MY dearest Theophilus, I. The en­trance into the Discourse the observation I have for some time made of the great change in your countenance, from that sprite­ful and chearful air I was wont with pleasure there to behold, to a melan­choly pensiveness and deep dejecti­on, hath made me not a little soli­citous concerning the cause: nor can I but entertain a great suspicion, that it is no ordinary Misfortune that hath made such an alteration in so well-composed, and excellently tempered a minde, as yours is.

I am much obliged to you, my best Friend, for the good opinion you have conceived of me; which must be imputed not in the least to mine own merit, but wholly to your goodness: for I assure you, my tem­per is as obnoxious to troublesome impressions as other mens, how se­date soever you are pleas'd to think it.

None doubtless may pre­tend, so well as your self, to under­stand it: but if it be so impressible as you say, I have known you far better able to hide your infirmity then I perceive you now are.

I say, Philalethes, no man can with less reason boast of Stoicism, then my self: but were my soul the most unconcerned of any mortals, and as free from all disturbing Passions, as is in this state possible; that discomposure of thoughts you read in my looks, you [Page 3] will not at all wonder at, when you have once understood the occasion. But I shall defer the satisfaction of your desire in acquainting you therewith, till I have informed you, that I have taken notice of as little serenity of late, in your aspect; as Critical as you are in observing mine: and have several times seen so thick a Cloud there, as made me conclude the distemper of my minde to be no whit greater than that of yours.

I see then that I am no less to seek in the Art of Dissembling then your self; and you shall pre­sently acknowledge, that of us two, I am the more open-breasted: for though you have kept me hitherto in suspence, and delayed to let me learn the ground of your trouble; you shall not wait one minute for the knowledge of the true cause of mine. It is not to be attributed, Theophilus, to any personal evil, or [Page 4] of a private concern; but to a very quick sense of the most deplorable State of this our Church. It pains me to the heart, when I consider to what a prodigious height, about matters of Religion, our feuds are grown; and how utterly averse the too many Sects and Parties we are crumbled into are, to entertain thoughts of peace and accommoda­tion. When I well weigh in my minde, what a rare Engine the Go­spel is, for the effecting the most hearty agreement and friendship a­mong men imaginable, (wherein, I perswade my self, it fails not of hap­pie success, where it is sincerely en­tertained) and then observe what a Make-bate it hath notwithstanding proved, among the generality of our professors of it; and occasions, through their own most wretched folly and naughtiness, the sharpest Contests, and most bitter and irre­concileable Enmities: I finde I have [Page 5] more than enough to do, to govern my self as I am sensible I ought, and to keep the inferiour faculties of my soul in subordination to its superi­our, as becomes a Man and Christi­an, in the resentment of it.

Had you not the ambi­tion, Philalethes, to be now before­hand with me in Friendship, and first to unbosome your self to me; you had by this time received the very same account of that Melancholy that in me you spyed.

Though I could never give credit to the Pythagorean Do­ctrine of the Transmigration of souls into divers bodies, yet I could be al­most tempted to fancie what is more strange, namely, that our two bodies are at once informed by one and the same soul.

This is not a thing so wonderful, as to incline me once to dream of such an Hypothesis, were it much less incredible than it is, to [Page 6] enable me to give an account of it: for though, sure enough, our souls are as distinct as other folks; yet they being conjoyned by the same prin­ciples and interest, I can much bet­ter understand how this you so ad­mire at should be, than how it came to pass, that Hippocrates his Twins laugh'd and cry'd, liv'd and dy'd to­gether. But, my good Philalethes, hath it not increased the disquiet of your minde, to think what usage some worthy Friends of ours (whom I know you have much heard of, though I suppose you are not so well acquainted with them as my self) meet with from our hot and contentious Christians? and how ill they are recompensed by the se­veral litigating and sharply-contest­ing Parties, for their industrious en­deavours to make peace between them?

Yes, Theophilus, that it hath; and to my great trouble I [Page 7] have often observed, that the Fierce men (as much at odds as they are a­mong themselvs) can too well agree in heaping Calumnies on these Gen­tlemen, and in giving them the worst of Characters: In which deal­ing of theirs with them, they have imitated that of the Heathens with some of the Primitive Christians; who first dressed them in Bears skins and then baited them. The world is not so depraved, nor do I think e­ver can be, as to reproach good men under that notion: that therefore these persons may be cryed down with the greater shew of zeal, and that it may be looked upon as the interest of Religion to cast an odi­um on them; II. The hate­ful chara­cter given by some to certain Friends of Theo­philus & Philale­thes. I have heard them re­presented as a Generation of people that have revived the abominable principles of the old Gnosticks; and that they are of those long since extirpated Hereticks the natural and genuine off-spring.

You say very right, for they are represented as such for all the world; we being told with much confidence, by those that think themselvs greatly affronted, if what­soever drops from their mouths be not received as a Sacred Oracle, that they are a company of men that are prepared for the embracing of any Religion, & to renounce or subscribe to any Doctrine, rather then incur the hazard of Persecution; and that they esteem him the onely Heretick that refuseth to be of that Religion the King or State professeth; or, at least, this the most dangerous Here­sie, that Suffering is to be preferred before Sinning. They are chara­cterized as people, whose onely Reli­gion it is to temporize, & transform themselves into any Shape for their Secular interests; and that judge no Doctrine so Saving, as that which obligeth to so complying and con­descending a humour, as to become [Page 9] all things to all men, that so by any means they may gain something: as I heard one once jear a most worthy person that is one of them, as he thought, no doubt, very wittily.

Have you not heard the Cholerick Gentlemen distinguish these persons, by a long Nick-name; which they have taught their tongues to pronounce as roundly, as if it were shorter then it is, by four or five syllables?

Yes, Philalethes, oftener, I presume, then you have: for though we are both Country-men, and wonted more then most to a so­litary life; yet my occasions call me abroad, and into variety of compa­nies, more frequently then yours do you: where I hear, ever and anon, the word of a foot and half long sounded out with a great grace; and that not onely at Fires and Tables, but sometimes from Pulpits too: nay, and it accompanied good store of [Page 10] other Bumbasts, and little Witti­cisms, in seasoning, not long since, the stately Oxonian Theatre.

I am not so little skill'd in the language of the Beast, as to be ignorant of the derivation of that Long name: but I pray, Theophilus, what do those that so please them­selvs with it mean by it?

That I can tell you from their own mouths: for I have heard them give a description of their La­titudinarian; and 'tis this short one, He is a Gentleman of a wide swal­low.

Very good! It seems then his Conscience is the Seat of his Latitude, and that this name in­cludes the forementioned Lovely Character.

It does so. And thus as we have seen children make an ugly picture upon a wall, & then spit at it; or dress up a Puppet, and then make sport with it: so those, whom one [Page 11] might expect should be better em­ployed, make a deformed and mis­shapen Beast, and then worry their own creature. But if to be highly charged be a sufficient evidence of Guilt, who can accuse the enemies of the Primitive Christians of bar­barity in their carriage towards them? For it is well known that the imputations they lay under, were no better then those of Atheism, the most beastly Incest, and bloudy Cruelty.

Nay, how can we then blame even our blessed Saviour's Judges, for pronouncing that Sentence they did against him, seeing the Crimes he was charged with, were of the foulest nature, and no less then Sor­cery, Treason and Blasphemy? But as confidently as these men are thus highly accused, and that by those that pretend to be of all others best affected to that Religion, that is no less peaceable than it is pure, and [Page 12] that engageth its professors not easi­ly to think, as well as not to speak ill of any; the little knowledge that I have of them makes me conclude, that it is no hard matter to prove, that their Accusers, in being so, de­clare themselves to have the wide swallows they condemn their Bre­thren for; and that so wide, as glibly to down with Camels, as much as one sort of them may seem to strain at Gnats.

You say well; III. An Argu­ment of their be­ing greatly abused in that Chara­cter. there is indeed no difficulty in proving it: For what unprejudiced person can easily perswade himself to judge so very hardly of these men, that con­siders, that there are not any that have better than they, (I had almost said, so well) demonstrated and im­proved that Principle, which is the Foundation of all Religion, viz. That Moral good and evil are not onely such, because God commands the one, and forbids the other; but [Page 13] because the things themselves are so essentially and unalterably. That there is an eternal Reason, why that which is good should be so and re­quired, and why that which is evil should be so and forbidden; which depends not so much on the divine will as the divine nature.

This is to me a demon­stration that they are most injuri­ously represented. I must confess, IV. That Chara­cter due to the broachers of Hob­bian Do­ctrine. had they broached such Doctrine as the Hobbists propagate, viz. That all Moral righteousness is founded in the law of the Civil Magistrate: That the holy Scriptures are obliging by vertue onely of a Civil Sanction: That whatsoever Magistrates com­mand, their Subjects are bound to submit to, notwithstanding contrary to Divine Moral laws: I say, had they published such Doctrine, I should then my self most freely sub­scribe to the worst that hath been said of them.

And so should I too; but those accursed Principles (for I can give them no better Epithet) were never more solidly confuted, V. But that doctrine by none better confuted then by these men. than by these men. Nay, they might have rendered themselvs too liable to the hardest Censures of men, more judi­cious and critical, than ingenuous and charitable; VI. That preaching some of their ad­versaries doctrines might render them too well de­serving that cha­racter in the judg­ment of over-cri­tical per­sons. had they preached those doctrines, that not a few of those very people that make the loudest out-cries against them have formerly, and I have cause to fear do still instruct their credulous disci­ples in: whom yet neither I nor they dare pass an hard sentence a­gainst, upon that account; because we hope, and believe also, that they do not discern the natural conse­quences of their Principles. But I for my own part must needs confess, that should I think as they profess to do in several points, I should be in no small danger of being, in their hateful sense, a man of Latitude. I [Page 15] shall onely instance in one of those Doctrines, that pass for currant a­mong many of these severe Censu­rers; viz. That which is opposite to that I said those persons have so rarely well demonstrated. You know that not a few of their Ad­versaries do make the will of God the onely measure of good and evil; and will by no means admit that di­stinction, Some things are good be­cause commanded, other things are commanded because good; and so on the contrary.

No, I know they will not. I was my self once told by a too hot Divine, that yet was in some things more sober than many of them, when I delivered that distin­ction, and expressed my approbation of it, that I spake blasphemy.

'Tis very likely; I have also, and that more than once, been shent with great gravity upon the very same account. However, Phi­lalethes, [Page 16] God forbid that we should so far imitate the weakness of the men we blame, as to say that hold­ing the forementioned Principle, they must all of them of necessity be of that Dutch Gentleman Zeglo­vius his minde, who hath impudent­ly told the world in Print, that God may please, out of the absolute So­veraignty of his will, to command all that wickedness he hath forbidden, and forbid all that holiness he hath commanded. Nor dare I say, or yet suspect, that they believe that we can have no assurance, that God will perform either his threatnings or promises; and that he doth not will to deceive his creatures in making the one and the other; which dece­ption, if he wills it, must needs be good: nor that when they say that God is of a holy nature, they mean no more, than that he cannot abide to be disobeyed; which is but a slen­der commendation: yet who seeth [Page 17] not, that will but give himself leave to think at all freely, that these are consequences inevitably following from that their Doctrine? which as I said, have the men they look upon as such Debauchies, divers of them most excellently discovered the fal­sity of; and most convincingly pro­ved the unchangeable natures, and eternal laws and differences of good and evil: and that it is the most hor­rid Contradiction to assert, that God can will that his creatures should not be just and righteous, good and holy; and, those of them that I know, take occasion frequently, to declare their abhorrence of that o­pinion, with all that are derived from it, or of kin to it. Now, Phi­lalethes, what can their designe, think you, be in thus doing? can they manage any other than that of convincing men of the indispensable obligation that lieth upon them, to love and prosecute all goodness, and [Page 18] to shun and abominate all sin? what other end can they serve by this means, besides rendering the Reli­gion of Christ Jesus most amiable, and effectual as to its great in­tent?

For my part, VII. Another Argu­ment that they are abu­sed. I am not able to imagine, how they can pro­pose to themselvs any other: And what you said last, brings to my re­membrance another Argument that will convince any candid person, that it is, at least, most highly pro­bable, that they are, in being repre­sented as was said, very unjustly dealt with, viz. That none have with more strength of reason de­monstrated, that the grand designe of the Gospel is to make men good: not to intoxicate their brains with notions, or furnish their heads with a systeme of opinions; but to reform mens lives, and purifie their natures: which noble principle together with the former, doth utterly overthrow [Page 19] that Latitudinarianism they are ac­cused of, as he must be blind, or shut his eyes, that doth not see it: And if it were well minded and impro­ved by our angry men, it would, no question, turn the edge of their zeal quite another way; and convince them, that there are too many things they lay a heavier stress upon, than they can ever bear.

This was excellently well observed of you; and as you say, if the designe of the Gospel were well understood, and as well considered by those men, they would think their precious time may be much more profitably spent, than in contending about meer speculations, or such practices as neither serve nor disserve that designe; and have no influence either into the bettering or depraving the souls of men.

But, Theophilus, I could be glad to know more distinctly than I do, how it comes to pass, that [Page 20] it is the ill fate of those our Friends, to have the worst character given them, by the Rigid men of all Per­swasions: what unluckie stars are they born under, that, of all others, they should meet with the worst usage, and foulest play; if they have given no occasion to those people to think and speak so ill of them; nor by any default of their own, have exposed and laid themselves o­pen to their censures?

I shall willingly gratifie you in this request; VIII. Theo­philus underta­keth im­partially to repre­sent them which I will do in giving you an impartial represen­tation of them; wherein by the way, as we pass along, you will clearly perceive, what you are alrea­dy, I know, inclined to believe; that some things, at least, not blame­worthy, and others very highly de­serving praise, have made them the objects of so much spite; and that 'tis occasioned by none but such things.

The account in general, that from men worthy to be credit­ed I have had of them, and particu­larly that they are persons of great Moderation, hath prepared me, were you a perfect stranger, not to que­stion your veracity, let the character be never so good you shall give of them.

I assure you, Philalethes, I am under no temptation, to tell you a tittle more than I know to be true concerning them: nor do I think it can be my interest to tell, at any time, a lye for God himself.

You might have reserved this, for one to whom you are less known, than you are to me; and therefore, I pray proceed: but if you please, I will make so bold as to set you your Method; and desire you first to give an account of their Practices, and then of their Opini­ons.

You may, if you will, [Page 22] call this freedom, which I acknow­ledge a great favour, but by no means boldness: And the Order you prescribe I shall as willingly proceed in, as if it had been mine own choice; but I will not promise you to keep my self over-exactly to it, and never to confound these two.

I do not expect you should.

Well then, Philalethes, IX. Of their Practi­ces. as to their Practices; the familiarity that divers of them have honoured me with, assures me, that there are none among whom more true good­ness is to be found, than is in them observable. Nor have their asper­sers, as I can learn, ever convicted any of them, as persons offensive in their behaviour either towards God or men: nor can I tell, that any of those that are most maligned, have been so much as accused of such actions in particular, as are plain and [Page 23] undoubted transgressions of the first or second Table.

I perceive you put an Emphasis upon undoubted; and that therefore they are charged with those things, that their Adversaries judge Transgressions of the one or the other Table.

The reason of that Em­phasis you have well guessed at; for they are accused of some such things as divers look upon as breaches of the first Table, and particularly of the second Commandment; which are by others esteemed not onely not so, but in certain cases to be so far from being prohibited, that they are their duty. In short, the grand fault that is found by some in their practice, X. Of their Confor­mity to the Eccle­siastical Laws. is their Conformity to the present Ecclesiastical Laws; which enjoyn some Rites in the Worship of God, which there is no express warrant from the Scriptures for. But whether this be well or ill [Page 24] done of them, I must not now stand to determine.

Nor will I desire you; it being a Controversie that will take up too much time; and besides, the driest and most unpleasant that ever I engaged in.

I have the same opinion of it; and therefore you shall not hire me to consent to the spending of any part of the time we have to­gether upon such an Argument. All that need be done now, will be to consider whether the persons we are discoursing of, can possibly be guilty of so great an offence in their Con­formity, as may not admit a charita­ble interpretation. XI. The un­reasona­bleness of censuring men upon the ac­count of their Con­formity. For none can think, except such as are grosly silly, that it is indisputable that the mat­ters now enjoyned are unlawful.

Those must be very ig­norant that so judge; when as men, as famous both for Learning and Pi­ety as the Church of England hath [Page 25] ever been blessed with, have both by their own Conformity declared their allowance of them, and also defended their Lawfulness, against those of a contrary perswasion.

Nay more than so, Phi­lalethes, you know that divers of the most eminent Protestant Di­vines of the best Reformed Chur­ches beyond the Seas, such as Cal­vin, Beza, Zanchy, and others, have declared their judgements for Con­formity to them; and some of them, their earnest desire, that the Mini­sters of this Church would comply with the will of their Governours in observing them, while they shall think it fit to impose them.

I am not ignorant of it: And me-thinks the Authority of those men, who were our great Champions in the Anti-Romane Cause, should be of no small ac­count with us all; but much less contemned by any of us.

Me-thinks it should not; there being this moreover to say for their being competent judges in the case, that they were not onely men of great Learning and Godli­ness, but also uninterested; and therefore under no Temptation of being byassed in their judgements in this particular. So that I say, It is a most reasonable postulatum, that Conformity to the present enjoyn­ed Rites, may be by those that op­pose it, acknowledged not to be so plainly, at least, condemned, but that very wise and good men may not see it so to be: and therefore may judge it not onely lawful to con­form, but also their duty so long as they persist in that opinion.

I think it a very clear case, that the Conformists Adversa­ries have sufficient reason to desire, and take kindly the same favourable thoughts of their Nonconformity; they well knowing how obnoxious [Page 27] it hath been to an ill construction, and hard censures: Nor can they be ignorant what a black and odious character is by some men given themselvs; wherein those have paid divers of them in their own coyn, and measured to them with the same measure, wherewith they have meted, to those our Friends we are speaking of, in an especial manner, and more than to any other Confor­mable persons.

What you say is most true; but yet I must tell you, that these friends of ours, (and I thank you for giving me this occasion) though, as you said, most provoked, are not in the number of those Warm Gentlemen of the other ex­treme; but, as I have often obser­ved, they express great candor to­wards them.

I am glad to hear it; and that they are so wise men, and good Christians, as not to return censures [Page 28] for censures, and evil for evil. Nor can I well conceive how any inge­nuously-minded person can admit so much as an hard thought of any, meerly upon the account of their not being of his minde, in matters that have been controverted, as these things have been, between men of confessedly-great worth and good­ness. I declare for my part, and I care not who knows it, that I love with my heart a sober and peaceably minded Nonconformist, as much Conformist as I am my self.

