nfeel the things, that are said and done about him.\n\nWater frozen into a rock of ice, is very different from the same water\nmelted, warmed, and moving under the influence of the sun and the air.\n\nNow this difference between water _flowing_, full of _light_ and _air_,\nand the same water frozen into a dark, hard rock of ice, is but a small\nresemblance of the difference between a _hardened_ heart, and the _same\nheart_ become broken.\n\n15. But I return to the Doctor. His further instruction to this sort of\npeople stands thus. They are told by him, \u201cthat their high notions of\nspiritual improvements have this effect: on the one hand, they lead to\n_presumption_, on the other to _desperation_.\u201d \u201cHe has been told, _he\nsays_, that some have been actually thrown into despair. They have been\nmade stark mad, and received into _Bedlam_ as such. _And then he cries\nout_, Was the religion of Jesus Christ intended to make people mad? Is\nthis for the honour of Christianity?\u201d\n\n*\u00a0I shall not here question the Doctor\u2019s information. I shall only\nobserve, that when our Saviour was upon earth, there were two sorts\nof _mad_ people about him; the _one sort_ ran about in disorder, tore\ntheir cloaths and cut their own flesh; the other sort raved in malice,\nthrew dust into the air, stopped their ears, and cried out _crucify him,\ncrucify him_.\n\n*\u00a0It may be asked, which of these two sorts of state? Whose madness was\nthe most shocking, that of the lunatics, or that of the _High Priests_,\n_Scribes_, and _Pharisees_? Those who only mangled their own bodies, or\nthose that thirsted after the blood of Christ, and would have no rest\ntill they saw his body nailed to the cross? To me the _lunatics_, seem\nto be in a _less degree_ of disorder; and the reason is this, because I\nsee that our Saviour could heal them, but not the Priests, Scribes, and\nPharisees.\n\nNow is it reasonable, on account of the _madness_ of these Priests,\nScribes and Doctors of the law, to say, \u201cIs this for the honour of the\n_Jewish law_? Were the _law and the prophets intended to make people\nmad_?\u201d If the Doctor knows how to excuse the law and the prophets,\ntho\u2019 these great students of them were in such a desperate state of\n_madness_, then Christianity may be blameless; tho\u2019 here and there a\nChristian (so called) may be fit for _Bedlam_.\n\n16. Again, are there others, who desire to bring the whole form of\ntheir lives under rules of religion, to let the spirit of the gospel\ngive laws to the most ordinary, indifferent, innocent and lawful things\nand enjoyments; so that, as the apostle speaks, _whether they eat or\ndrink, or whatever they do_, they may _do all to the glory of God_?\n\nThese people are told by the Doctor, that \u201cWholly abstaining from\nthings indifferent and innocent in themselves, as forbidden and\nunlawful, people were in the most disordered and distempered is a\nsignal instance of being righteous over-much; and so on the other hand,\nis making things indifferent to be necessary, and matters of duty.\u201d\n\nWhat is here said has some truth in it, and might be useful in its\nproper place, and under right limitations. But as it here stands, it\nis a grievous _snare_ and _deceit_ to the reader. For it is to signify\nto him, that _wholly abstaining from_ things in themselves indifferent,\ncannot be made a _matter_ of true religious advancement; but is a\nblameable instance of excess. If the Doctor had meant only to teach,\nthat we should not abstain from things indifferent, as if they were in\n_themselves unlawful_, he should have told his readers that he meant\nno more. He should have told them, that such things might be abstained\nfrom justly, upon a better principle, and so become very expedient and\nedifying; and that he did not condemn the abstaining from such things,\nwhen it was done upon a motive of piety, or for the better fulfilling\nany duty; but only when it was done from superstitious notion, of the\nthings being in themselves sin.\n\nHad he done this, he had prevented the _snare_ and _deceit_ that is\nnow in his assertion: but then he would at the same time have made it\nuseless, and insignificant to the design of his discourse, and would\nhave left a door open for such advances in piety, as he is now opposing.\n\n17. It might easily be shewn, if this was the place for it, that no one\ncan truly fulfil the two first and greatest of all laws, that of loving\nGod with all our heart, and that of loving our neighbour as ourselves,\nunless he be willing and glad, in many instances, _wholly_ to _abstain_\nfrom things in themselves indifferent and innocent.\n\nSt. _Paul_\u2019s doctrine is this: _All things are lawful for me, but all\nthings are not expedient._ This sets the matter right on both sides.\nIt leaves things in their own state of indifference, and yet carries\nus to a higher rule of acting. It directs us wholly to abstain from,\nsome things innocent in themselves, and to do things because they are\n_expedient_; because by so doing, we shew a higher love of God, and a\ngreater desire of doing every thing to his glory; because we thereby\nattain a greater conquest over all our inward and outward enemies, and\nin a greater degree help forward the edification of our neighbour.\n\n18. Let us look at St. _Paul_\u2019s doctrine and examples in the two\nfollowing remarkable instances.\n\nFirst where he declares it to be _lawful_ for those that preach the\ngospel to live by the gospel, and yet makes it matter of the greatest\n_comfort_ and joy to himself, that he wholly abstained from this\n_lawful_ thing: and declares, it were better for him to die, than that\nthis _rejoicing_ should be taken from him. He appeals to his daily\nand nightly labouring with his own hands, that so he might preach the\ngospel freely, and not be chargeable to those that heard him. And this\nhe said he did, not for want of authority to do otherwise, but that he\nmight make himself an example unto them who followed him.\n\n*\u00a0What awakening instructions are here given to us of the clergy, in\na matter of the greatest moment! How ought every one to be frighted at\nthe thought of desiring or seeking a second living, or of rejoicing at\ngreat pay where there is but little duty, when the apostle\u2019s rejoicing\nconsisted in this, that he had passed thro\u2019 all the fatigues and perils\nof preaching the gospel without any pay at all! How _cautious_, nay,\nhow _fearful_ ought we to be, of going so far as the _secular_ laws\npermit us, when the apostle thought it more desirable to lose his life,\nthan to go so far as the general laws of the gospel would have suffered\nhim!\n\n*\u00a0It is _looked upon_ as _lawful_, to get several preferments, and\nto make a gain of the gospel, by hiring others to do duty for us at\na lower rate.\u2015\u2015It is looked upon as lawful, to quit a cure of souls\nof a small income, for no other reason but because we can get another\nof a greater.\u2015\u2015It is looked upon as lawful, for a clergyman to apply\nthe revenue of a church, which he serves, to his own use, tho\u2019 he has\nmore than a sufficient competency of his _own_, and much more than\nthe apostle could get by his labour.\u2015\u2015It is looked upon as lawful, for\nthe clergy to live in state and equipage, to buy purple and fine linen\nout of the revenue of the church.\u2015\u2015It is looked upon as lawful, for\nclergymen to enrich their families, and bring up their children in the\nfashionable vanities of a worldly and expensive life, by money got by\npreaching the gospel of Jesus Christ.\n\n*\u00a0But now _supposing_ all these to be _lawful_, what _comfort_ and\n_joy_ might we treasure up for ourselves, what benefit and edification\nshould we give to our neighbour, if we wholly abstained from all these\nthings, not by working day and night with our hands, as the great\napostle did, but by limiting our wants and desires according to the\nplain demands of nature, and a religious self-denial?\n\nThe other instance of the apostle\u2019s I appeal to is that, where he says,\nit is good neither to eat \u201cflesh, nor drink wine, nor any thing whereby\nthy brother stumbleth and is offended. And again, if meat make my\nbrother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, that\nI may not offend my brother.\u201d Hence it appears, that to abstain from\nthings indifferent, as if they were in themselves sinful, is wrong; but\nto _abstain_ from them upon other motives, may be matter of necessary\nduty and edification. But since the Doctor has not looked at this\nmatter in the twofold view in which only it can be justly apprehended,\nhe cannot well be excused from that _half thinking_, which he so much\nreproaches in others.\n\n19. But I must further observe, that there is yet more of _snare_ and\n_deception_, in what the Doctor has here said of this matter. For the\nreader may thereby be easily brought into a belief, that things in\nthemselves indifferent, are not _proper subjects_ of religion, or means\nof advancing in piety; and that he need not bring himself under _any\nlaws_ of religion, concerning such things.\n\nWhereas nothing can be more contrary to truth, or more hurtful to piety\nthan such a belief. \u201cEating, drinking, sleeping, dressing, resting,\nlabour, conversation, trade, diversion, and money, are in themselves\nindifferent.\u201d\n\nBut it is in the religious, or irreligious use of these that some\npeople _live_ up to the spirit of the gospel, and others _wholly die_\nto it. And it is from strict laws of religion, made concerning these\nindifferent things, that the spiritual life of every one is to be built\nup.\n\nAnd it is for want of religious laws in the use of these things, that\nthe spirit of the gospel cannot get possession of our hearts. For our\nsouls may receive an infinite hurt, and be rendered incapable of all\ntrue virtue, merely by the use of innocent and lawful things.\n\n*\u00a0What is more innocent than rest and retirement? And yet what more\ndangerous than sloth and idleness? How lawful is the care of a family?\nAnd yet how are many people rendered incapable of all virtue, by a\n\u2666worldly, sollicitous temper? How lawful is it for us, to eat and drink\nin such quantity and quality, as may render the body healthful, and\nuseful to the soul? And yet what danger is there in eating and drinking\nif we are not under this strict law of religion, to seek _only_ health;\nand not the pleasure of various tastes in our food? What _sensuality_\nof discourse shall we not every day fall into, unless it be a fixed\nlaw to us, to speak of no other joy in our food, but that which is\nexpressed by our grace before, and after our meals?\n\n \u2666 \u201cwordly\u201d replaced with \u201cworldly\u201d\n\nHow indifferent a thing, and innocent in itself, is _dress_? And\nyet what more hurtful and abounding with sin? It reaches and affects\nthe heart and soul both of the wearer and beholder. Its evils are\ninnumerable; it has destroyed, and does destroy like a pestilence.\n\nNow how can all these evils, which arise from the use of these things\nindifferent and lawful in themselves be avoided, but by making every\nthing in our _common_ and _ordinary_ life to be matter of conscience,\nwhich is to have its _rule_ and _measure_ and _end_ from the spirit of\nreligion? And indeed what other end is there in religion, but to govern\nevery motion, and desire of our hearts? To make all the actions of our\ncommon life pure and holy, by being done in strict conformity to the\nwill of God, and under the light and guidance of his Holy Spirit? So\nthat the very outward _form_ of our lives, and the _whole manner_ of\nour living in the world, whether in estate, shops, or farms, whether in\neating, drinking, or dressing, may make it known to all the world, that\nwe do every thing in the name of Jesus Christ, suitably to that high\nvocation wherewith we are called.\n\n20. No folly of life whatever can be rightly removed but by being thus\nwholly cut up by the roots, by making every thing subject to the spirit\nof religion.\n\nThat which is to direct our _prayers_, and govern us at church, must\nwith the same strictness direct our conversation, and govern our\ndealings in common life. We must dress with the same spirit that we\ngive _alms_, or go to _prayers_; that is, we must no more dress to be\nseen and admired by others, than we must give alms, or make prayers for\nthe same reasons.\n\nAnd when religion has its seat in our hearts, and is the work of God\u2019s\nspirit in us, this acting according to its direction in _all things_,\nwill be so far from seeming to be a hard lesson, that it would be a\npain to act otherwise. It is no hardship to a _miser_ to do _every_\nthing suitably to the greedy desires of his heart. The ambitious man\nis not troubled with acting always agreeable to his ambition. If these\npersons are in trouble or distress, or under any dejection, you can\nonly comfort the one with honour and power, and the other with filthy\nlucre and gain.\n\n21. Yet the Doctor complains of the _Treatise upon Christian\nPerfection_, because Christians in _sickness, distress, and dejection_\nof _spirit_, are there directed to seek for comfort and refreshment in\nGod alone! Our blessed Lord is very short and yet very full upon this\narticle. He only says, _Be of good comfort, I have overcome the world._\nAnd the Doctor might as well be angry at the gospel for having made no\nmention of worldly amusements proper for sick and distressed Christians,\nas at the treatise of Christian Perfection, for not having done the\nsame.\n\nIf I should see a sick man smelling a rose, I should not reprove him.\nBut if he wanted comfort in his state, I would no more direct him to\n_any thing_, but the great and solid comforts that are to be found\nin the love, and goodness of God, than I would direct him to another\nSaviour, than Jesus Christ.\n\n*\u00a0For to tell Christians that in _some kinds_ of trouble, they might\njustly seek for relief in reading a _play_, or wanton _Bucolic_,\ninstead of the _gospel_; would be the same absurdity, as to have told\npeople in our Saviour\u2019s time, that in some sorts of distress, they\nmight justly have recourse to _Simon Magus_, instead of Jesus Christ.\n\n22. But now to look back a little. I have considered the bulk of those\nChristians that are the most likely to be the Doctor\u2019s readers, under\ntwo characters. The one as living some way or other in a partial, false,\nsuperficial, or half state of piety; the other as an awakened people,\ncalled by the Spirit of God to come out of the common corruption of\nthe times. I have shewn that the Doctor\u2019s discourse (where it is not\ndisliked) must do great hurt, and have dreadful effects upon those two\nsorts of people; the one sort it seals up in a false security, sleeping\nin the chambers of death, without any oil in their vessels; the other\nit frightens, and discourages from their pious intentions of trimming\ntheir lamps with all diligence, and living upon the watch for the\nmidnight call of the bridegroom\u2019s voice.\n\nThat I may therefore do all the good I can to both these sorts\nof people, that I may awaken the one from their false security in\ntheir form of godliness, and encourage the other to proceed with all\nearnestness, after every degree of Christian holiness; I shall before I\nproceed any further, lay down a short account of the whole _ground_ of\nthe Christian religion, that every one may clearly see, why we want the\nChristian religion to save us, what it is to do for us; and how it is\ndone.\n\n23. [1] Man was created a living image of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son,\nand Holy Ghost.\n\n\u201c2. This whole visible world, as far as the stars, or any corporeal\nbeing reaches, takes up that extent of space, where _Lucifer_ and his\nangels before their fall, had their glorious kingdom. So far as this\nvisible frame of nature extends, so far was the extent of that kingdom.\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 N. B. This, with several of the particulars that follow are\n probable, but not supported by scripture. This is the theory\n of _Jacob Behme_, ingenious, but quite incapable of proof.\n\n\u201c3. That the _place_ or _extent_ of this world, was the place or extent\nof their kingdom, is probable from the two following reasons: first,\nbecause the place of this world is now their habitation. For we must\nby no means suppose that God brought them from some other region into\nthis world, only to tempt man. No: but they are here _now_, because\nthey were created to dwell _here_. For fallen angels do not leave\nthe _place_ of their sin and fall: they live in the _defilements_\nand _disorders_ of their spoiled kingdom; and in that place they find\ntheir hell and torments, where they extinguished their light and joy.\nSecondly, because the whole extent of the world, and every thing in it,\n_sun_, _moon_, _stars_, _fire_, _air_, _water_, and _earth_, _stones_,\n_minerals_, must all be _dissolved_, and pass thro\u2019 a _purifying fire_.\nTherefore all these things are polluted, and have in them some disorder\nfrom the fall of the angels; and we may see _how far_ the place of\ntheir kingdom extended, by the extent of those things that are to be\n_dissolved_ and _purified_.\n\n\u201c4. When the angels had, by their rebellion, lost the divine life\nwithin themselves, and brought their _whole outward_ kingdom into\ndarkness and disorder, so that as _Moses_ speaketh: \u2018Darkness was\nupon the face of the deep;\u2019 that is, the whole extent of the place\nof this world; then in the place where they were fallen, and out of\nthe _materials_ of their ruined, angelical kingdom, did God begin the\n_creation_ of this present, material, temporary, visible world.\n\n\u201c5. \u2018In the beginning, saith _Moses_, God created the heaven and the\nearth.\u2019 Here, at this _instant_, ended the devil\u2019s power, over the\nplace or kingdom in which he was created. As soon as the whole of his\noutward, disordered kingdom was thus divided into a _created heaven and\nearth_, all was taken out of his hands, he was shut out of every thing,\nand he and all his host became _poor prisoners_ in their lost kingdom,\nthat could only _wander about_ in chains of darkness, looking with\nimpotent rage at the _created heaven and earth_, which was sprung up in\ntheir own place of habitation.\n\n\u201c6. Thus was this _outward kingdom_, of the whole extent of this world,\ntaken out of the hands of _Lucifer_ and his angels. All its darkness,\ndisharmony, and disorder, was by the _creation_ restored to a low\nresemblance of its first state, and put into that form of sun, stars,\nfire, air, light, water, and earth, in which we now see it.\n\n\u201c7. Into this world thus created out of the _ruins_ of the kingdom of\nthe fallen angels, was man introduced on the sixth day of the creation,\nto take his place as lord and prince of it; to have power over all\noutward things, to discover and manifest the wonders of this new\ncreated world, and to bring forth such an _holy offspring_, as might\nfill up the place of the fallen angels. And when certain periods of\ntime had produced these great effects, then this _whole frame_ was by\nthe last _purifying fire_, to have been raised from its paradisaical\nstate, into that _first heavenly_ brightness and glory, in which it\nstood before the fall of _Lucifer_.\n\n\u201c8. But the first man, thus created to be a prince of a new, angelical\nkingdom, stood not out his trial.\n\n\u201c9. He came into this world in that _same glorious_ body in which after\nthe resurrection, he shall _be like the angels in heaven_. For no other\nbody, but that which was at _first_ created shall rise in Jesus Christ.\nHe only restores that which was lost. The resurrection will only take\naway what _sin_ and _death_, and _earth_, had added to the _first\ncreated_ body.\n\n\u201c10. In this glorious body, did the first man stand in this world,\nincapable of receiving any hurt, or _knowing_ evil from outward nature.\nThe _Holy Ghost_ was the _light_ that illuminated all both within and\nwithout him.\n\n\u201c11. Had he fixed his will to be _eternally_ what he was, had he\ndesired only to eat of the tree of life, to live by the word of God, he\nhad been established and confirmed an eternal angel, or divine man.\n\n\u201c12. But his imagination wandered after the secrets of this outward\nworld, after the knowledge of such good and evil, as wrought an entire\nchange in his nature.\n\n\u201cHe turned from the tree of life to the forbidden fruit. And so he fell\nas deep into an _earthly life_, and the miseries of the earth, as the\ndevil fell into a _hellish life_, and the miseries of hell.\n\n\u201c13. And here we may see as in a glass, what it is that earthly desires\n_now do_ to every son of _Adam_. They do all that which they did to the\nfirst man. They carry on, keep up, and continue that _same_ death in us\nwhich he died in paradise.\n\n\u201c14. Thus it was, that _Adam_ lost the _light_ of the Son of God, and\nthe breath of the Holy Spirit. And this was the _immediate death_ that\nhe died in paradise, a death much more grievous than that which is to\nbring us all to our graves. It was a death that extinguished all that\nwas divine and holy in human nature, just as the sin of angels turned\nthem into devils. Now in looking at _this death_, we have the clearest\nview, of what our regeneration by the _second Adam_ means. For what\ncan it be, but the restoration of that divine life which was lost in\n_Adam_ the _first_? For will any one say, that Christ is not in as high\na degree, the _restorer_ of our nature, as _Adam_ was the _destroyer_\nof it? Now tho\u2019 this great truth, seated in the very heart of the\nChristian religion, speaks at once the whole nature of regeneration;\nyet many learned men either not seeing or not _loving_, or being afraid\n_to own_ it, have been forced, not only to mistake, but wholly to\nsink the most glorious article of the Christian faith? And instead of\ntelling us the height and depth of the blessing of having the nature\nand life of Christ derived into us, they can only teach us, what kind\nof word regeneration is\u2015\u2015that it is a figurative expression\u2015\u2015and that\nour Saviour may be justified, for having made use of it. What learned\npains do people take, to root up the belief of our having a new life in\nChrist? They run from _book_ to _book_, from _language_ to _language_;\nthey consult all \u2666critics, search all lexicons, to shew us, that\naccording to the rules of true criticism, regeneration _need signify_\nno more than the _federal_ rite of baptism. Nay, what is still worse,\nthey appeal to the poor notions of the blind, infatuated Jews! They\nproduce the opinions which they had of a regeneration talked of, and a\nbaptism used amongst them, when they rejected and crucified our Saviour,\nto teach us, what we are to understand by our divine birth in Christ\nJesus! But if this be the use of learning among ourselves, we need not\nlook at _Rome_, or the ancient Rabbies of the _Jewish Sanhedrim_, to\nsee what miserable work learning can make with the holy scriptures. For\nit is sure the true Messiah is not _rightly owned_, nor the Christian\nreligion _truly known_, till the soul is all love, and faith, and\nhunger, and thirst after this new _life_, and real formation of Jesus\nChrist in it: till without fear of _enthusiasm_ it seeks, and expects\nall its redemption from it. But to return.\n\n \u2666 \u201ccriticks\u201d replaced with \u201ccritics\u201d for consistency\n\n\u201c15. Man, thus dead to the divine life, thus destitute of the Son, and\n_Holy Spirit_, thus fallen into an _earthly nature_, under the dominion\nof an earthly world, which would afford him for a while a miserable\nlife, and then leave him to a more miserable death; could do no more\nto replace himself in paradise, or to regain his first nature, than the\ndevil could do to restore himself to his lost glory.\n\n\u201c16. But in this state the _infinite mercy_ of God met him. That love\nwhich at _first breathed_, a holy and divine soul into him, now again\nbreathed a spark, or ray of divine light into him in the declaration\nof a _serpent bruiser_: which spark of life should in time do all\nthat which _Adam_ should have done; that is, should bring forth\na _generation_ of men, that should become _Sons of God_, and take\npossession of that kingdom from which the angels had fallen.\n\n\u201c17. Here began the merciful mystery of man\u2019s redemption; for this seed\nof divine life, was the Holy Jesus, who from that time, stood in the\nplace of the first man.\n\nAnd from that time it may be said in a true sense that the\n_incarnation_ of the Son of God began; because he was from that time\nentered again into the human nature, as a seed of its salvation, tho\u2019\nnot made manifest, till he was born in the Holy Virgin _Mary_. And in\nthis sense St. _John_ says of him, _that he was the true light, which\nlighteth every man, that cometh into the world_. Because every man has\nfrom him this light, which if it is duly attended to, is our certain\nguide to Christ, born in the fulness of time, and sacrificed for us\nupon the cross.\n\n\u201c18. What we want from Christ, as our Redeemer, is manifest by that\nwhich he gives to us, namely a redemption from the _hell_ that is in\nour souls, and from the death and corruption that is in our bodies.\n\n\u201c19. We are no more created to be in the sorrows, and anguish of an\n_earthly life_, than the angels were created to be in the _darkness_\nof hell. It is as contrary to the _will_ of God towards us, that we\nare out of paradise, as it is contrary to the design of God towards the\nangels, that some of them are _out_ of heaven, prisoners of darkness.\n\n\u201cThe sickness, pain and corruption of our bodies, is brought upon us by\nourselves, in the same manner as the dark, hideous forms of the devils\nare brought upon them. *\u00a0How absurd, and even blasphemous would it\nbe, to say, with the scripture and the church, that we are by _nature,\nchildren of wrath, and born in sin_, if we had that nature which God\nat first gave us? What a reproach upon God to say, that this world is\na _valley of misery_, a shadow of death, an habitation of _disorders_,\n_snares_, _evils_, and _temptations_, if this was an original\ncreation, or that state of things in which God created us? Is it not\nas consistent with the goodness of God, to speak of the _misery_ and\n_disorder_ that holy angels find above, and of the vanity, emptiness\nand sorrow of the _heavenly state_, as to speak of the misery of _men_,\nand the sorrows of _this world_, if man and the world were in that\norder, in which God at first had placed them?\n\n\u201c20. But by the mercy of God in Christ, this prison of an earthly life,\nis turned into a state of purification. It is made a time and place of\nputting off our _filthy_ garments, and of _staying_ and _sacrificing_\nthat man of sin that is hid under them. And God suffers the sun to\nshine upon us, and the elements to afford us nourishment, for no other\nend, but that we may all have time and opportunity to hear the call of\nthe Son of God, to be _born again_, to be renewed by the _Holy Spirit_,\nand be made capable of that kingdom, from which _Lucifer_ and his\nangels fell.\u201d\n\n \u2666 Paragraph numbers 21\u201223 skipped\n\n24. Look at our Saviour\u2019s sermon on the _mount_, and indeed at all his\ninstructions, and you will find them pointing at nothing else on our\n_side_, but a _denial_ of ourselves, and a _renunciation_ of the world.\nAnd indeed how could it be otherwise! For if we want a Redeemer, only\nbecause we have _wandered_ out of paradise, and could not get back to\nit ourselves; if we are overcome by this world, only because our first\nfather _sought_ after it, what wonder is it that he who is to replace\nus in paradise, should call us to a _renunciation_ of the world?\n\n25. *\u00a0Vain man, taken with the _sound_ of heavenly things, and\n_prospects_ of future glory, yet at the same time a _fast friend_\nto the interests of flesh and blood, would fain compound matters\nbetween God and mammon. He is very willing to acknowledge a _Saviour_,\nthat died on the cross to save him. He is ready to receive outward\n_ordinances_ and _forms_ of worship, and to contend with zeal for\nthe observance of them. He likes heaven, and future glory on these\nconditions. He is also ready to put on _outward morality_, to let\nreligion polish his manners, that he may have the credit and ornament\nof a _prudential piety_, and a _decency_ of life. This does no hurt.\nBut to lay the axe to the _whole root_ of our disease, to cut all those\n_silken cords_ asunder, which tie us to the world, and the world to\nus, to deny every temper and passion that cannot be made holy, wise and\nheavenly; to die to every gratification which keeps up, and strengthens\nthe folly, vanity, pride, and blindness of our _fallen nature_; to\nleave no little morsels of sensuality, avarice and ambition for the\n_old man_ to feed upon, however well-covered under his mantle; this,\ntho\u2019 it be the very essence of religion, is what he flies from with\nas much aversion as from _heresy_ and _schism_. Here he makes learned\nappeals to reason and common sense to judge betwixt him, and the gospel;\nwhich is just as wise, as to ask the learned _Greek_, and the worldly\n_Jew_, whether the _cross_ of Christ be not foolishness, and a just\nrock of offence: or to appeal to flesh and blood about the narrow way\nto that kingdom of heaven, into which itself cannot possibly have an\nentrance.\n\n26. *\u00a0To seek for any thing in religion, but a _new nature_ fitted for\na new world, is knowing neither it, nor ourselves. _To be born again_,\nis to be fit for Paradise in whatever part of the universe we live.\n_Not to be born again_, is continuing where the sin and death of _Adam_\nleft us, whatever church, or sect of religion we have fellowship with.\nAll ways and opinions, all forms and modes of worship, stand on the\noutside of religion. They certainly are helps to the kingdom of God,\nwhen we consider them only as the _gate_ to that _inward life_, which\nwe want. But this is unquestionably true, that our _salvation_ consists\nwholly in our inward renewal by the Holy Ghost. When this begins, our\nsalvation begins; as this goes on, our salvation goes on; when this is\nfinished, our salvation is finished. This alone saves the soul, because\nthis alone restores the first paradisaical, divine nature, which is the\ntrue image of God, and which alone can enter into the kingdom of heaven.\n\n27. If we had only a _notional knowledge_ that our first father had\nsinned, and knew no more of his _sinful condition_ than history tells\nus of it; if we had only _instituted types_ and _figures_ to keep up\nthe remembrance of it in our minds, we should be never the worse for\nhis sins. We should have no hurt by _owning_ ourselves to be children\nof a sinful father, if his nature, _life_ and _spirit_ were not\npropagated in us. So, if we have only a _notional belief_ that Jesus is\nbecome the _second Adam_, to redeem, and regenerate the fallen nature;\nif we know this only in the _notion_ and history kept up in our minds\nby _outward_ figures and _ordinances_: tho\u2019 we contend ever so much\nfor this belief of a Saviour, and write _volumes_ in defence of it; yet\nhe is not our Saviour, till his nature, life and spirit, be in us. If\nthere be any man in the world, in whom the _nature_ of _Adam_ is not,\nhe has no _sin_ from _Adam_. If there be any man in whom the life of\nJesus is not, he has no _righteousness_ from him. We must have life and\nrighteousness in the same _truth_ and _reality_ in us from the second\n_Adam_, as we have sin and death in us from the first.\n\n28. The whole matter is this: Christ, by the overshadowing of the\nHoly Spirit, became in the _Virgin Mary_, of the same nature with\nthat _first man_, which was created in Paradise; who according to the\n_purpose_ of God, was to have been the father of an holy _race_ of men.\nBut seeing the first _Adam_ failed in this _design_ of God, the wisdom\nof God provided a _second Adam_, who was born in the _same degree_\nof perfection, in which the first man was created. To this holy\nparadisaical human nature the _Son_ of God was personally united. And\nthus Christ the second _Adam_, took the place of the first, and stands\nas the second father of all the sons of _Adam_. Now as we are _earthly_,\ncorrupt, and _worldly_ men, by having the _nature_ and _life_ of the\nfirst _Adam_ propagated in us, so we must become _holy_ and heavenly\nmen, by having the life and nature of the second _Adam_ derived into\nus; or as the scripture speaks, by being _born again_. Jesus Christ\ntherefore helps us by a _second_ birth, to such an _holy_, and\n_undefiled_ nature, as he himself received in the _blessed Virgin_, and\nwhich we should have received in _Paradise_ from our _first father_.\n\nThus by faith in Christ we put _on Christ_, he is formed in us; we eat\nhis _flesh_ and drink _his blood_, and have his _nature_ and _life_ in\nus.\n\nThus we are real members, living branches, and new born children of God.\n\n29. *\u00a0Look now at _yourselves_, at the _world_, at _religion_, in\nthis true light, and surely you must see the desirable nature of every\nvirtue, and every degree of it, which the gospel sets before you.\nSurely you must awake into a strong abhorrence of every thing that the\nfall has brought upon you; whether it be in your _souls_, your _bodies_,\nor the state of the world into which you are fallen. To renounce the\npoor interests of a worldly life, to be content with a _pilgrim\u2019s fare_\nin it, to live looking and longing after that which you have lost;\nto have no more of covetousness, of pride, of vanity and ambition,\nthan _John_ the Baptist had; to live unto God in your _shops_, your\n_employments_ and estates, with such thoughts and desires of going\nto your heavenly Father, as the lost son had when he saw his poor\ncondition, eating _husks_ among _swine_, is only a proof that you are,\nlike him, come to yourselves, that you begin to see _what_, and how,\nand where you are. Surely you can need no exhortations to run to your\nRedeemer, to beseech him to do every thing in you and for you that your\ncorrupted heart, and polluted body are in need of. He now stands as\nnear you, as full of love to you, as he did to _Lazarus_ when he raised\nhim from the dead. He is no farther from your call than he was from the\ncall of blind _Bartim\u00e6us_.