Gods blessing on your heart for that, Philalethes, and I also do freely declare the same, and that I think him never the worse man that is so, supposing I perceive him conscientious in other matters; and particularly that he is not of a cen­sorious, seditious, and tumultuous spirit; but yet such I would not hate neither, but pitie and pray for them. But now, do you not think [Page 29] it unaccountably strange, that those our Friends, upon the score of their Conformity, should not be so much censured as erroneous and mistaken as men of no conscience; as if it were as plainly prohibited as Mur­ther, Adultery, and the grossest sins?

I cannot think otherwise; but yet 'tis not more strange then it is true, as I my self also well know. For I happened but the other day upon a Book written by a Divine, that is of a Separated party, and looking into it, chanced to light up­on an opposition of the Conformists to the three children; and These be­ing commended for their Heroick resolution, rather to be thrown into the fiery furnace than to serve the Kings Gods, and worship the Image which he had set up; he next falls bewailing Those, in these words: How many in this hour of tempta­tion, are caught in this ensnaring [Page 30] tryal! What say some? Come, let us rather conform to the Ceremonies, than lose our Liberties; rather let us bow at the name of Iesus, than lose all for the sake of Iesus; it is better to baptize with the Cross, than to bear the cross; and to wear a Surplice, than to pinch our carcase. Thus ma­ny (it is to be feared) destroy their consciences to keep their places. And so he goes on talking after that rate. And though he qualifieth his Cen­sure with an [ it is to be feared] yet he plainly supposeth, that to use the Ceremonies of our Church is as un­questionably sinful, as to worship false Gods, and fall down to gra­ven images: and therefore, not with­standing that Parenthesis, he endea­vours to make his Readers conclude rather than fear, that Conformists destroy their Consciences, (that is, those of them that he thinks had e­ver any) to keep their Places. Nay, three or four lines after, as he doth [Page 31] also before, without mincing the mat­ter, he positively asserts as much, in these words: Alas poor souls, how are they fallen in the hour of tem­ptation!

You have, I perceive, a very happie memory: for I my self some days since met also with the same Book and passage; and I dare say, you have been so faithful as to quote it word for word. But whe­ther thus to judge be consistent with the ingenuity of a Christian; I leave to that Gentleman and his Brethren, in their cool bloud to con­sider. But I am sure if this be not a most manifest transgression of the law of Charity, it is no easie matter to transgress it. But let these men print or preach what they list, I am shrewdly tempted much to questi­on, whether they so much declare their own thoughts, as what they would have their people think; it being their great interest, that them­selvs [Page 32] should be reputed the onely men, that have not shipwrackt faith and a good conscience.

This sounds like such an uncharitable Censure, as you blame them for.

I expected that reply; but there is too good reason thus to fear: for I profess it cannot enter into my head, that those of them, that are men of competent Learning and Parts, should suffer their tongues and pens so to lash out, if there were not more of cunning than any thing else in it. For they must needs know as well as any body can tell them, let them make their Admirers believe what they will, that it is no easie matter to make it good, that the things upon the account of which they so asperse their Brethren, are against any Law of God: but yet the people must be born in hand, that they are so plainly sinful, that he must needs shut his eyes against [Page 33] the light, that is not convinc'd they are so: or rather, that all knowing men, can not but suspect them at least, so to be; but most have so lit­tle of their self-denial, and zeal for Gods honour, as rather to yield to them than lose their Livings, and ex­pose themselvs to sufferings.

You have sufficiently vin­dicated your self from uncharitable Censuring; for surely that cannot deserve so ill a name, which is groun­ded upon so good a reason as you have given.

And I thank you, my Friend, that you gave me this occa­sion of purging my self from so foul and unchristian a crime.

And you have done it, as I said, very satisfactorily: for Prudence, no question, is a neces­sary ingredient in every virtue; nor could I ever think blinde charity to be more truly so, than blinde zeal.

But to proceed where we brake off. Is it not greatly to be wondered at, Philalethes, that these men will not afford those that differ in their practice from them, in disputable matters, any more favou­rable Title, than that of people of prostituted Consciences; let them live never so exactly according to all the notices of Gods will clearly expressed in his Word? which, as I said, those Friends of ours are so far from living in contradiction to, that I hear of no clamours against them upon that account; which I am confident I should with both ears, if any thing of immorality did disco­ver it self in their conversations.

But now I think of it, don't you believe that there are those Conformable persons, that have given too good cause for such a severe Censure?

I don't think that any have done so, by their bare Confor­mity: [Page 35] but whereas there are those that in all our Changes, have been observed to be zealous still, for that which was most countenanced by the Authority that bare the sway; and have been taken notice of to leap out of one extreme into ano­ther; that is, from the hight of Fa­naticism to that of Conformity; these, I confess, may thank themselvs for the hard words that are heapt upon them; but they did not merit them, or gave occasion for them, by their meer Conforming: their former actings might have rendered their Honesty too liable to suspicion, though they had never Conformed; nor may their doing what is now enjoyned, considered as such, adde to the suspicion; but onely consi­dered as diametrically opposite to former actings. And now I have this occasion, I must tell you, that I know none of our Friends in the number of those, that have merited [Page 36] the opprobrious name of Turncoats. But under the late Usurpers, they did so behave themselvs, as that some of them were great Sufferers for his Majestie and the Church; and the rest of those I was acquain­ted with, though they were so pru­dent as to keep as much as they could out of harms way, and not to expose themselvs to needless suffer­ings, and such of which there could come no good; yet were they no less consciencious, and had a care to preserve themselvs unspotted from the guilt of the then wilde extrava­gances.

You have told me no more, than I have often before heard; but I am glad of its confirmation from your mouth. I pray pardon my oc­casioning so many digressions from the main business, and be pleased now again to return to it.

You shall not have my pardon, but thanks, for the digres­sions [Page 37] you have occasioned; they be­ing none of them, I think, imperti­nent. To go on then: XII. Of their Conver­sation. They are not onely not scandalous, but very lovely also in their behaviour, and greatly obliging. I never in any one sort of men observed so much of openheartedness and ingenuity, freedom, sociableness, and affabili­ty, as in these generally. They have nothing of that Crabbed austerity, foolish affectation, or sullen gravity that render too many of their Cen­surers to wise men not a little con­temptible. But as the Pharisees bare our Saviour a grudge, upon the account of his being contrary to their humour in this very particu­lar; so I have reason to believe, that by this means, these persons do not a little distaste divers of their Ad­versaries, because they look so un­like them, and condemn those their follies, by a quite contrary carriage. But with any Sarcastical smartness [Page 38] to perstringe those fooleries, which some of them have done, is looked on as an expression of a profane spi­rit: as if to dislike that which makes Religion ridiculous, were to be an enemy to Religion it self.

Nay, I have thought, that there is too much cause to suspect, that what they themselvs cannot but acknowledge very commendable in those our Friends, is a great motive to them, so much the more to tra­duce them; as being jealous that they may thereby gain with many too great esteem. For there was one, some time since, that took occasion to commend a Reverend and most worthy person that is called by the Long name, to an eminent Pastor of a Separated Congregation in London, from whom he received this answer; That Iesus Christ hath not in this Nation a greater enemy; and that the goodness of his life was that which put him into a capacity [Page 39] of doing so much the more mis­chief.

The story you have told me, I should have looked upon as not incredible, had a less faithworthy person related it than your self. For I have often observed that Scanda­lous Ministers, of which there are too many, the more is the pity (though the number of them is com­puted by those that gladly take all advantages to bespatter and fling dirt in the faces of their Civil and Ecclesiastical Governours, to be far greater than I am verily perswaded it is) I say, I have often observed, that scandalous Ministers have the good luck better to escape the tongues of our Carping people, than the most painful and consciencious.

Any man may, if he will, make this observation: And truly I have too good reason to fear, that not a few of those men are more sorry that all Conforming Ministers [Page 40] are not persons of debauched lives, than that any are so: for if they hear but an ugly tale of any one of them, they never stand to examine whether it be true or false, but with great greediness catch at it, and send it flying.

Would you have me, in the next place, XIII. Of their Preach­ing. to inform you, how those Divines in their Pulpits de­mean themselvs; I dare affirm, that if our Separating people would be but perswaded to make their own ears judges, and for some time deign to be their Auditors, if they could also leave all prejudice behinde them, they would confess that they cannot in any of their private Mee­tings, at least better spend their time. I am sure it must be their own fault, if their experience doth not con­vince them, that there are no Prea­chers by whom they may gain more real profit. For none can give their hearers better instructions, or back [Page 41] them on with more cogent and ef­fectual motives and arguments than they do. I have my self been as constant a hearer of them (before I betook my self to this solitary way of living) as any man: but never was my judgement more convinced, my will perswaded, nor my affecti­ons more powerfully wrought up­on, by any Sermons than by theirs. I found that in their Discourses ge­nerally, they handled those subjects that are of weightiest and most ne­cessary importance: I mean such as have the greatest influence into the reformation of mens lives, and pu­rification of their souls: Nor had I ever so lovely an idaea of the divine nature, which is the most powerful incentive to obedience to the divine will, nor so clear a sense of the ex­cellency of the Christian Religion, the Reasonableness of its precepts, the nobleness and generosity of its designe, and its admirable fitness for [Page 42] the accomplishment of it; as, through the blessing of God, I have gained by the hearing of these men.

You say, XIV. Of their preach­ing the Reasona­bleness of the Chri­stian pre­cepts. Theophilus, that you have gained by these men a clearer sense of the Reasonableness of the Gospel-precepts; there are many now-a-days that will con a Preacher little thanks, for insisting on that Topick: for they tell us ve­ry weakly, that onely Faith is to be set on work in matters of Religion, not Reason.

Very weakly indeed: XV. Of the use of Reason in mat­ters of Religion. it seems those men would have us be­lieve our Religion we know not why; and so we shall be wise be­lievers in the mean time. Were I of their opinion, I doubt I should be shrewdly tempted to prefer no one Religion before another; and to think none so absurd, as that I should need to stick, upon that ac­count, at entertaining it.

I greatly fear that Maho­metanism [Page 43] it self would bid as fair for my belief, as Christianity, did I think as they do. But I am so far from imagining that Reason hath nothing to do in Religion, that I am most assured, that it is no-where to so good purpose employed as it is there. But how do you under­stand that place, XVI. 1 Cor. 2. 14. consi­dered. which these ene­mies of Reason, I think, lay the greatest stress on, in their cavils a­gainst it, viz. The natural man re­ceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, be­cause they are spiritually discerned. Where, by the [...], which is (I know not why) transla­ted the natural man, they under­stand the Rational; or as some of them love to word it, the Souly man, but mean the same thing.

Those words of S. Paul are strangely misunderstood by them; nor is there any thing in [Page 44] them, that, with the least shew of probability, tends to serve those mens absurd Hypothesis. For the word [...] doth properly signifie Animalis; and this word never sig­nifieth a Souly man in their sense, but in the quite contrary. For an Animal man is such a one, as gives himself up to the government of his inferiour Faculties; or a carnal sen­sual man: so that he is so far from being a man of Reason, that he is most irrational. 'Tis such a man as this, that the Apostle saith, receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; he being drowned in sensuality, can have no gusto of, cannot relish such things; that is, while he remains so. They are foolishness unto him, nei­ther can he know them; he can have no right understanding, no clear perception of them; and they sound in his ears like very odde things also. And it is to be imputed to this, that he understands by his Affections [Page 45] more than by his Reason; like the Wolf in the Fable, that went to School to learn to Spell, whatsoever letters were told him, because he minded nothing but his belly, he could never make any thing but Agnus of them. He cannot know them, because they are spiritually discerned; that is, by vertue of a higher principle than that which is predominant in this man; who is, as was said, a meer fleshly wretch. So that this place is so far from con­demning the use of Reason in the matters of our Faith, that the neces­sity thereof in those things is rather to be concluded from it; and that men cannot receive the things of Gods Spirit, till by the Assistance thereof, their Reason hath regained its au­thority, and be able to keep un­der their bruitish affections.

But they say, that we must believe the Scriptures, not because Reason tells us they are [Page 46] true, but because they are Gods Word.

I perceive you are hard put to it, to retain your wonted gra­vity in propounding this Objection; but however, I will very gravely an­swer you. If we must believe the Scriptures because they are Gods Word, then I trow there is a reason on which we are to found our Faith, and that a good one too. But a­gain, why must we believe what God saith to be true? must we be­lieve this because we believe it? None sure will speak so absurdly: but whatsoever answer these men will give to that Question, it is ap­parent that this is grounded upon a principle of Reason also, than which there is none more evident, viz. That God cannot lye.

I presume that they themselvs would give that answer.

Then they would give another Reason, and so still con­tradict [Page 47] their own Doctrine.

But they will tell you, that all is at last resolved into Gods meer testimony: for we must believe that he cannot lye, because he him­self hath said so.

And what if he had ne­ver said so? what they would do I will not undertake to conjecture; but I should not therefore have one jot the less believed it. For Gods saying that he cannot lye, cannot be a sufficient argument to me to be­lieve it, if I did not know that to lye is unworthy of God, and dis-be­coming him: for how else could I tell, but that he designed to deceive me in that very saying that he can­not lye? This therefore is the reason why I doubt not of that great truth, because the reason of my minde tells me, that God must be a Being absolutely perfect, or he can't be God; and being so, it tells me that he cannot be without any [Page 48] moral, no more than physical perfe­ctions; and to lye, the same Reason of my minde assures me, is a moral imperfection.

This no man can once doubt, that hath to any purpose em­ployed his considerative faculty. But to personate these stiff opposers of Reason a little farther. To what purpose is it to go about to demon­strate the Reasonableness of the Christian precepts, when it is once taken for granted, that they are di­vine? For nothing is more un­doubted, than that whatsoever God commands, is therefore to be done, because he commands it.

That is a truth beyond all dispute; and, by the way, let me tell you it is so, because nothing is more highly reasonable, than that God must be obeyed in all things. But however, I would have these men know, that to demonstrate the Reasonableness of the duties of [Page 49] Christianity, is to do excellent ser­vice to the Christian Religion: for, XVII. One ad­vantage that is gotten by demon­strating the Rea­sonable­ness of Christian duties. First, it is no small confirmation of our Faith in the truth thereof, to understand the Reasonableness of what is therein enjoyned. I re­member a good saying of Origen to this purpose; saith he to Celsus, in his third Book against him, See whe­ther or no the agreeableness of the precepts of our Faith with the com­mon notions of humane nature, be not that which hath caused them to to be so readily entertained, by the ingenuous hearers of them. XVIII. The con­sideration of the goodness of the do­ctrine of the Gospel necessary to accom­pany that of Mira­cles, to prove its divine authori­ty. And I must profess to you, Philalethes, that I lay no less weight upon the good­ness that my Reason apprehendeth in the Doctrine the Gospel contain­eth, than upon the Miracles where­by 'twas confirmed. Nor do I believe the Miracles unaccompanied with that other consideration, a suffici­ently-satisfying Argument that our Saviour was sent from God, as infi­nitely [Page 50] wonderful as they were: but both these together most fully de­monstrate to us that Proposition, and neither singly and abstracted from each other.

I have, in this particular, thought as you do, ever since I well considered the three or four first verses of the 13 ^th Chapter of Deu­teronomy; where God, by Moses, saith thus to the children of Israel: If there arise among you a Prophet, or a Dreamer of dreams; and giveth thee a signe or a wonder; and the signe or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, and let us serve them: thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that Prophet, or that Dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whe­ther you love the Lord your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul, &c.

That place is to very [Page 51] good purpose quoted by you; and these two things are plainly to be gathered from it:

First, That we are to consider the Doctrine it self, before we believe it to be of God, as well as the means of its confirmation.

Secondly, That God, for certain Reasons, may suffer wonders to be wrought, that is, such things as no man can give account how they should be effected by natural means, for the confirmation of a false Do­ctrine. And you have from thence rationally concluded what I now said, viz. That the goodness of the Doctrine is necessary to go along with the consideration of the Mira­cles whereby it was confirmed, to make them such an Argument as we may reasonably desire to induce us to entertain it as coming from God, and to receive him as Gods Son that brings it.

By the goodness of the Doctrine [Page 52] I mean at least its negative good­ness; and say, that we ought to see that there be nothing in it, that is plainly unworthy of God to revele, or that containeth a manifest con­tradiction to any of his Attributes: but when positive goodness is also therein observable; that is, a high congruity and agreeableness with the Divine perfections; such Do­ctrines make Miracles a more abun­dantly strong argument, that the Preacher of them is no Impostor, but that he came from heaven upon Gods Message.

But there are Learned men, that, distinguishing betwixt Miracles and Wonders, assert that the former are sufficient motives of Credibility, though not the latter.

Though these two ought to be distinguished, yet I conceive, that distinction will signifie very little when applyed to this matter. For I cannot question, but that it [Page 53] may lie within the compass of Evil Spirits power, to play such Feats as no mortal man, though they should be but Wonders, can be sagacious and quick-sighted enough to discern them from real Miracles. But when a person doth not onely perform most marveilous works, but also de­livereth the most excellent doctrine, we have the greatest assurance that can be from both together, that he came on Gods errand, and that the Religion he brought with him hath the Majestie of Heaven for its Au­thor. We have reason to be no less assured of it, than that God is good: it being utterly unconceivable, that he should lay before us such an in­vincible Temptation to believe a Cheat and Falsity.

But there are those, you know, that seem by their discourse to lay no weight either upon the Miracles, or excellencie of the Do­ctrine; and are heard to cry up one­ly [Page 54] the Testimony of the Spirit, as an Argument of the truth of Christia­nity, XIX. Of the testimony of the Spirit to the truth of Scri­pture. and of the divine Authority of those Books that contain it.

There are so, Philale­thes; but why do they distinguish between Miracles, and the Testimo­ny of the Spirit? They are one and the same, without all doubt: for were they not performed by the power of the Holy Ghost? And therefore they were his Testimony or attestation to the truth of the Gospel.

But they mean an inter­nal Testimony, or a secret powerful perswasion wrought immediately, in the souls of men, by the Holy Ghost.

But those that say, that Credit cannot be given to the truth of the Gospel without this, make the Devils greater Unbelievers than we are from Scripture assured they are. And moreover, they seem to me [Page 55] to assert that Christ and his Apostles might have spared their mighty works: for who will deny that the Spirits immediate testimony is alone abundantly sufficient for that pur­pose? But besides, those that talk thus, do apparently run in as gross a Circle, as that we accuse the Papists of. For as they prove the Scriptures by their Church, and their Church by the Scriptures; so these prove the Scriptures by this Testimony of the Holy Ghost, but then cannot prove so much as that there is any such person, but by the Scriptures. And once more, if there be any truth in this opinion, there is nothing to be done for the conviction of Infi­dels; for this internal Testimony can be an Argument to none but those that have it.

This I once urged to a certain Divine, who stiffly main­tained that Conceit, and was angry with those that went about to prove [Page 56] the Authority of the Scriptures the other way; and he readily replied, that he knew no means to be used for the conviction of unbelievers, but praying for them.

I commend that Gentle­mans ingenuity in that concession; but nothing could be said more dis­honourable to our excellent Religi­on, or that tends more to expose it to the scorn and contempt of those that bear no good-will to it.

But, Theophilus, do you think then, that there is no such thing as this inward Testimony?

All I think as to this mat­ter, XX. Theo­philus his opinion concer­ning the inward testimony of the Spirit. I will briefly tell you. I say that the external and rational Mo­tives of Credibility are as sufficient to give unprejudiced persons an un­doubted belief of the truth of our Religion; as any rational Argu­ments are to perswade a man of the truth of any thing, he desireth sa­tisfaction concerning: But yet be­cause [Page 57] our Grand Adversary useth all Arts to make it as much suspected as may be, and to shake our faith there­in; and we are moreover in regard of the Contrariety of our Religion to our carnal and fleshly interests very apt to be strongly prejudi­ced against it, (and we are not ea­sily brought fully to believe what we would not have true) God is ready without all question, to assist our weakness by his grace and Spi­rit, in this as well as other particu­lars, when humbly sought to: but we have no reason to think that he doth this ordinarily in an immedi­ate manner, but by blessing the use of means, i. e. the consideration of the motives he hath given us to be­lieve: And that he confirms our Faith, by giving us to see such strongly-convincing demonstration in those Arguments, and by so close­ly applying the evidence of them to our understandings, as that they [Page 58] come to be even perfectly over-pow­er'd, and against all opposition to have full assent, and such as hath a powerful influence upon our pra­ctice, as it were, even forced from them. But if all the external mo­tives will not make one sufficient Ar­gument to perswade to assent, how could they render the unbelieving Jews inexcusable, as our Saviour se­veral times assured them they would? Nay, how then could he marvail (as we read he did) at their unbelief?

But they will tell you, that to assent to the truth of the Scriptures from the forementioned motives, is no divine Faith.

But I dare tell them, XXI. The be­lieving of divine things a divine Faith, whatever the mo­tives thereunto are. that the believing of Divine things is a divine Faith, let the motives indu­cing thereunto be what they will; and that it is no unusual thing for the Act to receive its denomination from its Object. But with a divine [Page 59] Faith in their sense also, we no less than they, believe what is contained in the Scriptures true, viz. because God that cannot lye hath reveled it: but that he hath indeed reveled it, the Miracles, as was said, whereby this is confirmed, and the goodness of the Doctrine, (to which I may adde also, the completion of Pro­phecies, as being of no less consi­deration than the Miracles) do as­sure us. And again, that such Mi­racles as are recorded, were really wrought for the confirmation of the Gospel, and likewise that the Do­ctrine contained in our Books, is that Gospel that was confirmed by them; we may be convinced by as undeniable Arguments, as any mat­ters of fact men have not seen with their own eyes can be proved by; and so undeniable, that he must needs be a most unreasonable per­son, that requires better. Nay, he must resolve, if he will be consistent [Page 60] with himself, to believe nothing he hath not himself seen. I will adde too, that whoever he be that is dissa­tisfied as to this matter, he doth un­doubtedly believe hundreds of things, and thinks he should be un­wise in questioning them, that have not the quarter part of the evidence that this hath; nay, I may say, not the twentieth part. If they please, Philalethes, to call it a humane faith to believe matters of fact upon the account of Tradition, I will not contend with them, but tell them plainly, that I like it never a jot the worse for being so; nor can I under­stand how any wise man should. But yet take notice too, that such a degree of faith concerning these matters of fact also, as hath a pow­erful operation upon our lives and souls, is imputed by us, no less than by them, to the grace of God, and his Holy Spirit; though not as ope­rating in us in an immediate man­ner, [Page 61] as I said, ordinarily; but in ma­king the means effectual; and I hope they will acknowledge this, in the best of senses, a Divine faith.

But they say, XXII. Of moral certain­ty. that onely a moral certainty can result from the evidence that is in the most uninter­rupted and universal Tradition; and therefore how closely soever you tell us the Spirit of God applieth that evidence, this way of yours tends to make men no better than morally certain of the truth of our Religion.

What a fault that is [...] our certainty thereof may be per­fectly undoubted, as moral as it is. And I fear not to declare, that I do not desire to be more undoubtedly assured that there were such persons as our Saviour and his Apostles, that they performed such works, and preached such Doctrines as we have on Record; and that the Books we call Canonical, were written by [Page 62] those whose names they bear, See the Learned Dr. Stil­ling fleets excellent Answer to the Lo. Archbp of Can­terbury's Adversa­ry, p. 206. than I have cause to be and am that there were such great Conquerors as Ale­xander and Iulius Caesar, which yet lived before our Saviour; or that those which pass for Tully's Orati­ons were really (for the substance of them at least) his, which yet are el­der than the Gospel: but for all that my certainty of these things can be no more than moral; yet I do notwithstanding no more doubt of them, than I do of those things that are plainly objected to my Sen­ses; for I do not at all doubt of them; and I should be laugh'd at as an arrant fool, if I did; but should I deny them, I should be thought a mad-man by all wise people. And yet let me tell you, that we have from Tradition a greater certainty, in some respect, of most of those particulars, than we have of these: for it hath been the interest of ma­ny that those should be false, but so [Page 63] hath it not been of any that these should be so. But the greatest ene­mies of the Christian Religion have not so much as attempted to dis­prove those, nay have taken all for granted, except one or two Mira­cles.

I have but a Moral assu­rance that there is such a City as Rome or Venice; or that there were such persons as Queen Elizabeth and King Iames: yet I should be a Brute, did I more question, whether there are such Cities, or were such persons, than I do, whether there be such a place as London or Bristol, where I have several times been, or whether there are such men as Theo­philus and Philalethes.

To be sure, so you would. Well, I wish that those men would shew us a more certain way of conviction concerning this matter of weightiest importance; and then see whether we would [Page 64] not, with great thanks, leave ours for it. But I fear me, in stead of so doing, should we give up our selves to their conduct, they would most sadly bewilder us; and in stead of setled and unshaken believers, make mere Scepticks of us, or what is worse.

There are others, XXIII. Of the Scri­ptures bearing testimony to it self. Theo­philus, that say that the Scripture is sufficiently able to convince men of its Divine authority, by the witness it can give to it self; or, to use their own Metaphorical expression, by the resplendency of its own light. So that he doth enough in order to his believing it to be Gods Word, that doth but acquaint himself with the contents thereof; which I think follows from that opinion.

If these understand what they say, there is no difference be­twixt them and us: for the Mira­cles and Goodness of the Doctrine, we prove the Scriptures Authority [Page 65] by, we fetch onely out of the Scri­ptures themselves. And therefore, supposing we believe the matters of fact therein written, we say as they do, that we need no Argument to prove them Divine, but what is therein included. But if their meaning be, (as by their manner of expressing themselvs one would think it should) that there is such a light in Scripture, as immediately operates upon mens mindes, as pro­per light doth on the Optick nerves, there can be nothing said more in­considerately. For mens understan­dings cannot discern the truth of things by immediate intuition, but onely in a discursive manner; that is, by such reasons and arguments as perswade to assent. And besides, if that be true, not onely what you concluded from thence is so also, viz. that 'tis enough, in order to our believing it, to acquaint our selvs with the contents thereof; but like­wise [Page 66] that 'tis altogether impossible, that any man should read the Scri­ptures, and not believe them, suppo­sing he be compos mentis, and under­stands what he reads. But to con­vince us that this is not so, I fear there are very many sad instances, & have too good ground for my fears.

Well, Philalethes, it is time to have done with the First Advan­tage, that I told you is gotten, by having the Reasonableness of the precepts of the Gospel demonstra­ted to us, viz. That it is no small confirmation of our faith in the truth thereof.

Secondly, XXIV. A second Advan­tage got­ten by de­monstra­ting the reasona­bleness of the pre­cepts of the Go­spel. Another Advantage we get hereby is, that by this means we learn the incomparable excellen­cie of our Saviours Religion; not to say above the Heathen Gods impo­sitions on their worshippers, (their Religion being, for a great part, not onely most ridiculous, but also full of unnatural villainy and filthiness, [Page 67] such as a modest tongue would find it difficult to utter, and chaste ears to hear: Witness the Rites of Cy­bele, the Feasts of Bacchus, Flora, Venus and Priapus; and likewise 'twas full of Cruelty and bloudy Tyranny) I say, passing by the Reli­gion of the Heathens, as not worthy to be named on the same day with that of the Gospel; we do by this means understand the incomparable excellencie of our Saviours Religi­on, even above that given by God himself to his own people the Israelites, under the Mosaical dis­pensation. For, we know, it con­sisted of almost innumerable Injun­ctions, the reason of which is not at all obvious. We may see our way before us, in obeying Gospel-Pre­cepts; they are enjoyned because good, whereas these were good onely because enjoyned. And though we may guess at reasons for Gods giving those people such a kinde of Religi­on [Page 68] in the general, yet we can say nothing for most of the particular instances of obedience, but that it was the divine will to make choice of them. They were in themselvs of a perfectly-indifferent nature, and neither good nor evil; nor had they any thing, I say, that we know of, to commend them, and set them off, but the meer Legislators plea­sure. Now except we understand the vast difference betwixt the Law and the Gospel; and how greatly the later, especially in this point of Reasonableness, excels the former; we shall be insensible of that much larger share we have in the Good­ness of God, than the Iews had, and so want a most exciting motive to chearful obedience to him, in the present notices of his will we are under the obligation of.

What you say, is too e­vident to be denied, or so much as disputed: but I pray inform me [Page 69] more particularly, what you mean, when you say that the Precepts of the Gospel are highly reasonable.

You have less need, XXV. In what sence the precepts of the Go­spel are highly reasona­ble. Phi­lalethes, than most I know, to ask me that Question; but yet because I am gotten into a vein of talking, I will satisfie you, for discourse sake, in that demand. I mean, that they are such, as our Reason tells us are highly fitting, and becoming us; con­sidering what kinde of creatures we are, and the Circumstances and Re­lations we stand in, to God, our selvs, and each other. Nay, they are so becoming us, that our Reason will also assure us, that the contrary are no less unworthy of us.

But before you proceed farther, give me leave so far to inter­rupt you, as to desire a clear descri­ption of Reason from you. What­ever I do, I can scarcely think that the great Decryers of it, do distinct­ly understand what it is.

If they did, I cannot imagine what should incline them to such extravagant and strange prat­tle, as is heard from them. But to your Question: Reason is that power, XXVI. A descri­ption of Reason. whereby men are enabled to draw clear Inferences from evident Principles. And therefore when the Preachers we are discoursing of, and others, demonstrate the reason­ableness of the Precepts of the Go­spel; they prove that there are those self-evident Principles, from whence what the Gospel requires may be inferred to be our duty, although God had never declared his minde concerning them.

But surely they cannot think, that there are no precepts in the Christian Religion, but what are such: what say you to those that enjoyn the two Sacraments?

I will, in short, tell you all that, I think, is necessary to be said in this matter, in these two Pro­positions.

[Page 71] First, All those things, wherein doth consist the substance of the Chri­stian Religion, XXVII. The first Propositi­on, shew­ing in what sence the precepts of the Go­spel are reasona­ble: with a brief demon­stration that they are so. are good, and necessary in themselvs to be done; and the contrary evil, and necessary in them­selvs to be avoided. Those are such, as it would be a contradiction to suppose them not our duty; con­sidering, as was said, what creatures we are, and our several Circumstan­ces and Relations; and so would it be to suppose these not disbecoming us, and unworthy of us. Our Sa­viour, you know, sums up our whole duty in the love of God, and our Neighbour; the substance of which, (as is easie to be shewn by enume­rating particulars) is reducible to these two Heads; nay to the former, namely the love of God. And there is no Principle we do more natural­ly assent to, than that he, in whom we live, move, and have our being; from whom we receive all we enjoy, and expect all that we can hope for [Page 72] of good; should be beloved by us, nay, and made also the object of our chief love. And an imitation of all Gods imitable perfections, is a necessary consequent of such a love of God; such as his Holiness, Justice, Goodness. [...], &c. p 22. Hierocles hath told us, that whom a man loves, he will as much as lyeth in him imitate; and that therefore it is necessary, that there should be not onely [...], the knowledge of Gods nature and essence; but also [...], All possible likeness there­unto. Now the imitation of the Divine Nature, XXVIII. The de­signe of the Chri­stian Re­ligion. is the whole designe of the Christian Religion; (which St. Gregory Nyssen makes to be its very definition) as no one that con­sideratively reads the Books where­in it is contained, can at all doubt.

Secondly: XXIX. The se­cond Pro­position. The other duties of the Gospel, which are but few, are imposed as helps to the performance of those forementioned. They are [Page 73] not required for themselvs, but for the sake of the great Essentials of Religion. And it may be easily made good, that there are none of them of a meerly positive nature, except the two Sacraments: which yet are appointed for very great ends and purposes; and are most excellent helps to the attaining of true holiness, and that wherein the power and life of Religion consist­eth; and not onely tryals of obedi­ence. Meditation, Prayer, Read­ing and Hearing Gods Word, the observation of the Lords day, good Conference, &c. are in themselvs helps; and Baptism, and the Lords Supper are so, through the divine ordination. And indeed, to speak properly, they are no less our pri­viledge than our duty; as being Seals of Gods Covenant, and Pledges to assure us of the divine grace; for which we are no less obliged to him, than we are for his gracious Promi­ses.

But what think you of believing in Christ Jesus for the Re­mission of Sins? could Reason ever have prompted this, as mens du­ty?

Yes, as soon as any thing enjoyned in the Gospel, when once it was demonstrated, that him hath God exalted to be our Prince and Saviour. Men would have, of them­selvs, concluded Faith in him their duty, when they were convinced of that truth, though there had been no precept to make it so. Which is so plain, that I shall disparage your intellectuals in using more words to clear it to you.

It is indeed so plain, that I am ashamed I ask'd the Question.

But if you please, Phi­lalethes, I will more particularly, and distinctly, though very briefly, de­monstrate that the duties of the Go­spel are such, as Reason (would we consult it) would prompt to us.

You cannot shew the strength of your own Reason upon a nobler Subject.

A very small pittance of it, that is, so little as I am master of, is sufficient to enable any one with ease to perform this successfully. Now then, XXX. A more particu­lar de­monstra­tion of the Rea­sonable­ness of the Gospel-precepts. as our Saviour referreth our whole duty to two Heads, viz. the love of God, and our Neighbour: so doth the Apostle to three; Sobri­ety, Righteousness, and Godliness. Now for Godliness, which contains all our duty immediately relating to God; all the instances thereof, which the Gospel enjoyns, may be learnt by improving but that one natural Principle of Gods existence; and that thus. There being a God, he must necessarily be absolutely per­fect: He, being absolutely perfect, is to be acknowledged the Creator, Preserver, Benefactor, and Gover­nour of the whole world: for it is unreasonable to attribute our Crea­tion, [Page 76] preservation, &c. to any be­sides such a Being. And then, God having all perfections in himself, and being so related to us; this will ne­cessarily follow, that we ought to make him the object of our highest Admiration, our greatest love; we ought to offer up Sacrifices of Prayer and Praises to him, to trust in him, and depend upon him, in all our ways to acknowledge him; chearfully to do what he commands, patiently to submit to his dispose, &c. And there is no duty imme­diately relating to God, but is in those included; setting aside that of doing what he commands; for that alone takes in our whole duty in re­ference, not onely to God, but also to our Neighbour and our Selvs. God being such a one in himself, and to the world, as you heard; this must be eternally true, that it is the duty of all Reasonable creatures, to carry themselvs towards him as was [Page 77] shewn. There is so close a conne­xion, between those Premises, and these Conclusions; that a man can­not believe the one, and (except he were stark mad) doubt the other. We cannot more easily apprehend this Argument to be necessarily true, viz. This Figure is a Circle, therefore all its parts are equally di­stant from the Center; than this, God is our Creator, Preserver. &c. there­fore we ought so as was now said, to behave our selves towards him. Nay, we can hardly think of that premiss, but this conclusion will come into our mindes whether we will or no.

And then for Righteousness, which implieth our duty to our Neighbour; that Rule of our Savi­our, What ye would that men should do to you, that do ye to them; (which Severus expresseth in Negative terms, Quod tibi fieri non vis, alt [...] ne feceris) it is as self-evident [...] [Page 78] Principle, as any is to be found in Morals. And this will teach us to be just, most severely just to every body; and to be kinde and merciful to those that are in need: Now these two include all that the Gospel re­quires in reference to one another.

And then for Sobriety, that com­prehendeth our whole duty to our selvs. The meer principle of Self-love will teach a man, that he may not be intemperate in any kinde; he by this means abusing himself. And the very knowledge of our selvs, and what excellent creatures we are, will convince us that we ought not to set our heart upon, or place our happiness in any earthly thing. Therefore, this was one Rule, among the several excellent ones in the Pythagoraean Golden Verses;

There is no man but does or may know, that his soul is too Noble a [Page 79] creature to glut it self with base Corporeal Pleasures; and that his understanding is too sublime a fa­culty to subject it self to his brutish appetite: And that God, as the Phi­losopher speaks, indued him with that, to be [...], A Prince and Ru­ler within him; and with this, to be [...], A Subject and Ruled; to be the Servant, not Master of his Minde. There is no man but feels his soul too big for these terrestrial things, and that they are never able to fill its vast capacities. Now what are we enjoyned in the Christian Religion, as relating to our selvs, but is to be reduced to one of these, nay to this one head of inordinate affection? And in short, (for I am sensible that we have protracted our discourse upon this Subject to too great a length) I know no duties enjoyned in the Gospel, besides that of Faith in Christ, and the two Sa­craments, but may be found, as to [Page 80] the substance of them, at least com­mended as noble perfections, XXXI. Almost all the duties enjoyned in the Go­spel com­mended by Hea­thens. in some one or other of the Heathenish wri­tings; as may be particularly shewn, but that it will take up too much time.