\n\n30. *\u00a0Surely it should be as needless to exhort you to look earnestly\nafter every means of recovering your first glorious state, as to exhort\nthe blind to receive their sight, the sick to accept of health, or\nthe captive to suffer his chains to be taken off. For when you see\nyour _misery_ and your _redemption_, both of them so exceeding great,\nyou see _something_ that must needs penetrate the depth of your soul,\nthat leaves you no room to _doubt_ about the nature of any virtue; no\nliberty to indulge _one vain_ passion, or to think it any hardship that\nthe gospel calls you to be _perfect_. For in this light every virtue of\nthe gospel stands recommended to us, as _health_, _purity_ and _sight_\nstand recommended to a _sick, noisome, blind leper_, who was shut up in\na place that continually increased all his evils.\n\n*\u00a0It strips us of nothing, but the _uncleanness_ of leprosies, the\n_miseries_ of sores, pains and blindness. It takes nothing from the\nworld which is about us, but its poison and power of infecting us.\n\n*\u00a0So that to be called to the height of all virtue, however excessive\nit may seem to the _reasonings_ of flesh and blood, is only being\ncalled away from every _misery_ and _evil_ that can be avoided by us.\n\n31. *\u00a0No virtue therefore has any _blameable extreme_ in it, till\nit _contradicts_ this general end of religion, till it _hinders_\nthe restoration of the divine image in us, or makes us _less fit_ to\nappear amongst the inhabitants of heaven. _Abstinence_, _temperance_,\n_mortification_ of the senses and passions, can have no excess,\ntill they hinder the purification of the soul, or make the body less\nsubservient to it. _Charity_ can have no excess, till it contracts that\nlove which we are to have in heaven, till it is more than that which\nwould lay down its life even for an enemy, till it exceeds that which\nthe first Christians practised, when they had all things common; till\nit exceeds that of St. _John_, who requires him that has two coats,\nto give to him that has none; till it is loving our poor brethren more\nthan Christ has loved us; till it goes beyond the command of loving our\nneighbour as we love ourselves.\n\n32. See now how the Doctor instructs his readers on those two great\narticles, Christian _temperance_, and _charity_. To remove restraints\nof the first kind he says, Our Saviour came eating and drinking, was\npresent at weddings, and other entertainments. The Doctor may go on,\nand prove these indulgences to be good and pious, because what our\nSaviour worked a miracle to promote must needs be so. And so the adding\nanother bottle, when friends are rejoicing, may be made a Christian\nduty.\n\nBut I must vindicate the life and example of our blessed Lord from the\nindignity done to it by the Doctor. Our blessed Lord came indeed, as he\nsays of himself eating and drinking. But in what manner? In what sense,\ndid he say this of himself? Why it was in distinction from _John the\nBaptist_, who came eating only one sort of food. And it was to shew\nthe _Jews_ their great guilt in this respect, that nothing could do\nthem any good. For the mortification of the Baptist they condemned,\nas coming from the devil, and the condescension of the holy Jesus in\ncoming to their tables, they accused as gluttony and wine-bibbing. Now\nthe Doctor is plainly doing what our Lord accused the _Jews_ of; he\nwith them condemns the mortification of the Baptist, as coming from the\ndevil. But he differs from the _Jews_ in this that he does not condemn,\nbut _approves_ of our Lord, as a _friend_ to feasts, and merry meetings.\n\n33. Our Saviour, suitable to his gracious love, in coming into the\nworld, sought the conversation of sinners and publicans, because he\ncame to save that which was lost, and because he knew that some amongst\nsuch sinners were more moveable, than the proud sanctity of the learned\nPharisees. But may we thence conclude, that the lives of such sinners\nwere not blameable in his sight? Is not this as well, as to imagine he\nfavoured the indulgence of feasting, and good fellowship, because he\nwas found there? The holy Jesus conversed more freely, spoke of himself\nand of the kingdom of God more divinely to a wicked woman of _Samaria_\nthan he appears to have done to his disciples. May we thence conclude,\nthat he approved of a woman of that character, or thereby set his seal\nto the goodness, and lawfulness of her way of living? Is not this as\nwell, as to make his presence at a wedding an approbation of the usual\nindulgences of such feasts?\n\n34. O holy Jesus, thou didst nothing of thyself: thou soughtest only\nthe glory of thy Father, from the beginning to the end of thy life.\nThou spentest whole nights in prayer in mountains and desert places;\nthou hadst not where to lay thy head. Thy common poor fare with thy\ndisciples was _barley bread_ and _dryed fish_. Thy miraculous power\nnever helped thee to any dainties or refreshment, tho\u2019 ever so much\nfatigued. But yet because this holy Jesus came into the world to save\nall sorts of sinners, and to shew that every kind and degree of sin\ncould be taken away by him, therefore he came into all places, and\nentered into all sorts of companies. He did not as the Baptist, tie\nhimself to one sort of food. But he came eating and drinking. But\nwhy did he so? It was that he might reprove, and convert sinners at\ntheir own tables. He came not to indulge himself, or to find such\ngratifications as the Baptist abstained from; but to work miracles,\nto awaken sinners in the midst of their indulgences.\n\nIt is said, that wherever the King is, there is the court. But with\nmuch more reason may it be said, that wherever our Saviour came, there\nwas the temple or the church. He came to _feasts_ and _entertainments_\nwith the same spirit, for the same end, and in the same divine power,\nas he went to raise a _dead corpse_, namely to shew forth the glory\nof God. Wherever he came, it was in the _spirit_ and _power_ of the\nRedeemer of mankind; every thing he did was only to destroy the works\nof the devil, to deliver man from his power, raise the dead, and give\nsight to the blind, and ears to the deaf. It made no difference to him,\nwhether he did this in the temple, or in the streets, at a feast, or\nat a funeral. As he was every where God, so every place became holy to\nhim. Lastly, if our Saviour, was present, at chearful entertainments, to\nshew his _approbation_ of such indulgences, how came _John the Baptist_,\nthat severe master of mortification to be a fit preparer of the way\nto the kingdom of heaven? Surely his voice must cry wrong, if such\nmortification was not right.\n\nAnd if our Saviour disapproved of the severity of his life and manners,\nhow came he to point him out as a burning and shining light? Thus\nmuch may serve to vindicate our Saviour\u2019s example from the shocking\nmisapplication the Doctor has made of it.\n\n35. Let us now see how he treats, and instructs the charitable\nChristian in these words.\n\n\u201cWhat, says the _half-thinker_, is not charity to the poor, a most\nexcellent thing? And can I be too charitable? Can I therefore bestow\ntoo much upon the poor? I answer, tho\u2019 you cannot be too charitable,\nyet you may bestow too much upon the poor, to the ruin of your wife\nand children, which is not charity, but madness, and a great and _most\ngrievous sin_. Did you never hear that _charity begins at home_? Did\nyou never read that of St. _Paul_? _If any provide not for his own,\nand especially those of his own house: he hath deny\u2019d the faith, and is\nworse than an infidel?_\u201d\n\nThe Doctor\u2019s proverb I shall leave to himself; but the text of St.\n_Paul_, which he has as grosly misapplied, as he did our Saviour\u2019s\nmiracle, I must take out of his hands. St. _Paul_\u2019s words are quoted\nto prove, that it is madness, a great and grievous sin, for any one\nthro\u2019 charity to the poor to render himself unable to provide for his\nwife and children. Now the apostle in this place speaks no more about\nthis sin, than he speaks against the sin of watching and prayer. Nay,\nwhat is more, there is not in all his writings, or in the whole New\nTestament, the _least supposition_ or _hint_ that such a sin ever was,\nor would be committed. The apostle was singly speaking of _such women_,\nas were to be taken into the order of widows for the service of the\nchurch, and to be maintained by it. Verse 4. he says, that such widows\nas had children or nephews that could support them, were not to be\nmaintained by the church. And to such sons and nephews who have mothers\nand aunts that thus want their assistance, he says, _If any one provide\nnot for his own, especially for those of his own house_, i.\u00a0e. If any\nsons or nephews have mothers or aunts become desolate widows, and take\nnot care to assist them, especially if they live with them, such have\nrenounced the piety of the gospel, and have not so much humanity as\ninfidels.\n\n36. This alone is the plain doctrine of the apostle, which the Doctor\nhas grosly perverted, to the condemning of that which he never thought\nof. On the contrary, the scripture abounds with passages which might\npersuade us, that no family could ever be ruined by the alms and\ncharity of its father; _I have been young, and now am old_, saith the\npsalmist, _Yet never saw I the righteous forsaken or his seed begging\ntheir bread._\n\n_The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth shall be\nwatered again._ They that cannot believe this, want the faith of\nChristians. Had any one in the apostle\u2019s time reduced his wife and\nchildren to want, by his great charity to the poor, the apostle\nwould have been so far from rebuking him, as a half-thinking fool, or\nexposing him to others, as guilty of madness, and grievous sin, that he\nwould have told them, that he had consecrated himself and family to the\nchurch, that he and they were thereby become the dear objects of the\nchurch\u2019s care and love, since their present distress was brought upon\nthem by a boundless love and compassion for the poor.\n\nI will now put the following _case_ in as high terms as the Doctor\ncan well desire. Let it be supposed that some good _bishop_, possessed\nof as rich a _bishoprick_ as that of _Winchester_, should through his\nextensive charity for the poor throughout the whole diocese, be forced\nto use the utmost frugality in family expences, and to bring up his\nchildren in employments of labour, to help themselves to food and\nraiment; one a carpenter, in which business our Saviour is said to have\nlaboured in his youth; another a maker of tents, the trade of the great\napostle: and the rest in the like manner. Let it be supposed, that\nwhen he died, he left only twenty pounds a year amongst them, not to\nbe _possessed_ by any one of them, but only to be used by every one\nas sickness or age made them stand in need of it, with this injunction,\nthat it should be given to other sick and helpless people, when there\nwas no such amongst themselves: Let it be supposed that by his life\nand conversation, he had filled his wife and children with the true\nand perfect spirit of the gospel, that they loved and rejoiced in his\nmemory for all the good he had done to them, desiring nothing, but\nto go through the world, in the same _humility_, _piety_, _charity_,\n_love_ of God, and _renunciation_ of the world, as he had done. Will\nthe Doctor say that this _bishop_ had _ruined_ his wife and children;\nthat _half thinking_ had betrayed him into a most _grievous sin_,\nthat he had by this life _deny\u2019d the faith_, and become _worse_ than\nan infidel? I will venture to say, that if such a bishop should ever\nappear in this kingdom, he would bid fair to put an end to infidelity\nthrough all his diocese, though it were the largest in the nation.\nNow if the Doctor does not know of any one either among the _laity_\nor _clergy_, who is _ruining_ his wife and children by a greater and\nmore blameable charity than that of this bishop, it must be said, that\nhe has been in too much haste, that his zeal has not proceeded from\n_knowledge_; and that he has been throwing _cold water_ upon charity,\nbefore there was any flame in it.\n\n37. I now proceed to shew in a more general way the blameable nature of\nthe Doctor\u2019s discourse. The whole Christian world from the time of our\nSaviour to this day, has been praying, _Thy kingdom come, thy will be\ndone on earth as it is in heaven._ Sacraments, divine worship, and the\norder of the clergy, are appointed as ministerial helps for this end,\nto raise, set up, and establish this kingdom of God on earth. The fall\nof a man brought forth the kingdom of this world; sin in all shapes is\nnothing else but the will of man, following the workings of a nature\n_broken off_ from its dependency upon, and union with the divine will.\nAll the evil and misery in the creation arises _solely_ from this one\ncause. There is not the smallest degree of pain or punishment either\nwithin us, or without us, but is owing to this, viz. that man stands\nout of his place, is not _in_, and _under_, and _united_ to God as he\nshould be, as the nature of things requires. God created every thing\nto partake of his _own nature_, to have some share of his _own life_,\nand happiness. Nothing can be good or evil, happy or unhappy, but as\nit does or does not stand in the same _divine life_ in which it was\ncreated, receiving in God, and from God, all that good that it is\ncapable of, and so co-operating with, and under him, according to the\nnature of its powers and perfections. As soon as it turns to itself,\nand would as it were have a sound of its _own_, it breaks off from\nthe _divine harmony_, and falls into the misery of its own _discord_;\nand all its workings then are only so many sorts of torments. The\nredemption of mankind can then only be effected, the harmony of the\ncreation can only then be restored when the will of God is the will of\nevery creature. For this reason our blessed Lord having taken upon him\na created nature, so continually declares against the doing any thing\nof himself, and always appeals to the will of God, as the only motive\nand end of every thing he did, saying, that it was his meat and drink,\nto do the will of him that had sent him.\n\n38. *\u00a0What now can be so desirable to a sensible man, as to have the\nvain, disorderly passions of his heart removed from him, to be filled\nwith such unity, love, and concord, as flow from God, to stand united\nto, and co-operating with the divine goodness, willing nothing, but\nwhat God wills, loving nothing, but what God loves, and doing all\nthe good he can to every creature, from the principle of love and\nconformity to God. Then the kingdom of God is come and his will is\ndone in that soul, as it is done in heaven. Then heaven itself is in\nthe soul, and the life and conversation of the soul is in heaven. From\nsuch a man the curse of the world is removed; he walks upon consecrated\nground, and every thing he meets, every thing that happens to him,\nhelps forward his union and communion with God. For when we receive\nevery thing from God, and do every thing for God, every thing does\nus the _same good_, and helps us to the same degree of happiness.\n_Sickness_, and _health_, _prosperity_ and _adversity_, bless and\npurify such a soul; as it turns every thing _toward God_, so every\nthing becomes _divine_ to it. For he that seeks God in every thing,\nis sure to _find_ God in every thing. When we thus live wholly unto\nGod, God is wholly ours, and we are then happy in all the happiness of\nGod. This is the purity and perfection, that we pray for in the Lord\u2019s\nprayer, that _God\u2019s kingdom may come_, and _his will be done in us, as\nit is in heaven_.\n\n39. And this we may be sure is not only _necessary_, but _attainable_\nby us, or our Saviour would not have made it a part of our daily prayer.\nIt may then justly be asked, have we yet obtained that, which we have\nbeen so long, and so universally praying for? Can we look upon the\nchurch of this nation, as drawing _near_, or even _tending_ to this\nstate of perfection? Can we be carried to any one parish, either in\ntown or country where it can with truth be said of any _one pastor_\nand his _flock_, that there the kingdom of God is _coming_ and his will\n_begins_ to be done on earth, as it is done in heaven? Can we therefore\nfind any _one parish_, where the _pastor_ has not _great_ reason to\nreject the Doctor\u2019s discourse, and to pray both for himself and his\nflock, that they may enter _much farther_ into the spirit and practice\nof Christianity, than they have yet entered, that the gospel may have\n_much greater_ power over them, than it hath yet had; and that they\nmay all _see_ what it is that has made so _divine_, and _powerful_\na religion, so without its _proper effect_ upon them? For if the\ncase be thus, if we stand at this amazing distance from that state of\nperfection to which Christ has called us, do not _heaven_ and _earth_\nseem to call upon _every minister_ of the gospel, to take _some share_\nto himself of this _miserable state_ of things, and to endeavour to\nconvince both _himself_, and his _flock_, that they have not yet been\nChristians in _true earnest_, that they have professed Christ with\nthe tempers of _Jews_ and _Heathens_, that they have not yet enough\n_renounced_ the world, not enough _denied_ themselves, not enough\n_emptied_ their hearts of passions hurtful to piety, not enough\n_offered_ and devoted themselves to God, not enough made the spirit of\nreligion the spirit of their lives, not enough sought for strength and\ndeliverance from sin, by a _firm_ and _living faith_ in Jesus Christ;\nnot enough prayed and desired that they might be born again of God, so\nthat Christ may be truly formed in them; not enough prayed and desired\nto be every where, and on all occasions under the perpetual influence\nand guidance of the Holy Spirit, that they may think and say, and do\nevery thing by his holy inspiration; not enough looked to that first\nand great commandment, of loving God with our whole heart and strength:\nnot enough endeavoured to keep the next, that of loving our neighbour,\nas ourselves; not enough renounced such fashions, customs, and\nconformities to the world, as corrupt the heart, and grieve and\nseparate the Holy Spirit from it.\n\n40. Now which way soever we consider the lamentable state of religion\namongst us, no remedy can be procured by us of the _clergy_, but in\nthis one way, that every _individual_ of the order, from the highest\nto the lowest, begin in right earnest with himself, open the book of\nhis own heart and life, and consider seriously, in the presence of God,\nwhether, according to his degree in the ecclesiastical function, the\nworld has its _due_ share of _salt_ and _light_ from him; whether all\nthat is in the world, the _lust of the flesh_, _the lust of the eyes_,\nand the _pride of life_ have been so openly, so constantly discouraged,\nand renounced by him, that the whole form of his life has been one kind,\ncontinual call to all orders of Christians, to set their affections on\nthings above, to mind only the one thing needful, to have nothing at\nheart, but to be in Christ new creatures, seeking, intending, desiring\nnothing, thro\u2019 the pilgrimage of this life, but to live _unspotted\nfrom the world_, and to obtain every height of holiness, and heavenly\naffections, which becomes those who are to be called sons, and heirs of\nGod with Christ Jesus.\n\n41. If religion was at this time in a most flourishing state amongst\nus, abounding with such congregations as made up the primitive church,\nit would be great injustice to suppose that the clergy had not, under\nGod, been the chief instruments of building it up to such a state of\nperfection. Seeing then an universal corruption of manners is on all\nhands confessed, to have overspread this Christian nation, and the true\nspirit of religion is hardly any where to be seen, nothing can be more\nreasonable than for every _clergyman_, wherever his lot is fallen, to\nsuspect himself to have, in some degree, contributed to this common\ncalamity, and to try to discover his own state, by such questions as\nthese, laid _home_ to his conscience. If Christianity has not done that\nto my flock which is the _only end_ of it, is there nothing of this\nfailure chargeable upon my conduct over it? Can my righteous Judge lay\nnothing to my charge on that account? Can my own heart bear me witness\nthat I was not driven by _human passions_, but stayed and waited till\nthe Holy Spirit called me to this office? Have I not undertaken the\ncare of other souls, before I had any true and real care of my own?\nHave I not presumed to convert and strengthen others, before I was\nconverted myself? To preach by hearsay of the grace, and mercy, and\nsalvation of the gospel, whilst I myself was an obedient slave to sin?\nHave I not taken upon me to lay open the mysteries of God\u2019s love in\nChrist Jesus, before they had their _proper entrance_ into my own soul?\nHave my own repentance, compunction, deep sense of the burden of sin,\nand want of a Saviour taught me how to make the terrors of the Lord\nknown in the deep of every man\u2019s heart, and to awaken and pierce the\nconsciences of sinners? Has, my own _true and living faith_ in Christ\nmy Saviour, my own experience of the atoning, cleansing, sanctifying\npowers of his precious blood, enabled me with great boldness to tell\nall sinners, that to the _faith which worketh by love_, Christ always\nand infallibly saith, what he said in the gospel, _Thy sins are\nforgiven; thy faith has saved thee; go in peace._\n\n42. *\u00a0Can my own heart, and God who is greater than our hearts, bear\nme witness that in my sacred office I have not sought myself, or my\nown things, but the things of Jesus Christ? If I have changed one flock\nor station for another, or added one cure to another, have I done it\nin _singleness of heart_, as unto the Lord and not for myself? Has all\nthat I have sought or done of this kind, been only from this motive,\nthat I might be more faithful to him that hath called me, and be more\nand more spent and _sacrificed_ for the salvation of souls? Have I\nneglected no means of fitting and preparing myself for the illumination\nof God\u2019s Holy Spirit, which alone can enable me in any measure to\nspeak to and work upon the hearts and consciences of men? Have I\nearnestly longed, and laboured after every kind and degree of inward\nand outward holiness, and purity of _body_, _soul_, and _spirit_,\nthat my standing at the altar may be acceptable to God, and my prayers\nand intercessions for my flock avail much before him? Has my own\nself-denial, renunciation of the world, and love of the cross of Christ,\nenabled me to preach up those duties in their full extent? Has my own\nstrictly pious use of the things of this world, my own readiness to\nassist every creature to the utmost of my ability fitted me to call\nothers to these things with power and authority? Have all ages and\nconditions of people under my care had their proper instruction and\nwarning from me, so that I have spared no folly, vanity, indulgence,\nor conformity to the world, that hurt mens souls, and hinder their\nprogress in piety? Have I done all that by my prayers and preaching,\nlife and example, which Christ expects from those whom he has enjoined\nto feed his sheep? Can my flock by looking at me see what virtues they\nwant? Can they by following me, be led to every kind and degree of\nChristian perfection! Lastly, has the will of God been the beginning\nand end, the reason and motive, the rule and measure, of my liking or\ndisliking, doing or not doing \u2666every thing among those people with whom\nI have lived as their minister?\n\n \u2666 removed duplicate word \u201cevery\u201d\n\n43. These are a few of such questions as the present state of religion\nin this _island_ calls every minister to try himself by. For as\nthe order of the clergy is instituted for no other end, but for the\npreserving of true piety in the world; so when any age is more than\nordinarily sunk in vice and impiety, the _whole order_ of the clergy,\nand _every member_ of it, have great reason not only to be deeply\nafflicted, but greatly affrighted at it, and to suspect their own\nconduct, since that which is their particular work, has had so\n_little_ success. They have great reason to apprehend, that it is\nsome degeneracy of spirit, some general negligence, some want of\nexample, some failure in doctrine, some defect in zeal and care of\ntheir particular flocks, that _too much_ contributes to so _general a\ncorruption_ of manners. This does not suppose, that it is in the power\nof our order to regulate the manners of people as we please; it only\nsupposes, that of all human means it has the _greatest effect_, and\nthat when any nation or people are _very bad_, it behoves the clergy,\nwho have any _right sense_ of the nature of our order, any _true love_\nfor our brethren of it, to awaken and stir up one another to a faithful\ndiligence in our callings; not such as may secure us from public\nscandal, and the laws of the land, but such diligence as the nature of\nour office, the spirit of the gospel, and the present decay of religion\ncall for. Let us beseech one another, deeply to consider the great\nneed that this poor nation hath of a _zealous_, _pious_, _exemplary_,\n_disinterested_ and _laborious_ clergy; to consider the dreadful\njudgments of God, that may justly be expected to fall first upon our\nown heads, if this only remedy is not procured by all of us, according\nto the utmost of our ability. It is now no time for ease, indulgence\nor worldly repose; all is to be renounced, all is to be sacrificed.\nOur religion is founded on this doctrine.\u2015\u2015That we are to be born again\nof the Holy Spirit;\u2015\u2015that there is no sanctification of the heart, no\nillumination of the mind, no knowledge of divine mysteries, no love\nof holy things possible to be had, but in and by the motion and life\nof this Holy Spirit in us;\u2015\u2015that its life, motion and power in us,\nincrease according to our faith, prayers and desires of it.\n\n44. *\u00a0Is it not now a flat denial of all this to say, as do some,\nthat the establishment of the gospel in the world, together with the\nassistances of _human learning_, and _languages_, has been the occasion\nwhy the assistance of the Holy Ghost is abated? For if we consult\neither scripture or experience, must it not be said, that _worldly\npeace_ and _prosperity_ want _as much_ to be sanctified by the Holy\nSpirit, as _persecution_ and _distress_? That _human learning_ and\n_knowledge_ need as _high degrees_ of divine grace, as human ignorance?\nIs not the blindness and corruption of _men of letters_, as notorious\nas that of _unlearned_ men? Does an _editor of Terence, Horace_ or\n_Virgil_, receive such illumination from _plays_ and _poetry_? Do\n_cardinals_ and _pluralists_ receive so much _unction_ from human\nestablishments, as to need less to be governed by the Holy Spirit\nof God? Or will we say, that a _critical study_ of divided languages,\nand a religion established in worldly ease and peace, are not only\nin themselves free from danger and corruption, but have so much of\nthe nature of the Holy Spirit in them, that they can be to us in _his\nstead_, and make his sanctifying operations upon us needed in a _less\ndegree_?\n\n45. On the part of God, our _redemption_ in Jesus Christ, and our\n_sanctification_ by the Holy Ghost, stand always in the _same degree_\nof _nearness_ and _fulness_ to all of us. There is hardly a chapter\nin the New Testament that can be understood, but upon the supposition\nof this great truth. If Christ is less formed in us than he was in\nthe first saints of the church, if we come not to the _perfect man_,\n_to the measure of the stature_ of the _fulness of Christ_, it is not\nbecause Christ is now become only our Redeemer in an ordinary way; but\nit is because we have not so counted all things but _dung_, that we\nmight win Christ, as the first saints did. If the Holy Spirit does not\nnow in _such a degree_ renew, quicken, move, and sanctify our hearts,\nand fill us with _such degrees_ of divine light and love, as was done\nin the first age of the church, it is not because this sanctifying\nspirit has committed _some part_ of his work to _human learning_, and\nso is become only our sanctifier in a lesser and _ordinary degree_,\nbut it is because we ourselves have _forsaken this fountain of living\nwaters, and hewed out broken cisterns_ for ourselves; it is because\nwe have grieved this Holy Spirit, _resisted_ his motions, and under\nan _outward profession_ of Christ have kept up that _old man, with his\ndeeds_, which cannot be the habitation of the Holy Spirit.\n\n*\u00a0If therefore we have any true sense of the nature and weight of\nour ecclesiastical calling, any desire to do the _full work_ of the\nministry, to satisfy the necessities of our flocks; if we have any fear\nof being condemned as _useless_ labourers in Christ\u2019s vineyard, it is\nhigh time to awake from this dream of an ordinary and extraordinary\nsanctification of the Holy Spirit. It serves only to keep us\n_unsanctified_, shut up in death, in our own corrupted nature, to\nkeep us _learnedly_ content with our state, as if we were _rich_ and\n_increased_ in _goods_, and _had need_ of _nothing_: and hinders us\nfrom knowing that we are _wretched_ and _miserable, and poor, and blind\nand naked_.\n\n46. *\u00a0Several of the clergy, whose lot is fallen in this corrupt age,\nmay be supposed to have taken upon them the sacred office, and to\nhave lived in it, not enough according to the nature and spirit of it,\nmerely through the _degeneracy_ of the times, and from a consideration\nthat they are well enough, according to the religion that now\npasses in the world. And perhaps there are few, if any of the order,\nhowever eminent for good works, whose virtues have not receiv\u2019d _some\nabatement_ from the same cause\u2015\u2015This therefore may be added as another\nreason why all the clergy of this land must in the spirit of martyrdom\nawaken the world into a faith and love of the gospel. Now is the time\nthat we must _give up_ all our worldly regards, _forsake all that\nwe have, that we must hate father and mother, wife and children, and\nbrothers and sisters, yea and our own lives also_, or we cannot be\nfaithful ministers of Jesus Christ. The same spirit which first planted\nthe gospel, is now required to _recover_ and _restore_ it amongst us.\nWe must break off our chains of worldly prudence, and come forth in the\nspirit and power of the gospel: so live, and speak, and act, whether in\nthe pulpit or out of it, that all who see and hear us may be forced to\nconfess that God is in us of a truth. A _ministry_ that have not this\npower, that have not _full proof_, both to themselves and others, that\nthe Holy Spirit is thus _with them_, opening the kingdom of God in\ntheir own souls, and enabling them to preach it to others with spirit\nand power, are to answer to God for their want of it.\n\n47. To ask whether the assistance of the holy Spirit is to be\n_ordinary_ or _extraordinary_, is as needless a distinction, as to\nask whether a _minister_ of the gospel ought to be an ordinary or\nextraordinary man. The operation of the holy Spirit in us since the\nfall, is a supernatural power, and therefore in a just sense always\nextraordinary; because enabling us to be and do that, which the\nordinary power of fallen nature is insufficient for. But it is more\nor less restored to us, as we are more or less fitted to receive it.\n\n*\u00a0The Christian religion has not had its proper effect, till it has so\nset up the kingdom of God among us, that _his will is done on earth, as\nit is done in heaven_.\n\n*\u00a0This is the perfection that every Christian is to _aspire_ after.\nAnd if they who are to be taught, are to be thus emptied of all worldly\npassions, thus dead to the workings of self-will, that the Spirit of\nGod may be all in all in them, what manner of men ought they to be,\nwho are to _teach_, _promote_, _advance_, and _lead_ the way to this\npurity and perfection? At what a distance ought he to be from every\n_appearance_ of pride, that is to draw others to live and practise\nthe profound humility of the blessed Jesus? How ought he to humble his\nbody, and be steady in all kinds of self-denial, who would convince his\nflock, that _they who sow to the flesh reap_ destruction? How heavenly\nminded, how devoted to God, how attentive to the one thing needful, how\nunspotted from the world ought he to be, who is to persuade others that\nthey cannot possibly _serve God and mammon_? How empty ought he to be\nof all _worldly_ policy, all arts and methods of _ambition_, who is to\nfix it deep in the hearts of his hearers that _unless they become as\nlittle children, they cannot enter into the kingdom of God_? What open\nhands, and open heart ought he to have, what an extent of charity ought\nto be visible in him, who is to bring his flock to this faith, that _it\nis more blessed to give than to receive_? How remarkably, undeniably\nplain, open, sincere, undesigning, and faithful should he be, who is\nto plant, and establish sincerity, plainness, simplicity, truth and\ninnocence amongst his flock? There is such a necessary fitness in these\nthings, that the power of religion, must be much prevented, when its\nprecepts are recommended by such as excuse themselves from the plain\nand open practice of them.\n\n48. *\u00a0The office of the ministry is of the highest nature; it is a\ntrust which no language can sufficiently express: and the unfaithful\ndischarge of it is of all conditions in life the most dreadful. To be\ncharged with the death and blood of souls, by that God who laid down\nhis life to redeem them, is a condemnation that will carry more of\nguilt and punishment in it than any other. Would you know the office\nof a Christian pastor, you must look at the office of Christ. Would\nyou know what manner of spirit he ought to be of, you must look at\nthe Spirit of Christ. For the work of the ministry is only the work\nof Christ committed to other hands, who are to supply his absence, to\nbe here in his stead, to be doing the same things, and with the same\nspirit that he did, till the end of the world.\n\n*\u00a0Nothing is so highly honourable as to bear a part in the priesthood\nof Christ, and be employed in the work of the ministry. But then it\nshould be _well considered_, that it is only honourable in the _same\nsense_, as it is honourable to suffer as a martyr. It is an honour that\nis as different from all worldly figure and distinction, as the glory\nof Christ upon the cross is different from the triumph of an earthly\nprince. When therefore we think of the _honour_ and _dignity_ of the\npastoral function, we should be careful to remember, that it is only\nthe honour of dying a martyr, an honour of humbling, abasing, and\nsacrificing ourselves with Christ, and continuing the exercise of his\nsuffering-priesthood for the salvation of the world. The holy function\nis often considered only as an authoritative commission to minister in\nholy things. But it is much more than this. It is a call and command to\nact with the Spirit of Christ, to represent his purity, to continue his\nholiness, to bear a part of his sacrifice, and devote themselves for\nthe good of others, as he did. A priest that has only his ordination to\ndistinguish him, wants as much to make him a true priest, as _Judas_\nwanted to make him a true apostle. For tho\u2019 holiness alone gives no man\na commission to exercise the pastoral office, yet all who are called to\nit, are as much ordained to a peculiar holiness, as to the\nadministration of the sacraments.