What say you to meek bearing, and putting up affronts; but especially, to loving malicious enemies, and rendering good for evil?

Both these may be found in them; if not under the notion of indispensable duties, yet as greatly becoming us, most highly commen­dable, and significations of a brave­ly generous and virtuous Minde. The instances of the former, are so many, that you cannot be a stranger to them; nor any that have read but that little Book (that is worn out in School-boys hands) Tully's Offices. Nay, Plato brings in Socrates speak­ing of it, as that to which all men are absolutely obliged. Injury, saith he, is to be done by no means, ve­ly [Page 81] by no means, nor may it be repay­ed to him that doth an injury, as the vulgar think, for that it is to be committed upon no pretence. And what think you of that speech of Cato: If an Ass kicks me, shall I a­gain kick him? He thereby intima­ted, that it was unworthy of him to be revengeful; at least towards some sort of people. And as to the later, I remember that Origen in his eighth Book against Celsus gives two nota­ble instances of it: the one of Ly­curgus, and the other of Zeno. One being delivered into the hands of Lycurgus, that had put out one of his eyes, he was so far from reven­ging the injury, as very great as it was, that he never left giving him wholsome Counsel, till he had made him in love with Philosophy. And he brings in Zeno making this Reply to his enemy, that said, Let me perish if I do thee not a mischief; viz. And let me perish if I do not reconcile thee [Page 82] to me. Both these shew sufficiently what those Heathens thought of re­turning good for evil.

But have you observed, that the Heathens give Rules for the regulation of mens thoughts and affections, as well as words and actions?

Why do you ask me that Question? For you very well know that they abound with them, as ignorant as you are pleased to make your self.

I was (I confess) guilty of great inconsiderateness in put­ting that Question to you.

And you are not to learn that divers of them lead men to good ends in their vertuous actions. And that, placing mans supreme happiness in the enjoyment of God, they teach us to make that our great designe.

I have much observed it, and especially in the Writings of the [Page 83] Platonists. And moreover, that in their Moral discourses they tell us that it is our duty to perform good actions out of love to Goodness; and condemn base ends, and particular­ly some of them even that of ap­plause, and a great Name, as much as some others allow of it, and com­mend it too. But have you found that any of them teach men to act our of Love to God, and to make his Glory their last end?

These two you ought not to have distinguished from each o­ther. Now though I do not remem­ber the later in any of them, as you word it, yet the former I do. The forementioned Hierocles speaking of Piety or Love to God, [...], &c. p. 26. hath this say­ing▪ With this every thing is pleasing to God, but without this nothing. And he brings in Apollo speaking thus, to one that offered an Hecatomb to him, but with no pious minde;

But I need not trouble you with instances to this purpose; for there is nothing more plainly agreeable to Reason, than that we ought to act principally out of love to God; our obligations to him being beyond all expression and conception great. Any man may see this, that hath not lost all sense of Gratitude; which Principle how any should quite ex­tirpate out of their souls, I cannot understand; it being, I think, not much less deeply rooted there, than that of self-love; and observable in Brutes as well as men.

But yet I conceive that to act out of love to God, and out of love to Goodness, are much the same.

Materially they are; Good­ness being the very nature of God. But 'tis certain that nothing argueth a man to be so like to God, as doth [Page 85] doing vertuously from this principle of love to Goodness.

Nor do the holy Scri­ptures seem to me, to make any nice distinction between designing the enjoyment of God as our supreme happiness, and making his glory our last End.

No, surely, they do not; and I wish that no good people were more Critical in so doing, than the Scriptures are; by this means would many free themselves from a great deal of needless trouble they are apt to cast themselvs down with.

I have sometimes won­dered greatly, how Heathens should come by such excellent notions, in matters of Religion; but I should now be tempted to account it mat­ter of Admiration, should they all have been ignorant of them.

Truly, Philalethes, I do really think, that it is so far from being difficult to conceive, how [Page 86] those that never law the Bible should have such conceptions; that it would be rather so, how those of them that, through the goodness of God, were emerged out of those gross notions of the Deity, into which the gene­rality of Mankinde were sunk, and that made use of their intellectuals, and were considerative, should not have them.

XXXII. Those vindica­ted from making the Gospel but little better than a mere na­tural Re­ligion, that as­sert that Reason a­lone is a­ble to prompt to us most of the duties therein enjoyned. But doth not what hath been said tend to disparage the Go­spel, and make it the very same, ex­cepting in two or three precepts, with a meer Natural Religion?

I would rather impose an eternal silence upon my tongue, and pluck it out by the roots too, than once utter a syllable to such a mischievous purpose But I am so far from being conscious to my self that what hath been said doth tend to the debasing of the Christian Re­ligion, that, I know, it highly con­duceth to its commendation.

[Page 87] But whereas you asked, whether to assert that there are scarcely any duties therein enjoyned, but what mens Reason alone, were it well con­sulted▪ might suggest so to be, be not to make it a meer Natural Religion: To that I answer, that you did not consider, that the Gospel is not made up altogether of agenda, or things to be done; whereas these, you know, are but a part of it: There are, besides, relations of matters of fact, and many things to be known, and points of meer belief, which yet have an influence upon practice too: There are abundance of Promises as well as Precepts; and stupendious expressions of Gods love to Man­kinde therein declared; all which we are beholden to Revelation alone for the knowledge of. But, in short, I assert these two things concerning the Gospel, which do highly tend to the magnifying of it infinitely a­bove any Religion that was ever [Page 88] embraced by the sons of men.

First, XXXIII. Wherein the Gospel excelieth all other Religi­ons. That it containeth all those excellent Precepts, that are scattered here and there very thinly among much Trash and Rubbish in other Books, some in one, and some in another; and moreover, that there is found therein whatsoever may be discovered by Reason to be becom­ing and worthy of Mankinde; which are all there expressed, one where or other, in a most plain and intelli­gible manner. And were there no more in the Gospel than this, we should be infinitely obliged to God for it: in that, what the Heathens took pains for, and by the exercise of their discursive faculty were, or might have been acquainted with; we have laid before our eyes, and the knowledge thereof need cost us no more pains, than Reading the Scriptures will put us to. Lest we should either be too slothful to ac­quire the knowledge of our whole [Page 89] duty, by drawing inferences from premises, and gathering one thing from another; or any of us too weak headed to do this successfully; God hath out of his abundant kindness, assured us thereof from his own mouth; which we have all great cause to esteem, as a most exceeding­ly great Priviledge. But this is but little in comparison of what is next to be said.

Secondly, The Gospel gives far greater helps to the performance of our duty; and enforceth its precepts with infinitely stronger, and more perswasive Motives and Arguments, than were ever before made known. Such as the unconceivable love of God in giving his onely begotten Son to take the humane nature, and to be an Expiatory Sacrifice for Lost Sinners; his excellent Example here among us; his declarations of Free pardon to the vilest of Sinners upon their Repentance, and Faith in his [Page 90] Gospel. His proffers of grace to assist us in well-doing, and his readi­ness to work in us by his Spirit an inward living principle of holiness, if we will not resist and quench it; his promises of the most transcen­dently-glorious reward in the life to come, to sincere Believers, and threatnings of the most dismal pu­nishment to those that shall persist in impenitence and unbelief, &c.

You need say no more, than you have done, to make the Christian a most incomparable Re­ligion: but did you not say too much under the former Head, in af­firming that therein is contained our whole duty, so as that we need do no more than read the Gospel, to come to the knowledge of it? For there are very many Moral ca­ses, wherein men are forced to use their Reason to the utmost, and also to call in the assistance of other mens, for the understanding of their duty in them.

Surely, Philalethes, you could not think me so extremely weak, as to mean by what I said, that the Scriptures descend minutely to determine all possible cases in particular; for this cannot be done in Books; they being infinite, and varying with mens innumerable cir­cumstances. But this was my mea­ning, that the particular duties men are constantly obliged to, are all plainly there reveled, and in the most express terms: And I adde, that there are also general Rules laid down, whereby all emergent cases may be determined, and such as or­dinarily occur, at least, for the most part, with the greatest ease.

But to go on: XXXIV. To say that what the Gospel requireth is most sutable to Reason, is highly to commend it, &c. To say that there is nothing required but what is most sutable to our Rational faculties, tends as much to magnifie Gods goodness to us, and to commend the Gospel, as any thing that can be said: And should it consist much, of per­fectly [Page 92] new Precepts, which the world could never before so much as once have dreamt of, or of any thing like to them; and the reasonableness of which could not be at all, or not without great difficulty apprehen­ded, it would be exceedingly less easie to believe it to be a Religion sent from God, than now it is. This also makes it a Religion as easie to be practised by Mankinde as can be: for all the Duties, wherein consist­eth the substance of it, must have continued to oblige us, whether they were therein expressed or no. From what hath been said, it is most manifest, that while we continue to be men, they cannot cease to be our duty: and therefore whatsoever o­ther precepts the Gospel might have consisted of, they would have been an addition to our Burthen. And we may be hereby convinced that Gods designe in giving us the Go­spel is purely our own good, seeing [Page 93] the impositions, wherein (as I said) consists the substance of it, are but just so many as obedience to which is absolutely necessary in themselvs considered, much more then to the qualifying of us for the full enjoy­ment of himself in blessedness; and the rest are enjoyned onely as helps to enable us to obey them.

XXXV. Of their preach­ing the Reasona­bleness of the points of meer belief. But do those Preachers content themselvs to shew that the duties of the Gospel are very reaso­nable? I have been informed, that they rise higher in this attempt, and that sometimes they undertake to demonstrate that the points of meer belief, and even the most mysterious too, are so; and endeavour to level them with mens shallow Capaci­ties.

This, Philalethes, is partly true, and partly as false: It is in a sense true, that they have pro­ved sometimes that all the points of meer belief are reasonable; that is, [Page 94] consistent with Reason, so that we can have no temptation to dis-believe any, XXXVI. All the points of mere be­lief to be consistent with Reason, somtimes proved by them. upon the account of their con­trariety to the innate and natural notions of our mindes. They (some of them at least) endeavour to con­vince their Auditors, that our Savi­our hath not imposed upon our Fa­culties, in requiring our assent to Contradictions; that he puts not his disciples, as his pretended Vicege­rent doth his proselytes, upon offer­ing violence to their understan­dings, in any thing as a matter of Faith proposed by him.

This is no more, in my opinion, than is necessary for men to know: For though our best Rea­son could never have proved to us divers Gospel-truths, had they not been reveled; yet they being reve­led, there is nothing, surely, in them, that rightly understood, sounds so harshly, but that our Reason may admit of it, and close with it. But [Page 95] do they not (as I said I have heard) go about to bring down all such points to mens capacities? XXXVII That they do not en­deavour to level all such points with mens ca­pacities.

That, be you assured, is a notorious Calumny; for they one­ly say, that the Doctrines of the Go­spel are all such as we may be able to make sence of; and that there is nothing in them that is opposite to our Reason. XXXviii That they acknow­ledge in­compre­hensible Mysteries in the Christian Religion. But they most freely acknowledge, that there are such Mysteries, as are so sublime as much to exceed our apprehensions; and that can by no means be comprehen­ded by the most rational persons. And this acknowledgement, they have well proved, is no disparage­ment to our Saviours Religion; but rather procures to it the greater ve­neration: there being no wise man but will willingly confess, that there are even in Nature innumerable things which he knows to be, but yet is not able to imagine how they are; and that his very Senses do [Page 96] assure him of many such things as no faculty of his can give him a sa­tisfactory account of.

I have often thought it to be very fit, that there should be some such Points in our Religion, as are not comprehensible and adae­quate objects of our Understan­dings; that so, as we are to take occasion from the consideration of those Doctrines that God hath made facile, and adapted to our under­standings, to admire his gracious condescention; so from the consi­deration of those, which we finde surpass our reach, we may no less adore his wisdom. But, Theophi­lus, do those Divines ever under­take to demonstrate the consistency of some Mysterious points with our Reason, as they are by the School-men, and other over- subtile Gentle­men made out?

No, I hope you think them wiser men than to adventure [Page 97] upon a Task so desperate. They consider those Points as they are de­livered in the Scriptures; XXXIX. That they prove the consistency of such points with rea­son, as they are delivered in Scri­pture onely. and not as dressed up with the Metaphysical Subtilties of Wanton Wits: who have been so far from doing service to those Doctrines, that they have rendered them much more doubtful to many inquisitive persons, and such as are not easily imposed upon, by confident Sayings, and great Names.

But now it comes to my minde, XL. That they assert many spe­culative points to be also suitable to the di­ctates of Reason. I am confident I have been told by some of their good Friends, that they assert more concerning the reasonableness of the Specula­tive Doctrines of Christianity, than that they are onely not inconsistent with Reason; but moreover, that they are very suitable to its di­ctates.

I thank you for helping my Memory in this, as well as in many other particulars: your infor­mation [Page 98] is very true as to many of the weightiest Points; XLI. An Argu­ment drawn from noti­ons of the Heathens to prove the most weighty Points of Faith suitable to the di­ctates of Reason. and there is no wise man but will assert the same. For it is well known that the Hea­thens had a notion of them: Life and immortality are said to be brought to light by the Gospel, i. e. to give Mankinde full satisfaction in that Article of Faith, is the sole pre­rogative of the Gospel; our Savi­our having given a sensible demon­stration of it, by his own Resurrecti­on and Ascension; as well as in the plainest terms preached it. Now you need not be told that several of the Learned Heathens have by Ar­guments drawn from the nature of humane souls made that Doctrine highly probable; and that even the more Brutish sort of them had ge­nerally, if not universally a sense of a life to come. You know also that the Doctrine of a day of Judgment they were no strangers to. Iustin Martyr truly tells the Greeks in his [Page 99] Oration to them, That not onely the Prophets, and other Divine per­sons of the Old Testament; but also those that were accounted wise a­mong the Heathens, both the Poets and Philosophers, did acknowledge a judgement to come after death. And their Poets tell us of three per­sons whose Office it is to judge men in the other world; viz. Minos, Rhadamanthus, and Aeacus. And mens being adjudged to rewards and punishments in the other, suita­ble to their actions in this world, was a Doctrine that accompanied that other, and as generally recei­ved: Nor are you ignorant what excellent Discourses divers of the Philosophers have of the nature of true happiness. The foremention­ed Iustin saith, That it seemed pro­bable to him, that Plato had enter­tained the doctrine of the Resurrecti­on of the body: but I must leave him there, because I finde that he gives [Page 100] an insufficient reason for that Con­jecture.

Nay, even the Doctrine of the Trinity was, as to the substance of it, embraced by the Pythagoraeans and Platonists.

Several other instances of this na­ture may be produced.

And there are other Particulars I might present you with, of notions the Heathens had, resembling seve­ral other Doctrines reveled in the Gospel, which are not less generally known than the forementioned. As they held a Doctrine somewhat like that of the divine Conception of our Saviour: for it was their opinion that divers of their eminent Benefactors were born of more than Humane race, and that they were ex stirpe Deorum; and accordingly gave Di­vine honour to them. Their sacri­ficing of men for the attoning of their Gods, shewed that they belie­ved what is somewhat of kin to the [Page 101] Doctrine of Satisfaction; or Christs reconciling us to God, by offering himself up as a Propitiatory Sacri­fice. As Grotius, among others, hath fully shewn in his Book of Satisfa­ction.

They had another opinion that beareth resemblance to our Saviours Mediatorship; for they held the in­tercession of Daemons; of which Mr Mede hath discoursed in his A­postacie of the later times; and I finde that Celsus calls our Saviour the Christians Daemon.

By these instances it should seem that the Heathens did of their own accords give credit to as strange Doctrines as any our Sa­viour requires our belief of; and that several of the strangest of them are so far from sounding like un­couth and absurd ones, that they are rather gratifications of the natural propensions of Mankinde.

That the Learned Dr. [Page 102] More hath well observed in his My­stery of Godliness. Though, no que­stion, the Fathers did upon good grounds conclude that the Heathens received many Notions from the Jews, and some from a more anci­ent Tradition; and therefore we have no cause to judge that all the forementioned were the products of their own reasoning, yet that makes not at all against the assertion that occasioned these instances, but on the contrary clearly proves it. For I did not say that many of the weightiest Points of meer belief may be certainly concluded from principles of Reason; or that, with­out the help of Revelation, men might have been acquainted with them; but that they are suitable to the Reason of mens Mindes, being reveled; and several of them very taking too; which appeareth by the Heathens being so tenacious of some, and so readily catching at [Page 103] others upon the first news of them.

I give you my heartiest thanks, Theophilus, for the full satis­faction you have given me concern­ing those Friends of ours endeavours to perswade men of the Reasonable­ness of Christianity. Which doth much adde to my esteem of them; (though I know many are offended with them upon this account, and by way of contempt call them The Rati­onal Preachers) for this Subject is most necessary to be handled in this our Age especially, wherein Athe­ism and Irreligion are, to the grief of all good men, gotten into the Principles, as well as Practices of very many. And I hope that I shall be better able for the future to vin­dicate them, than I have been, when I hear them reproached for bring­ing so much Reason into points of Faith. I must desire you now to proceed to inform me of other things that are, in their Preaching, [Page 104] most worthy of observation.

I think it not amiss, XLII. Of their Style in Preach­ing. Phi­lalethes, to let you understand in the next place, that they affect not B [...]mbaste words, trifling Strains of Wit, foolish Quibling, and making pretty sport with Letters and Sylla­bles in their Preaching; but despise those doings as pedantick and un­manly. But on the contrary, they use a Style that is very grave, and no less significant.

This, undoubtedly, must needs be best pleasing to the more understanding part of our Congre­gations, and to all incomparably most profitable: As much as that pretty toying is cryed up by many, as a most rare Accomplishment; and conciliates to the most dextrous in that Knack, the repute of the Ablest Preachers; and makes them greatly plausible.

But, certainly, it can do so among none, but very little-soul'd [Page 105] and childish people; and such as whose judgement in Sermons, no wise man will make any account of.

I will adde also, XLIII. Of their making Doctrines intelligi­ble. that it is their endeavour to make the Doctrines of the Gospel as easie and intelligible as well they may; wherein none have been more successful. They are far from those mens untoward genius, XLIV. A sort of men that are obscu­rers of the Go­spel. that delight to exercise their Wits, in finding out Mystical and Cabalistical sences in the plainest parts of Scripture, and in turning every thing almost into Allego­ries.

I am greatly apt to fear, that those men are far from being hearty friends of our Saviour, and his Religion; and that some, not daring openly to decry the Gospel, take this course to undermine it, and to make a meer Trifle of it.

They give us great cause for such a suspicion.

Observe moreover, that those [Page 106] Preachers are no less averse to their temper, XLV. Another sort of such. who, most admiring that which they least understand, and thinking there is very little in that, which is quickly intelligible; please themselvs exceedingly with making Mysteries of the easiest points of Faith; and such Mysteries too, as they tell us, no man, though he be master of never so clear a Reason, can have an insight into, without the special illumination of the Holy Ghost. That, because the Apostle saith, Great is the mystery of godli­ness, would make every thing so that the Gospel hath reveled; and that so high as was now said: where­as in those words S. Paul means no more, than that divers Doctrines of the Gospel, such as he there enume­rates, viz. God manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, &c. are so high and admirable, that we cannot dive to the bottom of them, or fully comprehend them, nor could have [Page 107] so much as once thought of them, had they not been from Heaven made known: but that being reve­led they are still to Reason unintel­ligible, and cannot be sufficiently un­derstood thereby; he hath asserted no such thing. Now of these, as well as of the former, those Preachers have, no less than any, discovered the great weakness and vanity; and when they have occasion, make it plainly appear, that those whose notions of divers Articles of Faith are so ex­pressed, as that no man, that makes good use of his Reason, can tell what to make of them, deserve no­thing less than the Titles of Spiri­tual Preachers, and profound Di­vines, as they are by many accoun­ted; and that they, in stead of be­ing so, bewray very great ignorance of the Gospel.

And, without question, they do no small mischief, but ren­der our Religion, which you have [Page 108] shewn is so highly reasonable▪ great­ly suspected by many of the warier sort of people.

I remember that Eras­mus complaineth of the times of the Nicene Council, that it was then a matter of great Wit and Cunning to be a Christian. And a matter it was most worthy to be complained of: XLVI. Of the perspicui­ty of Scri­pture. for evident it is, that our Savi­our never made it so. He hath made Christianity, so much, at least, as is necessary to carry men to hea­ven, so plain, that an honest heart is a sufficient prerequisite to the un­derstanding of it.

'Tis not to be doubted, but that he hath delivered all those points that are absolutely necessary to be rightly understood, in the plai­nest and most intelligible manner: and so condescended to the weakest capacities, that they cannot but ap­prehend his meaning in them, if it be not their own fault.

I count that onely those Doctrines, that contain the terms of Mans Salvation, are of ab­solute necessity to be by all rightly understood; and that all such are delivered with that perspicuity and clearness, that nothing but mens shutting their eyes against the light can keep them from discerning their true meaning.

S. Austin hath a good saying to this purpose, in his Book of Christian Doctrine, viz. That all those things that contain faith and manners of life, are found among those Doctrines that are plainly laid down in Scripture.

This is so true, that Cel­sus is brought in by Origen, in his Sixth Book, finding great fault with the Scriptures upon the account of their plainness, and great simplicity: To whom he returneth this answer; That Iesus and his Apostles made use of such a Style, as was best suited [Page 110] to the vulgar sort; and that Plato and other of their Philosophers were greatly to blame, for expressing them­selves in so lofty a manner as they did; for that, by this means, none could make use of them but Learned men. And I remember that, in his seventh Book, he tells Celsus, that Plato and the other wise Greeks were like to Physicians that took care of persons of the better rank, but neglected ordinary Plebeians, and the meaner sort; whereas the Prophets, and Disciples of Iesus, did no less carefully apply themselvs to the good of simple, than of wise people.

Surely Christ will never condemn men at the last day, for not believing those things they could not by any means understand to be reveled: and it is matter of admiration to me, that any should judge the Gospel to be obscure in matters necessary; when the Apostle [Page 111] accounted it so sad a Judgement not to understand it: for, saith he, If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost.

And in the words fol­lowing he saith, that those that un­derstand it not, have their eyes blin­ded by the God of this world. Isai­ah, prophesying of the Gospel, and expressing it by the Metaphor of a way, saith that it is so plain, that wayfaring men, though fools, shall not erre therein. 'Tis true indeed, it is so deep a Sea, as S. Hierome saith, that the Elephant may swim there: there is that, and much of that too, that putteth the strongest Brains, and most searching Wits, hard to it: but (as the same Father addes) 'tis so shallow a brook also, that is, as to all things necessary to salvation, that the Lamb may wade in it. So that all those, Philale­thes, that affect to make such Truths as subtil and mysterious as they can, [Page 112] do what lyeth in them to cross and make ineffectual the designe that our Saviour and his Apostles had in the delivery of them; and these, and all other Preachers that, like them, do condemn such doings, do no less advance it. And I will adde, that those that affect to make any points as obscure as they can, whether they are necessary or not, are too injuri­ous to the Christian Religion.

And, XLVII. Their opinion of powerful Preach­ing. by what hath been said, I am likewise put in minde to tell you, that these persons look upon no Preaching as truly powerful, but that which worketh upon the affe­ctions by first conquering the judge­ment; and convinceth men of their duty by solid Reasons and Argu­ments, and excites them thereunto by perswasive Motives: they esteem­ing that which affects people so, as they can give no account why it should, to be so far from powerful, that it doth not deserve to be called [Page 113] Preaching. Now upon these ac­counts, as well as those forementio­ned, do many inconsiderate people despise them, as men of dry Reason, and void of Gods Spirit: as if to be a spiritual Preacher, were to be an irrational one; and none were capa­ble of divine illuminations, but such as have bid adieu to the guidance of their intellectuals. Which is as much as to say, that we must cease to be Men, and be metamorphos'd into Brutes, before we can hope to be­come Christians.

What confused and gross thoughts have such people in the matters of Religion! as not to be able to distinguish between that which is truly carnal (which they talk so much against) and spiritual Reason; XLVIII. Of carnal and spiri­tual Rea­son. and not to understand that the former is that onely which is go­verned by fleshly and corrupt affe­ctions, and the later that which is submitted to, and directed by our [Page 114] Saviours Gospel, and designeth no­thing so much as promoting the ends of it.

There are a few things more, XLIX. A far­ther ac­count of their Preach­ing. Philalethes, I would adver­tise you of, concerning the Preach­ing of these our Friends; namely, that they are very careful so to han­dle the Doctrine of Justifying Faith, as not onely to make obedience to follow it, but likewise to include a hearty willingness to submit to all Christs precepts in the nature of it. And to shew the falsity and defe­ctiveness of some descriptions of Faith, that have had too general an entertainment, and still have. This they look upon themselvs as greatly obliged to do, as being well aware, of what dangerous consequence some received notions of that grace are; and that not a few that have imbibed them, have so well under­stood their true and natural inferen­ces, as to be thereby encouraged to [Page 115] let the Reins loose to all Ungodli­ness.

They also so state the Doctrine of imputed, as to shew the absolute necessity of inhaerent Righteousness, and that in a more intelligible way, and less lyable to misconstruction, than hath ordinarily been hereto­fore done. As also the Doctrine of Gods grace, so as to reconcile it with, and shew the indispensable­ness of mens endeavours: and (as the Apostle doth) they make Gods readiness to work in us to will, by his preventing grace, and to do, by his assisting, a motive to work out our own salvation. And I have heard several of them do this, in a more satisfactory and clear manner, than most, with whose Preaching I have been acquainted: wherein, as in the foregoing instances, they have done, in my opinion, very worthy service. But some hot-headed men, from thence also, take occasion great­ly [Page 116] to vilifie them, & represent them as men Popishly affected, and holding Justification by works: as persons utterly unacquainted with the great Mystery of believing: as those that make void the righteousness of Faith, by establishing Moral righ­teousness: and that set themselvs to cry up the power of Nature, and to perswade their Hearers, that they are able to convert themselvs, with­out being beholden to the divine grace. In all which, it is easie to shew that they have performed the parts of most notorious Calumnia­tors; and shewed themselves, if not too malicious (which I would not think) yet extremely weak.

You say that they are ac­cused as men that make void the righteousness of Faith, by establish­ing Moral righteousness: I am there­by put in minde, that they have ano­ther Name given them besides the Long one, and that of Rational [Page 117] Preachers; namely, Moral Prea­chers.

Then have you heard them so called?

Yes, of late frequent­ly.

And do you think that an opprobrious name, Philalethes?

No, I assure you, not I; but I perceive they do that use it.

I ever esteemed Morali­ty as that which no ture Christian can have a slight opinion of; and therefore thought it could never be judged a Crime to preach it. L. Of their being ac­cused of preaching up onely a Moral righte­ousness.

But by Moral Preachers they mean such as are meerly so.

If by Moral righteous­ness they understand a barely exter­nal conformity to, or customary ob­servance of the laws of Righteous­ness, they most shamefully belye these Divines, in saying that they preach no other Righteousness: LI. In what sence they do not so, and in what sence they do. but if they mean thereby, the whole [Page 118] duty of man, to God, his Neigh­bour, and Himself; which these Preachers insist upon, as much as any whatsoever, by the names of true holiness, the divine life of ver­tue, the righteousness which is of God by faith in Christ Iesus; which he taught in his own person, and by his Apostles, and, upon our using the means, works in us by his Spirit; or inward rectitude and integrity; and doing all the good we can from the best and most divine principles; or, (as one of them expresseth it) that divine and heavenly life whose root is faith in God and our Savi­our Christ; and the branches or parts of it are humility, purity, and charity: I say, if they upon the ac­count of their preaching up such a Righteousness alone as this, call them in contempt Moral Preachers, they expose onely themselvs to con­tempt by so doing.

Those men will tell you, [Page 119] that Evangelical righteousness is as well to be insisted on as Moral, nay and more than Moral too, by persons that would be accounted Gospel-Preachers.

Truly, LII. No diffe­rence be­twixt E­vangeli­cal righ­teousness and that which is in the best sence Mo­ral. Philalethes, I am so very dull, as not to be able to make any distinction between these two, as I have now described the la­ter righteousness; but think Evan­gelical to be such a Moral righte­ousness, and such a Moral Evange­lical.

But you know, that they make a difference between them.

It is strange they should; understanding Moral righteousness for that which consisteth in the Re­gulation of both the outward and inward man, according to the un­changeable Laws of righteousness; (which I must confess may be pro­perly called Moral righteousness, and is so in the most proper sence too) for I am as certain, as that the [Page 120] Gospel is true, that its onely ulti­mate designe upon us, is to work in us that Righteousness. Let any man but consider the Precepts of it, LIII. To work in us such a Moral righte­ousness the designe of the Gospel. and he shall finde, I'll warrant him, that they are all designed (either medi­ately or immediately) to make men in that sence morally righteous. And I fear not to say, that I am verily perswaded, that if this were not the end of the Christian Religion, it would not be worthy of the Son of God. Let any one read our Savi­ours Sermon upon the Mount, and then tell me whether he doth not think, that if he were now upon the earth, these men would not call him a Moral preacher. He must have a strangely piercing eye of his own, that can therein discern any other, than such Moral discourses. What doth the Apostle S. Paul tell us, the grace of God that brings sal­vation teacheth us? is it not, that denying ungodliness, and all worldly [Page 121] lusts, we should live soberly, righte­ously and godlily? And if these Gentlemen suppose, that living godlily implieth something that is not so Moral, (for I know they will not say so concerning living soberly and righteously) they will finde themselvs very hard put to it to make it out. For all Godliness, our Saviour (as hath been said) referreth to the love of God; and it would be strange if that should not be a Moral vertue. What did S. Peter mean, when (speaking of our Savi­our) he saith, that his own self bare our sins in his own body, on the tree; that we, being dead to sin, might live to righteousness? What righteous­ness should that be, which he doth there oppose to sin, if not such a one as is in the number of Morals? And yet the Apostle tells us, that our li­ving to this was the designe of the death of Christ. This also is the end of the promises, as well as pre­cepts [Page 122] of the Gospel; as the same S. Peter assureth us. He hath given us, saith he, exceeding great and precious promises; for what end? is it that we should be swollen with high conceits of Gods special love to us, and of our being the favourites and darlings of heaven? Nothing less: but it followeth, that by these we might be partakers of the Divine nature, having escaped the corrupti­on that is in the world through lust. And what do those men think it is to escape the corruption of the world, if not, to be truly virtuous, and, in the best sence, morally righte­ous? Nay, what can they imagine it is to partake of the divine, or a divine nature, if not this? Can any thing be understood thereby, but participating of the divine moral perfections, such as Justice, Mercy, Purity? I hope they will not say that an imitation of God in power, knowledge, and his other Physical [Page 123] perfections is there intended. This St. Paul also (as much as those peo­ple count him their great friend, and quote him more than any other A­postle) makes to be the designe of the Promises. Having these pro­mises (saith he) dearly beloved, let us cleanse our selvs from all filthi­ness of flesh and spirit, (all sensuali­ty, malice and pride) perfecting ho­liness in the fear of the Lord. Nay, I may adde, that there is not a Do­ctrine, (as meerly Speculative as di­vers may seem to be at first sight) but it hath a tendencie to the pro­moting of this Moral righteousness: but that will be too long a task to perform now. And, indeed, I may spare my pains to do this at any o­ther time; for it will not be long, before the world will see a Discourse upon this Subject from a very wor­thy person, if God spare him life and health. But enough of this: I am ashamed to adde more in so [Page 124] plain a case; and think, indeed, that I have said too much.

What you have said is as clear as the Sun at noon-day: LIV. A righte­ousness in no sence Moral a contradi­ction. and for my part I must confess, that I know no Righteousness, that de­serves that name, but what is, in your sence, truly moral. And a righte­ousness in no sence so, seems to my understanding a most perfect Con­tradiction. And therefore I much wonder what should incline those people to inveigh against preaching up altogether such a righteousness as this is. They must therefore mean, surely, something else by it, than such a one as you have described. Do they not (think you) mean, however they express themselvs, a perfect unsinning righteousness; or the other extreme, a meer partial and external one?

I had a thousand times rather charge them with an errour of Vnderstanding onely, than of [Page 125] Will; and therefore I should be loath to think that they mean either of those, because I cannot then ex­cuse them from the guilt of notori­ous lying; for they have not the least shadow of pretence for accu­sing those Preachers of at all preach­ing up the former righteousness; which they as little doubt as any, that no man in this lapsed state can attain to; and as to the later, none more frequently shew the defe­ctiveness and insufficiencie of it. But I perceive that I am acquainted with those mens Principles better than you are; and therefore can, I pre­sume, tell you, why they are so an­gry with those that understand the Gospel better than themselvs, for preaching up onely this truly moral or real righteousness: namely, be­cause they hear no talks from their Pulpits of an Imputative righteous­ness.

You startle me now, Theo­philus; [Page 126] I pray do those Preachers deny Imputed righteousness? I thought them as Orthodox in that, LV. Of impu­tative righte­ousness; and in what sence they believe and preach it. as in any other point.

They don't use the phrase, at least not often; and anon I will tell you why; but they believe the thing, and preach it too, in that sence, that I dare say you do.

Do you not remember, that I told you a while since, that they so handle the doctrine of impu­ted, as to shew the necessity of inhae­rent righteousness?

Yes very well.

This, LVI. Their no­tion of Christs imputed righte­ousness. then, is their no­tion of Christs Imputed righteous­ness: That those which are sincerely righteous, and from an inward li­ving principle allow themselvs in no known sin, nor in the neglect of any known duty, which is to be tru­ly Evangelically righteous, shall be dealt with and rewarded, in and [Page 127] through Christ, as if they were per­fectly, and in a strict Legal sence so.

I my self would have gi­ven no other account of Imputed righteousness.

You see, I had a good guess of you: for I presumed that such a man, as I take you to be, could enter­tain no other notion of it; for I am confident that this is the onely true one.

But are there any that will not be satisfied with this account? I must confess, it is so long since that I read any thing of the Quar­relsom mens Divinity, that I have forgotten both in this, and some o­ther particulars, what they say.

But have you not had occasion of late to discourse with any of them?

No, not about matters of Religion.

If you had, I believe [Page 128] you would not have asked me, whe­ther there are any, that have any other notion of imputed righteous­ness, than that which you now heard.

Inform me, I pray, what is their opinion of it.

That I will do truly; and it is this: LVII. A false notion of it. That Christs righteous­ness or inherent holiness is as com­pletely made theirs, as if they them­selves were completely and perfectly righteous: and that upon no other condition or qualification wrought in them, but onely believing; where­by too many of them mean strongly fancying this righteousness to be theirs.

I do now remember that I have read such doctrine as this in my younger days: but I need no argument to convince me that it is grosly false. For there are these two palpable mistakes in it.

[Page 129] First, LVIII. The first Mistake in that notion. That Christs righteous­ness is properly made ours. I am confident, that there is no Scripture that tells us so. All that we finde asserted in the Gospel, as to this matter, is this; That real benefits and advantages, which are likewise exceedingly great & excellent, do by the righteousness of Christ accrue to us; and those no less great and excellent, than if that righteousness were in the most proper sence ours.

Secondly, LIX. The se­cond Mi­stake. The other Mistake is, that this righteousness is made ours, upon no other terms, than that of believ­ing it is so. This is not onely a false, but also a most dangerous opinion.

You have not, I suppose, forgotten that I informed you that those they call the Moral Preachers are careful to shew the falsity and defectiveness of some Definitions of Faith, of dangerous consequence; and this is one of the false ones; namely, that It is a taking hold of [Page 130] Christs righteousness; or a believing that it is made over to us. LX. A false definition of faith they con­fute in their Preach­ing. Which is the same, as I said, with Strongly fancying it to be ours.

You said that they are despised, as men unacquainted with the great Mystery of believing; this is a mysterious Faith indeed.

It is so; for I count no­thing so mysterious, and hard to be understood, as the thing called Non­sence; which I am sure this Definiti­on is, according to their sence of it, that will not admit of any other, but one worded after that manner: for they understand Christs righteous­ness, in the most proper sence, and not for the advantages redounding to believers by it. I speak of those that are truly Antinomians.

But why do not those friends of ours use at all, or but seldom, the phrase Imputed righteousness?

What need they, so long as they preach the Doctrine? I [Page 131] mean, all that is true of it. But to say the truth, those mens very unto­ward notion, hath so leavened the heads of the Vulgar, that they can scarcely hear of Christs imputed righteousness, but they are ready to make an ill use of it, by taking from thence an occasion to entertain low and disparaging thoughts of an in­ward real righteousness. I have too good reason to suspect this. So that, to deal freely with you, I think it would be well if it were never used, except when there is an opportuni­ty of also explaining it.