\n\n49. For the sacred office is God\u2019s appointment, to continue through all\nages, the spirit and power of Christ for reconciling men to God in the\nsame manner and by the same means of holiness, sacrifice and devotion,\nwhich Christ exercised when he was upon earth. We need no other proofs\nof this, than this one saying of our Lord: _As my Father hath sent\nme, so send I you._ That is, for all the ends for which I am come into\nthe world, for all the same ends I send you into it; to be there in my\nstead, to supply my absence, to carry on the work that I have begun,\nto act with my spirit, to continue the exercise of my love, and labour,\nand suffering for the salvation of mankind. Now to be sent by our Lord\nfor the same ends as he was sent into the world, is such an appointment\nof us to all kinds of holiness, as can never be rightly discharged, but\nby our devoting ourselves wholly and absolutely unto God.\n\nImagine that you had lived with our blessed Lord upon earth, that\nyou had learned the dignity and divinity of his person, that you had\nseen the love which he bore to mankind, that you had entered into the\nglorious designs of his kingdom, which was to convert the inhabitants\nof the earth, poor creatures of flesh and blood, into sons of God and\nheirs of eternal glory.\n\nImagine that you had seen him after his resurrection, when he had\nredeemed the world, conquered sin, death and hell, and was about to\ntake possession of his throne; imagine that then, you had seen him\ncommission some of his followers to be priests and intercessors with\nGod on earth, as he had been, to feed and nourish, and watch over his\nflock, as he had done, to go before them in such exemplary holiness,\nsuch love of God, such compassion for sinners, such contempt of the\nworld, such poverty of spirit, such obedience, and resignation, as they\nhad him for an ensample. Had you been present at all this, how would\nyou then have felt these words, \u201cAs my Father hath sent me, so send I\nyou?\u201d\n\n50. *\u00a0What sentiments of piety, what magnificence of spirit, what\nexalted holiness, would you have expected of those, who were called\nto succeed so great a master in so great a work? Could you think\nthey could be fit for this office, unless they had _renounced_ and\n_sacrificed_ every thing for the sake of it? Could you think that any\ncare but that of the church of God was proper for them? Would you not\nown that the conversion of sinners to God, ought to have been their\nonly labour and pains? That they were to seek for no other happiness in\nthis world, than such as their Lord and master had done, but consider\nthemselves as called from the common affairs, ease and pleasures of\nlife, to be in Christ\u2019s stead towards the rest of mankind, to conduct\nthem safely to eternal happiness? Now when we consider the apostles in\nthis light, as being the first that were entrusted with the _care of\nsouls_ from Christ himself, we can see no degree of zeal, no height of\npiety, no compassion for sinners, no concern for the honour of God, no\ncontempt of suffering, no disregard of worldly interest, no watchings\nor mortifications, no fervours of devotion, to which we of the clergy\nare not equally obliged. For the salvation of mankind is still the same\nglorious, and necessary work that it was in their days; is still to\nbe carried on by the same means, and is now in the hands of the clergy\nas it was then in theirs. If it was their happiness and glory to be\nfaithful to him that called them, to forget the little interests of\nflesh and blood, and have nothing at heart, but the advancement of\nGod\u2019s kingdom, we shall fail both of happiness and glory if we seek\nit any other way. If an apostle considering the weight of reconciling\nsouls unto God, is forced to cry out, _Who is sufficient for these\nthings?_ Shall we think any care but that which is the greatest, will\nmake us stand uncondemned before God?\n\n51. *\u00a0It is a fatal deception to imagine, that the life of a minister\nof God is ever to be a life of ease and worldly repose. For tho\u2019 the\ntemporal sword be not always drawn against them, nor they forced to\nflee from one city to another, yet the world, the flesh and the devil,\nare never so difficult to be resisted, as in temporal prosperity; nor\nhave the ministers of Christ ever more occasion to put on all their\narmour, than when the world is given up to ease, and peace, and plenty.\nSwarms of vices steal in upon us in these seasons; the spirit and life\nof religion is in danger of being lost, and the salvation of souls\nis made more difficult, than in the most perilous times. And how is\nsuch a state of temptation to be resisted, such a torrent of vice to\nbe suppressed, but by the clergy\u2019s shewing themselves _visible_ and\n_notorious_ examples of all the contrary virtues? When mankind are\nwallowing in debauchery, wantoning in pleasures, and given up to vanity\nand luxury in all shapes, it is then the duty of the faithful minister,\nby his being crucified to the world, to proclaim himself a messenger\nof a crucified Saviour, and to make his own self-denying, mortified,\nand heavenly life, a plain, open, and constant reproof of all vain\nindulgences.\n\nBut to proceed, \u201cTo what a height of fanatic madness in doctrine as\nwell as practice, says the Doctor, are some advanced, who set out at\nfirst with an appearance of more than ordinary sanctity only.\u201d Is not\nthis calling upon the clergy to beware, how they admit these beginnings\nof a more than ordinary sanctity of life, either in themselves, or\nthose committed to their care? Is it not plainly telling them, that\nthey must stick _closely_ and _steadily_ to such sanctity of practice,\nas may be called _ordinary_, or else they will be in fanatic madness?\nNay, it is no force put upon his words, to suppose, _a more than\nordinary sanctity in practice only_, is marked out as the genuine,\nnatural cause of _fanatic madness_, and therefore the cause is equally\ncondemned with the effect. Had he meant that his reader should not have\nthe same dislike of the one, as of the other, would he not have put in\na word in favour of a _more than ordinary_ sanctity of life? Would he\nnot have said, that he did not intend to _blame that_, or at least not\n_so much_ as the other? But not a word of this. A more than ordinary\nsanctity in _practice_ only, and fanatic _madness_ are considered as\ncause and effect, and left in the same state of condemnation, to be\nequally guarded against, and avoided, by the reader.\n\n52. I can\u2019t help here addressing myself with great affection to all my\nyounger brethren of the clergy. According to the course of nature, you\nare likely to have the care of the church wholly upon your hands in a\nshort time; and therefore it is chiefly from you that the restoration\nof true piety is to be expected in this nation. I beseech you,\ntherefore for your own sakes, for the gospel\u2019s sake, for the sake of\nmankind, to devote yourselves wholly to the love and service of God. As\nyou are yet but beginners in this great office, you have in your power\nto make your lives the greatest happiness, both to yourselves and the\nwhole nation. You are entered into _holy orders_ in degenerate times,\nwhere trade and traffic have seized upon all holy things; and it will\nbe easy for you without fear to swim along with the corrupt stream,\nand to look upon him as an enemy or enthusiast, that would save you\nfrom being lost in it. But think my dear brethren, think in time what\nremorse you are treasuring up for yourselves, if you live to look back\nupon a loose, negligent, worldly life, spent among those whose blood\nwill be required at your hands. Think on the other hand, how blessedly\nyour employment will end, if by your voices, your lives, and labours,\nyou put a stop to the overflowings of iniquity, restore the spirit of\nthe primitive clergy, and make all your flock bless and praise God, for\nhaving sent you among them. *\u00a0Lay this down as an infallible principle,\nthat _an entire, absolute renunciation_ of all worldly interest, is the\nonly possible foundation of that virtue which your station requires.\nWithout this all attempts after an exemplary piety are in vain. If\nyou want any thing from the world by way of figure and exaltation, you\nshut the power of your Redeemer out of your own souls, and instead of\nconverting, you corrupt the hearts of those that are about you. Detest\ntherefore with the utmost abhorrence, all desires of making your\nfortunes, either by preferments or rich marriages, and let it be your\nonly ambition to stand at the top of every virtue, as visible guides\nand patterns to all that aspire after the perfection of holiness.\nConsider yourselves merely as the messengers of God, that are solely\nsent into the world, to bring the world to God.\n\n53. I don\u2019t call you from a sober use of human learning, but I would\nfain persuade you to think nothing worthy of your notice in books and\nstudy, but that which applies to the amendment of the heart, which\nmakes you more holy, more divine, more heavenly, than you would be\nwithout it. You want nothing, but to have the corruption of your\nnatural birth removed, to have the nature, life, and spirit of Jesus\nChrist derived into you. As this is all you want, so let this be all\nthat you seek from books, study, or men. This is the only certain way\nto become eminent divines, instructed to the kingdom of heaven. And\nabove all, let me tell you that the book of all books is your own\nheart, in which are written and engraven the deepest lessons of divine\ninstruction. Learn therefore to be deeply attentive to the presence of\nGod in your heart, who is always speaking, always instructing, always\nilluminating that heart that is attentive to him: and be assured of\nthis, that so much as you have of inward attention to God, of love and\nadherence to his holy light and Spirit, so much as you have of real,\nunaffected humility and meekness; so much as you are dead to your own\nwill, so much as you have of purity of heart; so much and no more,\nnor any further, do you see and know the truths of God. These virtues\nare the only eyes, and ears and senses, by which you will understand\nevery thing in scripture, in that manner in which God would have it\nunderstood, both for your own good, and the good of other people.\n\n54. It was owing to this purity of heart, and attendance upon God, that\nan ancient widow named _Anna_, knew him to be the true Messiah, whom\nthe rulers, chief priests, and doctors of the law, condemned as an\nimpostor. Had they, instead of their adherence to critical knowledge\nand rabbinical learning, been devoted to God in such purity of heart\nas she was, they had known as much of the kingdom of God, as she did.\nPlace therefore all your hope, all your learned help and skill, in the\nardent love and practice of _these virtues_. And then, you will be able\nministers, holy priests, and messengers of God; your cleansed hearts,\nlike so many purified mirrors, will be always penetrated, always\nilluminated by the rays of divine light, and you will no more need the\ncritics, to tell you what God speaks to you in the scriptures. But of\nall men in the world, the critical dealers in words and particles, know\nthe least of them, and make the vainest attempts to understand them.\nScripture considered as a doctrine of _life_, _faith_ and _salvation_\nin Jesus Christ, is a sealed or unsealed, an open or shut up book to\nevery heart, in the same proportion as it stands turned to the world,\nor turned to God. Nothing understands God, but the Spirit of God;\nnothing brings the Spirit of God into any mind but the renouncing all\nfor it, the turning wholly unto it, and the depending wholly upon it.\n*\u00a0Human learning is by no means to be rejected from religion, for it is\nof the same use, and affords the same assistance to religion, that the\n_alphabet_, _writing_ and _printing_ does. But if it is raised from\nthis kind and degree of assistance, if it is considered as a key, or\nthe key to the mysteries of our redemption, instead of opening to us\nthe kingdom of God, it locks us up in our own darkness. God is an all\nspeaking, _all working_, _all illuminating_ essence, possessing the\ndepth of every creature according to its nature; and when we turn\nfrom all impediments, this divine essence becomes as certainly the\ntrue light of our minds here, as it will be hereafter. This is not\nenthusiasm, but the words of truth and soberness; and it is the running\naway from this enthusiasm, that has made so many great scholars as\nuseless to the church as tinkling cymbals, and Christendom a mere\n_Babel_ of learned confusion.\n\n\n\n\n Some ANIMADVERSIONS upon\n Dr. \u2666TRAPP\u2019s late REPLY.\n\n\nHAD I the spirit of an _adversary_, or were inclined to find\nentertainment for the _satirical reader_, it would not be easy for\nme to overlook the opportunity which Dr. _\u2666Trapp_\u2019s Reply has put\ninto my hands; but as I don\u2019t want to lessen any appearance of ability\nwhich the Doctor has shewn on this occasion; so whatever _personally_\nconcerns him, either as a _writer_, a _scholar_, a _disputant_, a\n_divine_, or a _Christian_, shall have no reflection from me; and tho\u2019\nby this means, some sort of readers may be less pleased, yet, the more\nChristian reader will be glad to find, that thus I must leave _two\nthirds_ of his reply untouched; and as I neither have, nor (by the\ngrace of God) ever will have any _personal contention_ with any man\nwhatever, so all the _triumph_ which the Doctor has gained over me by\nthat flow of wrath and contempt which he has let loose upon me, I shall\nleave him quietly to enjoy.\n\n \u2666 \u201cTrap\u201d replaced with \u201cTrapp\u201d\n\nIt would be no pleasure to me, nor benefit to the world, to discover\nthat _malignity_ of _spirit_, that _undistinguishing head_, that\n_diabolical calumny_, that _shameful ignorance_, that _indecent\nsufficiency_, that _unbecoming presumption_, that _nauseous_ dulness,\nthat _ignorance_ of _logic_, that _insensibility_ of argument, that\nwant of _grammar_, which he has so heartily laid to my charge; and if\nhe has any readers that thank him for this, I shall make no attempt to\nlessen their number.\n\nAs I desire nothing for myself, or the reader, but good _eyes_, and a\ngood _heart_, seriously attentive to things useful, and always open to\nthe light and influence of the Holy Spirit of God, so I shall endeavour\nto say nothing but what is suitable to such a state of mind, both in\nmyself and the reader.\n\n*\u00a0The thing of importance which I shall speak to, shall be with regard\nto what I have said to the clergy. The miserable state of religion,\nand the great corruption of manners, so incontestably apparent in this\nisland, gave me a just occasion to desire all the clergy, from the\nhighest to the lowest in the order, to consider their conduct, and see\nhow free they were from the common corruption, and how justly every one\ncould clear himself from having any share in this general depravity of\nmanners. I was not insensible that this was a dangerous attempt, that\nwould expose me to the resentment of not a few of my brethren: but as\nI wrote for no other end but to do as much good as I could to those\nwho were capable of it, so I had no care but how to speak disagreeable\ntruths, in as inoffensive a manner as I could; how I have succeeded\nin this, is left to the world to judge. And as it is but too apparent,\nthat the root of all the evil, which but too much spreads itself\nthrough the whole body of the clergy, is owing to a worldly, trading\nspirit, too visible from the top to the bottom of the order, so I\npointed at it in the softest manner that I could, in the following\nwords, grounded on a plain apostolical doctrine and practice.\n\nSt. _Paul_, I had observed, had said, it was lawful for those that\npreach the gospel to live by the gospel, and yet makes it matter of\nthe greatest comfort to himself that he had wholly abstained from this\n_lawful thing_; and declares it were better for him to die than that\n_this_ rejoicing should be taken from him. He appeals to his daily and\nnightly working with his own hands, that so he might preach the gospel\n_freely_, and not be chargeable to those that heard him. And this he\nsaid he did, not for want of authority to do otherwise, but that he\nmight make himself an example unto them to follow him. Here, I say,\n\u201cWhat awakening instructions are here given to us of the _clergy_,\nin a practical matter of the greatest moment? How ought every one to\nbe frighted at the thoughts of desiring or seeking a _second living_,\nor of rejoicing at great pay where there is but little duty, when the\napostle\u2019s rejoicing consisted in this, that he had passed thro\u2019 all\nthe fatigues and perils of preaching the gospel without any pay at all?\nHow cautious, nay, how fearful ought we to be, of going so far as the\nsecular laws permit, when the apostle thought it more desirable to lose\nhis life, than to go so far as the very law of the gospel would have\nsuffered him?\n\n\u201cIt is looked upon as lawful to get several preferments, and to make a\ngain of the gospel, by hiring others to do duty for us at a lower rate.\nIt is looked upon as lawful to quit a cure of souls of a small income,\nfor no other reason, but because we can get another of a greater. It\nis looked upon as lawful for a clergyman to take the revenues of the\nchurch, which he serves, to his _own use_, tho\u2019 he has more than a\ncompetency of his own, and much more than the apostle could get by his\nlabour. It is looked upon as lawful for the clergy to live in state\nand equipage, to buy purple and fine linen out of the revenues of\nthe church. It is looked upon as lawful for clergymen to enrich their\nfamilies, to bring up their children in the fashionable vanities, and\ncorrupting methods of a worldly and expensive life, by money got by\npreaching the gospel of Christ. But supposing all this _lawful_, what\ncomfort might we treasure up to ourselves, what honour might we bring\nto religion, what force might we give to the gospel, what benefit\nshould we do to our neighbour, if we wholly abstained from all these\nlawful things? Not by working day and night with our own hands, as the\ngreat apostle did, but by limiting our wants and desires to the plain\ndemands of nature, and a religious self-denial.\u201d\n\nNow, there are but two possible ways of justly replying to this; first,\neither by shewing that these observations are falsely drawn from the\napostle\u2019s doctrine and practice, that I have mistaken the spirit of St.\n_Paul_, and the genius of the gospel, that I am doing what the apostle\nwould not do, was he here in person, and representing such things as\ncorruptions, which the apostle would be glad to see flourishing in\nthe church of Christ: Or, secondly, that though these things are\ncondemnable from the apostle\u2019s doctrine and practice, yet they are not\nchargeable upon the temper and practice of the clergy of this land. But,\nthough not a word to the purpose could possibly be said, unless by one\nof these two ways, yet the Doctor shuts his eyes to both of them, and\nthen pronounces sentence upon me, \u201cThat a Quaker or Infidel could not\nwell have reflected with more virulency upon the clergy of our church,\nthan I have done in these expressions.\u201d\n\nMust I then suppose, that the Doctor in his sermons never mentions any\nfailings that concern his auditors? If he does, I desire to know, how\nhe clears himself from virulently reflecting upon them? The Quakers\nand Infidels are ready enough, and able enough to shew, that most\ncongregations of Christians are sadly fallen from the religion of the\ngospel. But does the Doctor forbear this charge, is he ashamed to call\nhis flock to a more Christian life, or afraid to remind them of their\ndeparture from the gospel, lest he should seem to join with Quakers and\nInfidels? Or, how can the Doctor be thought to have any _true love_,\nor _just esteem_ for those Christians, whom he is so often reminding\nof the corruption of their manners, so contrary to the religion of\nJesus Christ? Now, if the Doctor knows how to untie this knot, and\nto extricate himself from the charge of virulent reflecting upon his\nparishoners, as Quakers and Infidels do, then he has dissolved his\ncharge against me into a mere nothing.\n\n*\u00a0If it was a thing required of me, I know no more how to raise in\nmyself the least spark of ill-will towards the clergy, as such, than I\nknow how to work myself up into a hatred of the light of the sun. It is\nas natural to me, to wish them all their perfection, as to wish peace\nand happiness to myself here and hereafter; and when I point at any\nfailings in their conduct, it is only with such a spirit as I would\npluck a brother out of the fire.\n\nIn that part of my answer, which is addressed to the younger clergy,\nI said, \u201cLay this down for an infallible principle; that an entire,\nabsolute renunciation of all worldly interest, is the only possible\nfoundation of that exalted virtue, which your station requires; without\nthis, all attempts after an exemplary piety are vain: (_and then,\nby way of limitation and explication of this, it thus immediately\nfollows_:) If you want any thing from the world by way of _figure_ and\n_exaltation_, you shut the power of your Redeemer out of your own souls,\nand instead of converting, you corrupt the hearts of those that are\nabout you. Detest therefore, with the _utmost abhorrence_, all desires\nof making your fortunes, either by _preferments_, or _rich marriages_,\nand let it be your only ambition, to stand at the top of every virtue,\nas visible guides and patterns to all that aspire after the perfection\nof holiness,\u201d _p._\u00a061.\n\nNow, one would imagine there was no part of the Christian world,\nhowever corrupted, where this doctrine would not be admitted at least\nin theory; or, that the gospel of Christ should be thought to be\nreproached, where such advice as this was given to young divines:\nand yet it is of this very advice, that Dr. _\u2666Trapp_ says, \u201che _hopes\nthey_ will have more _grace_ and sense _than to follow it_: that it is\n_false doctrine, tending to the reproach and scandal of the Christian\nreligion_,\u201d p.\u00a087.\n\n \u2666 \u201cTrap\u201d replaced with \u201cTrapp\u201d\n\nIs it then come to this, that unless young divines chuse to serve\nmammon as well as God, their profession is a renouncing of grace and\nsense, and a reproach to religion? And must they that pretend to act\nin Christ\u2019s name, as successors in his office, take care that they\nrenounce not the politics of the kingdom of this world? For my part,\nI thought it as consistent with the honour of the gospel, to give this\nadvice, to suppress all worldly views, as to resist the temptations of\nthe devil.\n\nHad _Martin Luther_, when he gave his reasons for withdrawing from the\n_Pope_, been able to have added this; that the advice here given, had\nbeen formally condemned by the _Pope_ in a great council, the defenders\nof that church would have found it as hard to have made such a decree\nconsistent with the gospel, as the selling of \u2666indulgences: and it may\nwell be supposed, that no Protestant writer, when setting forth the\nmarks of antichrist, in that church, would have forgot to have made\nthis condemnation to be one of them.\n\n \u2666 \u201cindulgencies\u201d replaced with \u201cindulgences\u201d for consistency\n\nFor who can shew it to be so contrary to the whole spirit of the gospel,\nto call in the _assistance_ of the saints, or to deny the cup to the\nlaity, who can shew this to put so entire a stop to salvation by the\ngospel, as to condemn this _advice_ to young divines, as a reproach to\nChristianity? For all the ends of the gospel may be pursued, and men\nmay arise out of the corruption of their nature, notwithstanding these\ntwo mistakes: but to condemn it as an error inconsistent with grace\nand sense, a reproach to Christianity, for young divines to renounce\nworldly views, and devote themselves wholly to God, is striking at the\nwhole root of all holiness, and a denial of the whole spirit of the\ngospel.\n\nOur church requires all its candidates for holy orders, to make\nprofession of their being moved and called by the Holy Ghost to enter\ninto the service of the church: this, I should think, is proof enough,\nthat the spirit of this world ought not to be alive in them, when they\nmake this profession; and yet, if any young persons should come to be\nordained, thus dead to all worldly views, thus wholly devoted to God,\nthey ought according to the Doctor, to be rejected by the bishop, as\nbeing led by a spirit that has lost all _grace_ and _sense_, and is a\n_reproach_ to the Christian religion.\n\nIt is needless to quote particular texts of scripture, teaching the\nsame that I have here taught; the whole nature of our redemption is\na standing proof of the same thing; for we want to be redeemed for no\nother reason, but because we are born children of this world, \u2666and have\nby nature only the life, spirit and temper of this world, in us: this\nis our fall, our curse, our separation from God; and therefore we can\nhave no redemption, but by a renunciation of all the workings of the\nlife of this world in us, by a total dying to, and denying ourselves;\nbecause all that we are, as to our state, spirit and life in this world,\nis a life that carries us from God, a life that should not have been\nin us; \u2019tis a life begun by the fall, a life of sin and corruption,\nwhich cannot enter into heaven. Indeed the life that we have in this\nworld, from _Adam_, is not to be _naturally_ destroyed, nor are the\nnecessaries and conveniences of life to be rejected, nor is any one to\nrenounce his share in the employments that are useful to social life:\nthe renunciation of this world reaches no farther than the renouncing\nthe spirit, and inclinations of it. We may stand in our stations,\nwhen we stand in them as the servants of God, as citizens of the new\n_Jerusalem_, who have amongst earthly things, our conversation in\nheaven: we may keep our possessions, when we possess them as the things\nof God, and use them not as nature, but as the Spirit directs us; when\nwe do thus, we have the poverty of spirit, which the gospel requires,\nand come up to the sense of that command given to the young man, _to\nsell all that he had, and give to the poor_.\n\n \u2666 \u201cahd\u201d replaced with \u201cand\u201d\n\nBut now, if our natural life is a corrupt, bestial, diabolical life\nbrought forth by the fall, if we want to be born again of the Holy\nSpirit, because our natural birth is according to the spirit of this\nworld; if nothing of the beast, or the devil, no kind or degree of envy,\npride and vanity can enter into the kingdom of God, then it is plain,\nthat all religion which leaves this nature unrenounced, which lets\npride, wrath, and vanity subsist in us, which brings us to our graves\nin the same nature in which we were born, is not the religion that\ncan save us. If this nature in all its most secret workings is not\nrenounced, it matters not what we are, or what we have been doing,\nit signifies little in what chair we have sat, whether in _Italy_,\nor _England_, how long we have been preachers, how many hereticks and\nschismaticks we have opposed, or how many books we have written in\ndefence of orthodoxy; it is as vain to appeal to this, as to our having\npreached and _prophesied_ in the name of Christ: for if this nature\nis allowed to live in us, all our good works have been governed by it,\nthey are animated with pride, and only serve to gratify our own natural\npassions. When therefore the Doctor calls upon young divines to have\n_more grace_ and _sense_ than to be driven from thoughts of advancing\nthemselves by _preferments and rich marriages_, he would do well to\nconsider, how little short this is of calling them to break their very\nbaptismal vow, of _renouncing the pomps and vanities of the world_. And\nif young candidates for holy orders, looking only at their baptismal\nvow, should be led into this degree of self-denial and detachment from\nthe world, does the Doctor think, that the apostles, from whom this\nbaptismal vow is descended, will rise up in the day of judgment, and\ncondemn such abuse of it? Does he think, that there are any departed\nsaints that will join with him in saying, such a spirit is a _reproach_\nto the gospel? What more favourable disposition could the adversary of\nmankind wish to see, either in young or old divines, than a wanting and\ndesiring to have figure in the world, either by preferments or rich\nmarriages? Would he find it difficult to enter into those hearts, where\nthe lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life has\nthus entered? Or would he look upon such as but half fitted for him,\nin comparison of those who entered into holy orders in a spirit of\nself-denial, and renunciation of the pomps and vanities of the world?\n\n*\u00a0_John_ the _Baptist_ was but the preparer of the way for evangelical\npurity of life; but does, the Doctor think that if the _Baptist_ was\nnow to come amongst us, he would look at things as the Doctor does,\nthat he would see such perfections and such corruptions, such orthodoxy\nand such enthusiasm as the Doctor sees; that this _burning and shining\nlight_ would see no _generation of vipers_ but where the Doctor sees\nthem; that he would preach no where but in churches; that he would\nspare no clergy, nor any church, but that which is established in this\nisland; that he would complain of the hardships of our clergy, and the\nsuffering spirit which they are forced to practise, that he would plead\nfor a priestly liberty of coveting preferments and rich marriages,\nthat he would recommend the Doctor\u2019s discourse of the _folly, sin, and\ndanger of being righteous over-much_, as the true fruits of that spirit\nwhich first preached the gospel? He that can believe this, must believe\nthat the Baptist was come to confess the errors of his first appearance\nin the world.\n\nI shall therefore proceed to tell young divines, that a total\nrenunciation of the spirit, and inclinations of this life, is the one\nthing necessary to consecrate them to their holy office; that as sure\nas the church of Christ is not a kingdom of this world, as sure as\nJesus Christ came to deliver us from this evil world, as sure as he\nrequires us to be born again, and to forsake all and follow him, so\nsure is it that no one has the call of the Holy Spirit to the ministry,\nnor the least ground of hoping to be led and governed by it in his\nministry, till he at least prays, desires, and heartily endeavours to\nhave all that disregard of worldly prosperity, figure, and distinction,\nwhich the Spirit of Jesus Christ, the maxims of the gospel, and the\npractice of the apostles set before him. Till this renunciation of the\nworld is made, we cannot enter into the ministry at its _own door_, but\nlike thieves and robbers, climb over its walls; and then it will be no\nwonder if we do no more good to the church than thieves do the house\nthey break open and plunder. If a young minister wants to act the part\nof a fine gentleman, to go on in the common spirit of the world, to\ncover a secular spirit with an ecclesiastic garb, and make his fortune\nin the church, he must be told that it is much safer to be a _publican_\nand a _sinner_, than to be a _trader_ in spiritual things; that he\nwho with unsanctified hands attends at the altar, is farther from the\nkingdom of God, than a _publican_.\n\nCovetousness is idolatry; it is a heathenish, anti-christian vice, tho\u2019\nonly trafficking in worldly matters; but when it takes possession of\nthe altar, and makes a trade of the mysteries of salvation, it has a\nblackness of vice which much exceeds that of the worldly miser. The\nspirit of an \u2666ecclesiastic should be the spirit of heaven, knowing\nnothing of this world, but how to escape its snares and temptations,\nburning in the love of God, and holding out light to all that aspire\nafter every perfection of the Christian life.\n\n \u2666 \u201cacclesiastic\u201d replaced with \u201cecclesiastic\u201d\n\n*\u00a0\u2019Tis too commonly thought, that when a young student has taken his\ndegree, and shewn some signs of a genius for learning, he is well\nprepared to enter into the service of the church. But alas! all the\naccomplishments of human learning are but the ornaments of the _old\nman_, which leave the soul in it slavery to sin, full of all the\ndisorders and corruptions of the fallen nature. If it were not thus,\nhow could the errors of all churches have the greatest scholars\nfor their champions? All the learned Catholic world is amazed at\nthe blindness, the perverseness, the weakness, the sophistry, the\nunfairness of _Protestant critics_. All the Protestant world is in the\nsame degree of wonder at the same disorders in _Catholic disputants_.\nIs not this a demonstration of the nature, power, and place of human\nlearning? Of its great uselessness to religion? Does not this enough\nshew, that it is the offspring of the old man, and his nature and\nqualities dwells in him, and is governed by him? Is not this a\ndemonstration, that the greatest degrees of historical, verbal,\ncritical knowledge are no real hinderance of spiritual blindness? That\nhuman learning is as different from divine light as heaven is from\nearth; and that considered in itself, it leaves us in our slavery to\nblind and corrupt passions? Now nothing can deliver a man from this\nstate, but the Spirit of God derived into his soul, which alone can\nbring forth a new man created in Christ Jesus. Nothing can make way\nfor this new birth, but a total dying to all that we are by our natural\nbirth. \u2019Tis only _this separation_ from things below, that can make us\npartakers of the truth and light that comes from above. Take away all\nselfishness from the Papist and the Protestant, let them be dead to the\nworkings of the Spirit, and they will be as fully agreed about gospel\ntruths, as they are in the form of a square or a circle. For nothing\nstands in the way of divine truth, or hinders its full entrance into us,\nbut this selfishness, which adheres to every one who does not make it\nhis first maxim, prayer, and endeavour to die to, and deny himself in\nall the tempers and inclinations of our fallen nature. This self-denial\nis the continual doctrine of our Lord; it is by him made the beginning\nof all conversion to God, and he that cannot, or will not begin there,\ncan make no beginning of that life, to which he is called in Christ\nJesus: therefore he that offers himself for holy orders, without this\nspirit of self-denial, is a miserable intruder; he only hardens and\nfixes himself in the corruptions of his own nature, and instead of\nbecoming an instrument of saving others, his very office makes his own\nsalvation more dangerous.