What you say is consi­derable; but is it not a Scripture-phrase? And I have heard you say, that you could wish that points of Faith were used to be expressed, as they are in Scripture.

It would ordinarily be to very good purpose if they were; and therefore these Divines preach­ing the Doctrine of Remission of [Page 132] sins through the bloud of Christ, do preach all that is true of the Do­ctrine of Christs imputed righteous­ness, in Scripture-language. For, as a Learned Divine saith, Preface to The myste­ry of God­liness, p. 27. If you prescind it from remission of sins through the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, this phrase of Imputative righteousness hath no signification at all; and that therefore there is no damage done to our Religion, if it be not accounted a distinct Article from the remission of sins in the bloud of Christ. For it cannot afford any true and useful sence distinct therefrom; nay I may say, any that is not very mischievous and dangerous, and such as tends to that loathsome and pestilential errour of Antinomian­ism. Thus far he. But take notice moreover, that this expression, Christs imputed righteousness, or the imputation of Christs righteousness, is not to be found in all the Bible. Nor in any of the places where we [Page 133] finde the word imputed relating to righteousness, is the righteousness of Christ at all to be understood; LXI. Christs imputed righte­ousness no Scri­pture­phrase. but onely an effectual Faith which is the very same with inherent righteous­ness, which, as I said, is that Moral righteousness onely, that those Prea­chers may be justly charged with altogether insisting upon.

I wish we had time, before we go farther, to consider those places.

There are but two Cha­pters in all the New Testament, where we finde the word imputed mentioned as relating to righteous­ness. One is the Fourth to the Romans, and the other the Second of S. Iames. LXII. Some verses in the fourth to the Romans consi­dered. In the Fourth to the Romans we have it four or five times; and it is most evident, that there still it is to be interpreted as I said. For the Apostles defigne in that Chapter is to prove against the Jews, that the observance of the Mo­saical Rites, whereof Circumcision [Page 134] was the chief, is not necessary to mens justification or acceptance with God; and this he proves by the instance of Abraham, who was accepted, and also very high in the divine favour, even while he was in Uncircumcision. Now in several verses, his Faith (which we know was not idle, but very operative) is said to be imputed unto him for righteousness in his uncircumcised estate; i. e. it was of the same ac­count with God, [...], it was recko­ned, (as in two verses it is there tran­slated) or it was valued by God, at as high a rate, as if it were complete righteousness. And in like manner the Apostle assureth the Romans two or three several times, that all that believe in Christ, (whereby we are to understand such a Faith as A­brahams was) their Faith shall also be imputed for righteousness to them, (without the addition of the works of the Law) as his was to him.

[Page 135] And then we have the phrase a­gain, Iames 2. 23. LXIII. S. James 2. 23. consider­ed. But there is one­ly a repetition of the same that S. Paul had said concerning Abraham, viz. that he believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteous­ness; which is a quotation out of Genesis 15. 6. Now this place of S. Iames will farther explicate that of S. Paul. S. Iames saith, vers. 21. that Abraham was justified by works, that is, (as appears by the next verse) an obediential Faith, or Faith ex­pressing and exerting it self by good works. And then it followeth, A­braham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. Nothing can be plainer, than that this is the Apostle's meaning: This working faith of Abraham, was ac­counted or accepted by God for righteousness. For as it was the designe of S. Paul, in the foremen­tioned Chapter, to prove against the Jews, or Judaizing Christians, that [Page 136] Justification was to be had without the meer external works of the Mo­saical dispensation; and that these could have no influence into it: so is it S. Iames's, in this Chapter, to prove, it is like against the Gno­sticks, who were Ranting Antinomi­ans, the absolute necessity of new obedience, in order to mens being received into Gods favour; and that justifying faith must be productive of good works. Now as S. Paul proved what he designed, by shew­ing that Abraham was justified by faith without the works of the Law; so S. Iames proveth his de­signe by shewing, that the faith A­braham was justified by was such as discovered it self by obedience to Gods commands; and instanceth in the highest act of obedience too, viz. his offering Isaac upon the Altar.

All this is as clear as can be. But, Theophilus, is that place [Page 137] of S. Paul, Philippians 3. 9. to be understood of inherent righteous­ness? where he saith, LXIV. Philippi­ans 3. 9. consider­ed. that he chiefly desires to be found in Christ, not ha­ving his own righteousness which is of the Law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righ­teousness which is of God by faith.

There can be no other there intended by this later righte­ousness. For we learn by the prece­ding verses, that by his own righte­ousness which is of the Law, he meant that which consisted in the observance of the Jewish Law; which he calleth his own, as being that which before his conversion he gloried in, or rather, as being that which he could obtain by his own natural power, it consisting of meer­ly external performances. And it is as evident by the verse following, that by the righteousness which is of God by faith, which he opposeth to his own, and that which is of the [Page 138] Law, he means the righteousness of the new creature, wrought in him by Gods holy Spirit; and is an effect or fruit of believing Christs Gospel: For see how he goes on: That I may know him, and the power of his re­surrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death. i. e. That I may ex­perimentally know him, and the power of his resurrection, in raising me up to newness of life; and of his death, in killing and mortifying all my corrupt affections.

Well, Philalethes, considering what hath been said, is it not matter of wonder, that any but arrant Hy­pocrites should desire to have more told them, than that God is so plea­sed with the Active and Passive obe­dience of his Son Jesus, as that for his sake he will reward those, that accept of him for their Lord and Sa­viour, though they are very weak and imperfect, as if they were alto­gether [Page 139] spotless and sinless persons? And is it not every jot as high a fa­vour, LXV. As high a favour to be dealt with as if we were perfectly righteous as to be so esteemed. and as great an expression of the Divine grace, to be dealt with as if we were perfectly righteous, as to be so judged and esteemed?

I should think him as blinde as a Beetle that doth not see it is. But though I said, the Anti­nomian notion of imputed righte­ousness is of dangerous conse­quence; yet now I remember me, the defenders thereof have a way to evade it; for they say, that though a real inward righteousness is no qualification required to this impu­tation of Christs righteousness, and so to our justification; yet it will follow of it self, by way of gratitude, and therefore will be found in men, before their Salvation.

I will answer you to this, in the words of an excellent Do­ctor: Dr. Cud­worth in his Serm▪ preached at Lincolns Inne. This is like to prove but a slippery hold, when it is believed [Page 140] that gratitude it self, as well as all other graces, is in them already by imputation. What Reply they can make hereunto, I am not able to imagine.

I am not like to help you. To say the truth, it is a most sottish and mischievous Doctrine; and must needs do a world of hurt among people that are glad of any pretence for their carnality and disobedi­ence.

I know too many that make use of it to patronize their ungodly practices; and no question, it is the grand support of most, if not of all hypocrites. A very worthy person, preaching some time since, upon the words of Zacheus, the ne­cessity of Restitution, where there is ability, in case of fraud; one of his Auditors was heard to say, as he was going out of the Church, If the Doctrine now taught us be true, how are we beholden to Iesus Christ? [Page 141] And multitudes, I fear, of our meer­ly imputatively-righteous men think what that Gentleman had the face to speak.

You may well fear it; LXVI. The dan­gerous conse­quence of the Anti­nomian doctrine about imputed righte­ousness. for there is no consequence more natural from any Doctrine, than is this from those mens, viz. That real righteousness, or inherent holi­ness, is a needless thing in order to eternal happiness.

The light at noon-day is not clearer, than is that inference: for if a person may have in his un­regenerate or sinful state Christs righteousness made his, and so be e­steemed by God as perfectly righte­ous; what should hinder but that in the same state, he may be admitted to enjoy the reward of a righteous man? If an ungodly man may be justified, and declared righteous, why may he not also be saved and made happie?

But they will tell you, [Page 142] that it is expresly asserted by S. Paul, That God justifieth the ungodly.

I cannot conceive why it may not be admitted, Rom. 4. 5. that the word that signifieth to justifie, is in divers places to be understood for making really just, or sanctifying: for because it is sometimes to be ta­ken in a forensick sence, it doth not therefore follow that it must always be so. But I will willingly grant, that it is to be so understood here, if that by the ungodly may be meant those that were once so; that is, be­fore, not at the same time when they were justified. For to say that God can pronounce a person just & righ­teous, that is unjust and unrighteous, is the greatest contradiction imagi­nable to his own justice, his own righteousness. This makes him to pronounce a perfectly false sen­tence, and to do that which Prov. 17. 5. he himself had declared an abomination. Nor can we enter­tain [Page 143] a more unworthy thought of the Holy God, than to conceive, that he hath no greater antipathy against sin, than to make him, that alloweth and liveth in it, an object of his complacential love.

But, Theophilus, to say the truth, I have observed that those men make such a thing of sin, as that it may become God well enough to reconcile himself thereunto, as well as to him that lives in it. LXVII. The An­tinomi­ans opi­on of sin. For they make it a meer indifferent thing in it self, and to depend onely upon arbitrary laws, the evil of which is founded upon the alone will of God; as you gave me an intimation at our entrance on this Discourse. Which account of sin doth plainly, as you said, undermine all Religion; and therefore the Antinomian opinion of imputed righteousness, as absurd, and of as wretched consequence as it is, may, if that be so, very well be true.

It may with as great shew of reason be questioned whe­ther God be essentially good, as whe­ther sin be intrinsecally evil: And I admire, what those men have done to themselvs to enable them once to doubt the later, more than the former.

I hope they will call it Blasphemy to deny Gods essential goodness; yet in acknowledging no vertue or vice independent upon all will, they dwindle it away to a per­fect nothing.

I have not a more un­doubted assurance of mine own be­ing, than of the truth of what you say. Well, Philalethes, those whose stomacks can digest such filthy stuff, (and such as I can shew you even Heathens did nauseate) need not stick at swallowing the Phancie of imputed righteousness in that gross sence, as absurd and dangerous as it is: but we that know how contrary [Page 145] sin is to the Nature, as well as the Will of God, cannot question, that no man that is in love with it can, by vertue of anothers Righteousness, be esteemed or dealt with by God as righteous.

When I can once see a diseased or lame man made well and sound, by anothers imputed health and soundness, I may imagine a wic­ked man made righteous, by the im­putation of anothers righteousness; but before I cannot; as well know­ing that wickedness is as really a mo­ral, as sickness or lameness is a natu­ral evil.

If you don't fancie it till then, to be sure you never will.

They are both alike con­tradictions. But, I pray, Theophilus, now I think on't, how can those that hug, and are so fond of this ill-fa­voured notion, have any opinion of Christs Expiatory Sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins; for how can [Page 146] there be any sin to be pardoned, where a perfect and most complete righteousness is imputed?

That question is put by the last mentioned Doctor; but I believe he will wait long enough for a satisfactory answer to it.

Is it possible, think you, that there should be any good men of this Perswasion?

As apt as I am to censure and condemn some doctrines, LXVIII. Theo­philus his charity for some Antino­mians. I would be as backward to pass sen­tence on the persons of those that hold them. And I must tell you, I verily hope that there are pious men of that opinion we are now per­stringing; but know too, that those of them that are so, are so weak as not to understand the true conse­quences of their Doctrine; and so honest, as, at first hearing, to abhor them: And were led to like well of it, not out of a designe to gratifie any base lust; but because it seemed [Page 147] to them, to have a shew of humility and self-denial, and to advance Gods grace.

As charitable as you are towards them, I fear that they (if not those also that are too neer of kin to them) had they heard your past discourse, would pronounce you an Heretick.

And what if they should? I should pitie them as weak, but not condemn them as wicked for so do­ing. The excellent Melancthon was called a worse name by Luther; and the worst hurt I wish them is, that I could upon as good grounds return that answer to them, that he did to him: which was to this effect; Though Luther calls me Devil, yet I will call Luther a most pious servant of Iesus Christ. Besides, we need not now-a-days look upon our selvs as having any great injury done to us by being called Hereticks; that name being grown (as you know [Page 148] who speaks) a meer Theological Scare-crow: and moreover, there is no man but is so reputed, if not so called, by some or other. But yet, mistake me not so, as if I thought that to be really a Heretick, and in a Scripture-sence, were a tri­vial and light matter: for I am far from so thinking; being well aware, that the Apostle reckons Heresies with Adulteries, Lasciviousness, I­dolatry, Witchcrafts, Hatred, Sedi­tions, and other fruits of the flesh, which will undoubtedly exclude men out of Gods kingdom.

You intimated that there is more than one definition of Justi­fying Faith, LXIX. A defe­ctive de­finition of Faith, that those Divines preach a­gainst, and the ill conse­quence of it. which those they call the Moral Preachers concern them­selvs to bring their Hearers out of conceit with.

There is another, that they judge as defective, as that we have given our sence of is false; which is this: That it is a recum­bence [Page 149] or resting on Christ for salva­tion. There are those which I can­not but think are very good men, that will by no means endure that any more should be admitted into its definition. Now these men, I acknowledge, make inherent holi­ness otherwise necessary, than as that which must needs follow, by way of gratitude, upon a sense of their being in a justified state: for they make it, a necessary qualifica­tion to Salvation, though not to Iustification. But herein they also fall into the Antinomian Errour; that they, or at least their doctrine supposeth a man capable of Gods favour so far as to have his sins par­doned, before he is purged from them, I mean freed from their reign­ing power.

These differ from the other men, as I suppose, in this also, That they do not make Justification to be from Eternity, as they do.

You say well; they do not approve of that mad Phancie, but make Justification to follow up­on Believing: but then, that Belie­ving they judge necessary to Justifi­cation, they make such a scanty thing as I now said; and will not hear of making receiving Christ as Lord, or being willing to obey his precepts, a prerequisite to the ob­taining of that priviledge. And so their doctrine is too plainly liable to the ill consequences of the other mens.

Do they not onely say, that good works are not necessary to Justification?

No, that I am sure they do not: for, as I told you, they will not admit so much as a willingness to per­form them into the definition of Ju­stifying faith: And besides, they as­sert that good works are not always necessary to Salvation it self nei­ther; as when a person is converted [Page 151] at the point of death. Wherein they say truly, if any are; which can be known to none but God onely. But then observe moreover, that these persons will not have their Faith a condition of Justification, but an instrument.

But why are they so shie of that phrase, and so fond of this?

Their pretence is, that to make any condition of Justifica­tion, is to derogate from the free­ness of Gods grace therein. But to that we shall have occasion to speak anon.

Our Salvation, as well as Justification, is ascribed to Gods grace; but sure they will grant that that hath conditions.

Conditions must take from the freeness of the one, as well as of the other; but therefore, they being aware of it, will not call what is necessary to Salvation proper con­ditions, but rather qualifications; [Page 152] men having, they say, no hand in them, but are the meer effects of the Holy Ghost.

Will they not grant then, that the Covenant of Grace is con­ditional? if it be not, it is, sure e­nough, no Covenant: for I under­stand not what a Covenant means, and how it is distinguishable from a meer or absolute promise, if it be not conditional.

No more can any mortal. Therefore they talk strangely in the clouds as to this matter; so that I confess, I can by no means under­stand them; I wish they understand themselvs. For because there are so many promises in the Gospel that run as conditionally as words can express them they are shie of saying, with the Antinomians, that the Cove­nant of Grace is not conditional; but then they tell us that all the privi­ledges therein contained shall be ab­solutely bestowed on those that [Page 153] they are promised to; and so, in my weak judgement, they plainly deny all conditionality therein notwith­standing. And they think them­selvs warranted thus to express themselvs, by Ieremiah 31. 33. and the quotation of that place, He­brews 8. 10. But to these places we will speak anon.

Well, I perceive, these also are obscurers of plain, and I had almost said too, spoilers of good Divinity, as well as the other men: for the consequences of their Do­ctrine, will, I fear, be found to have too untoward an influence upon the practice of too many that under­stand them; though they do not shew themselvs quite so soon, as those that follow from the former Doctrine.

I wish they could as ea­sily discern Consequences, as I see you do: for my charity leads me to believe that very many of them [Page 154] have so much unkindness for them; as that they would then for their sakes bid adieu to the beloved pre­misses. But, Philalethes, there are other more moderate and wise per­sons, and many of them men of ex­cellent worth, who being sensible how greatly Protestants have expo­sed themselvs to the Papists lash, LXX. A full de­finition of Faith ill applied to the bu­siness of justifying. by that doctrine make receiving of Christ as both Lord and Saviour to be justifying Faith. (Which I ac­knowledge to be a very true and full definition.) But yet they say, that though this alone is the Faith that justifieth, yet as it justifieth, it receives Christ as Saviour onely; or consists in relying on his merits.

But is not this marveilous subtile?

Truly it seems so to me; and I believe, at least, to all vulgar capacities.

But why will they not admit, that receiving Christ quâ [Page 155] Lord, as well as qua Saviour, justi­fieth?

Because they say Justi­fication is often denied to works, and onely ascribed to faith. But they apprehend not a difference be­tween these two, otherwise than by making faith, relying on Christs merits; and works, yeelding obedi­ence to his precepts. But, therefore, that they may reconcile Justifica­tion by Faith alone, with taking o­bedience (or a willingness to obey) into justifying Faith, (which they are convinc'd they must do, or they shall make mad work on't) that is, that they may make S. Iames not to contradict S. Paul, they say that ju­stifying Faith must be a working o­bediential Faith; yet as it justifieth must be considered as distinct from obedience. But because it is repli­ed, that to rely upon Christs merits, is an act of obedience, or a work; they answer, that though it be, yet [Page 156] it doth not justifie as it is a work; and therefore with the other men, they will not have it called a condi­tion of Justification, but the instru­ment.

But don't you think that this elaborate acuteness might be well spared, by understanding works when they are undervalued compa­ratively to grace and faith, as quite distinct things from sincere obedi­ence to the Gospel of Christ?

I am verily perswaded it may; and that the way, in which those that are called the Moral Preachers go, as to this point, will be made as clear as our hearts can wish, by so understanding them.

I desire you to give me as full an account, as briefly you can, how they deliver this doctrine of Faith, in reference to Justification.

Justifying Faith (be­cause they would express themselvs as plainly as may be, in a matter of [Page 157] most weighty importance) they de­scribe much after this manner: That It is so full a perswasion, LXXI. A full and plain definition of Faith used by those Prea­chers. that Christ Iesus is the Saviour of Mankinde, and that his Gospel is true, as caus­eth a hearty and sincere willingness to yeild obedience to all his precepts; or to take that course, which he hath prescribed in order to Salvation.

This is plain enough: And I should think, not capable of being misunderstood.