\n\nI doubt not but some will here charge me with pleading for poverty in\nthe ministry, and with enmity to that maintenance which they have both\nfrom the law and the gospel. But this is so far from being true, that\nI wish every good minister, whom the Spirit of God has called to this\noffice, and governs in it, had much more of this world\u2019s goods than\nare needful for his own subsistence; because it is certain, that such\na one\u2019s money would all be put into the poor\u2019s bag, and he would as\ngladly administer to their temporal as to their spiritual necessities.\nI write against nothing but _avarice_, _pride_, and _ambition_, and the\nmaking the provisions of the church _subservient_ to these tempers. A\nprovision arising from the gospel, is _consecrated_ by the gospel, and\nis profaned by being touched and used by a worldly spirit. And he who\nturns this provision of the gospel into a gratification of worldly\npassions, sins against the gospel more than he that pays his tithes\nwith reluctance.\n\nI can easily believe, there are clergy in this land, who labour in the\ngospel, without having a sufficient subsistence from it; but may not\nmuch of this evil be charged upon _pluralities_, _commendams_, and such\nlike spiritual trading? If the inferior clergy had their labours only\nundervalued by the laity, they would be in a much better condition than\nthey are.\n\nWhen it is complained by what shameful _qualifications_, empty _titles_,\nand unworthy pretences, numbers of persons get loaded and dignified\nwith variety of preferments; it is answered, that if preferments might\nnot be thus crowded together, distinguished abilities and eminent\nlabours for the service of religion, must go unrewarded.\n\nAs this answer is not fetched from the gospel, or the primitive church,\nso it is as little supported by reason. For if this eminent labour\nis truly pious labour, what state of life can so little want to be\nrewarded? How can imagination itself place a man more _above_ the\nthoughts and desires of worldly advancement? If such a one is full of\nthe spirit of the gospel, if his labours have been like those of an\napostle, must he not like an apostle, be _dead_ to the world? Can such\na one look upon his labour as a _hardship_, because it has left him\nas low, and as far from the _pomp_ of the world as it found him? Can\nhe repine because the gospel has not proved a good _worldly bargain_\nto him? If the Spirit of God has begun, and directed all his labours,\nanimated all his studies and designs, can such a one think it hard,\nthat he has not by such labours purchased to himself a share in the\nstate and pride of life?\n\n*\u00a0If by a _great divine_, is only meant a person well skilled in\n_critical contention_, who can artfully defend a set of notions,\namongst which he happened to be born and bred, such a divine, I own,\nmay be very _impatient_, and _much cooled_ in his zeal, unless he finds\nhimself well rewarded. But if an eminent divine is to be understood\nin a sense suitable to the gospel, he is that _particular person_ that\nmust needs have the greatest contempt and dislike of every thing, that\nhas but the appearance of the pomp and vanity of this world in it.\nIf therefore it was urged, that this conjunction of preferments and\ndignifying rewards was necessary to bring _ambitious scholars_ into\nthe church, or to keep them in it, there would be some sense, tho\u2019\nno gospel in the pretence; but to talk of them as necessary to be the\nrewards of eminent piety and apostolic labour, is as absurd, as to\nsay, that those who have truly put on Christ, who stand in the highest\ndegree of a renewed nature, who best know and feel the blessing of a\nmortified, heavenly spirit, have less reason to be _content with food\nand raiment_, than those who stand in a lower degree of the Christian\nlife; \u2019tis saying, that a _bishop_, because he has most of the spirit\nand office of an apostle, may well desire more of the _pride_ and\n_figure_ of this world, than the lower clergy, who have less of the\napostolic spirit and perfection in them.\n\nTo want to stand in some degree of worldly figure, is the state of a\n_babe_ in the Christian life, and therefore can no way become those,\nwho are to lead others to fulness of stature in Christ Jesus.\n\nA _great divine_ is but a _cant_ expression, unless it signifies a man\n_greatly advanced_ in the divine life, whose own experience and example\nis a demonstration of the _reality_ of all the graces of the gospel. No\ndivine has any more of the gospel in him, than that which proves itself\nby the spirit, and form of his life: if therefore poverty of spirit,\na disregard of worldly figure, a total self-denial is any part of the\ngospel, an eminent divine, can have no wish with regard to the figure,\npride and pomp of life, but to be placed out of every appearance of it:\nand if the highest in divine knowledge are not the foremost in poverty\nof spirit, and the outward humility of Christ and his apostles; if\nthey desire to have a dignity of worldly figure, to have respect by any\nother means than by a divine evangelical spirit and conversation, and\nare not content with all the contempt that such a life can expose them\nto, they may be _great scholars_, but they are _little divines_, and\nare wanting in that which is the chief part of the ministers of Jesus\nChrist.\n\nThe next thing I said to the young clergy, was this; \u201cConsider\nyourselves _merely_ as the messengers of God, that are sent into the\nworld _solely_ on his errand; and think it happiness enough that you\nare called to the same business for which the Son of God was born into\nthe world.\u201d _p._\u00a081.\n\nNow, I thought what I have said, was as unexceptionable, as unfit to\nbe condemned by a professor of Christian theology, as if I had only\nrecommended the loving of God with all our heart and soul, and mind\nand strength; and that if any clergyman disliked it, he would be forced\nto keep his dislike to himself; but the Doctor is very open in his\nindignation at it; the same answer, he says, is to be given here, as\nbefore, _viz._ _that it is false doctrine, tending to the scandal and\nreproach_ of the Christian religion.\n\nOur blessed Lord, when he sent the first preachers of the gospel\ninto the world, said unto them, _As my Father hath sent me, so send I\nyou\u2015\u2015go ye and teach all nations_\u2015\u2015and _lo I am with you to the end of\nthe world_. Now let it be supposed, that these first preachers of the\ngospel fully believed, that from the time of their appointment to this\nhigh office, they _were to consider themselves merely as the messengers\nof God, sent into the world solely on his errand_, and that _it was\nhappiness enough for them to be called to that business_, for which\nthe Son of God was _born into the world_; if they had this belief,\nwhat follows? Why, according to the Doctor, that they set out from the\nvery first in one of the greatest errors, had mistaken the nature and\nintent of their mission, and had gone into the world upon a principle\nthat _was false_ in itself, and _scandalous_ and _reproachful_ to the\nChristian religion.\n\nBut if this belief is not to be condemned in the first clergy, I desire\nto know why those who claim their succession from the first, and expect\nthe presence of Christ in and with their ministry, are not to be called\nupon to be of the same spirit and belief with them, or how can it be a\nscandal to the gospel, for the modern clergy to be as wholly devoted to\nthe service of God, as the apostles were.\n\nThe Doctor sets it out as an extraordinary presumption in _such a man_\nas I am, to pretend to give advice to young divines, when it is so\nsufficiently done already by the _offices of our church, the charges,\ninstructions and exhortations of our bishops at their visitation,\nand so many excellent ordination and visitation sermons_, p.\u00a087. Now,\ngranting the plenty and excellency of all these, yet I have some hope,\nmy presumption may be found to be only like that of the _poor widow_,\nwho after so many rich oblations of great people, presumed to put\nher little mite into the treasury. And if it be true, that the things\nsuggested by me, are only such as have been already set forth by so\nmany great bishops and excellent preachers, how will the Doctor come\noff for condemning it, as false doctrine, scandalous, and reproachful\nto the Christian religion?\n\nDr. _\u2666Trapp_ gives a reason for his condemning this advice, which is\nthus expressed: \u201cIt is, says he, false to say, that clergymen ought\nto mind nothing, in any degree, but their profession and duty, as\nclergymen; they are husbands, parents, men, as well as clergymen, and\nmust in some measure be concerned in the affairs of the world. p.\u00a088.\u201d\n\n \u2666 \u201cTrap\u201d replaced with \u201cTrapp\u201d\n\nPart of this I own to be very true, _viz._ that they are men, and have\nthe wants of human nature which must be supplied; and for proof of this,\nthe Doctor might have appealed to St. _Paul_, who, tho\u2019 miraculously\ncalled to be an apostle, and separated from the world to be merely a\nmessenger and apostle of Jesus Christ; yet, after this high apostleship,\nworked at his trade, and often spent part of the day and the night in\nmaking tents: therefore, if all those whom I have exhorted to consider\nthemselves as set apart for the sole service of God, should shew such a\ndegree of worldly care as St. _Paul_ did, when he worked at his trade,\nthey might yet justly be said to act suitably to their station, as\nthe ministers of God, that are wholly devoted to his service; for who\ncan say that St. _Paul_ departed from his character, as a minister\nof God, when he laboured with his own hands, that he might gloriously\nand freely preach the gospel? For it was for the sake of the gospel,\nto promote and recommend the gospel, to make his preaching the more\nsuccessful; it was to shew that he had fully renounced the world, and\ndesired nothing from it, but for the glory of God. And thus have all\nthe ministers of the gospel an example in St. _Paul_, how they may make\ntheir care of a livelihood a part of their service to God.\n\nBut when the Doctor says, that clergymen are husbands and parents,\nI must object a little; because no scripture or antiquity shews me,\nthat these characters _must_ belong to a preacher of the gospel; and\ntherefore, when a clergyman excuses himself from any heights of the\nministerial service, by saying, _he has married a wife_ and _therefore\ncannot come_ up to them; it seems to be no better an excuse, than if he\nhad said, _he had hired a farm_, or _bought five yoke of oxen_.\n\nI know very well, that the _reformation_ has allowed priests and\nbishops not only to look out for wives, but to have as many as they\nplease, one after another: but this is only to be considered as a\nbare allowance, and perhaps granted upon such a motive, as _Moses_\nof old made one to the _Jews_, for _the hardness of their hearts_,\ntho\u2019 _from the beginning it was not so_; and therefore when eulogiums\nare sometimes made from the pulpit on this matter, I think they had\nbetter have been spared; an allowance granted to weakness is but an\nindifferent subject to be made a matter of glory.\n\nThe Doctor should also have observed that my address was made to the\nyoung clergy, and such as are only upon entering into holy orders, nine\nin ten of whom may be supposed to be neither husbands nor fathers. He\nshould also have remembered that our universities are full of clergy,\nwho are obliged to live unmarried, that they may have proper leisure\nand freedom to attend their studies without impediment from worldly\ncares. And therefore, if I pointed at such a dedication of the clergy\nto the service of God, as _husbands_ and _fathers_ cannot enter into,\nyet the matter is not blameable, because here are so many that have not\nyet entered into this state, but are at liberty to devote themselves\nwholly to the service of the gospel. And therefore if to such as these,\nI can so represent the weight, the duties, the heavenly nature of\nthe priesthood, as to prevent or extinguish in them all thoughts and\ndesires of being thus married to the world, what hurt have I done them,\nor the married clergy, or the gospel of Jesus Christ?\n\n*\u00a0_Celibacy_, when entered into from a principle of divine love, from a\nheart burning with the desire of living wholly to God, is a state that\ngives wings to all our endeavours, and fits the soul for the highest\ngrowth of every virtue: and if he that is consecrated to the service\nof the altar, feels not such an ascent of his soul towards heaven, as\nto have no wish, but that his _whole body_, _soul_, and _spirit_, may\nbe presented to God in its utmost degree of purity, he has his lamp\nmuch less kindled, than many of the laity, both men and women have\nhad, in all ages of the church. Custom has too great a power over our\njudgments, and reconciles us to any thing; but if a Christian, who\nlived when Christianity was in its glory, when the first apologists for\nit, appealed to the numbers of both sexes, devoted to a single life,\nas an invincible proof of the power and divinity of the gospel; if a\nChristian of those days was now to come into the world, he would be\nmore shocked at Reverend Doctors making love to women, than at seeing\na monk in his cell, kissing a wooden crucifix.\n\n*\u00a0The knowledge and love of the virgin state began with Christianity,\nwhen the nature of our corruption, and the nature of our redemption\nwere so fully discovered by the gospel. Then it was, that a new degree\nof heavenly love was kindled in the human nature, and brought forth\na state of life that had not been desired, till the son of the virgin\ncame into the world. _John_ the _Baptist_ was the beginner of the\ngospel dispensation; this _burning and shining light_ was in his person,\nthe figure of _Judaism_ ending in Christianity. In his outward state\nhe was a _Jew_, in his inward spirit and character he belonged to the\ngospel. He came out of the wilderness burning and shining, to preach\nthe kingdom of heaven _at hand_. This may shew us that heat and light\nfrom above, kindled in a state of great self-denial, are necessary\nto make us able ministers of the gospel; and that if we pretend to\nthe ministry, without these qualifications, and come only burning and\nshining with the spirit of this world, we are as well fitted to hinder,\nas the Baptist was to prepare the way to the kingdom of heaven. Look\nat this great saint, all ye that desire to preach the gospel. He came\nforth in the highest degrees of mortification and chastity of life. But\nwhy did he so come? It was to shew the world that these virtues must\nform the spirit of every preacher of the gospel. His character does\nnot call you to a wilderness beyond _Jordan_, or to be cloathed with\ncamel\u2019s hair. Such circumstances are particular to himself; but it\ncalls you to his inward spirit of self-denial, to his death to the\nworld, and all carnal love, if you would not only preach, but prove the\nperfection of the gospel: For if the _Baptist_ was to be thus dead to\nthe flesh and the world, that he might preach thus much, _the kingdom\nof heaven is at hand_; can less self-denial be required of those, who\nare to preach that which is much more, namely, that _the kingdom of\nheaven is come_?\n\n*\u00a0Now if this holy _Baptist_, when he had preached awhile upon\npenitence, and the kingdom of heaven _at hand_, had made an offering of\nhis heart to some fine _young lady of great accomplishments_, had not\nthis put an end to all that was burning and shining in his character?\nAnd if those clergy who date their mission from Jesus Christ himself,\nsent by him as he was by his Father, to stand as his representatives,\napplying the means and mysteries of salvation to all that desire to be\n_born again_; if they, whether they be vicars, rectors, arch-deacons,\ndeans, or bishops, should look upon their office to be as sacred, and\ntheir station as high in the kingdom of God, as the _Baptist_\u2019s was;\nif they should look upon love addresses to the sex, as unbecoming, as\nforeign, to their character, as to the _Baptist_\u2019s, could any one say,\nthat they took too much upon them, or paid too great a reverence to the\nholiness of the priesthood, which they derived from the very person and\noffice of Jesus Christ?\n\n*\u00a0Our blessed Lord improved upon these two articles of mortification\nand chastity, and sets them before every preacher of the gospel in a\nyet fuller light. It is needless to shew how much he speaks of the\nnature and necessity of a total self-denial; but what he says of the\nvirgin life, as to be chosen by those who are able to chuse it, for\nthe kingdom of heaven\u2019s sake, _Matthew_ xix.\u00a012. is more than a volume\nof human eloquence in praise of it. What wonder is it, if after this,\ngreat numbers both of men and women were found in the first ages of the\nchurch, that chose to know no love, but that of God in a single life?\n\n*\u00a0St. _Paul_ has done every thing to hinder a minister of Jesus Christ\nfrom entering into marriage, except calling it a sinful state, when he\nsays, _He that is married careth for the things of the world, how he\nmay please his wife_; and how could he more powerfully press the virgin\nlife upon the clergy, than when he says, _He that is unmarried, careth\nfor the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord_.\n\n*\u00a0I shall conclude this matter with a passage taken from the _Serious\nCall to a devout and Holy Life_; it is a quotation from _Eusebius_, who\nlived at the time of the first general council, when the faith of our\n_Nicene Creed_ was established: his words are these, \u201cThere have been,\nsaith he, instituted in the church of Christ, two ways or manners of\nliving; the one raised above the ordinary state of nature, and common\nways of living, rejects wedlock, possessions, and worldly goods, and\nbeing wholly separated and removed from the ordinary conversation of\ncommon life, is appropriated and devoted solely to the worship and\nservice of God, through an _exceeding degree_ of _heavenly love_: they\nwho are of this order of people, seem dead to the life of this world,\nand having their bodies only upon earth, are in their minds and\ncontemplations dwelling in heaven; from whence, like so many heavenly\ninhabitants, they look down upon human life, making _intercessions_ and\n_oblations_ for the whole race of mankind; and this, not with the blood\nof beasts, or the fat, or smoak and burning of bodies, but with the\nhighest exercises of true piety, with cleansed and purified hearts,\nand with a whole form of life strictly devoted to virtue: these are\ntheir sacrifices, which they are continually offering unto God, and\nimplore his mercy and favour for themselves and their fellow-creatures.\nChristianity receives this as the perfect manner of life.\n\n\u201cThe other is of a lower form, and suiting itself more to the condition\nof human nature, admits of chaste wedlock, the care of children and\nfamilies, of trade and business, and goes through all the employments\nof life, under a sense of piety and fear of God: now, they who have\nchosen this manner of life, have their set times for retirement and\nspiritual exercise, and particular days are set apart for their hearing\nand learning the word of God: and this order of people are considered\nas in the second state of piety.\u201d\u00b9 Here you see the perfection of the\nChristian life plainly set out, and how it was, what numbers of private\npersons, men and women, who had no share in the ecclesiastical office,\nyet, by their perfection of life, were _holy and heavenly intercessors_\nfor the whole race of mankind. *\u00a0Now, may we not suppose, that the\nclergy were in this number of people that were thus heavenly in the\nwhole form of their life, thus devoted to God and the edification of\nthe church, by embracing the perfect life of Christianity? If they were\nnot, do they not stand plainly condemned, since _Christianity held this\nto be the perfect manner of life_? I shall only add, that till such\na degree of heavenly love, such a sense of the holiness and heavenly\nnature of the sacred calling, till such a desire of perfection is\nawakened in the clergy, as shuts out all carnal love and worldly\ntempers from their hearts, they cannot be such priests and intercessors\nwith God, such patterns of holiness, such kindlers of divine love and\nheavenly desires amongst men, as the nature of their office both\nintends and requires of them.\n\n \u00b9 Serious Call, &c. p.\u00a0134.\n\n*\u00a0If a candidate for holy orders dares not make this total donation of\nhimself to God, to be an instrument of his good pleasure only in the\nservice of the gospel, if it is not his real state, to wish nothing\nin this world but the most perfect purification of his nature, if\nhe desires any thing in and by his office, but a concurrence with\nJesus Christ in the salvation of souls; if he has any reserves of\nself-seeking, or self-advancement in the world, and fleshly passions\nwhich he hopes to make consistent with the duties of his profession:\nif he is not separated in will and desire from all that is not God,\nand the service of God, he must be said to want the best proofs of his\nbeing called by the Holy Ghost.\n\nBut the Doctor has a _second reply, Whether you consider the |divinity|,\nor the |sense| of this, could |George Fox| himself have outdone it_?\np.\u00a048. This reply, considered in itself, might have its place amongst\nthose _algebraic quantities_, that are some degrees less than nothing;\nbut with regard to the Doctor\u2019s purpose it has something in it, for it\nis an appeal to that which is very powerful, which has suppressed many\na good truth: it is an appeal to vulgar prejudice; and shews that the\nDoctor is not without his expectations from that quarter. And thus it\nis, that the Catholic artist in his country plays a _Martin Luther_,\nwhen he wants to reproach that which he knows not how to confute. What\ndegree of sense, or divinity _George Fox_ was possessed of, I cannot\npretend to say, having never read any of his writings; but if he has\nsaid any divine truths, I should be as well pleased in seeing them in\nhis books, as in any of the fathers of the primitive church. For as the\ngospel requires me to be as glad to see piety, equity, strict sobriety,\nand extensive charity in a _Jew_ or a _Gentile_, as in a Christian; as\nit obliges me to look with pleasure upon their virtues, and be thankful\nto God, that such persons have so much of true and sound Christianity;\nso it cannot be an unchristian spirit to be as glad to see truths in\none party of Christians as in another; and to look with pleasure upon\nany good doctrines that are held by any sect of Christian people, and\nbe thankful to God, that they have so much of the genuine truths of the\ngospel. *\u00a0For if we have no complaint against those that are divided\nfrom us, but what proceeds from a Christian fear, that what they hold\nand practise will not be so beneficial to them, as our religion will be\nto us, must we not have the utmost readiness and willingness to find,\nown, and rejoice in those good doctrines and practices which they still\nretain? If a poor pilgrim, under a necessity of travelling a dangerous\nand difficult road, had, through his own perverseness lost the use of a\nleg, and the sight of one eye, could we be said, to have any charitable\nconcern for his perverseness and misfortune, unless we were glad to\nsee that he had one good leg, and one good eye still left, and unless\nwe hoped and desired they might bring him at last to his journey\u2019s\nend? Now let every part of the church which takes itself to be sound\nand good, and is only angry at every other part, because they have\n_lessened the means_ of their own salvation; let her but have thus\nmuch charity in her anger, and then she will be glad to see, in every\nperverse division, something like the one good leg, and the one good\neye of the pilgrim, and which she will hope and wish may do them the\nsame good.\n\n*\u00a0_Selfishness_ and _partiality_ are very base qualities, even in the\nthings of this world; but in the doctrines of religion they are of a\nbaser nature. Now this is the _greatest evil_ that the division of\nthe church has brought forth; it raises in every communion a selfish,\npartial orthodoxy, which consists in courageously defending all that\nit has, and condemning all that it has not. And thus all champions are\ntrained up in defence of their own truth, their own learning, and their\nown church; and he has the most merit, who likes every thing, defends\nevery thing among themselves, and leaves nothing uncensured in those\nthat are of a different communion. Now how can truth, and goodness, and\nreligion be more struck at, than by such defenders of it? If you ask\nwhy the great bishop of _Meaux_ wrote so many learned books against all\nparts of the _reformation_, it is because he was born in _France_, and\nbred up in the bosom of _mother church_. Had he been born in _England_,\nhad _Oxford_, or _Cambridge_ been his _alma mater_, he might have\nrivaled our great bishop _Stillingfleet_, and would have wrote as many\nlearned folios against the church of _Rome_ as he has done. And yet\nI will venture to say, that if each church could produce but one man\na-piece that had the piety of an apostle, and the impartial love of the\nfirst Christians, in the first church at _Jerusalem_, a Protestant and\na Papist of this stamp, would not want half a sheet of paper to hold\ntheir articles of union, nor be half an hour before they were of one\nreligion. If therefore it should be said, that churches are divided,\nand made unfriendly to one another, by learning, a logic, a history,\na criticism in the hands of partiality, it would be saying that which\nevery particular church too much proves to be true. Ask why even the\nbest amongst the Catholics are very shy of owning the validity of the\norders of our church; it is because they are afraid of removing any\nodium from the reformation. Ask why no Protestants touch upon the\nbenefit of celibacy in those who are separated from worldly business\nto preach the gospel, \u2019tis because that would be seeming to lessen the\nRoman error of not suffering marriage in her clergy. Ask why even the\nmost pious amongst the clergy of the established church, are afraid to\nassert, the necessity of seeking only to the guidance and inspiration\nof the Holy Spirit; \u2019tis because the _Quakers_, who have broken off\nfrom the church, have made this doctrine their corner stone.\n\nIf we loved truth as such; if we sought it for its own sake; if we\nloved our neighbour as ourselves; if we desired nothing by our religion\nbut to be acceptable to God; if we equally desired the salvation of all\nmen; then nothing of this spirit could have any place in us.\n\n*\u00a0There is therefore a _Catholic_ spirit, a _communion of saints_ in\nthe love of God and all goodness, which no one can learn from that\nwhich is called orthodoxy in particular churches. It is only to be had\nby a total dying to all worldly views, by a pure love of God, and by\nsuch an unction from above, as delivers the mind from all selfishness,\nand makes it love truth and goodness with an equality of affection\nin every man, whether he be _Christian_, _Jew_, or _Gentile_. He that\nwould obtain this divine spirit in this disordered state of things, and\nlive in a divided part of the church, without partaking of its division,\nmust have these three truths deeply fixed in his mind: _first_, that\nuniversal love, which gives the whole strength of the heart to God, and\nmakes us love every man as we love ourselves, is the noblest, the most\nGod-like state of the soul, and the utmost perfection to which the most\nperfect religion can raise us; and that no religion does any man any\ngood, but so far as it brings this love into him. This will shew us,\nthat true orthodoxy can no where be found, but in a pure disinterested\nlove of God and our neighbour. _Secondly_, That in the present divided\nstate of the church, truth itself is torn and divided asunder; and that\ntherefore he is the only true Catholic, who has more of truth, and less\nof error, than is hedged in by any divided part. This truth will enable\nus to live in a divided part, _unhurt_ by its division, and keep us in\na true liberty and fitness to be assisted by all the good that we hear\nor see in any other part of the church. And thus uniting in heart and\nspirit with all that is holy and good in all churches, we enter into\nthe true _communion of saints_, and become real members of the holy\nCatholic church, tho\u2019 we use the outward worship of only one part of it.\nIt is thus, that the angels, as ministring spirits, assist, unite and\nco-operate with every thing that is holy and good, in every division of\nmankind. _Thirdly_, he must always have in mind this great truth, that\nit is the glory of the divine justice to have no respect of parties or\npersons, but to stand equally disposed to that which is right and wrong,\nin _Jew_ and _Gentile_. He therefore that would like as God likes,\nand condemn as God condemns, must have neither the eyes of the Papist\nnor the Protestant; he must like no truth the less because _Ignatius\nLoyola_ or _John Bunyan_ were very zealous for it; nor have the less\naversion to any error, because Dr. _\u2666Trapp_ or _George Fox_ had brought\nit forth. Now if this impartial justice, is the spirit which will judge\nthe world at the last day, how can this spirit be too soon or too much\nin us? Or what can do us more hurt than that which is an hindrance\nof it? When I was a young scholar of the university, I heard a great\nreligionist say, that if he could believe the late _king of France_ was\nin heaven, he could not wish to go thither himself. This was exceeding\nshocking: yet something of this temper must be more or less in those,\nwho have, as a point of orthodoxy, worked themselves up into a hearty\ncontempt and hatred of those that are divided from them. He that has\nbeen all his life long used to look with great abhorrence upon those\nwhom he called _superstitious bigots_, _dreaming visionaries_, _false\nsaints_, _canting enthusiasts_, must naturally expect they will be\ntreated by God as they have been by him; and if he had the keys of the\nkingdom of heaven, such people would find it hard to get a place in it.\nBut it stands us greatly in hand to get rid of this temper before we\ndie: since nothing but universal love can enter into the kingdom of God.\n\n \u2666 \u201cTrap\u201d replaced with \u201cTrapp\u201d\n\nWe often hear of people of great zeal and orthodoxy, declaring on their\ndeath-beds their strict attachment to the church of _England_, and\nmaking solemn protestations against all other churches: but how much\nbetter would it be, if such a person was to say, \u201cIn this divided\nstate of Christendom, I must conform to some divided part of it, and\ntherefore I live and die in communion with the church of _England_;\nfully believing, that if I worship God in _spirit and in truth_ in\nthis divided part of the church, I shall be as acceptable to him, as\nif I had been a faithful member of the one whole church, before it\nwas broken into separate parts. But as I am now going out of this\ndisordered division, into a more universal state of things, as I am now\nfalling into the hands of the great Creator and lover of all souls; as\nI am going to the God of all churches, to a kingdom of universal love,\nwhich must have its inhabitants from all people, nations, and languages\nof the earth; so in this spirit of universal love, I desire to perform\nmy last act of communion in this divided church, uniting in heart with\nall that is holy, good, and acceptable to God in all other churches;\npraying, from the bottom of my soul, that every church may have its\nsaints; that God\u2019s kingdom may come, his will be done in every division\nof Christians and men, and that _every thing that hath breath may\npraise the Lord_.\u201d\n\nWe have often seen learned Protestants very zealous in pulling to\npieces the lives of the saints of the _Romish_ church, and casting all\nthe reproach and ridicule they can, upon their wondrous spirit; tho\u2019\nthe lives of the saints of the primitive church may be exposed in the\nsame manner. Now, whence does this proceed? Why, from a secret touch\nof that spirit which could not bear to have the late king of _France_\nin heaven; it proceeds from a partial, selfish orthodoxy, which cannot\nbear to hear, or own, that the spirit and blessing of God are so\nvisible in a church from which it is divided. But if a person be of\nthis spirit, what does it signify where he has his outward church? If\na _Romish priest_ in the north of _England_ could not bear the splendor\nof a life so devoted to God, so fruitful in all good works, as was\nthat of the lady _Elizabeth Hastings_, if he should want to sully the\nbrightness of her Christian graces, and prove her to have been no saint,\nlest it should appear, that the Spirit of God was not confined to the\n_Romish_ church, would not such a zeal shew a worse spirit, than that\nof superstition, a greater depravity of heart, than the saying now and\nthen an _Ave Mary_?\n\n*\u00a0The more we know of the corruptions and hindrances of piety in the\nchurch of _Rome_, the more we should rejoice, that in every age so many\neminent saints, have appeared in it, whom we should thankfully behold\nas so many great lights hung out by God, to shew the true way to heaven,\nas so many joyful proofs that Christ is still present, even in that\nchurch, and that the gates of hell have not quite prevailed against it.