Though I cannot say that I speak the words of any of them; yet sure I am, that those I have heard them use, in defining ju­stifying faith, are as easily intelligi­ble as these are, and have the same sence.

I have heard you hereto­fore say, that when you were a youth, you was taught this defini­tion, viz. Iustifying faith is a grace of the holy Spirit, whereby a man, being convinced of his sin, and mi­serable [Page 158] estate in regard of it, and an all-sufficiencie in Christ to save from both, receives him as he is tendered in the Gospel, or according to his three Offices of Prophet, Priest, and King. What fault can be found with the wording of this?

None at all; not is a better definition of Faith desirable: I was taught this, when other kinde of de­finitions of that grace were all the Mode, by a most judicious, as well as pious Divine: (I cannot forbear to call him so, though he is of all men most nearly related to me) & to him I shall ever acknowledge my self ob­liged, for first rightly instructing me in this point, and antidoting me a­gainst the forementioned false noti­ons concerning it, with divers others that were highly by very many cry­ed up in those, as well as in these wilde days.

You are not less beholden to that Reverend and worthy per­son, [Page 159] upon those accounts, than you are for your very being. But, I pray, LXXII. Of that Doctrine of those Preach­ers, that Faith ju­stifieth as it impli­eth obe­dience. do the Preachers you have un­dertaken to represent, not onely say that Justifying faith includes obedi­ence, but also, that it justifieth as it doth so?

Yes, Philalethes, that they do. For they do not think that the Scriptures make any diffe­rence between the two foremen­tioned acts of faith, as to the influ­ence it hath upon Justification; and that not without cause. S. Paul tells us, Gal. 5. 6. that neither circum­cision nor uncircumcision availeth any thing; (he means especially as to Justification, as appears by vers. 4) but faith that worketh by love; which takes in the whole of obedi­ence; and there he stops. The A­postle troubleth not himself to give any caution to the Galatians, that they should not understand him as if his meaning was any more than this, [Page 160] That justifying faith worketh by love; or as if he had said, That faith justifieth as it worketh by love.

There comes into my minde an Argument, that seems to me demonstrative, LXXIII. An argu­ment to prove that Faith ju­stifieth as it receivs Christ quâ Lord, as well as quâ Sa­viour. that there is to be made no distinction between those acts of faith in justifying: namely, the Scriptures assure us, that our Saviours death was intended not onely to deliver us from wrath, but from sin too; and it is plain that this later was its immediate end; de­liverance from wrath being a conse­quent of deliverance from sin: And therefore faith in Christs bloud must needs justifie as it designs obtaining this, as well as that.

Your Argument will ra­ther prove more than that for which you bring it, viz. That if those acts of faith be at all to be distinguished in the business of Justification, the greater stress is to be laid on that, which complieth with the principal [Page 161] end of our Saviours death. And so, if we must be making comparisons, Faith justifieth as it receives Christ quâ Lord, rather than quâ Priest or Saviour. But however, I am not for any comparisons, they being per­fectly needless, and nothing gotten by them.

That act of receiving Christ as Lord, LXXIV. The act of receiv­ing Christ quâ Lord, to go be­fore that of receiv­ing him quâ Priest. is to go before that of receiving him as Priest: for we may not rely upon him for salvati­on, till we are willing to yeeld obe­dience to him.

'Tis most true; we have not any ground at all so to do: we must be willing to be to our power universally obedient, before we take that confidence.

Before you go farther, I pray tell me what distinction you would make betwixt Faith and Re­pentance, and the other graces also, if its nature be extended so far as to imply obedience.

The Scriptures are sel­dom so curious, when they speak of Faith, LXXV. How faith is distin­guisht from re­pentance and other vertues, in the bu­siness of Iustifica­tion. or Repentance, or the love, or fear, or knowledge of God, &c. as to understand them in so restrain­ed a sence, as to abstract them from other vertues: but sometimes they express all by one. We finde in multitudes of places some one of the principal vertues put to express the whole of practical Religion; as each of those last mentioned; of which I need not give you instances. And whereas Faith and Repentance are sometimes distinguished, it is onely because believing the Gospel implieth more than bare Repentance in its strict notion. Irenaeus there­fore gives this honest description of faith in Christ: Credere ei est facere ejus voluntatem: To believe in Christ is to do his will. More­over, we shall finde that Justificati­on, and Remission of sins, (for the Scripture makes no difference be­twixt [Page 163] those two) is sometimes ascri­bed to other vertues, as well as to Faith: but then they are understood either in so general a sence, as to in­clude Faith, or as supposing it. For instance, Acts 3. 19. 'tis attributed to conversion and repentance: Re­pent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out. To forgiveness of trespasses, Matth. 6. 14. If you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. To shewing mercy, Mat. 5. 7. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. To works, or sincere obedience, Iames 2. 24. A man is justified by works, and not by faith onely. Where Faith is taken in a more strict sence, and Works suppose Faith. That is, A man is ju­stified by an effectual working faith, and not by faith without works. And again, vers. 21. saith he, Was not our father Abraham justified by works? who yet, according to S. [Page 164] Paul, was justified by faith. But whereas Justification is mostly attri­buted to faith, LXXVI. Why ju­stification is mostly ascribed to faith. the reason is, because all other graces are vertually therein contained; and that is the Principle from whence they are derived.

I pray inform me next, Theophilus, what influence it is that those Preachers tell their people Faith hath upon Justification; or how it justifieth.

I should not have forgot­ten this, though you had not mind­ed me, in the least, of it: for it is of as great importance to be spoken to, as most of the heads of our past dis­course. LXXVII Two ac­ceptations of the word Faith. Observe therefore, That Faith sometimes signifieth in Scri­pture the Doctrine of faith, or the Gospel: so it is to be understood, Gal. 3. 23, 25. LXXviii The ver­tue of faith va­riously expressed in Scri­pture. and in several other places. But it ordinarily signifieth the vertue or duty of believing; and so it is variously expressed; as by be­lieving on the Son of God, and the [Page 165] record that God gave of his Son, 1 Joh. 5. 10. Believing the word or words of Christ, Joh. 5. 47. Belie­ving Christ to be the Son of God, and the Saviour of the world, Joh. 8. 24. Joh. 11. 26, 27. Receiving of Christ, Joh. 1. 12. All which are to be understood in a practical sence. For as the Scriptures scarce­ly ever call any other the know­ledge of God, but that which hath the end of knowledge, viz. obedi­ence: so do they make nothing true believing, but that which hath the ends of faith, or causeth men to do those things for the sake of which it is required.

Now as Faith is put for the Do­ctrine of faith, LXXIX. How faith ju­stifieth. so those Preachers are content it should justifie as an instrument, viz. as it containeth the Covenant of grace, and holdeth forth pardon to sinners; and so it justifieth, as the Law condemneth.

As it signifieth the vertue or duty [Page 166] of faith, so it justifieth as it is the condition of the new Covenant, wherein forgiveness of sin is offered. God the Father is the principally. efficient cause of our Justification; and so it is said, that it is God that justifieth: Jesus Christ justifieth as the onely meritorious, or procu­ring cause; the Gospel as the instru­mental cause; and faith therein, as the condition without which we cannot be justified, and to which that priviledge is assured.

The new Covenant offereth par­don of sin and eternal life to us, up­on the condition of believing in Christ: So God loved the world, that he gave his onely begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlast­ing life. He that believeth shall be saved, &c. If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

This is a very easie ac­count of Faiths justifying.

Nothing seems to me to be more plain; as obscure a business as 'tis made.

But what cannot the wit of men make difficult?

First, LXXX. The Co­venant of grace con­ditional. there is nothing more evident (as we said) than that the new Covenant is conditional; and that God doth not therein pro­mise absolutely pardon of sin and the consequent blessings.

The great place that is produced against the conditionality of the Covenant of grace, is that which you said you would speak to, viz. that quotation out of Ieremi­ah that we finde in Heb. 10. 8. where God seemeth in his Covenant to promise to do all, in order to our eternal happiness, and to require no­thing of us.

It is in a good hand: I pray do you answer that Objection.

Were I duller than I am, I think I could easily enough appre­hend [Page 168] a satisfactory answer to it, viz. That a condition is there implied: for the meaning of those words [ I will put my laws into their hearts, LXXXI. Heb. 8. 10. consi­dered. and write them in their inward parts] cannot be, I will do all for them, they need do nothing at all; this would make all the precepts of the Gospel most wretchedly insigni­ficant, (nor indeed do any assert this, but some very monstrously wilde­brain'd people:) nor yet, as ap­pears from many other Scriptures, can this be the sence; I will sancti­fie their natures, and so cause them to keep my laws, without their con­currence in that act: but, I will afford them my Grace and Spirit, where­by, they co-operating therewith, and not being wilfully wanting to them­selvs, shall be enabled so to do. Or, I will do all that reasonable creatures can reasonably expect from Me, to­wards the writing of my laws in their hearts, & putting them into their in­ward [Page 169] parts. Whatsoever God may do for some persons out of his super­abundant grace, doubtless this is all that he either here or elsewhere en­gageth himself to do for any.

This exposition of yours is a very good one, most agreeable with the analogie of Faith, and fully answers the forementioned Obje­ction. But there are very judicious Expositors that are led by the consi­deration of the verse following thus to interpret this place, viz. This is the Covenant that I will make in the times of the Gospel; I will in stead of those external and carnal or­dinances, which the house of Israel hath for a long time been obliged to the observance of, give them onely such precepts as are most agreeable to their reason and understandings, and such as wherein they may discern es­sential goodness: and by this great expression of my grace to them, (as al­so that which is expressed in the 12 [Page 170] verse, namely, assurance of pardon to all reforming sinners, of all past wickednesses whatsoever, and all present frailties and weaknesses) I shall not onely convince them of their duty, but also, strongly encline them to the chearful performance of it. And then it follows, very pertinent­ly to this sence, in vers. 11. And they shall not teach every man his neigh­bour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the great­est. i. e. There shall be no need of such pains, in teaching men how they must obey the Lord, and what they are to do, as there was under the Law of Moses, (which consisted in obser­vations that were onely good be­cause commanded, and had no in­ternal goodness in them to commend them to the reason of men, and which might cause it to prompt them to them;) but the precepts now given, shall be found written by every [Page 171] man in his own heart, so that none need be ignorant of what is enjoyned for the substance of it, that will but consult the dictates of their own natures. For a confirmation of this sense, see Deut. 30. 11, 12, 13, 14 vers. Moses having in the later part of vers. 10. put the people upon turning to the Lord their God with all their heart and with all their soul; and before shewed that it was their duty to love the Lord their God with all their heart and soul, which you know containeth the substance of what is enjoyned in the new Cove­nant, and was no part of that which was required by the Law, that is cal­led in a strict sence the Iewish & Mo­saical, ( which, as the Apostle saith, was added because of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the promises were made; not as any new condition whereby they were to attain to the promises, but that they should till they were fulfilled, [Page 172] be restrained and kept under a strict outward discipline backt on by temporal rewards and punishments) I say, having over and above his own Law, exhorted them to the obser­vance of those duties, wherein the substance of those commanded in the Gospel consisteth, (and which may be found sprinkled up and down in the other Prophets, as well as his writings, and doubtless were more compleatly delivered to them by tradition from their fathers) he thus saith in the 11 verse, and the three following: For this command­ment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off: it is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it and do it? Nei­ther is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it and do it? But the [Page 173] word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that thou mayst do it. By the word in their heart at least, we are certainly to un­derstand, the forementioned spiri­tual, and essentially good precepts: for so is it interpreted by S. Paul, Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8.

I am hugely pleased with the Paraphrase you have given, and must needs say, that of these two (considering the context) it seemeth the most natural.

But however, their in­terpretation of this place, that en­deavour to prove from it the non­conditionality of the new Cove­nant, is by no means to be endured; it being of so very ill consequence, and also so flatly contradicting the apparent sence of multitudes of Scriptures as it doth; whereby we are assured that God expects that the working of his and our own spi­rits should go together, and be con­junct [Page 174] causes co-operating one and the self-same effect.

If men have no power, LXXXII Men not without all power to co-ope­rate with Gods grace in their con­version. as those people say, to co-operate at all with the grace of God, in the mortification of their lusts, or the renovation of their natures, S. Iames did very strangely forget himself, when he said, Cleanse your hands ye sinners, and purifie your hearts ye double minded.

The truth is, the Scri­pture seems one while to give all to God in the work of Regeneration and Conversion; and another while to make it wholly mens own act. And as in that place to the Hebrews, it may seem, at first sight, that all is to be done by God; so doth God in other places express himself, as if man were to do all in this work: as, Cast away from you all your iniqui­ties; Make you a new heart and a new spirit; turn your selves and live ye. Wash you, make you clean, put [Page 175] away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do well. And you know that I could tire you with sayings to the same purpose.

Therefore we must in­terpret such places so, as to recon­cile them to each other.

And to this end we must go in a middle way, LXXXiii A middle way to be taken in giving account of mens conver­sion. and avoid the extremes on both hands, or we shall never do so. I mean, that where God speaks as if he did all in this great work, we are to judge, that he sup­poseth mens endeavours; and where he speaks as if men were to do all, that he supposeth the concurrence and assistance of his own grace.

But as I said that nothing is more evident than that the new Covenant is conditional: so, secondly, there is nothing more plainly or frequently expressed, LXXXiv Faith the condition of the new Co­venant. than that Faith is the condition of it; and therefore I shall not need to insist upon it.

You said that those Prea­chers are accused by many Hot men, for this doctrine, LXXXV Of their being ac­cused for the fore­going doctrine, as hold­ing justi­fication by works, and ene­mies to Gods grace. as persons Popishly affected, and holding Justification by works; and therefore enemies to the freeness of Gods grace.

I foresaw, that in this part of our discourse, you would put me upon vindicating them from this high charge; and therefore when I had occasion given me to do it, I chose (as you may remember) to de­fer it longer, because this is the pro­perest place for it.

But suppose the conse­quences of this doctrine were so ve­ry foul as those men think they are; would it not be, notwithstanding, very uncharitably done of them, LXXXvi A digres­sion con­cerning censuring men upon the ac­count of their opi­nions. to censure the Preachers of it so highly upon that account?

Yes verily, Philalethes, this would not excuse them at all from unchristian uncharitableness: for they ought to hope (seeing they [Page 177] profess to magnifie free grace no less than themselvs, and concern them­selvs to confute the Papists as much as any, not to say more) that they do not understand the evil conse­quences of their Doctrine; and that, if they did, they would most wil­lingly and freely renounce it.

If those Preachers should retaliate, (as I hope they are better Christians than to do so) they might call these their censurers worse than Papists; I mean, Libertines and Ranters: for they are as strongly perswaded, that their notions about justifying Faith, and some other, lead to Looseness and Libertinism, as these are, that theirs lead to Po­pery.

But they dare not, I hope, so much as suspect, that those of them that seem to make any con­science of their ways, are at all aware of the Poison that is in some of their Opinions; but judge that their mean­ing [Page 178] is much better than their Faith.

I for my part can truly say, that I think not at all hardly of them for the sake of their false Te­nets, so long as I do not observe that they practise upon them; but I am sometimes very shrewdly tempted to fear, upon the account of the Reviling and Censuring not a few of them are guilty of, that they are no better than meer pretenders to Religion, as great a profession as they make of it: For S. Iames hath taught me, that, He that seemeth to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue that mans Religion is vain.

But perhaps they may mean as honestly in the one as in the other; and 'tis possible that their an­gry expressions may not be the ef­fects of malice, but of a certain kinde of zeal.

Well, Theophilus, I will endeavour after more of your chari­table temper: If you judge too [Page 179] well of those people, it is a safe and good extreme: Charity, I confess, hopeth all things, and believeth all things, even there, where are too great temptations to the con­trary.

When we can put a fa­vourable construction upon our brothers faults, and not offer over­great violence to our own Reason, we ought to do it; and to look up­on them as proceeding rather from infirmity, than from a principle of immorality. But yet, Philalethes, I would not have you take me to be more charitable than I am: for though I will not conclude those censorious people to be all hypo­crites, yet I dare confidently pro­nounce them, at best, but of the low­est fourm in Christs School; as great attainments as they may be thought to be arrived at, by men of greater honesty than understanding.

But we have forgotten [Page 180] our business all this while.

You do well to minde me of it. You expect, Philalethes, that I should vindicate those friends of ours, and all that are of their minde in the point in hand, from op­posing free grace, and holding the Popish doctrine of Justification by works. They are so far from being guilty in these particulars, that I am amazed at their ignorance, that say they are, upon such slight grounds, or rather upon none at all. Nor do I think that an easier task can be im­posed on any man, LXXXvii A Vindi­cation of the fore­going ac­count of faiths ju­stifying from be­ing oppo­site to free grace. that hath but a competent understanding of our Saviours Gospel, than to clear the foregoing account of Faiths justify­ing from those hateful sequels. For, whereas 'tis pretended, that that do­ctrine is an enemy to free grace; I may ask those that pretend so, how Justification is free, seeing it is ne­cessary to believe in their sence in order to it: they must at least ac­knowledge, [Page 181] that if not so much as that lazie faith of theirs were requi­site, it would be so much the freer.

But the Antinomians will tell you, that they make no faith at all, nor any thing else necessary or requisite to their Justification; and that their faith consists in believing that they are already justified, and that they were so before they were born too; nay, as was said, that their Justification is as old as God him­self; for he could be but from eter­nity.

I confess these blades are swinging assertors of the freeness of their Justification; and therefore the Question I now asked is no­thing to them: but I am sure it sig­nifieth something to the second sort I told you of, and that are gotten about one little remove from formal Antinomians. But I say moreover, that such a Faith as that we have de­scribed is absolutely necessary in it [Page 182] self, to make us capable of that pri­viledge, and meet objects of Gods grace.

Will they say, that the Kings pardoning a notorious Traytor is ever the less free, because that as far as he could judge of his heart, he looked on him as a person that was resolved to become for the future a Loyal subject? Me-thinks they should not; and that for this reason, because such a purpose is but neces­sary to qualifie him for a pardon; it being an act of greater fondness and folly, than of grace and goodness, to forgive an offender that obstinately persists in his disobedience. Or suppose his Majestie should confer upon one of them an honourable Office in his Court, would he say he bought it, or that it was not freely bestowed upon him, because his Ma­jestie required that before his inve­stiture, and admission into it, he should learn good Breeding, and [Page 183] how to behave himself in such a Place? Surely he would not; and that for the already-mentioned rea­son: this he could not but know was no more than necessary to be enjoyned him; for otherwise he could not be at all fit for the Office; and the King would greatly dispa­rage his wisdom in making such a choice. And as little cause have any to imagine, that to assert that God will pardon, and receive into special favour, none but such, as so believe, as to be heartily willing to obey his Sons Gospel, is to derogate from the freeness of his grace. Be­sides, that glory and blessedness which consisteth in the enjoyment of God in the other world, which is the consequent of Justification, cannot be enjoyed by a wicked man: the joys of heaven are of so spiritual a nature, that carnal souls are as uncapable of them, as are beasts of the intellectual delights of [Page 184] men. They are onely the pure in heart that can, as well as that shall see God. Heathens will teach us this doctrine, if we are to learn it.