\nWho that has the least spark of heaven in his soul, can help rejoicing\nin this manner at the appearance of St. _Bernard_, a _Teresa_, a\n_Francis_ de _Sales_, in that church? Who can help praising God, that\nher invented devotions, superstitious use of images, and invocation of\nsaints, have not so suppressed the graces of an evangelical life, but\nthat amongst _cardinals_, _jesuits_, _priests_, _friars_, _monks_ and\n_nuns_, some have been found, who seemed to live for no other end, but\nto give glory to God and edification to men, and whose writings have\nevery thing in them, that can guide the soul out of the corruption of\nthis life into union with God? And he who through a partial orthodoxy\nis diverted from feeding in these green pastures of life, whose\nabhorrence of jesuitical craft, keeps him from reading the works of an\n_Alvares du Pas_, a _Rodrigues_, a _Pere Surin_, and such like jesuits,\nhas a greater loss than he can easily imagine: and if any clergyman can\nread the life of _Bartholomeus_ a _Martyribus_ a _Spanish_ archbishop,\nwho sat with great influence at the very council of _Trent_, without\nbeing edified by it, and desiring to read it again and again, I know\nnot why he should like the lives of the apostolical fathers: and if\nany Protestant bishop should read the _Stimulus Pastorum_ wrote by this\nPopish prelate, he must confess it to be a book, that would have done\nhonour to the best archbishop, that the reformation has to boast of.\nO my God, how shall I unlock this mystery? In the land of darkness,\nover-run with superstition, where divine worship seems to be all shew\nand ceremony, thou hast those, who are fired with the pure love of thee,\nwho renounce every thing for thee, who are devoted wholly to thee, who\nthink of nothing, write of nothing, desire nothing but the honour, and\npraise, and adoration that is due to thee, and who call all the world\nto the maxims of the gospel, the perfection of the life of Christ. But\nin the regions where light is sprung up, whence superstition is fled,\nwhere all that is outward in religion seems to be pruned, dressed,\nand put in its true order; there a cleansed shell, a whited sepulchre,\nseems too generally to cover a dead Christianity.\n\nThe error of all errors, and that which makes the blackest charge\nagainst the _Romish_ church, is persecution, a religious sword drawn\nagainst the liberty of serving God according to our best light. Now,\ntho\u2019 this is the frightful monster of that church, yet, even here, who,\nexcept it be the church of _England_, can throw the first stone at her?\nWhere must we look for a church that has so renounced this persecuting\nbeast, as they have renounced the use of incense, the sprinklings of\nholy water, or extreme unction? What part of the reformation abroad has\nnot practised and defended persecution? What sect of dissenters at home\nhave not, in their day of power dreadfully condemned toleration?\n\nWhen it shall please God to dispose the hearts of all Christian princes,\nentirely to destroy this anti-christian beast, and leave all their\nsubjects in that religious freedom which they have from God; then the\nlight of the gospel, the power of its ministers, the usefulness of\nits rites, the benediction of its sacraments will have proper time\nand place to shew themselves; and that religion which has the most of\na divine power in it, whose offices and services do most good to the\nheart, whose ministers are most devoted to God, and have the most proof\nof the presence of Christ with them, will become, as it ought, the most\nuniversal. All that I have said on this matter, has been occasioned by\nthe Doctor\u2019s appeal to vulgar prejudice; and is only to intimate, that\nthe greatest evil which the division of the church brings forth, is a\nsectarian, selfish spirit, which with the orthodoxy of the _old Jews_,\nwould have God to be only their God, and themselves only, his chosen\npeople. If therefore we would be true Christians of the Catholic church,\nwe must put off this partiality of the carnal _Jew_; we must enter\ninto a Catholic affection for all men, love the spirit of the gospel\nwherever we see it; not work ourselves up into an abhorrence of a\n_George Fox_, or an _Ignatius Loyola_; but be equally glad of the\nlight of the gospel wherever it shines, or from whatever quarter it\ncomes; and give the same praise to God for an eminent example of piety,\nwherever it appears, either in Papist or Protestant.\n\nTo return. Dr. _\u2666Trapp_ supposing the world running into a charity that\nwould ruin wife and family, asks his charitable _half-thinker_, \u201cDid\nyou never hear that _charity begins_ at home? Did you never read that\nof St. _Paul_, If any provide not for his own, and especially those of\nhis own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an Infidel?\u201d\nThe Doctor\u2019s proverb I meddled not with, but the text of St. _Paul_ I\nrescued from his gross misapplication. That text has no more relation\nto an excessive charity, than to an excessive fasting. The apostle\nneither thought of this sin in this place, nor in any other part of\nhis writings; nor does he ever give the smallest hint of the danger of\nfalling into it. The only question was, whether poor widows, who had\nnear relations, that could supply their wants, should be maintained\nby the church? The apostle determines the matter thus; that if such\npersons, who were thus able, did not thus provide for, that is, supply\nthe wants of their poor kindred, they were so far from having the faith\nof Christians, that they wanted a goodness that was to be found amongst\nInfidels: this is the whole of the apostle\u2019s doctrine in this text. He\nspeaks of providing for those of our own house or family, in no other\nsense, than as it signifies our charity to them, when they fall into\ndistress; but the Doctor, trusting to the sound of the _English_ word\n_provide_, grafts all these errors upon this plain text. When it is\nsaid, a person has provided well for his family, every one supposes\nthat he has _laid up well in store_, or got an _estate_ to be divided\namongst them for their future subsistance. From this use of the\n_English_ word, _provide_; the Doctor would have it believed, that the\napostle teaches every head of a family to be carefully and continually\nlaying up in store for his kindred. But the apostle is as infinitely\ndistant from this thought, as from teaching them to get their cellars\nfilled with strong liquors: when he here says, _provide_, he says only\nthis, shut not your eyes to the wants of your poor kindred, but provide\nthem with what they have need of, and don\u2019t let them fall to the charge\nof the church. The Doctor\u2019s second error is this; according to this\ntext, a Christian ought not to hinder himself from thus laying up\nin store for his family, or leave them to live by their labour and\nindustry, thro\u2019 an excess of charity to his poor neighbours. But the\napostle has not one single syllable about this; and is as far from\nsaying any thing like it, as from saying, that a Christian, when he\nmakes a feast, should only invite his rich kindred and acquaintance.\nThe one has as much of the apostle and the gospel for it, as the other.\nThe Doctor\u2019s third error is this; that, according to this text, he, who\nby a daily, continual charity, has incapacitated himself to lay up in\nstore, a fixed provision for the future maintenance of his family, is\ncondemned by the apostle as _denying the faith_, and _worse than an\nInfidel_: tho\u2019 the apostle speaks no more here against such a person,\nthan he speaks in the praise of _Ananias_ and _Sapphira_.\n\n \u2666 \u201cTrap\u201d replaced with \u201cTrapp\u201d\n\nThe person here condemned, is not he who thro\u2019 a continual charity, is\nhindered from laying up in store; not he, who, thro\u2019 a Christian love\nof relieving the distressed members of Christ, is content with helping\nhis own family to food and raiment; but it is that Christian, who being\nable, is yet unwilling to support his near relations, that are fallen\ninto poverty, and leaves them to be maintained by the church: this is\nthe only Christian the apostle here condemns, as having put off the\npiety of the gospel, and wanting even the virtue of good-natured\nInfidels.\n\nI said further, Had the apostle known a parent in his days, who, thro\u2019\nhis great charity for others, had reduced his own family to want of\nrelief, he would have been so far from rebuking him as an half-thinking\nfool, or exposing him to others, as guilty of madness, that he would\nhave told them, such a one had consecrated himself and family to the\nchurch, as the proper objects of their care. To which the Doctor gives\nthis answer, \u201cThis he affirms, and this I deny; and as he produces no\nother proof, so I give no other answer,\u201d p.\u00a069. What I said, has its\nproof from the common voice of Christianity in the apostles days; as\nmay sufficiently appear from the following passage of St. _Clement_,\nfellow-labourer of the apostle, and bishop of no less a church than\nthat of _Rome_. \u201cWe have known many amongst us, who have delivered\nthemselves into bonds and slavery, that they might restore others to\ntheir liberty; many who have hired out themselves servants unto others,\nthat by their wages they might feed and sustain them that wanted.\u201d\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 1 Epistle to the Corinthians\n\nWill the Doctor now say, that this is no proof of that which I affirmed\nof the apostle, that he would have had a love for those who were become\nsufferers by their own charity to others? Does not this apostolical\nbishop make it his boast, and the glory of Christianity; not that they\nhad some, but many such among them?\n\nIt was not only in the first church at _Jerusalem_, that the Christians\nhad all things common. For St. _Barnabas_ writing to some converted\n_Jews_, teaches them to call nothing their own in this world, because\nthey were called to the common enjoyment of the things of eternity.\n_Communicabis in omnibus rebus proximo tuo; nihil dices quicquam tibi\nproprium; si enim communicatis invicem, in bonis, incorruptibilibus,\nquanto magis in corruptibilibus._\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 Epistle to Barnabas. No.\u00a010.\n\n*\u00a0An age after this, _Justin Martyr_ thus glories of the power of the\ngospel-faith; \u201cWe, says he, who before we became Christians, loved\nour wealth and possession above all things, now give up all property\nin them, that they may be in common for all that want them. _Qui\npecuniarum & possessionum fructus ac proventus pr\u00e6 rebus omnibus\nadamabamus, nunc etiam qu\u00e6 habemus in commune conferimus, & cum\nindigentibus quibuscunque communicamus._\u201d\u00b9 What a lean, heathenish\nfigure must the Doctor\u2019s proverb of charity _beginning at home_, have\nmade in the days of St. _Barnabas_, _Clement_, or _Justin Martyr_? Or\nwho durst then have made such an use of the text of St. _Paul_, as the\nDoctor has done, or coupled it with such a proverb? Were any of these\nfirst saints to judge of this matter, the Doctor might, for ought I\nknow, have a worse reprimand from them for so doing, than if he had\nonly coupled Cardinals with Pluralists.\n\n \u00b9 2 Apology\n\nIn order to shew the Doctor that he was very unseasonably preaching\nagainst the sin and folly of an excessive charity, when yet every part\nof the church wanted to be shewn how they were fallen from the gospel\ndegree of it, I set before him an imaginary Bishop of _Winchester_,\nyet drawn according to the model of the holy Bishops of the first\nages. I supposed this Bishop so filled with the Spirit of Christ, that\nhe looked upon all the revenues of his see, with no other eyes, than\nas our Saviour looked at that bag that was carried along with him by\nhis disciples, as so much for his own necessities and the necessities\nof others. I supposed that in this spirit, he so expended his yearly\nincome, that he chose to bring up his children strangers to all worldly\nfigure, and in as low a state of labour as that to which our Lord\nand his apostles had been used. I supposed, that by a piety of life\nand conversation, equal to this exalted charity, he had instilled\nsuch an heavenly spirit into his wife and children, as made them\nhighly thankful for their condition, and full of praise to God for\nthe blessing of such a relation. Dr. _\u2666Trapp_, tho\u2019 an antient divine,\nseems to start back with fright, at the sight of this apostolical\nbishop, and supposes, that if such a monster of a man was now to get\ninto a bishoprick, he must needs make his children extraordinary wicked,\nfill them with abhorrence of his memory, and spread infidelity in the\nworld, by making Christianity a jest to Infidels, p.\u00a071.\n\n \u2666 \u201cTrap\u201d replaced with \u201cTrapp\u201d\n\nI say, says the Doctor, _very clearly and plainly_, that _such a bishop\nmust be a mad man_, p.\u00a070. Now, if the Doctor will prove from the\nscriptures this bishop to be a mad man, it must be for the following\nreasons: _First_, because he had so mean a spirit, as to suffer the son\nof a bishop to work under a carpenter, as the Redeemer of mankind had\ndone. _Secondly_, because he taught himself and his family to believe\nthat which St. _Paul_ believed, that _having food and raiment, we ought\nto be therewith content_. _Thirdly_, because he came up to the very\nletter of the great commandment, of _loving our neighbour as ourselves_.\n_Fourthly_, because he imitated the spirit of the first Christians at\n_Jerusalem_, who accounted nothing to be their own that they possessed.\n_Fifthly_, because he had turned himself and family from all the vanity\nof this world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the\npride of life. _Sixthly_, because he seemed to have this of the apostle\nfixed in his mind, \u201cHe that saith, he abideth in Christ, ought so\nto walk, as he walked.\u201d _Seventhly_, because his life was fashioned\naccording to this doctrine of the Holy Jesus, \u201cLearn of me, for I am\nmeek, and lowly of heart: I am among you, as he that serveth: whosoever\nwill be great among you, let him be your minister; even as the Son of\nman came not to be ministred unto, but to minister.\u201d For it may be said\nwith the greatest certainty, that if the Doctor will have any proof\nfrom the scripture of the madness of this bishop, it must be as absurd\nas the reasons here alledged.\n\nCome we now to consider this bishop according to the spirit, practice\nand laws of the church in all ages. Any one versed ever so little\nin the history of the church, must see at the first sight, that this\nsupposed bishop is a true copy of the first apostolical fathers. And\nif this bishop was to be accounted a madman, because of the manner of\nhis life, we must come down several ages after _Constantine_, to the\n_mitre_ and triple crown, before we could find a bishop in his senses.\nThe _Clements_, the _Polycarps_, the _Ignatius\u2019s_, the _Iren\u00e6us\u2019s_, the\n_Cyprian\u2019s_, the _Basils_, the _Ambrose\u2019s_, and a number that have long\ngraced our calenders, as saints, must take their place among bedlamites:\nfor they were all of them to a tittle, the very man I have supposed at\n_Winchester_. They considered every penny that was brought in by the\ngospel, as a provision for the poor, and themselves as only entitled\nto their common share out of it. They durst no more raise any of their\nrelations to a splendor of life, or give them any figure from the\nrevenues of the church, than commit sacrilege. They gloried as much in\ntheir own strict poverty and want of worldly figure, as in their having\ntotally renounced idols.\n\nBut we have much more than primitive example for our bishop of\n_Winchester_: the doctrine and laws of the church have unanimously\nfrom age to age, to the very council of _Trent_, required every bishop\nto be of the same spirit of which we have supposed him. The church,\nboth by the doctrine of fathers, and the canons of councils, constantly\nmaintains; _First_, that the clergy are not proprietors, but barely\nstewards of the benefices they enjoy: having them for no other end,\nbut for their own necessary, frugal subsistence, and the relief of the\npoor.\u00b9 _Secondly_, that a clergyman using his benefice for his _own\nindulgence_, or the enriching his _own family_, is guilty of sacrilege,\nand is a robber and murderer of the poor.\u00b2 _Thirdly_, that if a\nclergyman has a reasonable subsistence of his own, and is not in the\nstate of the poor, then let his benefice be what it will, he has no\nright to use any part of it for himself, nor for his kindred, unless\nthey be fit to be considered among those poor that are to be relieved\nby the church.\u00b3 _Fourthly_, that every bishop and clergyman is to live\nin an humble, frugal, outward state of life, seeking for no honour or\ndignity in the world, but that which arises from the distinction and\nlustre of his virtues.\u2074 _Fifthly_, that a beneficed clergyman using the\ngoods of the church for his own indulgence, or raising fortunes for his\nchildren, or their expensive education, is sacrilegious, and a robber\nof the poor.\u2075 _Sixthly_, that every clergyman is to die out of the\nchurch as poor as he entered into it.\u2076 _Seventhly_, that a clergyman\ndying, cannot leave or bequeath any thing to his children or friends,\nbut barely that which he had independently of the church.\u2077\n\n \u00b9 Nihil ecclesia nisi Fidem possidet.\u2015\u2015Possessio ecclesi\u00e6 est\n Egenorum sumptus, _Ambrose, Epistle 31_.\n\n \u00b2 Si Pauperum Compauperes sumus, & _nostra_ sunt, & _illorum_.\n Si autem privatim qu\u00e6 nobis sufficiunt, possidemus, non\n sunt illa _nostrum_, sed Pauperum _Procurationem_ gerimus,\n non Proprietatem nobis Usurpatione damnabili vindicamus,\n _Augustine Epistle 50 to Boniface._\n\n \u00b3 Quoniam quicquid habent Clerici, Pauperum est\u2015\u2015Qui bonis\n Parentum & opibus sustentari possent, si quod Pauperum\n est, accipiunt, _Sacrilegium profecto_ committunt, & per\n Abusionem Talium, Judicium sibi manducant, & bibunt,\n _Hieronymus, Epistle to Pope Damasus_.\n\n \u2074 Episcopus vilem _Suppellectilem_, & _Mensam_, ac _Victum\n Pauperem_, habeat, & Dignitatis, sua Authoritatum Fide &\n Vit\u00e6 meritis qu\u00e6rat, _Council of Carthage_, 4.\n\n \u2075 Memento quod _Pauperem Vitam_ Sacerdos gerere debet, & ideo\n si superbiam habet, si magno gaudet Beneficio, pr\u00e6ter victum\n & vestitum _quod sperest_, Pauperibus dare non differat,\n quia omnia _pauperum_ sunt. _Augustine, Sermon 37 to the\n Brethren_.\n\n \u2076 Hujus tu e vicino sectare Vestigia, & c\u00e6terorum, qui Virtutum\n illius similes sunt, quos Sacerdotium & _humiliores_ facit &\n _pauperes_. _Hieronymus Epistle 4. to Rufinus._\n\n \u2077 Pr\u00e6cipimus ut in potestate sua Episcopus Ecclesi\u00e6 Res\n habeat\u2015\u2015ex iis autem quibus indiget, (si tamen indiget)\n ad suas necessitates percipiat. _Canons of the Apostles_,\n 40.\u2015\u2015\u2015\u2015eas veluti Deo contemplante dispenset; nec ei liceat\n ex iis aliquid contingere, aut Parentibus propriis (qu\u00e6 dei\n sunt) condonare. Quod si Pauperes sunt, tanquam Pauperibus\n subministret, ne eorum occasione Ecclesi\u00e6 Res depredantur,\n _Canons of the Apostles_, 39. Manifesta sint qu\u00e6 pertinere\n videntur ad Ecclesiam cum Notitia Presbiterorum & Diaconorum,\n ut si contigerit Episcopo migare de Seculo, nec _Res\n Ecclesi\u00e6_ depereant, nec qu\u00e6 _propria_ probantur Episcopi,\n sub occasione Rerum Ecclesi\u00e6 pervadantur: justem enim est ut\n sua Episcopus quibus voluerit, derelinquat, & qu\u00e6 Ecclesi\u00e6\n sunt, eidem conservantur Ecclesi\u00e6. _Council of Antioch_,\n chapter\u00a024. Quicunque Clerici, qui nihil habentes ordinantur,\n & _tempore Episcopatus_, vel _Clericatus sui_, agros,\n vel qu\u00e6cunque predia nomine suo comparant, tanquam Rerum\n dominiearum _Invisionis Crimini_ teneantur obnoxii, nisi\n admoniti, Ecclesia eadem ipsa contulerint. (_N.\u00a0B._)\n Si autem ipsis proprie aliquid _liberalitate_ alicujus,\n vel _Successione_ Cognationis obvenerit, faciant, inde\n quod ipsorum Proposito congruit. Sacerdotes ipsis quoque\n Filiis suis, quibus paterna debetur H\u00e6reditas, nihil debent\n derelinquere, nisi quod sibi a Parentibus derelictum est:\n _Ergo_ qui _ditior est_ Sacerdos, quam venit ad Sacerdotium,\n quicquid plus habuerit, _non filiis debet dare_, sed\n Pauperibus, & Sanctis fratribus, ut reddat ea qu\u00e6 Domini\n sunt, Domino suo. _Hieronymus on Ezekiel_, chapter\u00a046.\n\n*\u00a0May it not therefore well be wondered what could provoke Dr. _\u2666Trapp_\nto censure our bishop as a madman, whose whole form of life, and use of\nhis bishoprick, is not only after the model of the first and greatest\nsaints that ever were bishops, but also such as the whole church from\nthe beginning, both in council and out of council, from age to age,\nhath absolutely required of every beneficed clergyman, who would not be\ncondemned by her, as sacrilegious, and a robber of the poor? They who\nwould see the whole matter set in a clear light, may read an excellent\ntreatise of the learned _Dupin_, wrote near the end of his life, where\nthis truth is by him asserted and incontestably proved, _viz._ That\nwhatever changes have been made in the nature and tenure of the goods\nand revenues of the church, or however they have been variously divided\namongst ecclesiasticks, yet this has remained _always unchangeable and\nundeniable_, That a clergyman was no proprietor of his benefice; that\nhe could only take so much of it to his own use, as was necessary to\nhis subsistance, and then the remainder, be it what it would, belonged\nto the poor. This, says he, is strictly maintained by the canons of\ncouncils, both before and after the division of ecclesiastical revenues.\n\n \u2666 \u201cTrap\u201d replaced with \u201cTrapp\u201d\n\n*\u00a0But if this be the case, if this be an incontestable doctrine,\nsupported by every authority that can be brought for any one doctrine\nof the gospel, have we not here an utter condemnation of pluralities?\nIs it not an affront to the gospel, to the plainest maxims of right and\nwrong, the whole authority of the church, to offer one single word in\ndefence of them? Logical, scholastic distinctions and definitions of\nthe nature of parishes and residence, can signify no more here, where\nthe whole nature of the thing is to be avoided, than the same art of\nwords, when used by _Jesuitical Casuists_, can justify the violation of\nmoral duties. And if Dr. _\u2666Trapp_ was only to look at this one doctrine,\nhe would have no reason to think it so sad a thing, to see _Pluralists_\ncoupled with _Cardinals_. \u201c_See_, says the learned _Dupin_, rules which\nwill appear hard to many of the beneficed clergy, but yet, they are\ntrue, conformable to natural equity, the laws, custom, and tradition\nof the church, and the practice of the most holy bishops; and woe be\nto those that observe them not! _Malheur a Ceux qui ne les suivent\npas._\u201d\u00b9 And therefore he concludes thus, \u201cThere may be many amongst\nthe beneficed clergy who err in this matter, thro\u2019 an ignorance of that\nwhich is required of them; therefore what I have said ought to be taken\nin good part, as proceeding from charity, and a sincere love of truth.\u201d\n\n \u2666 \u201cTrap\u201d replaced with \u201cTrapp\u201d\n\n \u00b9 Ibid. p.\u00a0442.\n\n\n\n\n SHORT but SUFFICIENT\n CONFUTATION\n\n Of Bp. WARBURTON\u2019s projected defence (_as he calls it_) of\n Christianity, in his _divine legation of_ Moses, in a letter\n to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London.\n\n\n_My LORD_,\n\nTHE reason of my presuming to write to your lordship on the following\nsubject is, because it is a matter on which your lordship has employed\nyour excellent pen, greatly to the benefit of the world.\n\nAnd the reason of my writing at all, is owing to a book newly\npublished\u00b9 in defence of bishop _Warburton_, in which your lordship,\nis charged with a multitude of contradictions, and inconsistencies\nrelating to this point.\n\n \u00b9 Free and candid examination of the bishop of London\u2019s\n sermons, &c.\n\nIt is not my design to enter here as an assistant to your lordship. For\nthis is quite needless.\n\nMy intention is, as mentioned in the title page. And because bishop\n_Warburton_ has owned this writer, as a most able defender of his\nscheme. I have taken occasion to shew, that it is a scheme so contrary\nto scripture, and the truth of things, as no art of words, or stretch\nof genius, however powerful in paradox, can ever be able to support.\n\nThe author of this book, as bishop _Warburton_ assures us,\u00b9 is too\nmodest to make his name known to the world; a quality, which from the\nreading of his book, one would not suspect to be so predominate in\nhim.\u2015\u2015But though modesty has forced him to conceal his name, yet he\nhas given us some information of his character. He begins; \u201cI, who\nam a bare looker-on, and absolutely disengaged from all that biass of\naffection, which is so wont to warp the followers of an old system, or\nthe inventers of a new, have done my best to examine this question with\nall impartiality.\u201d\u00b2\n\n \u00b9 Preface to critical enquiry, &c.\n\n \u00b2 Examination p.\u00a02.\n\nHad one of the antient writers of _Greece_ said this of himself, how\npositive, might a modern critic have been, from the decisive words,\na _bare looker-on_, that he had never wrote upon the same subject\nbefore? And that therefore, any book of that kind ascribed to him,\nmust infallibly be false and spurious. And yet, to the confusion\nof criticism, this author, who unasked, and of his own free motion,\ndeclares, that he begins this work as a bare looker-on, has for more\nthan ten years before he made this declaration, been sweating in the\nthickest dust, and heat of Doctor _Warburton_\u2019s most ardent contention\nfor novelties.\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 Critical enquiry, &c. published 1746.\n\nI have the Doctor\u2019s own words for this, both for the novelties, and\nthis gentleman\u2019s wonderful zeal, and skill shewn in the defence of them,\nso many years ago.\n\n\u201cNotwithstanding, says the Doctor, all that can be said, much clamour\nwill ever attend novelties, though never so strongly proved.\u2015\u2015But truth\nseldom thrives the worse, for unreasonable opposition; and it would\nseem (N.\u00a0B.) _not to be far from its establishment_, when such writers,\nas the following, appear in its defence\u2015\u2015He hath established what\nhe undertook to defend, with such extent of learning, and force of\ngood argument, that I dare become responsible for all he says; and am\nwilling, that those of my opinions here debated, may stand, or fall,\nby the strength, or the invalidity of this defence.\u201d\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 Preface to the critical enquiry, p.\u00a010.\n\nThis compliment, so very hearty, as well as elegant, puts me in mind\nof another, which the learned Doctor made some time since, to the\nwhole clergy of this nation; \u201ca body of men, says he, the most learned,\nvirtuous, and truly Christian, that ever adorned a church, or state.\u201d\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 D. L. Vol. 2. Preface, p.\u00a06.\n\nThese two compliments are of so very high a strain, that were it not\nfor the gravity of the Doctor\u2019s character, and the seriousness of the\nsubject, the reader might have thought himself obliged to understand\nthem both ironically. But if the Doctor meant no more by this, than to\nbuy a peace with the clergy, it must however be said, that he gave more\nfor the purchase of it, than a man of a scrupulous conscience would\nhave given.\n\nHowever the compliment paid to this modest gentleman (who to be sure\nwill, now never be able to let the world know his name) seems to have\nbeen comfortably received in secret, by the ample return he has made\nthe Doctor for it, in his new book. Where, speaking of a part of the\nDoctor\u2019s performance, he says, \u201cFor this answer, I must refer the\nreader to the _D.\u00a0L._ where he will find the subject handled with\nthat force, solidity, and precision of argument, which so eminently\ndistinguish the author from all his cotemporaries.\u201d\n\nI shall now only just observe, that the compliment made by the bishop\nto the clergy, has here very much abatement made to it, by his great\nally. For as matters now stand, if this very clergy, good, learned, and\nChristian, beyond any thing ever heard of in the world before, should\none and all unite in opposing the bishop, all that they could possibly\nget by their pains, would be only to shew, how eminently he stands\ndistinguished by force, solidity, and precision of argument from all\nhis cotemporaries.\n\nBut no more of this. Bishop _Warburton_ grounds his scheme, upon the\ndoctrine of the Old and the New Testament. But seeing he affirms that\nto be of the greatest weight, which is taken from the New Testament,\nand this author also begins there, I shall do so likewise.\n\n_First_, I shall clearly evince, that there is not in all the New\nTestament, one single text, which either in the letter, or the spirit\nproves, or has the least tendency, or design to prove, that the\n_immortality_ of the soul, or its perpetual duration after the death\nof the body, was not an _universal_, _commonly_ received opinion in,\nand thro\u2019 every age of the world from _Adam_ to Christ. _Secondly_,\nThat this doctrine or belief of a future state, was not _designedly\nsecreted_, or _industriously hidden_ from the eyes of the people of\nGod by _Moses_, neither by the types and figures of the law, nor by any\nother part of his writings. From whence I shall occasionally shew, that\nthe true _ground_ and _method_ of Christian redemption to eternal life,\npreached by the apostles, began with _Adam_, was the religion of _Adam_,\nand all his descendants. And also, that the writings of _Moses_, and\nthe patriarchal faith, give the very same full proof of the immortality\nof the soul, or a future state, as the gospel doth.\n\nNeed I not observe, that the whole merits of the debate, betwixt Bishop\n_Warburton_ on the one side, and the whole Christian church of all ages,\non the other side, lie wholly in these particulars, which, if they\ncan be made good, the whole costly fabric of the Doctor\u2019s _projected\ndefence of Christianity_, (as he calls it) built at the expence of such\nimmense treasures of learning, fetched from all quarters of the antient\nand modern world, must have the fate which always happens to castles\nbuilt in the air.\n\nThis learned writer, to shew, that the immortality of the soul, or its\nperpetual duration in a future state, was entirely unknown in all the\nformer dispensations of God, until the coming of Christ, begins with\nthis passage of St. _Paul_. \u201cGod hath saved us according to his own\npurpose, and his grace which was given us in Christ Jesus, before the\nworld began. But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour\nJesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and\nimmortality to light, thro\u2019 the gospel.\u201d\n\nOn which words he thus proceeds: \u2666\u201cWe are told, that God, before the\nworld began, had decreed to restore mankind to that lost inheritance\nof eternal life, which they should forfeit by the disobedience of our\nfirst parents. It is added, that this secret purpose, was now at last\nmade manifest by the appearing of Christ, who hath abolished death,\nand brought life, and immortality to light by the gospel. The apostle\nmentions two periods, one, when it was originally formed in the secret\ncounsels of God, the other, when it was published and revealed. The\nopposition between these two states, seems necessarily to imply,\nthat during the interval, it remained a secret. If the apostle may be\nallowed to be his own interpreter, it will be easy to establish this\nexposition by a parallel passage in the epistle to _Titus_. _In hope of\neternal life_, which God, that cannot lie, promised _before the world\nbegan, but hath in due time manifested his word through preaching_.\nAgreeably to this, the author of the epistle to the _Hebrews_, assures\nus, that the _great salvation of the gospel_, that is, the _promise of\neternal life, first began to be spoken by the Lord_. But how could he\nbe the first who taught this doctrine, if _Moses_ and the prophets had\ntaught it long before? Or how did he begin to speak of that, which so\nmany others had been commissioned to teach before? Sometimes we are\ntold, that life and immortality are brought to light, sometimes that it\nwas made manifest, sometimes that it first began to be spoken by Jesus\nChrist. The bringing to light, and making manifest, are equivalent to\nthe beginning first to teach. And if so, the publication ascribed to\nJesus Christ, must have been the first and original publication, and\nnot merely the illustrating or giving new splendor to a doctrine, by\nthe addition of one, or more circumstances unknown before. However, an\neminent writer (meaning your Lordship) assures us, that Jesus Christ\ndid not give the first notice of this doctrine. All that I need remark\nupon it, is, that this assurance seems directly to contradict the word\nof inspiration.\n\n \u2666 no endquote in text; unsure of placement\n\nYour Lordship has also said, that the antient revelations _afforded a\ngood proof of a future state_. This writer makes great shew of triumph\nover this most true assertion, and is continually bringing it forth as\na proof of your inconsistency, both with yourself and the apostles.\n\nBut to follow him farther: \u201cSt. _Paul_, saith he, observes that Jesus\nChrist was sent to shew light to the people, that is, to the _Jews_\nand to the _Gentiles_. It is plain from hence, that he was a light to\nthe first, in the same sense, in which he was a light to the last; and\ntherefore as he was a light to the Gentiles, by revealing the mystery\nof redemption, in a restoration to life and immortality, to them\n_absolutely unknown_, it seems to follow, that he also enlightened the\n_Jews_, by the manifestation of a truth _equally unknown_. Agreeably to\nthis account of things, _Zacharias_, in his prophecy upon the birth of\n_John_ Baptist, says, _The day-spring from on high hath visited us, to\ngive light to them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death,\nto guide our feet into the way of peace_. A description, which will by\nno means permit us to suppose, that they were enlightened with a good\nproof of a future state. If they had been enlightened with such a proof,\nthey would have been in the region of life and immortality, and not\nin the verge and shadow of death. They would not have been sitting\nin darkness, but walking in the light, if they actually saw the grand\nobject in question: how consistent it is, to assign a good view of an\nobject, to a people sitting in darkness, must be left to the judgment\nof others. However, this seems to be the necessary consequence of\naffirming, that the _Jews_ had a good proof of a future life.\u201d\n\nThis is the glaring contradiction, which he is continually charging\nupon your Lordship throughout his whole book. Again, he attacks your\nLordship thus, from your own words: \u201cSt. _Peter_, says his Lordship,\ntells all Christians, that they are called out of darkness into\na marvellous light. Ask the evangelists, they will tell you, _The\nday-spring from on high hath visited us, to give light to them that\nsit in darkness, and in the shadow of death_. Ask any, or all the\napostles, and they will tell you, their commission is, to open the\neyes of the people, _and turn them from darkness unto light_. But how\ncould the _Jewish_ people have a _good view and prospect_ of life, and\nimmortality, if their eyes were not opened? How could they be called\nout of darkness, if their situation presented them with a good view of\nan object, which they were now first invited to behold? And how could\nthey sit in the shadow of death, if they had been favoured with a good\nproof of a future state?\n\n\u201cIt would be ridiculous to say, that they sat in darkness, or that they\nhad not their eyes, merely, because they did not see the object in its\nfull proportion, or extent, or had not an exact view of every minute\npart, and the opportunity of surveying it quite round. The sitting in\ndarkness and the shadow of death, evidently implies a total want of\nlight, by which the people thus circumstanced, were to be enlightened;\nit being impossible to express the most entire ignorance in more\nemphatic terms.\u201d\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 Pages 4, 5, 6, &c.\n\nI have made these large quotations from this author, containing all his\nchief texts of scripture, and his comments upon them, in his own words,\nthat there might be no complaint of my robbing his arguments of any of\ntheir force, for all that he farther says on this subject, is but mere\nrepetition.\n\nI shall now shew, that all his reasoning upon these texts is false in\nitself, and nothing at all to the purpose, as not touching the one\ngreat point in question, which is the doctrine or belief of a future\nstate, or the immortality of the soul in a life after this.\u2015\u2015And this\nI shall do, by making it plain, that not one of these texts, nor any\nother in all the New Testament, proves, or has the least tendency to\nprove, that the doctrine or belief of the soul\u2019s immortality, and a\nfuture state, was not known in and thro\u2019 every age of the world, before\nthe coming of Christ in the flesh.\n\nThis will be sufficiently done, by shewing, that the doctrine of\nthe immortality of the soul, or its future existence in some kind of\nhappiness or misery in another life, is a matter about which these\ntexts say not a syllable, but leave it as untouched as the doctrine of\nthe pre-existence of souls.\n\nIf it be asked then, What is the great discovery, new light and\nknowledge, declared in these texts, as newly made known to the world\nby the gospel? It is answered, that the one thing meant both by the\nletter and spirit of all these, and every other the like passages of\nscripture, speaking of that mystery, new light, or knowledge made known\nby the gospel, and unknown before, is absolutely nothing else, points\nat nothing else, and has nothing else implied in it, but the one\nwhole process of Christ in his personality, his birth, his life, his\nsufferings, his death, his resurrection and ascension into heaven.\nThis, and this alone, namely, The whole process of Christ, in all these\nimportant particulars, is the great salvation, the great mystery, the\nhidden wisdom of God, kept secret from the foundation of the world, and\nnot manifested, nor possible to be manifested, but by Christ himself\nentering into, and going thro\u2019 all the parts of this process.\u2015\u2015Of this\nprocess alone it is, that the apostles speak, when they declare the\nmystery opened in the gospel, to have been a mystery kept secret since\nthe world began: and the reason why it was so is plain, because it must\nbe a secret, and continue such, till what was contained in it came into\nactual existence, and thereby manifested itself.\n\nOf this process alone, and its wonderful effects, it is that the\napostles speak, when they glory of the abolishment of death, and of\nlife and immortality brought to light through the gospel: because it is\nthe gospel alone, that manifests the actual existence of this process\nof Christ in all its parts. Nor do they ever speak of any light,\nlife, or knowledge, as formerly the hidden wisdom of God, and now made\nmanifest to the world, but solely that light, that life, and knowledge,\nwhich arises from some one or other, or all the parts of our Saviour\u2019s\nprocess, as the one only possible and actual Redeemer of the world.\n\nThat this is, the plain full truth of the matter, that the only thing,\ndiscovered to the world by the light of the gospel, is the one whole\nprocess of Christ, must be acknowledged by every considerate man, even\nfrom the nature of the thing.\u2015\u2015For what can the mystery of the gospel\nbe, but the mystery of Christ, as a Saviour, made known to the world?\nAnd what can the mystery of Christ, as a Saviour made known be, but\nthe manifestation of _what_ he is in himself, in the power of his\npersonality, in the efficacy of his birth, in the blessed consequences\nof his life, his sufferings, his death, resurrection, and ascension\ninto heaven, as our _second Adam_, or father of a new, divine nature,\nderived into us by his wonderful process in all its parts.\n\nNow as all these particulars make up the _whole manifestation_ of the\nmystery opened in the gospel, so there is not in any of these, the most\ndistant _hint_ given, that the doctrine of a _future state_, was not\nas soon, as universally, and constantly known as the fall of man was.\nNor do they any more imply, _such ignorance_, than they imply, the\nfall of man not known till Christ came in the flesh.\u2015\u2015Now that which\nis not taught in, and by the process of Christ, cannot be taught by the\nmanifestation of the gospel mystery. But in all our Saviour\u2019s process,\nthere is no possibility of making any part of it prove, that the\n_immortality_ of the soul, or its _destination_ to a future life, was\nnot the common belief, of every age from _Adam_ to Christ.\n\nFor this wonderful process of Christ, which is the whole mystery opened\nin the gospel, is about quite _another kind_ of life in the soul,\nthan that which consists in its _bare immortality_. For immortality,\nconsidered in itself, may as well be a curse as a blessing. But this is\nnot the life and immortality that the gospel boasts of. It leaves such\nnatural immortality, which belongs as well to devils as men, as wholly\nuntouched, as it does the original of the alphabet. And for this reason,\nbecause the _one knowledge_ which the former world wanted, and the\nChristian world got, is by all the evangelists and apostles confined to\nthat, which Christ, as God and man, was, did, suffered, purchased, and\nobtained, in and through the efficacy and merits of his process, till\nas a second _Adam_, he was placed at the right hand of God.\n\nIt is the living knowledge, the real participation of all these parts\nof our Saviour\u2019s process, as a God incarnate, that contains all that\nlife and immortality, all the glad tidings of salvation, and light out\nof darkness, made known to the world by Christ and his apostles. Nor\ndo they ever call the attention of mankind to any other new light or\nknowledge, but that of seeing and knowing, how every part of Christ\u2019s\nprocess had its particular and joint efficacy, to destroy the works of\nthe devil, and the power of hell in fallen man.\n\nThis was the good news of _life and immortality_ brought to light by a\nglorious gospel, which shewed the whole counsel of God towards fallen\nmen; how they were before the foundation of the world seen in Christ,\n_predestinated to be made conformable to his image_, who by all that\nhe was, did and suffered, from his first coming down, to his ascension\ninto heaven, was the one, only possible means of their partaking again\nof the divine nature.\n\nEvery step of our Saviour\u2019s process from first to last, was only so\nmany necessary steps of our progress out of the eternal death of sin\nand misery, into a participation of an heavenly life in Christ Jesus.\nAnd in this process is contained all that Christian theology, which\nmakes up the whole doctrine of Christ and his apostles.\n\nNo power of reasoning, no art of criticism, can force one single\ntext of the New Testament to speak, or so much as hint at any other\nlife or immortality but this, _as first_ made known to the world by\nthe gospel.\u2015\u2015The natural immortality of the soul, is no part of its\nredemption, but belongs to it as it belongs to all angels, whether\nin heaven or in hell, and is an immortality no more purchased by the\nincarnation of the Son of God, than the immortality which belongs to\n_Lucifer_ and his angels.\u2015\u2015Therefore this cannot be that immortality,\nwhich is the gift of God through Jesus Christ. And therefore nothing\nthat is said of that immortality, which comes to fallen man only by\nJesus Christ, can be the least proof, that the belief of the soul\u2019s\nperpetual existence in a future state came first, or only by him, and\nwas not always held by every age, from the beginning of the world.\n\nNatural immortality has its full nature in the fallen angels; but the\none immortality that comes by Jesus Christ, is the glory of the Holy\nTrinity, dwelling and manifesting itself in the immortal nature of the\nsoul.\n\nFor this is a certain truth, that all that is divine and God-like in\nany creature, dwells as a supernatural gift or operation of God in it;\nwhich may be lost, as it was in angels, and _Adam_; and can be kept by\nno other power but that of faith; nor regained, when lost, but by the\nreturn of that same faith, and full resignation to God. So that the\nnatural immortality of angels or men, is only their capacity to receive\nthe never-ending, but always increasing manifestation of divine glory\nin, and thro\u2019 all the natural powers. And this is the one immortality\nmade known, and purchased for us through the blessed Jesus, being and\ndoing what he was and did, in our poor immortal nature, that had lost\nits God.\n\nBut to consider now the texts of the New Testament, on which this\nauthor has endeavoured to establish Bishop _Warburton_\u2019s opinion. The\nfirst and chief of these is that of St. _Paul_; \u201cGod hath saved us,\naccording to his own purpose, and his grace, which was given us in\nChrist Jesus, before the world began: but is now made manifest by the\nappearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and\nbrought life and immortality to light through the gospel.\u201d\n\nNow every word in this passage excludes all regard to the natural\nimmortality of the soul, and necessarily leads and confines us to that\none life and immortality, to a life and immortality of the heavenly\nnature brought forth in our souls.\u2015\u2015For the life and immortality\nhere granted to us, is expressly affirmed to be effected by Christ\u2019s\nabolishment of death. Therefore as is the death here abolished, such\nmust be the life that is brought forth in the stead of it.\n\nThe death here abolished is not the natural mortality of body or soul,\nbut that death, whose destruction is declared in these words of the\napostle, _Christ was manifested to destroy the works of the devil_: and\nfrom that destruction comes forth the one true life and immortality,\nwhich is an eternal union of righteousness in and with Christ, as a\nprinciple of a divine life eternally dwelling in us.\n\n_To be carnally minded_, saith the apostle, is death, this is the one\ndeath that Christ is here said to abolish; but to be spiritually minded\nis life and peace; and this is the one life and immortality that Christ\nsets up in the stead of death, by making us spiritually minded, or as\nSt. _Peter_ words it, \u201cpartakers of the divine nature, by which we are\nmade children of God, and if children, then heirs of God, and joint\nheirs with Christ.\u201d\n\nFarther, St. _John_ saith, _This is the record, that God hath given\nunto us eternal life_; surely this is the one immortality brought to\nlight by the gospel. But to shew us what, and wherein this immortal, or\neternal life consists, the apostle adds, \u201cand this life is in his Son:\nhe that hath the Son, hath life, and he that hath not the Son; hath not\nlife.\u201d\n\n*\u00a0Therefore this immortality, or eternal life given unto us of God, not\nonly has nothing in it concerning the natural immortality of souls, but\nis necessarily to be understood of quite another matter.\n\n*\u00a0For they only can have this eternal life given to them of God, who\nhave the Son: therefore it has no relation to the natural immortality\nof souls, and they can only have the Son, of whom it can be truly\nsaid, \u201cthat Christ is of God become wisdom and righteousness, and\nsanctification to them.\u201d\n\n*\u00a0As another full proof of all that has been said, it may be added,\nthat the life and immortality brought to light by the gospel, is purely\nconditional and only offered to mankind, as a gift of God, upon certain\nterms. And therefore does not, cannot mean the immortality of the soul,\nor its perpetual natural duration in a future state.\n\nThus, \u201cGod gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believed on him,\nshould not perish, but have everlasting life. Ye will not come to me,\nthat ye may have life.\u201d Therefore the immortality of life revealed by\nthe gospel, is purely conditional, and adventitious to the soul, such\nas may be received, or not received, and consequently cannot possibly\nbe, or mean a natural immortality, for such immortality, it has no\npower of freely receiving, or not receiving upon terms.\n\nThat blessing of a heavenly immortality, freely given by God, is\nnothing else but a celestial holiness, purity and perfection brought\nforth in the soul, by its having the eternal WORD and SPIRIT of God\nagain restored to, and united with it: called immortality, not because\nof its eternal duration, but because eternally free from all that,\nwhich is death, or the deadly evil of sin in the soul; called also so,\nin opposition to that natural immortality of devils, and damned souls,\nwhich tho\u2019 never ceasing, is only an eternal death. So that no argument,\nfrom what is said of the life and immortality made known by the gospel,\ncan be drawn into a proof, that the belief of a future state, was\nnot the general belief of the world before. Because the immortality\npreached by the gospel, is a thing quite different from the natural,\nperpetual duration of the soul, and means neither more, nor less, than\nthe _glory and perfection of a divine life_, to which _Adam_ died the\nvery day that he did eat of the forbidden tree, and which is quickened\nagain, in and by the whole process of Christ in our nature.\n\nI come now, to my second proposition, namely, to shew, that the\ndoctrine of a future state, or the immortality of the soul, was not\ndesignedly secreted, or industriously hidden from the eyes of the\npeople of God by the types and figures of the Mosaic dispensation.\u2015\u2015My\nreasons for it are as follow. _First_, because it is highly unworthy\nof God, to suppose, that it was, the end of those types and figures,\ndesignedly to _secrete_, or _hide_ from the people of God, the\nknowledge _of any truth_, much less the knowledge of a truth,\nabsolutely _necessary_, to the very possibility of any spiritual\nrelation, or religious communication between God and man, as that of\nthe immortality of the soul, must be.\u2015\u2015For though the Mosaic state, may\nbe justly called a _region of darkness_, when compared to that _light_\nwhich has arisen from the process of Christ; yet so far as it went, and\nwith regard to the people under it, it was a degree of _light_, and a\ndegree of _life_: it was _some progress_ in victory over death, it was\n_some opening_ of divine light, an help to such kind of knowledge, as\ncould be had in such a state, as was only formed to support, and keep\nup a faith, and hope, and expectation of such a redemption to come, as\nhad been promised from the beginning of the world, but could have no\nopen manifestation, till its _own existence_ manifested itself.\u2015\u2015It is\ntherefore a gross mistaking the _whole nature_ of the law, to consider\nits types and figures as _designedly_ hiding any thing from man.\u2015\u2015Their\ndesign was quite the contrary, namely, to convey _new_ light and\n_farther_ information. And though they may be said to be a _shadowy_,\nand imperfect representation, yet its whole intent is, to give some\nknowledge of the substance; and by its signs to make the things to come\nmore expected, than they would have been without such types and figures.\n\nBishop _Warburton_, speaking of typical representation, saith, _it\nnecessarily implies the throwing a thing into shade_, or _secreting_\nit from _vulgar knowledge_.\n\nTypical representation, in the _law_, is not, cannot be the _throwing a\nthing into shade_, or _secreting_ it from _vulgar knowledge_. For this\nsupposes the thing typified to have been already _in existence_, or\nit could not be _thrown_ into shade. But this hath no place in the\nMosaic types and figures; they are not the putting any thing _already\nexistent_, under a cover, but are a _degree_ of light cast upon such a\nmatter, as had _never shewn_ itself, and which could therefore only be\ntypically pointed at, till it came into actual existence.\n\nAgain, that typical representation does not _necessarily imply, the\nthrowing a thing into shade, and secreting it from vulgar knowledge_,\nis plain from hence.\u2015\u2015Baptism, and bread and wine in the sacrament,\nare merely corporeal types and figures of spiritual things; but if it\nwas _necessarily essential_ to typical representation, _to throw things\ninto shade, and secrete them from vulgar knowledge_, it would follow,\nthat these two sacraments could have no other end, but to cast the\nspiritual things of the gospel into shade, and secrete them from vulgar\nknowledge. Type, figure, and human language, with regard to spiritual\nthings, have the same kind of imperfection, though not in the same\n_degree_; but yet teaching and informing, is the design of both of them.\n\nOf the Mosaic types therefore it may justly be affirmed, that they\nwere so far from _designedly_ hiding, or covering any truths from man,\nthat their whole intent was, to _uncover_, and make _less hidden_ such\nthings as at that time, could not be seen, or known as they were in\nthemselves.\u2015\u2015Nothing could possibly manifest the nature, power, and\nefficacy of Christ\u2019s process (the one thing typified) but its own\nreal nature, come into _actual existence in all its parts_.\u2015\u2015Therefore\nthrough every age of the world, from the first promise made to _Adam_,\nof _a seed of the woman to bruise the head of the serpent_, to that\ntime, all the religious goodness of mankind consisted in their _walking\nbefore God_ in an _implicit faith_ of a full redemption, made known\nto them under representation of a seed of the woman, overcoming the\nmischief that the serpent had done to them. And through this _faith\nalone_ it was, that all the holy men of old had their righteousness,\nand peace, and union with God. And _God was not ashamed to be called\ntheir God, inasmuch as having received the promises, and seen them afar\noff, and embraced them, they confessed they were strangers and pilgrims\non earth, desired a heavenly country, and through faith, looked for a\ncity whose builder and maker is God_.\n\nHence are the following great truths undeniably evident, (1.)\u00a0That\n_faith in Christ_, has always been, and always must be, the _only_\nground of salvation possible to man, in any age of the world. (2.)\u00a0That\n_this faith_ itself, and all its power and efficacy, has always, as\nfully proceeded from Christ alone, as the faith of those who believed\nin him, when come in the flesh. For as then Christ truly said of\nhimself, _without me ye can do nothing_, so it was equally true of the\nfirst promised seed of the woman, _that without it_, nothing good could\nhave been done by fallen man.\n\nTherefore, (3) the covenant of God with all mankind through Christ,\nis a living, operative covenant of life and immortality, not first\nbegun, or first made known, when Christ was on earth, and died for us,\nbut a covenant as antient as our first parents, as universal as their\noffspring. And what the apostle saith, that _God was in Christ Jesus\nreconciling the world unto himself_, tells us a truth and goodness of\nGod, that extends itself to every nation, people, and language, that\never hath been, or ever shall be upon the face of the earth.\n\n*\u00a0And as an implicit faith in a promised redemption was all the\nreligion of the old world; all that could be done by the infinite\nwisdom of God, was according to the fitness of times, seasons and\noccasions (only known to himself) to give forth such typical and\nprophetic intimations of this redemption, as should more and more\nconfirm their faith, and prepare them to see, that the whole process\nof Christ, when finished, was that very redemption first promised to\nall the world, in the promise made to the common Father of mankind,\nthrough succeeding ages kept constantly in view, by a train of types\nand prophecies.\n\n*\u00a0And as the history and ritual of _Moses_, could not possibly design\nto take away the knowledge of any divine truths from the people of\nGod, so least of all could they designedly hide from them a belief of\nthe natural immortality of the soul: a truth absolutely necessary and\nessential to any spiritual relation, or religious communion between God\nand man.\n\n*\u00a0And indeed, _Moses_, is as free from any such _design_, as the\napostles themselves.\n\n*\u00a0For to say, that the types of the law have designedly hid, from the\npeople of God, all sense of the immortality of the soul, is as false,\nas bold and extravagant, as to say the same thing of the gospel.\n\nFor in the New Testament, not a word is to be found, that expressly\naffirms the soul to be naturally immortal; in this respect the law and\nthe gospel are equally silent; and yet neither of them secrete, or hide\nit from the people of God, but both fully prove, and with the same kind\nof proof, the absolute necessity of believing it.\n\nFor as in the gospel it is never expressly asserted, and yet is fully\nproved, because unavoidably supposed, and necessarily implied in and\nby the open, and plain doctrines of the gospel: so it is with the books\nof _Moses_; they never expressly affirm the natural immortality of the\nsoul, and yet give one, and the same full proof of it, as the gospel\ndoth. Because the express doctrines of every dispensation of God, from\n_Adam_ to Christ, openly teach doctrines, which not by inference, but\nin the plain nature of the thing, unavoidably require, and necessarily\nimply, the immortality of the soul, and the common belief of it in all\nages of the church before the coming of Christ.\n\nThe obtaining an union with Christ, is the one life and immortality\nbrought to light by the gospel; but this immortality unavoidably\nrequires, and necessarily implies the perpetual duration of the soul\u2019s\nnatural life. For nothing but an ever-enduring creature, is capable of\nenjoying an everlasting gift.\n\nTherefore the gospel, tho\u2019 never once expressly asserting, yet\ncontinually demonstrates the natural immortality of the soul.\n\nAnd this is the whole truth, with regard to the _Mosaic_ history and\ntypes; they hide it, in the same manner as the gospel hides it, that is,\nnot at all; and they fully prove it in the same manner as the gospel\nproves it, by doctrines which necessarily require, and absolutely imply\nit, in the first conception of them.\n\nFor the history of the creation and the fall of man, contains an\nexpress covenant of a redemption, promised to _Adam_ and his fallen\nposterity, in which a seed of the woman should do away the evil which\nthe serpent had brought into the human nature, that is, should restore\nthe first, lost, heavenly life to mankind.\n\nBut this covenant, and the immediate benefit of it, could neither\nbe wanted nor received, but by immortal creatures, that believed\nthemselves to have an immortality, which had lost that glory and\nperfection which belonged to it at the first. Nor could such immortal\ncreatures have any power of entering into this covenant any other way,\nthan by an implicit faith in God. For it was a covenant of redemption,\nor return of their first glory, without the least intimation of the\ntime, or age, when, or the means, or manner how it was to be brought\nto pass. Therefore such a covenant, and such a faith, in the very\nfirst conception of them, without the least reasoning or deduction,\nabsolutely imply, and necessarily require a full belief of a future\nstate.\n\nAnd how could God better keep up a full sense of it, or more fix it\nin the hearts of men, than by placing and fixing all their faith and\ncomfort, in a redemption certainly to come upon all the world, which\nyet might not come, till half the world was dead?\n\nOr how could mankind possibly give into this faith, had they had the\nleast doubt of the certainty of a life to come? For their faith in such\nan expected redemption, could not be either more or less, than their\nfaith in a future state.\n\nTherefore God\u2019s requiring this faith of them, was in the highest\ndegree his requiring them to believe the ever-enduring life of their\nsouls. Consequently, in the first revelation of God to man, life and\nimmortality, as it means an ever-enduring state of the soul, was as\nfully, and in the same degree brought to light, as in the revelation of\nthe gospel.\n\nIn the gospel it is proved, because an immortality of a heavenly life\nis made known, purchased and given by Christ, which necessarily implies\nan immortal nature in man, or he could not partake of it.\n\nIn the first revelation, it is equally proved, because a _redemption\nto come_, that was to be obtained by an implicit faith, without any\nknowledge of the time when it was to appear, whether before or after\nmany generations of men were dead and gone, necessarily implies a full\nbelief of a state belonging to man, that is beyond time, and the death\nof the body.\n\nThis proof of the natural immortality of the soul, thus inseparable\nfrom the first revelation of God, is so strong, that nothing need,\nor hardly can be added to it. For how could God more fully assert\nthe immortality of our nature, than by requiring our faith in such a\nredemption? Or how could man more strongly declare his full belief of,\nsuch immortality, than by his faith in a redemption that had nothing to\ndo with time, or the life, or death of the body in this present world?\n\n_Again_, The murder, or martyrdom of _Abel_, and the translation of\n_Enoch_ into heaven, both recorded for the instruction of the people in\nthis very point, are two examples, and first fruits of the redemption\npromised to _Adam_, and all mankind; two invincible proofs, that\nthis first covenant was a covenant of life and immortality, confirmed\nto mankind by facts strong and convincing, like those of Christ\u2019s\nresurrection and ascension.\n\nFor immediately after a covenant of redemption was made, the first good\nman after it, in the very beginning of the world, and the beginning of\nhis own life, after his first act of divine worship, and as soon as God\nhad declared his good pleasure in it, was slaughtered like a beast.\n\nNow can there be a fuller demonstration, that the covenant of\nredemption was for life and immortality in a future state? Otherwise\nthe first good man in the world lost all the benefit of God\u2019s covenant,\nmerely because he was good; merely thro\u2019 the devotion that he shewed\ntowards God, and the favour which God shewed towards him.\n\nTherefore either _Abel_\u2019s blood cries aloud the absolute certainty of a\nfuture state, or _Abel_ must be said to have been undone, ruined, and\ndeprived of all good, purely because of a friendship discovered between\nGod and him.\n\nThis fact therefore, recorded by the Spirit of God assures all the\nMosaic generations, that another life belonged to _Abel_ and to them,\nbesides that which _Abel_ lost by his death. Does it not as directly,\ndeclare this, as when Christ said, his _kingdom was not of this world_?\nDoes it not say the same thing, as when Christ said to his disciples,\n_fear not them that can only kill the body_? The same thing, as the\nvoice from heaven, which cried, _blessed are the dead which die in the\nLord_?\n\n_Again_, Another proof of the same force, is the translation of _Enoch_.\nGod saith by _Moses_, _Enoch walked with God, and was not, for God\ntook him_. Now, could any the most expressive form of words, have told\nthe ancient world with more certainty than this fact does, that God\u2019s\ncovenant with man, was for a kingdom of heaven?\n\nOur blessed Lord, when departing out of this world, saith to his\ndisciples, _I go to prepare a place for you, that where I am, there ye\nmay be also_. And does not _Enoch_\u2019s translation say as much, as if he\nhad been sent again by God to say, _God has taken me from this world\ninto heaven, to make it manifest to you, that where I am gone, there\nare ye to come also_.\n\nBehold here the adorable goodness of God to the first and succeeding\nages of the world! These two great articles of faith, which are now\nthe comfort of the Christian world, namely, victory over death, and\nascension into heaven, had even then the utmost and most convincing\nproof given to them by God.\n\nThe old world, from the first man, were all in a covenant of\nredemption.\u2015\u2015Life and immortality was both by doctrine and example,\nmade known to them, and nothing remained as a mystery or wisdom hidden\nin God, to be revealed in the last times, but that one thing which\ncould not be manifested, till by its own actual existence it manifested\nitself, namely, the wonderful process of Christ in our fallen nature.\nBy which process alone it was that all the faith, as well before as\nafter Christ, had all its efficacy.\n\nHence it is, that the faith and religion of the first world was in\nsubstance, the very Christian faith and Christian religion, one and\nthe same way, and power of salvation; which oneness consists in this,\nthat _Christ, the same yesterday, to-day and for ever_, was the same\nmediator between God and man from the beginning of the world, one and\nthe same power of life and salvation to murdered _Abel_, as to martyred\n_Stephen_.\n\nThis faith from this original, was their peace with God thro\u2019 Jesus\nChrist, the very same faith of which Christ saith, _He that believeth\nin me shall never die_. The same faith of which he again saith, _If any\nman thirst, let him come unto me and drink; he that believeth in me,\nout of his belly shall flow rivers of living water_.\n\nThat this was the catholic, saving faith, common to all the\n\u2666patriarchal ages, we are assured by the Spirit of God in the epistles\nto the _Corinthians_ and _Hebrews_, telling in express words, \u201cThey did\nall eat the same spiritual meat, did all drink the same spiritual drink,\nfor they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock\nwas Christ.\u201d\n\n \u2666 \u201cpatriarchial\u201d replaced with \u201cpatriarchal\u201d\n\nAre we not told, that very same thing of the patriarchal generations,\nwhich Christ said to those that believed in him, that by eating his\nflesh, and drinking his blood, they have eternal life?\n\nIn the eleventh chapter of the epistle to the _Hebrews_, the same\nspirit, speaking of the patriarchal ages, saith, \u201cAll these died in\nfaith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off,\nand were perswaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed they were\nstrangers and pilgrims on earth,\u2015\u2015who desired a better country, that is,\nan heavenly.\u201d\n\nBishop _Warburton_ is so out of humour with this whole chapter, thus\nfull of patriarchal light and glory, that he gives it the heathenish\nname of the _Palladium of the cause_, which he had undertaken to\ndemolish. And he accordingly attacks it with a number of critical\ninventions, that may as truly be called heathenish; for they are in\ndirect opposition to all Christian theology.\n\nHe will have it, that the faith set forth in this whole chapter, is\nconcerning a faith in the abstract, and not a specific faith in the\nMessiah. An invention as little grounded in the gospel, as goodness\nin the abstract, in opposition to specific goodness. Goodness in the\nabstract, if it hath any meaning, is all goodness, and therefore must\nhave every species of goodness in it; so faith in the abstract, if it\nhath any meaning, is all faith, and therefore must have every species\nof faith in it.\n\nHis first reason, why this whole chapter is concerning a faith in the\nabstract, and not a faith in the Messiah, is taken from that definition\nof faith; \u201cThe substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things\nnot seen.\u201d\n\nAnd yet this very definition, if it had been intended to give the most\ndistinct idea of the nature of faith in the Messiah, could not have\nbeen better expressed, for there is every thing in it that can fully\nset forth that very faith. For if faith in a Messiah to come, must\nbe a faith in things hoped for, and a reliance upon the certainty of\nthings not seen; if this, and nothing but this, can be a true faith in\na Messiah to come, how could it be more directly pointed at, than by\nmaking it to be _the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of\nthings not seen_?\n\nFor in this definition, not only the true object, but the true efficacy\nof faith in the Messiah is set forth, in that it is made to be such a\nreal foretaste, and participation of things hoped for, and not seen, as\nis justly called, the very substance and evidence of them.\n\n_Again_, the Doctor appeals to the following words, as proof, that the\nfaith described in this chapter, is not a faith in the Messiah, \u201cHe\nthat cometh to God, must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder\nof all those that diligently seek him.\u201d Which words contain neither\nmore nor less, than if it had been said, \u201cHe that cometh to God, must\nbelieve that he is a fulfiller of his promises to all those that truly\nbelieve in him, and them: for God cannot be considered as a rewarder of\nmankind, in any other sense, than as he is a fulfiller of his promises\nmade to mankind in the covenant of a Messiah.\u201d For God could not give,\nnor man receive any rewards or blessings, but in and through the one\nMediator. Therefore to believe in God, as a rewarder, and blesser, is\nthe very truth, and reality of a right faith in the Messiah.\n\nThe Doctor has another proof, which he says, puts the matter out of all\ndoubt. In this chapter it is said, By faith _Rahab_ the harlot escaped,\nby faith the _Israelites_ passed through the red sea, by faith the\nwalls of _Jericho_ fell down. \u201cBut was any of this, a faith in Jesus\nthe Messiah?\u201d\n\nNow not to rob this argumentation of any of its strength, it must be\nallowed to proceed thus.\n\n_Joshua_\u2019s faith could not be in the Messiah, or the promises of God\nmade to his forefathers. But why so? Because by his faith the walls of\n_Jericho_ fell down.\n\nJust as theologically argued, as if it had been said, _Abel_\u2019s faith\ncould not be a faith in the seed of the woman, promised to his parents;\nbecause by his faith \u201che offered unto God a more acceptable sacrifice\nthan _Cain_.\u201d\n\n_Enoch_\u2019s faith could not be in a Messiah to come, because by his faith\nhe was taken up to God.\n\n_Abraham_\u2019s faith could not be in the Messiah, because by his faith,\n\u201cHe sojourned in a strange country, chose to dwell in tents, and looked\nfor a city that hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.\u201d\nHis faith could not be in a Messiah to come, because by his _faith he\noffered up_ Isaac, _his only begotten son_.\n\nHaving set the Doctor\u2019s argument in its best light, no more need be\nsaid about the worth of it.\n\nAt last comes his invincible argument, which if it was as strong, as he\ngives out, all that went before might have been spared.\n\n\u201cTo evince it impossible, says the Doctor, that faith in the Messiah,\nshould be meant by the faith in this chapter, the apostle expressly\nsaith, that all those, to whom he assigns this faith, had not received\nthe promises; therefore they could not have faith in that, which was\nnever proposed to their faith. For how should they believe on him, of\nwhom they had not heard?\u201d\n\nNow if this argument has any good logic in it, it must follow, that no\none, whether patriarch or prophet, before, or after the law, ever had,\nor could have faith in the Messiah, for all who died before the birth\nof Christ, must have died without receiving the promises, which were\nthen first received, when good old _Simeon_ could sing, \u201cLord, now\nlettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy\nsalvation.\u201d\n\nBut St. _Paul_, speaking to the _Jews_, saith, \u201cBehold, we declare unto\nyou glad tidings, how that the promise, which was made unto the fathers,\nGod hath fulfilled the same to us their children.\u201d\n\nHere, by the Spirit of God himself, is made known to us, the true\ndifference between receiving, and not receiving the promises. The\nfathers, who could only see them afar off, are those who died without\nreceiving the promises, that is, without receiving the things promised.\nAnd their children who lived to see the promises fulfilled, are they\nthat received the promises, that is, the things promised.\n\nFarther, the Spirit of God saith, \u201call these died in the faith, not\nhaving received the promises.\u201d\n\nBut how could they die in this faith? It was for this only reason,\nbecause they had not received the promises, that is, the things\npromised. For if they had, they could not have died in faith, but in\nthe enjoyment of things promised.\n\nThe Doctor therefore has unluckily pitched upon that, as an argument\nagainst the possibility of their faith in the Messiah, which is the\nvery reason, why they did die in the faith of him. For the holy Spirit\nsaith, they all died in the faith; and then the reason is added, why\nthey did, namely, because not having received the promises; therefore\ntheir not having received the promises, is the reason why they died in\nthe faith of them. And their faith had this foundation, because they\nhad seen the things promised, as afar off, that is, long after their\nown deaths, and therefore to be fulfilled, or made good in a future\nlife. Consequently, their faith was in a redemption to come in a life\nafter this; which surely may be affirmed to be a true faith in the\npromised Messiah, or in all that, which had been promised, from the\nfirst joyful notice, which God gave of him, _in a seed of the woman to\nbruise the head of the serpent_. Which in gospel language is called,\n_destroying the works of the devil_, and bringing all that to life\nagain, which died in _Adam_\u2019s transgression.\n\nIt is added of these holy men dying in the faith of promises _seen\nafar off_, that they were _perswaded of them, and embraced them, and\nconfessed they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth; now they that\nsay such things, plainly declare, that they seek a better country, that\nis, an heavenly_.\n\nWhat an extravagance is it therefore in the learned Doctor, to say,\n_How should they believe in him of whom they have not heard_; as in\nthe least degree applicable to those saints of the old world? For their\nfaith was in promises made to them, but not fulfilled before their\ndeaths, which they beholding as afar off, died in the fullest faith and\nexpectation of a blessed life and heavenly country in virtue of them.\nTherefore they believed in that, of which they had heard, they knew\nwhat it was that they believed, _namely_, a redemption from all the\nevil of their pilgrimage on earth, to a life in heaven.\n\nOur blessed Lord said to the _Jews, Your father_ Abraham _rejoiced to\nsee my day, and he saw it, and was glad_. Surely then _Abraham_ had\nfaith in the Messiah, and yet he is numbered by the apostle amongst\nthose, who died not having received the promises.\n\nBut now, though _Abraham_\u2019s rejoicing at the sight of that day, was a\nsufficient proof, that his faith was in the Messiah, yet the _implicit_\nfaith of the more antient, patriarchal world in _that_, which they had\nnot seen, as _Abraham_ had, was as _right_ a faith in the Messiah, as\n_Abraham_\u2019s was. This point is determined, in the following words of\nChrist. _Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed\nare they, which have not seen, and yet have believed._\n\nThis, and this alone, is the only real difference between the religion\nof the faithful before, and after Christ. _Before Christ_, the living\nfaith, was in a Messiah to come in some wonderful, but unknown way.\nBy this faith, they stood under the blessed power of the _seed of the\nwoman_, and from generation to generation were kept in the one true\ncovenant of life, and union with God.\n\n_After Christ_, the same living faith, rejoiced in a Messiah made known\nby a miraculous birth, in the fallen human nature, redeeming it out of\nevery evil of life, of death, of sin and hell, till it was placed, as\nGod and man in one person, at the right hand of God in heaven.\n\nNow when in process of time, the covenant of life between God and man,\nhad lost much of its effect, and the people of God had greatly fallen\naway from the faith and piety of the first patriarchs, (perhaps not\nmore remarkably than the Christian world is fallen from the truth and\nfaith of the apostolic ages) it pleased God by _Moses_, to introduce\nthe descendents of the patriarchs into a new _covenant of care, and\nprotection over them_.\n\nWhich covenant was not a _new progressive state_ of that first one\ntrue religion, that alone unites God and fallen man, nor given for\nits own sake, or because of any intrinsic goodness in its washings\nand purifications, but granted to the _hardness of their hearts_, as a\n_temporal means_ of keeping a fallen people from falling farther under\nthe blindness and vanity of their earthly minds.\n\nThe first covenant was so perfect that nothing could be added to it,\nbut the manifestations of that which was promised in it. It was a\npromise of life and redemption to mankind, to be fulfilled in and by\nthe seed of the woman. Now the promise, and the fulfilling of it, are\nnot (as in human matters) two _distant_, _separate_ things, that begin\nat different times, nor can the one ever be without the other. They\nboth began together, and must exist together. The end, that is, the\nfulfilling, grows out of the beginning, goes along with it, and has all\nits efficacy from it; and the beginning, that is, the promise, is only\nso much of the end.\n\nThat which Christ did, suffered, and obtained in our flesh, calling all\nto turn to God, to deny themselves, to enter into the strictest union\nwith him, giving all divine graces, and yet only _according to their\nfaith in him_; that very same, the seed of the woman from the beginning\nwas always doing, yet solely _according to their faith in it_.\n\n*\u00a0The loss of _this faith_ in the first ages of mankind, gave birth to\nthat which is called the _heathen_, or _rational_ world; for they both\nbegan together, and brought forth a race of people, full of blindness,\nwickedness, and idolatry. For so far as they departed from faith, so\nfar they fell from God, under the dominion and government of their\nreason, passions, and appetites. And thence began the kingdom of this\nworld, and the wisdom of this world, which ever must have full power\nover every man, as soon as he ceases to live by faith.\n\n*\u00a0_Reasoning_ instead of faith, brought about the first dreadful change\nin human nature, no less than a real death to God. And nothing but\nfaith instead of reasoning, can give any one fallen man power to become\nagain a son of God. Now to the end of the world, this will be the\nunalterable difference between faith in God, and reasoning about the\nthings of God: they can never change their place, or effects; that\nwhich they did to the first man, that they will do to the last.\n\n*\u00a0It _matters_ not, how much the _revelations_ and precepts of God are\nincreased, since the first single command given to _Adam_; for no more\nis offered to our reasoning faculty by the whole bible, than by that\nsingle precept. And the benefit of the whole bible is lost to us, as\nsoon as we reason about the nature and necessity of its commands, just\nas the benefit of that first precept was lost in the same way.\n\n_Hath God indeed said, ye shall not eat of every tree in the garden?_\nThis was the first essay, or beginning of reasoning with God. What it\nwas, and did then, that it will always be, and do. Its nature, and\nfruits will never be any other, to the end of the world. And though\nin these last ages, it hath passed through all schools of quibbling,\nand is arrived at its utmost height of art, and precision of argument,\nyet as to divine matters, it stands just where it stood, when it first\nlearnt that logic from the serpent, which improved the understanding\nof _Eve_. And at this day, it can see no deeper into the things of God;\ngive no better judgment about them, than _that_ conclusion it at first\nmade, that _death_ could not be in the tree which was _so good for food,\nso pleasant to behold, and to be desired for knowledge_.\n\nIn short, these two, faith and reasoning, have, and always will divide\nall mankind, from the beginning to the end of the world, into two sorts\nof men.\n\nThe faithful, thro\u2019 every age, are of the seed of the woman, the\nchildren of God, and heirs of redemption.\n\nThe reasoners are of the seed of the serpent, they are the Heathens\nthro\u2019 every age, and heirs of that confusion, which happened to the\nfirst builders of the tower of _Babel_.\n\n*\u00a0To live by faith, is to be in covenant with God; to live by reasoning,\nis to be in compact with ourselves, with our own vanity, and blindness.\n\n*\u00a0To live by faith, is to live with God in the spirit and power\nof prayer, in self-denial, in contempt of the world, in divine\nlove, in foretastes of the world to come, in humility, in patience,\nlong-suffering, obedience, resignation, absolute dependence upon God,\nwith all that is temporal and earthly under our feet.\n\n*\u00a0To live by reasoning, is to be a prey of the old serpent, eating dust\nwith him, groveling in the mire of all earthly passions, devoured with\npride, imbittered with envy, tools and dupes to ourselves, tossed up\nwith false hopes, cast down with vain fears, slaves to all the good and\nevil things of this world, to-day elated with learned praise, to-morrow\ndejected at the loss of it; yet jogging on year after year, defining\nwords and ideas, dissecting doctrines and opinions, setting all\narguments and all objections upon their best legs, sifting and refining\nall notions, conjectures, and criticisms, till death puts the same\nfull end to _all the wonders_ of the ideal fabric, that the cleansing\nbroom does to the wonders of the spider\u2019s web, so artfully spun at the\nexpence of its own vitals.\n\n*\u00a0This is the unalterable difference between a life of _faith_, and a\nlife of _reasoning_ in the things of God; the former is from God, works\nwith God, and therefore all things are possible to it; the latter is\nfrom the serpent, and therefore vain opinions, false judgments, errors\nand delusions are inseparable from it.\n\nEvery scholar, every disputer of this world, nay every man, has\nbeen where _Eve_ was, and has done what she did, when she sought for\n_wisdom_ that did _not come_ from God. All libraries are a full proof\nof the remaining power of the first sinful thirst after it: they\nare full of a knowledge that comes not from God, but from the first\nfoundation of subtlety that opened her eyes. For as there cannot be any\ngoodness in man, but so far as the divine goodness works in him, so\nthere cannot be any divine truth, or knowledge in man, but so far as\nGod\u2019s truth and knowledge works in him?\n\nIndeed nothing but the one Spirit of Christ, living and working in man,\nfrom the beginning to the end of the world, can possibly be the source\nof any goodness, holiness, or redemption of man.\n\nThe scriptures abound with proof of this. What can be more decisive\nthan the following words? _If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ,\nhe is none of his. If Christ be not in you, ye are reprobates._ And\nmust not this be equally true of every man in the world? As true of\nall men in the patriarchal as in the gospel ages? _If any man_, says\nthe apostle; therefore no regard is had to time or place, but where\nthere is _any man_, there this truth is affirmed of him by the apostle,\nthat unless he hath the Spirit of Christ he is none of his, but is\na reprobate. But if none can be Christ\u2019s, but because they have his\nSpirit living in them, and none can be God\u2019s, but because they are\nChrist\u2019s, it follows that if Christ was not the Spirit and power of\n_that_ first, universal covenant made by God with fallen _Adam_, if he\nwas not that which was meant by the _seed of the woman_, if his Spirit\nwas not from that time the real bruiser of the serpent\u2019s head, both\n_Adam_, and all his posterity, for much more than three thousand years\nlived and died mere reprobates, and that, by an unavoidable necessity,\nbecause they had not the Spirit of Christ living in them.\n\nAnd now, my Lord, I think I have sufficiently proved not only my\ntwo propositions, but also that the first covenant with _Adam_, by\nthe seed of the woman, was the one Christian means of salvation, so\nwonderfully manifested by the whole process of Christ revealed in the\ngospel. Therefore it is a truth of the utmost certainty, that from the\nbeginning of the world to the end of it, there never was, nor ever will\nbe any more, or any other, but one and the same true religion of the\ngospel, which began with _Adam_ and _Eve_ thro\u2019 Jesus Christ, the one\nmediator and reconciler of God to man, who was as certainly the life,\nstrength, and salvation of the faithful in the old world, as he was in\nafter-times, when the Son of the Virgin _Mary, the way, the truth, and\nthe life_, to all that have faith in him.\n\nAnd indeed a plurality of religions, or means of salvation, is as gross\nan imagination as a plurality of gods, and can subsist upon no other\nfoundation.\n\nA better religion necessarily supposes a better God, and a change\nin religion a change in that God that makes it. A partial God,\nwith-holding the _one true power_ of salvation, till the last ages\nof the world, is as atheistical as _Epicurus_\u2019s god.\n\nIn sundry times, and in divers manners, it may please the wisdom of God,\nto vary that which is only an outward help to the truth of religion;\nbut the inward spirit and truth of salvation, is as unvariable as God\nhimself.\n\nThe law therefore of _Moses_, as consisting of carnal ordinances,\nnot only _makes nothing perfect_, but brings nothing new into the one\ncovenant of redemption, but was only a temporary, provisional help,\n_added because of transgressions, till the promised seed should come_;\nthat is, till the whole process of Christ, should in its last and\nhighest degree of evidence manifest itself in all its parts.\n\n*\u00a0_This law_ then no more belonged to the _true religion_ of the\nOld Testament, than of the New, neither did it ever stand _between_\nthese two dispensations, as in their stead. No: it was merely on the\n_outside_ of both, had only a temporary relation to the true religion,\neither before or after Christ, but was no more a _part_, or _instead_\nof them _for a time_, than the hand that stands by the road, directing\nthe traveller, is itself a part of the road, or instead of it.\n\nNow, tho\u2019 the reason of man ought not to pretend to fathom all the\ndepths of divine wisdom, in the whole of this _additional covenant_,\nyet two ends of it are apparent.\n\n_First_, To bring this corrupted people of _Israel_ into a new state of\nsuch observances, as might preserve them from the gross superstitions\nand idolatries to which they were too much inclined. And this, by\na _ritual_ of such condescensions to their carnal minds, as might\nnevertheless be a school of restraints and discipline, full of such\npurifications, types, and figures, as gave much spiritual light\nand instruction, both backwards and forwards. Backwards, as truly\nsignificative of their fallen state, daily memorials of their lost\npurity and perfection: _forwards_, as variously pointing at _that\npromised_ victory over the serpent, which had been the constant faith\nand hope of their forefathers.\n\n_Secondly_, That by a theocracy added to this ritual, which shewed\nitself in a covenant of continual _care and protection_, openly\nblessing their obedience, and punishing their rebellion, and working\nall kinds of miracles in the overthrow of their enemies, not only they\nthemselves, but all the rest of the world, might be forced to see and\nknow, that there was no God, that had all power in heaven and on earth,\nbut the one God of _Israel_.\n\nAs to the _Israelites_ themselves, this temporal covenant was a great\ninstance of God\u2019s goodness towards them. For they were thus called out\nof idolatry, separated from the rest of the world, built into an holy\nchurch of God, put under a most amazing theocracy, indulged for a time\nwith a ritual of carnal institutions, because of the hardness of their\nhearts, which ritual was full of every instruction by doctrines, types,\nfigures and miracles, all shewing in the strongest manner, that they\nwere to be heirs of the heavenly promises made to their forefathers.\n\nAnd as to the rest of the world, no particular message or messenger,\ntho\u2019 new risen from the dead, proclaims to them in so powerful a manner,\nthe vanity of their idols, the knowledge of the one true God of all\nthe world, as this remarkable body of people set up in the midst of\nthe world did. So that the law, tho\u2019 nothing but a temporal covenant\nof _outward care and protection_, was not only most divinely contrived\nto preserve the faith of the first holy patriarchs, and guide them to\nthe time and manner of receiving the promises made to their fathers,\nbut it was all mercy to the rest of the world, being no less than\none continual, daily, miraculous call to them to receive blessing and\nprotection, life and salvation in the knowledge and worship of the one\ntrue God of heaven and earth.\n\nNow when the children of the patriarchs, were to be entered into this\nnew covenant, the utmost care was taken by the Spirit of God, that to\neyes that could see and ears that could hear, enough should be shewn\nand said, to prevent all _carnal atheism_ to temporal and outward\nthings, and bring forth a spiritual _Israel_, full of that faith and\npiety, in which their holy ancestors, as pilgrims on earth, had lived\nand died devoted to God, in hope of everlasting redemption.\n\nTo this end _Moses_, tho\u2019 bringing them under a ritual of bodily\nwashings and purifications, yet that they might use them only as\noutward confessions and memorials of an inward spiritual pollution, and\nas types and figures of their being to be delivered from it; is led by\nthe inspiration of God, not only to insert in the books of the law, the\nmost sublime doctrines and heavenly precepts of patriarchal holiness,\nbut to lay before them, for their daily instruction, a history of the\nmost deep and affecting truths: truths that had every thing in them\nfitted to awaken and keep up that strong hope of an eternal redemption,\nunder the power of which, the holy patriarchs had overlooked every\nthing in time for the sake of eternity.\n\nI mean, the most wonderful history of the creation and curse of this\nworld, of the high origin of man and his dreadful fall from it, his\nredemption and covenant of life restored in a seed of the woman, the\nlives and deaths of the holy patriarchs, their patience under all\nsufferings, their contempt of worldly advantages, their heavenly\nvisions, revelations and speeches from the invisible God, keeping them\nthereby in an holy intercourse with the _invisible world_, full of\nfaith and hope of the good things of eternity.\n\nTo mention one or two of those great doctrines of _Moses_, which set\nforth the original perfection and heavenly nature of man.\n\nGod said, _Let us make man in our own image and likeness_. Is not\nthis as high a doctrine of _immortality_, does it not give the same\ninstruction, raise the same hope, and call for all the same elevation\nof the heart to God, as when St. _John_ saith, _Beloved, it does not\nyet appear what we shall be; but we know that when he shall appear, we\nshall be LIKE him_? Just the same truth, and fitted to have the same\neffects, as when _Moses_ said, God made man in his own LIKENESS.\n\nSt. _Paul_ says, _God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto\nhimself_. A comfortable doctrine indeed, and full of hope of\nimmortality; yet only the same comfort and hope of immortality which\nhad been openly preached by _Moses_.\n\nWhen _Moses_ bringeth in the Deity, as saying, _The seed of the woman\nshall bruise the head of the serpent_; he preaches _that_ very same\ngospel, and in the same manner which the apostle did. For his words\nplainly teach, _that God was in the seed of the woman reconciling the\nworld unto himself_; as when St. _Paul_ says, _that God was in Christ\nreconciling the world to himself_; the difference is nothing else, but\nin two different names given to our Redeemer.\n\n*\u00a0Now tho\u2019 _Moses_ was the first _recorder_ of the gospel salvation\nin a written book, yet was he not the first _preacher_ of it. For it\nwas proclaimed in _Adam_\u2019s day, from heaven, as the birth of Christ in\nthe flesh, in the days of Herod. For when God said, _The seed of the\nwoman shall bruise the head of the serpent_, the same good tidings\nof salvation was _proclaimed from heaven_ by God himself, as when the\nangel said to the shepherds, _Unto you is born this day in the city of\nDavid, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord_.\n\n*\u00a0But how can we know this? Only by God\u2019s own teaching. For nothing can\nbe truly known of God by the creature, but that which God makes known\nof himself.\u2015\u2015So far as God operates in the creature, and manifests\nhimself in it, so far it truly knows, and _is taught of God_.\u2015\u2015Any\nother knowledge of God, however learned, high, or deep it may pretend\nto be, is as vain and spurious as _that goodness_ which proceeds from\nsomething else, than God\u2019s good Spirit living in us.\n\n*\u00a0Genius, parts and literature, however set forth with wit and rhetoric,\nhave no affinity with divine knowledge; they can no more give it, than\nthe lust of the eyes and the pride of life can generate humility and\npurity of heart. These accomplishments live and act in a sphere of\ntheir own, and have no more power of taking to themselves any living\nknowledge of God, than the art of painting to the life, can give the\npower of _creating_ life.\n\n*\u00a0The blindness, and follies which have over-run both the antient and\nmodern world in matters of religion, are a full proof of the capital\ndoctrine of divine revelation, _namely_, that man (now the defaced\nimage of God) is so miserably changed and fallen from his first created\nstate, that nothing less than a new birth, can bring him again into the\nregion of divine _truth_.\n\nAnd hence it is, that tho\u2019 religion has its deepest ground in the\nnature of man, tho\u2019 God be _essentially_, present in the souls of all\nmen, yet from the fall of _Adam_ to the end of the world, it will be\nan immutable truth, that _strait is the gate and narrow is the way that\nleadeth_ unto divine knowledge; and none but the simple of heart, _the\npoor in spirit_, or the real followers of Christ can find it.\n\n*\u00a0But it is time to have done. I shall only trouble your Lordship with\nthe few following remarks.\u2015\u2015Dr. _Warburton_ says, \u201cHe has proved that\nthe doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments is not to\nbe _found in_, nor did make a _part_ of the Mosaic dispensation.\u201d\u00b9 The\nMosaic dispensation means nothing else, but a _temporary_ ritual, and\na _temporary_ theocracy of worldly blessings and curses to support it.\nThese are its fixed bounds within which it is confined.\u2015\u2015Therefore,\nto prove that a state _beyond_ this world, was not to be _found in_,\nnor did make a _part_ of a state, that is confined to this world, is\nas easily and as vainly done, as to prove that the _garden of Eden_ is\nnot to be _found in_, nor makes a _part_ of a map that is confined to\n_England_. And to infer _that_ the _Israelites_ therefore had no notion\nof an immortality, because it was not a _part_ of their ritual, is no\nbetter than to infer, that the people of _England_ can have no notion\nof the garden of _Eden_, because nothing of it is to be seen in the\nmap of this island.\u2015\u2015But tho\u2019 not in the _ritual_, yet _Moses_ in other\nparts of his books written for the instruction of those to whom he\ngave the ritual, has given them the fullest notice and highest proof of\nthat _godlike_ and _immortal_ nature they received at their creation,\nshewing them to be the children of the _patriarchal covenant_, heirs\nof all the promises of eternal redemption made to their fathers from\nthe beginning of the world. Nay, the most heavenly doctrines and\nprecepts given by the apostles to the redeemed of Christ, as _heirs\nof immortality_, are to be found in the books of _Moses_.\n\n \u00b9 D. L. Vol.\u00a0II. page 474.\n\nDr. _Warburton_ takes much pains to get rid of the only true sense\nof the following texts of _Moses_. Thus, _Let us make man in our\nown image and likeness_. From these words, he says, _it is inferred,\nthat the soul is immaterial_. But he thinks _Moses intimated quite\nanother matter_. And so do I; for to intimate the _immateriality_ of\nthe soul, by saying, that man was made in the _image and likeness_ of\nGod, is quite short of the sense of the words: to say, that the soul\nis _immaterial_, is saying no more, than that it is not a _circle_\nor a piece of _clay_, it is saying nothing at all of it but only of\nsomething that it is not. Therefore _Moses_ cannot be supposed to\nintimate such a nothing as this, by the image and likeness of God.\nBut he asserts a much higher matter, namely, that being created in\nthe image of God, he was made a partaker of the divine nature, and\ntherefore had not only immortality, but the riches and perfections\nof the Deity grounded and growing up. And this is the true ground of\nour eternal happiness, that is, of that _eternal increase_ of union,\nperfection and glory, which the redeemed soul will find in God; it\nis because the image of God, being as a seed sown into it at its\n_creation_, it will to all eternity, after his admission into heaven,\nopen more and more its divine nature, and spring forth in new and\nfarther fruits of _glory_, _beatitude_ and _union_ with God.\n\nEvery thing that is endless, numberless in the depth of eternity,\nis endless and numberless in the silence of the soul; what _seeing_\nis, what _hearing_, _feeling_, &c. are in their boundless variety,\nand ever increasing newness of delights in eternity, these, with\nall their wonders, are the innate birthright and sure inheritance of\nevery immortal godly soul. And on the other hand, the same boundless,\nnumberless depth and growth of every tormenting, painful, frightful\nsensation, will open itself in every soul, _that_ has lost its God,\nand is left to its own immortal life within itself.\n\nVain therefore, is that principle published to the world, by a\ncelebrated philosopher of the last century, that the soul in its _first\ncreated state_, is a mere _rasa tabula_, or _blank paper_. A fiction,\nthat is contradicted by all that we know of every created thing in\nnature.\n\nFor every creature of this world, animate or inanimate, is in its\ndegree, a _microcosm_ of all the powers, that are in the great world,\nof which it is a part. And nothing through all this universe, has in\nits essence, only the nature of a _rasa tabula_, or blank paper, but\nis in its kind, full of the riches, and powers of all outward nature.\n\nIn like manner must it be with the eternal world; every thing which\ncomes from it, must be in its degree, a _microcosm_ of all the powers\nand glories of eternity.\n\nLet it be said, that the _matter of this world_, was in its first\ncreated state, free from all extension, solidity and parts, and this\nwould be as grave a saying, and as much founded in nature, as the _rasa\ntabula_ of the soul: say again, that by degrees it got a materiality of\nlength, breadth and parts, from _without_, and this would be no greater\na wonder, than that a soul, created inwardly destitute of any principle\nof knowledge, should from outward causes grow up into a profound\nphilosopher. _Again_, say that the soul was at first, but a _blank\npaper_, till the organs of the body began to act upon it; and may not\nthe enemies of religion, as justly say, that it must be the same blank\npaper again at the last, when the body shall be broken off from it?\n\nIf therefore the _Essay upon human understanding_ (which the Doctor\ncalls the most original book that ever was published) has produced\na metaphysicks, in many points dangerous to religion, and greatly\nserviceable to false, and superficial reasoning, it is not to be\nwondered at, since so eminent an error, is the fundamental principle\non which it proceeds.\n\nBut to return to the Doctor: he says, \u201cThe divine image and likeness\nmust consist in something that is peculiar to man,\u2015\u2015that the two things\n_peculiar_ to man, are his shape, and his reason; that it cannot be in\nhis shape, therefore it must be in his reason.\u201d\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 Page 554.\n\nThe divine image and likeness cannot consist in something that is\npeculiar to man. It might as well consist in his shape, as in his\nfaculty of making _syllogisms_; but on the contrary, it must consist in\nthat, and only that, which is, peculiar to God. Nor could man possibly\nbe created in the image and likeness of God, unless something peculiar\nto God, had been the divine glory and perfection of his creaturely life.\nFor the creaturely life, and all that is peculiar to it, is at the\nutmost distance from God, and can only have a likeness to that, which\nis to be found in creatures.\u2015\u2015God dwelling in a supernatural way in\nthe creature, is the only possible image of God that can be in it. The\nfallen angels have every thing _that_ was creaturely _left_ in them,\nbut they are horrible devils, because they have lost their supernatural\nimage of God, which dwelt in them at their creation. They have still\nreason, craft and subtlety; but because they have nothing, but what is\npeculiar to the creature, they are all rage, torment and misery.\n\nThe Doctor therefore, instead of appealing to two things in man, his\nshape and his reason, as his true distinction from beasts, should have\nsaid, by the authority of _Moses_, that only one thing was peculiar\nto man, as his glorious distinction both from fallen angels, and\nterrestrial animals, and _that_ one thing is, his being created in the\nimage and likeness of God. As to his outward shape, considered only as\ndifferent from other animals, there is but little distinction in it;\nbecause they are as different in shape from one another, as man is from\nthem all. And if man at his creation had had no higher a guest within\nhim, than his reason, his shape would have been little better, than\nthat of a fox, or a serpent. For reason, when not under the government\nof a higher principle, is that same craft, and cunning, _that_ is\nvisible in variety of beasts; and is for the most part, as earthly\nan instrument of mischievous passions, and lusts in man, as it is\nin beasts. And what is more, it must be so, till it comes under the\ngovernment of _that_, which was the _image and likeness_ of God, in\nthe first creation of man.\n\n*\u00a0What is the difference between reason in St. _Paul_, a _Spinosa_, a\n_Hobbes_, or a _Bolingbroke_? None at all, or no other than in their\noutward shape. Therefore if reason be the divine image and likeness\nof God in man, a _Hobbes_ and a _Bolingbroke_, had as much of it as\nSt. _Paul_. And a man that is all his life long reasoning himself into\natheism, and the wisdom of living according to his own lusts, must be\nallowed to give daily proof of his having the image and likeness of God,\nvery powerfully manifested in him.\n\nThe Doctor\u2019s great proof, that reason is the image and likeness of\nGod, is because _Moses_ immediately adds, _Let them rule over the fish\nof the sea, and over the fowls of heaven, and over the beasts of the\nearth_. \u201cFor what, says he, could invest man with this dominion _de\nfacto_, as well as _de jure_, but his reason?\u201d\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 D. L. page 554.\n\nOur blessed Lord, at leaving the world, saith, \u201cThese signs shall\nfollow them that believe; in my name, they shall cast out devils, they\nshall speak with new tongues, they shall take up serpents, and if they\ndrink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them.\u201d Now let it be asked,\n_what could invest the believers in Christ with this dominion_ de facto,\n_as well as_ de jure, _but their reason_? Both this question, and the\nsolution of it, is just as sound, and theological as the Doctor\u2019s.\n\nFor it was not any thing of their own, but solely the name, that is,\npower of Christ dwelling, and operating in them, that invested them\nwith the dominion over devils, serpents, diseases, and all outward\ndeadly, or hurtful things. Now _that_ which gave this power, to the\nbelievers in Christ, was _that very same_, which gave to the first\nperfect man, a _power of ruling_ over all the creatures of this world,\nand of living in full superiority and dominion over all that was, or\ncould be hurtful, and deadly, in fire, or water, heat or cold, or any\nelementary things. So _that Adam_ whilst standing in his first state of\nglory, and power, had the same reason to say of all _that_ he was, and\ndid, that which St. _Paul_ said, yet _not I, but Christ that liveth in\nme_.\n\nAnd how the Doctor came to think of any other power, as the _ability_\nof man to _rule_ over the creatures, is very strange, since the gospel\nhas so plainly told him, _that they only are the children of God, who\nare led by the Spirit of God_. If therefore the first man, created in\nthe image and likeness of God, may be supposed by his creation, to have\nbeen a child of God, then sure is it, that he had the _Spirit of God_,\nliving and working in him. And that surely may be allowed to have been\nhis _true_ and his only qualification, to have and exercise a dominion\nover the rest of the creation.\n\nThe Doctor, in order to find out _that_ image, and likeness of God\nin man, of which _Moses_ writes, looks into the constitution of that\n_two-legged_ animal, who is the _disputer of the world_. As likely to\nsucceed, as if in order to find out _that paradise_, of which _Moses_\nwrites, he should search for it in the _hundreds_ of _Essex_, or in the\n_wilds_ of _Kent_.\n\nFor _Moses_, to prevent the folly of looking for the divine image in\nany thing, that is _natural_ to the _present_ state of man, has given\nus assurance, that _this first_ man, created in the image of God, died\nthe very day that he did eat of the forbidden tree. And that nothing\nof this divine man remained but terrors within, and such a figure of\nhimself, as filled him with shame and confusion.\n\nAnd a greater than _Moses_ has told us, _that_ man, in his present\n_natural state_, is so dead to that first divine glory, that he has no\npossibility of entering into the kingdom of God till he is born again\nfrom above. This sufficiently shews _that_ he who will find out in what\nthe image of God in man consisted, must as the apostle saith, _walk by\nfaith and not by sight_.\n\nThe next text of _Moses_, which the Doctor miserably injures, is thus\nquoted by him, \u201cThe Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and\nbreathed into him the breath of life, and man became a living soul;\nthat is, say the objectors, had an immortal soul.\u201d\n\nWho the objectors are, I know not; but the truth of the text requires\nus to say, that therefore man had a divine and godlike soul, a true\noffspring of the divine nature. Because the breath or Spirit of\nthe holy triune God, was that breath by which he was made a living\nsoul.\u2015\u2015And therefore the riches of this first life in man, were the\nriches of the divine nature manifesting itself in the soul.\n\nBut the Doctor will have it, that only an unlearned _English_ reader,\ncan collect any thing to be divine in the soul, from the words\nof _Moses_, as not knowing that what is translated a living soul,\nsignifies, in the original, only a living animal. But this, every\n_English_ reader may know to be a vain criticism; for no stress is laid\nupon the expression, a living soul, no more than if it had been said,\na living animal. But the full proof of the divine greatness of the\nhuman soul, lies solely in this, that the breath or spirit of the holy\nTrinity was breathed into it, and was that which made it to be a living\nsoul, and therefore the life that arose in it, was the life of God in\nthe soul.\n\nThe Doctor thus comments upon the words of the text. \u201cGod, the great\nplastic artist, is here represented, as making and shaping out a figure\nof earth and clay, which he afterwards animates or inspires with life.\nHe breathed into this statue the breath of life, and the lump of clay\nbecame a living creature.\u201d\n\nHad this elegant and most graphical description been only found in\nsome minor poet, or school declamation, it might have been overlooked;\nbut in a prose treatise of divinity, it ought not to pass uncensured.\nI know of nothing that can equal it, unless it be supposed that some\ningenious anthropomorphite, reading these words, _and the Lord God\ndid unto Adam and Eve make coats of skins, and cloathed them_; should\nthus describe the matter, \u201cHere, God, the great artist, is represented,\nas having the skins of beasts before him, and with his divine hands,\ncutting, shaping and joining them together in forms of garments, fitted\nto the size and distinction of the first man and his wife.\u201d\n\nI may defy any one to shew, that this comment does not pay as great\na regard to the _letter_, and do as much honour to the sense of this\nscripture, as the Doctor\u2019s doth to the other text.\n\nThe sacred text, _God formed man_ of the dust of _the ground, and\nbreathed into him the breath of life_, is a short and full declaration\nof a most important truth, namely, that man was brought into being,\n_in a twofold nature_, having the nature of this outward world, and the\nnature of heaven; the former signified by his being formed of the dust\nof the ground, the _latter_, by the breath of God breathed into him.\nTo be formed out of the dust of the ground, is the same thing, as if\nit had been said, that he was formed out of all the _riches_, _powers_,\nand _virtues_ that are in this whole visible world. For every property\nof nature is hidden in the earth. And man, so far as he was designed to\nbe a creature of this outward world, is therefore said to be formed out\nof the earth, because the earth is not only the treasure-house of all\nthat is in outward nature, but is the _mother_ of all the three other\nelements. And as all things of this world, whether animate or inanimate,\nare from the earth as their mother, so in the earth is there every\npower and blessing of life, to sustain every thing _that_ has its body\nfrom it; as appears by that fruitful power, which is continually giving\nforth itself in all kinds of vegetable food, _fitted_ to the wants of\nevery living creature.\n\n*\u00a0What therefore can it be called, but a most deplorable blindness\nin learned reason, to consider man as making his first entrance into\nparadise in no _better a state than that of dust and clay_, formed into\na dead lumpish figure of a man, for this reason, because he was said to\nbe formed out of the dust of the ground? Blindness indeed! when it is\nso evident, _that_ even now, after the curse is in the earth, yet every\nthing, even the poorest _weed_ that comes out of the dust of the ground,\nis in a much higher state, and enters into this world with a degree of\nlife from its mother _the_ earth.\u2015\u2015Had the Doctor never seen, or heard\nof any other things formed out of the earth, but such as our potters,\nand dealers in clay can make out of it, there might have been some\nsort of excuse for his _Adam_ of dead clay formed out of the earth. But\nwhen every day of his life has shewn him that almost infinite variety,\npowers, virtues and wonders in the kingdom of vegetables, all coming\nout of the earth, and nourished by it; when the scripture has told him\n_that_ the beasts and cattle of all kinds were formed out of the earth,\nand their flesh and blood from it, and their daily sustenance from\nits fruitful womb: it is strange to a degree of astonishment, that he\nshould hold, _that_ out of this _rich_ earth, when in its paradisical\nstate, when man, the glory of the creation, was formed out of it, and\nGod the former, nothing would come forth, but a dead lump of clay in\nthe figure of a man.\n\n_Again_, What a total disregard has the Doctor here shewn to the very\nletter of scripture? The text saith, _God formed man out of the dust\nof the ground_, nothing else is ascribed to God, as his work in this\nmatter; but the Doctor adds quite another matter as the work of God,\nnamely, shaping and forming lumpish clay into a dead figure of a man.\n\nAnd then follows another fiction equally against the letter of\nscripture. For he says, that AFTERWARDS, God, breathed life into it.\nBut in the scripture account, there is not a syllable of any first,\nor afterwards.\u2015\u2015Two things are spoken of the birth of man, and as they\ncannot be spoken both at once, so one must come after the other in the\nrelation of them. The scripture mentions them as two distinct things;\nand the reason of mentioning them thus distinctly, is not to teach us,\nthey were done at two different times, the one first, and the other\nafterwards, but to give us the assurance, that man came into the world\nin a twofold nature, the one from the heavenly breath of God, and the\nother from this visible world.\n\nBut the union of these two natures in the formation of man, was owing\nto one, and the same operation of God.\u2015\u2015There is no sooner, or later,\nin the beginning of the soul, and of the body: the beginning of one, is\nthe beginning of the other.\n\nTo suppose that man was made a dead image, and afterwards had life\nbreathed into it, is no better philosophy, than to suppose, that God\nfirst created the vegetable creature, and afterwards added a vegetable\nlife to it; that he first created the globe of the sun, and afterwards\nadded heat and light to it.\n\n_God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature._ What a folly\nto suppose, that the creature, and its life, are two separate things,\nthat the one came first, and the other afterwards? No better, than\nsupposing, that a circle and its roundness, are two separate things,\nthat first comes forth the figure, and afterwards its roundness.\n\nBut the general design of the D.\u00a0L. is to establish this most horrible\ndoctrine, that _Moses_ designedly and industriously secreted from God\u2019s\nchosen people, all thought of any eternal relation that they had with\nGod; which is the same as saying, that he designedly suppressed the one\nonly possible foundation of true religion. For the immortality of the\nhuman nature, is the only ground of homage and regard to an invisible\nand eternal God. And unless man was by nature essentially related to\nGod, and the eternal world, it would have been as unreasonable for the\nGod of the eternal world to call man to an heavenly adoration of him,\nas to bid earthly flesh and blood _be_, and _do_ that which angels are,\nand do in heaven. Therefore the first notice from an eternal God, given\nto man of a religious homage due to him, and the bare capacity of man\nto embrace such notice, is the greatest proofs that man has something\nof the eternal God in him. For as nothing can hunger, but that which by\nnature both wants and has a capacity to eat; so nothing can receive a\nreligion relating to the eternal God, but that which has within itself,\nboth a want and capacity to partake of the eternal world. And had not\nman an eternal spirit in him, as an offspring of the eternal God, he\ncould no more want to have any intercourse with the eternal world, than\na fish can want to be out of the water. Nor could any taught adoration\nof the one eternal God enter any further into his heart, or be of more\nuse to him, than so much religion taught to a parrot. For man being,\nor believing himself to be, as merely a creature of this world, as the\nparrot is, could no more regard any thing, but what his earthly nature\nhas a fondness for, than the parrot doth. _Let us eat and drink for\nto-morrow we die_, would be the highest and truest philosophy, if there\nis no more of a divine life, or heavenly nature in man, than in the\nchattering sparrow. In this case, worldly craft, whether in a fox or\na man, is the highest use of its natural powers. For if the earthly\nlife is equally _the all_ of both, earthly wisdom must be _equally_ the\nperfection of them both. For it can no more be the duty of an earthly\ncreature to be heavenly minded, than of a celestial creature to be\ncarnally minded.\n\nIf therefore the _Israelites_ under _Moses_, were by him directed to\nconsider themselves merely as creatures of this world, having nothing\nto enjoy, or hope for, but the good things of this life, it must be\nsaid he did all that well could be done, to make them an _earthly_,\n_covetous_, _rapacious_, _stiff-necked_ and _brutal_ people. And all\nthe complaints which the prophets have brought against them, on that\naccount, ought to have been made only against _Moses_ himself, and\nthe religion that was set up by him. For a religion only offering, and\nwholly confining people to earthly enjoyments, may surely be said, not\nonly to make, but even require them to be wholly sensual and earthly\nminded. And every hearty believer of such a religion, is by his very\nfaith called upon, to make the most that he can, of the _lust of the\nflesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life_.\n\n*\u00a0_Moses_ saith, \u201cHear, _O Israel_, the Lord our God is one Lord;\nand thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all\nthy soul, and with all thy strength.\u201d Now these _Israelites_ looking\nbackwards to God\u2019s covenant of redemption, made with their forefathers,\nof which they were the undoubted heirs; and forwards to this new\ncovenant of a new theocracy, added, as God\u2019s peculiar mercy to them\nin this life, to keep them to himself, to support them under their\nafflictions, and to arm them with patience in waiting for that eternal\nredemption, in the faith of which, their ancestors had died so full\nof joy and comfort: in this double view of their state under God,\nwhich _Moses_ had so fully set before _them_, and with the strongest\ninjunctions to be daily teaching them to their children, they had the\nhighest reason to rejoice in God, and to love him with all their heart\nand soul and strength.\n\nBut to suppose that _Moses_, designedly secreting from them, the\nknowledge of that eternal relation they had to God, on which the hopes\nof their forefathers were founded, and on which he himself was made\nable to chuse the afflictions of Christ, has something very shocking\nin it. For if _Moses_ was so good a man, because he had faith in the\neternal redemption promised from the beginning, can there be more\ncruelty, than in supposing him, designing by his religious system,\nwholly to obliterate all thought and remembrance of God\u2019s unchangeable\ncovenant of life, and extinguish all sense and hope of a redemption to\ncome? To what purpose is it to say to such a people, shut up in earthly\nhopes, \u201cThou shalt love the one God of heaven with all thy heart?\u201d For\nif he had succeeded in his design, fixed them in the belief, that they\nhad no treasure but in this world, we have Christ\u2019s word for it, that\nthe affections of their hearts could go no where else, saying, as an\neternal truth, _that where our treasure is, there must be the heart\nalso_. So that in this case, no love of God, and therefore no other\ndivine virtue, could have any place in those who conformed to the\ndesign of _Moses_.\n\nThe Doctor, with some indignation, tries to evade this unavoidable\nconsequence. \u201cThe true foundation of morality is the will of God. But\nis not the distinction between right and wrong, perpetually enforced\nby the law of _Moses_ on this principle? This then is the spring of all\nvirtue, and to give it the greatest efficacy, the love and fear of God\nis there incessantly inculcated. But how does a long or short existence,\na life here, or elsewhere, affect at all the practice of virtue so\nfounded?\u201d\u00b9\n\n \u00b9 _D. L._ page 587.\n\nAll this is quite beside the point, and leaves the _Jews_ under the\nsame incapacity of every divine virtue, as has been above asserted. For\na short or long existence, is here never thought of, as a reason, why\nwe should, or should not be morally good. For duration, considered in\nitself, whether short or long, is only a natural consequence of _that\nkind_ of life, which the creature hath. For, such as is its _internal_\nnature, such is the good, and evil _that_ belongs to it, without any\nregard to its longer or shorter duration.\n\nNow it is the internal nature of man, not considered as short, but as\nwholly earthly, and created for only _earthly goods_, _that_ is the\nreason, why such a kind of life is incapable of any divine virtue,\nand cannot possibly have any other love, affections or tempers, but\nsuch as are confined to this world: and also, why every kind of envy,\ngreediness, craft, and contrivance how to get the most of every earthly\nthing, must govern every man, that has only the earthly nature in him,\nas unavoidably, as they govern birds, and beasts. And to tell such a\npeople of a goodness, to which their earthly nature does not lead them,\nas it leads every other animal to _that_ which it likes, is as vain, as\nto preach to the sparks, not to fly upwards. Nor can a nature, wholly\nearthly, any more sin by coveting only earthly things, than the _lion_\nsins, by having all his heart set upon his prey.\n\nBut the Doctor has a maxim, by which he proves, that the _Jews_, though\nwholly confined to earthly hopes, and enjoyments, yet might and ought\nto have been heavenly minded, _namely_, because _the true foundation\nof morality, is the will of God_. And yet this very maxim is itself\na sufficient proof, than an earthly people, created only for earthly\ngoods, are by the very will of God, directed to be earthly minded. For\nthe will of God, in every creature, is manifested by _that kind_ of\nnature, which it hath only from God. Therefore earthly creatures, by\nbeing earthly minded, pay as full obedience to the will of God, as pure\nheavenly spirits by their being heavenly minded. Therefore if man is\nonly an animal of this world, by the will of God, distinguished only\nfrom other creatures, by superior skill, subtlety, and contrivances,\n(as they are from one another) he neither is, nor can be, under any\nother law, relating to his good and evil, but that which is the law of\nall other animals, that have all their good and evil from this world.\nAnd as it is as good in the wolf, to be ravening, as in the lamb to\nbe harmless, because they both follow their created nature; so if man\nis as merely a creature of this world, as they are, when he, by his\nsuperior subtlety, in order to make the most of his worldly life,\neither feigns the innocence of the lamb, or puts on the ravening wolf,\nhe follows his nature, as they do theirs, and is just as good and as\nbad as they are. And to tell such a man of the beauty of holiness, or\ncall him to the denial of his own will, for this reason, because the\ntrue foundation of virtue, is the will of God, would be to as much\npurpose, as if you was only to require him never to sleep any more,\nbecause holy angels never sleep in heaven. For what can a creature that\ncan have no good, all its life, but that which is like the good of milk\nand honey, have to do with any divine virtue?\u2015\u2015If therefore _Moses_\ndesignedly, fixed the _Israelites_ in a belief, that they had no good\nto hope for, but that which flesh and blood could find in earthly\nthings, they were by him taken out of the sphere of every virtue, that\ncan be called godly or divine, and could have no fear of God, but like\nthat, which they might have towards him, or the giants, nor any love of\nGod, but that which they had to their bellies.\n\nFarther, that the Doctor has not entered into any right conception\nof the subject, he is upon, is plain from his asking, \u201cBut how does a\nshort or long existence, a life here, or elsewhere, at all affect the\npractice of virtue so founded?\u201d\u2015\u2015It just so much affects it, as place,\nor space affects the existence of bodies. They are not brought forth by\nplace or space, but they could have no existence but in place or space.\nAnd thus it is, that duration affects the practice of all divine virtue,\nit could have no possibility of existence, but in a nature incapable\nof dying.\u2015\u2015Corruptibility, and divine goodness, are as impossible to\nbe united, as life and death.\u2015\u2015Death may as well exert the functions of\nlife, as a mortal creature breathe heavenly tempers and affections. For\nthough the duration of the creature is not the ground, or reason of any\ndivine virtue, yet no creature can be capable of it, but that, which by\nthe divinity of its birth, is born immortal.\n\nWhat an inconsistency, to say of a creature of a short existence,\nor whose life is vanishing away, that its true father is in heaven,\nand that it ought therefore \u201cto be perfect as its heavenly Father\nis perfect?\u201d Can that which is daily tending to non-existence, be\ndaily growing up in the perfection of God, or that which is always\napproaching towards death, be a child of the ever-living God? As well\nmight it be said of the mushroom, that it has the angels in heaven for\nits brethren, as of man, beginning to exist to-day, and ending his\nexistence to-morrow, that he is a child of his everlasting Father in\nheaven.\n\nThere are some other egregious errors which I intended to have remarked,\nbut I am already got beyond the proper bounds of a letter.\u2015\u2015But holy\n_David_\u2019s case, I cannot but mention, as sufficient to have deterred\nthe Doctor from an hypothesis, which has obliged him to place this\nsweet finger of _Israel_ amongst those, who had not the least thought\nof any eternal relation to God. This holy _David_, the type of Christ,\n\u201cwho knew that God had sworn with an oath, that out of the fruit of\nhis loins, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne:\u201d this great\nprophet, who foretold the resurrection of Christ, _that his soul was\nnot left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption_; this _David_,\nthus deep in the counsels of God, and acquainted with the great article\nof the resurrection, this spiritual, typical, prophesying _David_, is,\nfor the sake of the Doctor\u2019s project, crowded amongst those, who were\nnot allowed to have any other relation to God, or any thing else to\nhope from him, or thank him for, but the blessings of a temporal life,\ntill death had put the same end, to all of _David_, as it did to those\nfew sheep, that he once kept. And what is still worse, the same _David_\nis made the most zealous preacher of the folly of fearing, or hoping\nfor any thing after death: and is appealed to by the Doctor, and his\nassistant, as giving the most full evidence against all happiness,\nbut that of this life, and represented in his divine transports, as\nsetting forth the wisdom of believing that the life of man ends like\nthat of rotten sheep, in a death _that_ brings him into the dark land\nof forgetfulness; singing gloriously, \u201cthe dead praise not the Lord,\nneither any that go down into silence. In death there is no remembrance\nof thee: in the grave, who shall give thee thanks?\u201d\n\nThus it is, that _David_, by these gentlemen is made a preacher against\na future state; not considering that such infidelity would have been\nworse in _David_ than it possibly can be in any modern infidel. But\nthe truth is, the holy prophet in all passages of this kind, is only\ncalling upon God for the continuance and full manifestation of the\nblessings of _that_ temporal theocracy, which could only be given\nby God, or received by man whilst he was on this side death. And the\n_darkness_, _silence_, or _insensibility_ affirmed of death, has no\nrelation to a _total end_ of life and sensibility, but solely to an end\nof all _enjoyment_, of the blessings promised by the divine theocracy.\n_David_, as _son_ of _Abraham_, _Isaac_ and _Jacob_, had their faith\nand piety, and such his psalms are full of heavenly devotion, and\nflaming with divine love. But _David_, as a _son_ of the covenant\nmade with _Moses_, was also an heir of the temporal blessings of the\ntheocracy; and in this capacity, had a right to say, _Why do the wicked\nprosper? Wilt thou shew thy wonders in the grave?_ That is, canst thou\ngive thy promised temporal blessings, when death has taken away all\npossibility of receiving them?\n\nBut if it could be supposed, that _David_ by the foregoing expressions,\nmeant to give up the promises of eternal redemption made to all his\nforefathers, and called the world to look for no more but what they\ncould get in this vale of misery; what excuse can be made for the\nChristian church, which from first to last, has made such heathenish\nsongs a part of the gospel service? For in this case, these psalms may\nbe justly esteemed prophane, as having a more direct tendency to beget\nand fix infidelity in the hearts of men, than the hymns of the Heathen\npoets.\n\nI must yet add a word, upon the Doctor\u2019s most theological account of\nman\u2019s first ability to speak articulate words.\n\n\u201cIn judging, says he, only from the _nature of things_, one should be\napt to embrace the opinion of _Diodorus Siculus_, that first the men\nlived for some time in woods and caves, after the manner of beasts,\nuttering only _confused sounds_.\u201d\u00b9 And yet it is hardly possible for a\nman to make a judgment more contrary to the nature of things. For does\nnot the nature of almost all animals, beasts and birds shew us, that\nthey have a natural untaught language, not consisting of _confused\nsounds_, but distinct by an articulate difference and intelligible to\nevery one of the same species? If therefore the nature of things will\nallow us to suppose, that man was created as perfect in his kind as\nthe animals were in theirs, then it will oblige us to affirm, that the\nfirst of mankind had from nature, an untaught language, as suitable to\nthe ends of their creation, as distinct and intelligible to themselves,\nas that of birds or beasts is to them in their several kinds. Now\nit must not be said that the Doctor has adopted the whole opinion of\n_Diodorus_, tho\u2019 so highly (as he thinks) conformable to the nature of\nthings; for he has given up that of man\u2019s living _in woods and caves_,\nand has only chosen to stand by that which is much the worst part of\nit, namely, his natural inability to utter any thing _but confused\nsounds_.\u2015\u2015However, to make amends for all this poverty of speech, in\nwhich man was brought forth by God; the Doctor has a conjecture, how it\nsoon came to be better with him. In scripture, says he, \u201cwe find that\nGod taught the first man religion, and can we think he would not at the\nsame time teach him language? Again, when God created man he made woman\nfor his companion, but the only means of enjoying that benefit was the\nuse of speech. Can we believe that he would leave them to get out of\nthe _forlorn condition of brutality_ as they could?\u201d\u00b2\u2015\u2015Shocking and\neven blasphemous words! For little short can it be of that, to say,\nthat man, created in the image and likeness of God, was created in\na _forlorn condition of brutality_? Can any infidel more despise and\nridicule all that is said both in the Old and New Testament, concerning\nman\u2019s creation, his high birth and destination, his fall and redemption,\nthan is here done?\n\n \u00b9 D. L. Vol.\u00a0II. page\u00a081.\n\n \u00b2 D. L. ibid.\n\nIn the scripture we are told, that man in the first, perfect state of\nhis creation, came forth a living image and likeness of the all-perfect\nGod; that he came forth in this exalted state of perfection, above\nall other animals of this world, in order to be a lord and ruler over\nthem. Can there be a more open ridicule made of all this, than to\nhold, that this first glorious image of God came forth in a _forlorn\nbrutal condition_, unable to utter any thing, but _confused sounds_?\nOr what can be more unbecoming a Christian Doctor, than to espouse\nsuch a paltry notion from the authority of a pagan _Greek_, in full\ncontradiction to all that _Moses_, Christ and his apostles have said\nof the first heavenly nature, divine birth and glorious prerogative of\nman? What a mockery is here made of the whole Christian system, which\nsupposes man to have fallen from such a high degree of heavenly union\nwith God, that nothing less than the birth of the Son of God in fallen\nman, could restore him to that perfection which he had at first? What a\nfolly to talk of the fall of man, if he came out of the hands of God in\na forlorn condition of brutality?\n\nBut the Doctor comes now to his full proof, that man had at first no\narticulate speech, and that he was actually taught it afterwards by God;\n\u201cGod brought every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air unto\n_Adam_, to see what he would call them.\u201d\n\nAnd yet, so unlucky is the Doctor, that no words can give a higher\nproof, that _Adam_ had not only an articulate speech, but in such a\ndegree of perfection, as none of his natural sons, not the whole tribe\nof linguists, critics, and grammarians, ever had, or can possibly\nhave. For if it could be supposed, that any man was a hundred times\nmore knowing than the Doctor is, in what he calls his _enigmatic_,\n_curiologic_, _hierogliphic_, _emblematic_, _symbolic_ profundities,\nyet if all the beasts of the field, and all the fowls of the air,\nwere to be brought before him to be distinguished from one another,\nby articulate sounds of his voice, even such a man would be as unequal\nto the task, as a _Tom Thumb_. And of all the absurdities, _that_ ever\nwere heard of, surely none can equal that, of supposing, that _Adam_\nhad not articulate speech, but had it to learn at a time, when he was\ncalled to the exercise of the highest perfection of language, namely,\nto distinguish such an infinite number of creatures, by different\narticulate sounds of his voice. It is like supposing, that a man whose\neyes had no natural power of distinguishing one thing from another,\nshould on that account, have all the creatures in the world, brought\nbefore him, that he might describe every difference in form, and figure,\nthat belonged to them.\n\nThe Doctor has by strength of genius, and great industry, amassed\ntogether no small heap of learned decisions of points, doctrines,\nas well Heathenish, as Christian, much the greatest part of which,\nthe Christian reader will find himself obliged to drive out of his\nthoughts, as soon as he can in good earnest say, _What must I do to be\nsaved?_\u2015\u2015This collection of decisions, he calls his _projected defence\nof Christianity_, which if it was such, Christianity must have been but\npoorly provided for its support by the four gospels. I shall make no\ndoubt of his intending, what he says by them. But a project in defence\nof Christianity, is not more promising, than a trap to catch humility.\nThe nature of things allows no more of the one, than of the other. To\nbe a defender of Christianity, is to be a defender of Christ, but none\ncan defend him in any other degree, than so far as he is his follower.\nTo be with Christ, is _to walk as he walked_, and he _that_ is not so\nwith him, is _against him_.\n\nThere are two ways of embracing Christianity, the one is as a _sinner_,\nthe other as a _scholar_; the former is the way taught by Christ\nand his apostles, the latter is the invention of men, fallen from\nthe Christian life under the power of natural reason, and verbal\nlearning.\u2015\u2015Now these two ways are not to be considered, as only the one\nbetter than the other, but in such a difference, as right and wrong,\ntrue and false, bear to one another. For there is no possibility of\ntaking one step in Christianity, but as a sinner, for it has no errand\nbut to the sinner, has no relief but for sin, and nothing can receive\nit, but the heart wounded, and wearied with the burden of its own\nsin. All the gospel is but a foreign tale, a dead letter to the most\nlogically learned man in the world, who does not feel in the depth of\nhis soul, that all the reasonableness, and excellency of gospel truth,\nlies in that fund of sin, impurity, and corrupt tempers, which are\ninseparable from him, till he is born again. And if the Doctor, in his\napplication to the Deists, had pressed home this affecting truth, which\nstands at the door of every man\u2019s heart, and is the only ground of\nChristian redemption, he had shewn a better care and concern for their\nsouls, and had done more to awaken them out of their infidelity, than\nby all that wit and satyr in his dedication of his book to them. For\nlike begets like; love and seriousness in the speaker, beget love\nand seriousness in the hearer; and he that has no earnestness towards\nunbelievers, but that of perswading them not to lose their share of the\nlove and mercy of God in Christ Jesus, towards helpless fallen men, can\nonly do it, in the spirit and language of that love and goodness, in\nwhose arms, he longs to see them embraced.\n\nBut as no man ever came to Christ, but because he was weary, and heavy\nladen with the burden of his own natural disorder, and wanted rest to\nhis soul, so nothing can help men to find the necessity of coming to\nChrist, but that which helps him to find and feel a misery of sin and\ncorruption, which in some, the care and pleasures of this life, and in\nothers the happiness of finding themselves wits, and polite scholars,\nnever suffered them to feel before.\n\nOur Lord\u2019s parable of the _prodigal_ son, contains the whole matter\nbetween God and fallen man. It relates nothing particular to this, or\nthat person, but sets forth the strict truth of every man\u2019s state, with\nregard to his heavenly Father. For every son of _Adam_ has every thing\nin him, that is said of that prodigal; he has lost his first state, is\nwandered as far from his heavenly Father and country, has abused and\nwasted his Father\u2019s blessings, and is that very poor swineherd, craving\nhusks in a land of famine, instead of living in the glory of his\nFather\u2019s family; and of every reader of that parable, it may be justly\nsaid, _Thou art the man_. And no son of _Adam_, do what he will, can\npossibly come out of the poverty, shame, and misery of his fallen state,\n\u2666till he finds and feels, and confesses from the bottom of his heart,\nall that which the penitent prodigal found, felt and confessed.\n\n \u2666 \u201ctell\u201d replaced with \u201ctill\u201d\n\nI should have had much uneasiness, my Lord, in exposing so many gross\nerrors both in the matter, and manner of the Doctor\u2019s books, did not\nmy heart bear me witness, that no want of good-will, or due respect\ntowards him, but solely a regard to that which ought only to be\nregarded, has directed my pen.\n\n\n The End of the SIXTH VOLUME.","title":"The works of the Rev. John Wesley, Vol. 06 (of 32)","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":86319}