Much less then, in the third place, is this doctrine of a working Faiths being the condition of our Justifica­tion, at all a lessening of the freeness of Gods grace; when as those that preach it do withal assert, that this faith is Gods own gift, a grace of his blessed Spirit. They say indeed, and that most truly, that we are to use the means appointed us by him for the obtaining of it; but they tell their hearers also, that it must come from God, if they ever have it. Could we work this faith in our selvs, and stood in no need of the divine assistance; considering what hath been said, it would make our Justification to be never the less free: much less reason then is there, that those should be charged with making it otherwise, that preach [Page 185] that doctrine of Faiths being the condition of Justification, when they declare that the power where­by we perform that condition comes from God.

I am sure that I have no power to invent any one Reply by way of objection.

Well then, we'll to their next Cavil; namely, that to hold this doctrine, is to maintain Justifi­cation by works: which is indeed the same in their sence with the for­mer; but it is fit it should be distinct­ly spoken to, because S. Paul (in his Epistles especially to the Romans and Galatians) doth so often deny works to have an influence into Ju­stification, and is found opposing them one while to Grace, and ano­ther while to Faith as to this mat­ter. I cannot stand to cite the par­ticular places; but the consideration of these following things will enable any man to reconcile them with [Page 186] this Doctrine at the first sight of them.

1. By the works of the Law, Lxxxviii. A vindi­cation of that Do­ctrine from as­serting justifica­tion by works in S. Paul's sence. whereby the Apostle saith that men cannot be justified, we are frequent­ly to understand those of the Jewish Law, their External Rites and Ob­servances. And so they are to be understood in most, if not all the places in the Epistle to the Galati­ans. And by the understanding of that one thing, that Epistle may with ease be defended from patro­nizing the Antinomian doctrine. The chief designe of which (as is most apparent) being to vindicate the liberty of the Christian Religi­on from the Judaical Yoke, which being by the Judaizing Galatian Converts imposed upon the Christi­an Gentiles as absolutely and indis­pensably necessary, was like to prove a mighty obstacle to the progress of the Gospel among them.

2. In some other places, by works [Page 187] are meant absolutely perfect, and al­together faultless ones. And we are told, that, as the Law of Moses can­not, nor ever could justifie, by rea­son of its own weakness; so, the Law of perfect obedience now can­not, by reason of ours,

3. We may sometimes under­stand any works, of what nature so­ever, considered as meritorious cau­ses. Could we obey perfectly, we cannot merit thereby the pardon of past sins: nay, had we never sinned, we could deserve no reward at our Creators hands, our righteousness being not at all profitable to him; much less then can the imperfect works of sinners be meritorious.

4. Meer external works perform­ed by our own power in our unsan­ctified state, that is, such as proceed not from an inward principle of life, may in other places be understood.

But we have no ground ever to understand by works when opposed [Page 188] to Grace or Faith, inherent holiness, or new obedience to the Gospel­precepts. Lxxxix. By works when op­posed to Grace or Faith, new obe­dience never meant. I dare promise an unpre­judiced person, that, reading the se­veral Scriptures where works are so opposed, he will be satisfied that they are not any where to be other­wise understood than of one of these four sorts.

So that as works signifie sincere obedience to Christs Gospel, XC. No crime to hold justifica­tion by works in S. James his sence. nei­ther I nor those Preachers can ac­count it any scandal to have it said of us, that we hold Justification by works; nor can we deserve to have it thought that we have one bit the more of a Pope in our bellies upon that account. And why any man should be more shie of acknowledg­ing this than S. Iames was, (who saith in plain terms, A man is justi­fied by works, and not by faith onely; and that Abraham was justified by works) I cannot understand. Nor need we so mince it, as to say that [Page 189] faith justifieth our persons, and works our faith: for understand­ing works, I say, for a working faith, our persons (if ever they be) must be justified by them. I would not that Protestants should give such ad­vantage to the sottish Papists, as to be shie of using any Scripture-lan­guage; and, by being so, to give them occasion to think that we are in the other extreme from them, and have a slight opinion of good works. XCI. S. Paul's language not to be preferred before S. James his. And I think it desirable that we would cease to prefer S. Paul's lan­guage before S. Iames his; and not more interpret S. Iames by S. Paul, than S. Paul by S. Iames, they be­ing both alike Apostles, and their E­pistles alike Scripture; but that we would be content to interpret them by each other. And then, I dare say, this Controversie would quickly be at an end among us; and we should have no adversary to contend with, about this point, but the Papist one­ly.

But, Philalethes, don't you remember that you set me a me­thod, and desired me first to dis­course of those our Friends Practi­ces, and next of their Opinions.

And you see, how well I have observ'd it. But the best of it is, I told you then, that I would not promise you never to confound those two together; nor, indeed, could I have been as good as my word if I had: for I could not, as I ought, discourse of their Preaching, and not take in some of their Do­ctrine.

But I will now, in a more distinct manner, give you an account of their Opinions. They may be referred to matters of Doctrine and Disci­pline. As to the former, I. A more distinct account of their Opinions. they pro­fess to dissent from none that have been held to be Fundamentals of the Christian Faith, either by the Pri­mitive, [Page 191] or best Reformed Modern Churches: And heartily to subscribe to the 39 Articles of our Church, II. Of their judgment in Doctri­nals. taking that liberty in the interpreta­tion of them, that is allowed by the Church her self. Though it is most reasonable to presume, III. In what sence the Church of England imposeth subscri­ption to the 39 Articles. that she re­quires Subscription to them, as to an Instrument of Peace onely.

So the late most Reve­rend and Learned Archbishop of Armagh several times expresseth the sence of the Church of England, as to her requiring Subscription to those Articles. IV. The Lord Primate of Ire­land his testimony. The Church of Eng­land, saith he in his Schism Guarded, p. 396. doth not define any of these Questions as necessary to be believed either necessitate medii, or necessi­tate praecepti, which is much less; but onely bindeth her sons, for peace sake, not to oppose them. And pag. 150. he doth farther thus express himself. We do not suffer any man to reject the 39 Articles of the [Page 192] Church of England at his pleasure; yet neither do we look upon them as essentials of Saving Faith, or Lega­cies of Christ and his Apostles; but in a mean, as pious opinions fitted for the preservation of unity: nei­ther do we oblige any man to be­lieve them, but onely not contradict them.

I thank you, Philalethes, for these citations out of so excel­lent an Author; which are no small confirmation of the truth of that assertion of mine, which did occa­sion them. V. What Doctrines they most endeavor to con­fute. But to go on: Those opinions in Doctrinals that those Divines look upon themselvs as most obliged to manifest their dis­approbation of, and to confute, are such as either directly, or in their evident consequences, tend to beget in mens mindes unworthy thoughts of God, and unlovely notions of his nature; or to encourage profaneness, or discourage from diligence and in­dustry [Page 193] in the ways of holiness; as, by what hath been said, you have in part understood.

'Tis strange to me, Theo­philus, that any that understanding­ly believe the being of God should entertain an unlovely notion of his nature; for not to have the most lovely, is to deprive him of his very Godhead. VI. Philale­thes his represen­tation of Gods na­ture. He must needs be as good, as good can be, and have all perfections attracting love concen­tred in him in the highest degree possible: He must be infinitely merciful, of perfectly unspotted righteousness, purity, and holiness, (which I esteem as no less lovely qualifications, than that of mercy) or he cannot be God. Nay, no man, I should think, (that is not a very Atheist) can doubt but that all the amiable qualities that we see in good men, are but so many efflu­viums, if I may so call them, or ema­nations from those that are in God; [Page 194] and therefore must needs be, in an unconceivably greater measure in him, where they are originally, than in them, where they are but de­rivatively. We learn from very Heathens that such qualities are ir­radiations sliding into mens souls from God, and that they proceed from a divine afflatus; who also tell us, that God is not onely [...], but likewise [...], the best, as well as chiefest and most supreme being. And they give a most lovely descri­ption of Gods essence; and make him, you know, to be no less just and gracious, than wise and power­ful; as, I need not tell you, may be shewn in a world of instances.

But that any Christian should be able to form to himself an unlovely idaea and conception of God, is to me matter of the greatest astonish­ment; he being so excellently re­presented in the New, and also in the Old Testament. In the New, [Page 195] we finde his definition to be Love it self; and that the way to be his lively images, and like to him, is not to af­fect to be men of great power and knowledge, but to be most holy and righteous, loving and merciful. In a word, the new Testament, I am sure, gives the most amiable account imaginable of the Divine nature: And so doth the Old too; even when God appeared in the most frightful form, did he proclaim himself, The Lord, the Lord God gracious and merciful, pardoning iniquity, trans­gression, and sin: And though it follows, that he will in no wise clear the guilty, i. e. the impenitent; yet that is so far from being a contradi­ction to his goodness, that it is a far­ther declaration of it; for otherwise he would not have that part thereof that is called righteousness. He is there represented, as a God good to all, and whose mercies are over all his works: As a God, whose ways [Page 196] are all just and right, and whose soul abominates all evil. It would be a very long work to go over all the places where we finde such accounts of God as these are; and it would finde us employment, I believe, for some days.

How dearly do I love you, Philalethes, for the most wor­thy conception that I perceive you have lodg'd in your soul, of the Di­vine nature! 'Tis pitie, me-thinks, that you and I are not Namesakes: I loved you very sincerely since my first knowledge of you, but now passionately. And I'le no longer ac­count you my Friend onely, but you shall be my dearest Brother, and my Second self too, for the future.

How do you transport me, Theophilus, with these almost- rapturous expressions of Affection! But I cannot understand how I have deserved them, by any thing I have now said: doubtless there is no [Page 197] Christian, no, nor any Theist nei­ther, but will say the same. And though I prefer your name before mine own, yet is mine given me for nought, if I did not thus speak of God; for then, to be sure, I could make no pretence to be a friend to Truth.

But you spake, what I now heard from you, with such an impetus, as is a demonstration to me, that you have a most quick and deep sense of what you said, and that you are infinitely concerned that it should be true.

But I pray, Sir, answer me; Are there any Christians that dare deny this, nay, that will not most heartily acknowledge it?

Truly, Philalethes, I dare not say there are; but I dare say this, That there are too too ma­ny that will speak such things of God, as most apparently contradict it.

Would to God you had no ground for this assertion; but I know, to my frequent great trouble, that there is too good ground for it; and that some, whom I cannot but hope are sincerely good men, do with great and mighty zeal defend such Opinions as are, in my judge­ment, no less contrary to the good­ness and holiness of Gods nature, than the thickest darkness to the clearest light.

We must not by any means, VII. Conse­quences of Opini­ons not to be char­ged on all those that hold them. I am more and more convin­ced, charge the consequences of O­pinions upon all those that hold them: for there is nothing I have a clearer perception of, than that the Notions of some, whom I verily perswade my self are pious Christi­ans, and very true lovers of God and goodness, do immediately tend to rob God of his goodness, (in which word I imply all his Moral perfecti­ons) and to lay a foundation for [Page 199] impiety and irreligion.

I know the Notions you chiefly mean, are, VIII. That they set themselvs against the Do­ctrines of Gods ab­solute de­creeing mens sin and mise­ry. the making of mens sins, and consequent misery, the unavoidable effects of Gods De­crees.

You could not well miss of my meaning, nor I of yours; these Doctrines must needs be principally in both our thoughts: And I must tell you, that the Divines we are discoursing of do set themselvs a­gainst both these in good earnest: And they profess that they do so for no other reason, than because they have a most clear sense of the mis­chievous effects of them.

But do all those that hold that God doth absolutely pre­determine men to eternal misery, make him absolutely to decree mens sins too, in order to it? I think they do not.

No; there are many that assert the one, that no less deny the [Page 200] other: IX. That those two are not to be se­parated. but I confess I do not under­stand how they can. For if men are by God unavoidably and abso­lutely determined to the end, he must do more than decree, barely to permit the means: for they must ne­cessarily sin, that Gods absolute de­cree may infallibly take effect; which it is possible it might not, if they were onely permitted, and not ne­cessitated thereunto; for then man­kinde might have never fallen.

I wonder that all should not see this. But, Theophilus, why should those that maintain that de­sperate Doctrine of Gods absolute decreeing mens sins, be so shie as not to acknowledge him the author also of them?

I do not see that they need be so; and therefore there are those of them that are not; and that tell us, that to boggle at acknow­ledging God the author of sin, is to fear where no fear is.

I would, for my part, be an Atheist, before I would imagine such a monstrous thing of God.

And less you would dishonour him in being so: for as Plutarch saith, I had rather poste­rity would say, There was never such a one as Plutarch, than that he was an unjust and vicious person: so 'tis more dishonourable to the infi­nitely just and holy God, to assert that he is the author of sin, than to say that there is no God at all.

But that Doctrine, with its appendant, will (in my opinion) not onely make Him the first cause of mens being sinners, but also to set men the worst example to en­courage them still in sinning: which is so horrid, that I even quake to ex­press it.

I guess whereabout you are, Philalethes: Those Doctrines make their defenders to assert, that there are two Wills in God, where­of [Page 202] of one is perfectly contrary to the other, X. That those do­ctrines make their de­fenders assert two wills in in God, and the one con­trary to the others; by which means o­ther sad conse­quences also fol­low. viz. his Secret and Reveled will: And though he professeth kindness to all men, and saith, nay and sweareth too, that he willeth not the death of sinners themselvs, but had rather they would turn from their wickedness and live; yet, ac­cording to those Doctrines, this is but a declaration of his Voluntas signi; the plain English of which phrase is this; A meer copie of his Countenance. The like to which should one assert concerning any one of those that talk after this rate, I am sure he would take it in great­est disdain, and think himself not a little reproached.

From thence it follows too plainly also, that God giveth Laws to the generality, to the very intent that they may break them, and so aggravate their condemna­tion; notwithstanding that he pro­fesseth even a passionate desire, that [Page 203] men would observe them, and so be made happie. And by this means, most mens obligations to God for the many temporal mercies they re­ceive from him are quite struck off, and made to be no expressions of his goodness to them, but the quite contrary; whereas he tells us, (as was said but now) that he is good to all, and that his tender mercies are over all his works; and that the whole earth is full of the goodness of the Lord. This is likewise from thence a sequel too plain and natu­ral, That Jesus Christ is not onely eventually, but also intentionally, the greatest curse that ever befel the world; and a far greater expression of the Fathers hatred than of his love, notwithstanding that he him­self hath said, that he came not to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved: and that, So God loved the world, that he gave his onely begotten Son, [Page 204] &c. For if the forementioned Do­ctrines be true, our Saviours coming was to aggravate the condemnation of the generality of men (which would be far more properly called the world, than a very few) for not believing in him, who never died for them, so much as to put them into a possibility of being saved; though he declared that he gave himself a ransome for the vulgus, or multitude of the people, (for so the word [...], which is rendered many, doth, among the Greeks, most commonly signifie; as our Le­xicons tell us, and Vatablus also up­on that place) and S. Paul saith, He gave himself a ransome for ALL, and did taste death for EVERY man; and that he is the Saviour of ALL men, though especially of those that believe: and though he sadly be­wailed mens not coming to him, that they might have life; and wept over Ierusalem for her obstinate persist­ing [Page 205] in unbelief, and most pathetical­ly with tears wished, that she had known, in that her day, the things that belonged unto her peace. I could go on instances of this na­ture, as—

But I pray, Philalethes, do not: for they are grating to my ears, and most grievous to me. And it troubleth me to the very soul, that any (good people especially) should entertain (and much more, should be zealous for) such Notions as are attended with so long a train of most dismally-sad Consequences, and so greatly reflecting dishonour upon our infinitely-holy and good God.

I fear this kinde of dis­course hath put you into one of your old dumps of Melancholy; for me-thinks you all of a suddain look very dejectedly.

No, Philalethes, there is no fear of that; but I would wil­lingly [Page 206] be more concerned at any dishonour that is done to God, and his Son Jesus, than at any personal evil. Well, what was it that im­mediately occasioned this last talk?

The ill use that is made of that distinction of Gods Secret and Reveled will.

But is that distinction to be found fault with?

I see your memory needs rubbing up as well as mine. XI. Of oppo­sing Gods secret to his reve­led will. I did not at all except against that distin­ction, but against opposing Gods se­cret to his reveled will. And now I adde, that whatsoever God saith he intends, he really doth so; and that his declarations are to be un­derstood, as we would any honest mans. But to deal freely with you, I should not be at all sorry, if the di­stinction of voluntas signi & bene­placiti were quite thrown out of doors.

But what say you to that of Gods commanding Abraham to offer up his son Isaac? Did he in­tend he should be offered up? Sure no.

Nor did God say he in­tended it; but onely for tryal bade Abraham do it.

So it may be said, that God may not, as well, really intend, that all should observe his Laws, to whom he gives them.

But he plainly and often declares, that he gives them for that end; and moreover hath imprinted them in mens souls, as well as writ­ten them in his Book: and, as I said, expresseth a desire that men would observe them, and yeeld obedience to them, i. e. do what lies in them so to do. And I hope that none will say otherwise, than that it is eve­ry ones duty to believe that God would have him obey his Laws: but it was not Abraham's duty to believe [Page 208] that God would have him to sacri­fice his son; but onely to do it, ex­cept he interposed.

But it appeareth from the story, that Abraham did believe this.

I grant that; but, I say, he was not bound to believe it, though he did: for no man can be obliged to believe a falsity: And besides, he could have no reason to be confident that God did not in­tend onely to try him by that Com­mand, as the event proved he did. But suppose it had fallen out other­wise, that would not at all have al­tered the case; for who dares say but that God may, if he pleaseth, give commands to his servants, when he doth not intend they should do as he biddeth them, but onely to make an experiment of their readi­ness to obey him? None sure will deny the use of this liberty to any earthly parents towards their chil­dren; [Page 209] or masters towards their ser­vants. And therefore I say that A­braham had no just cause to con­clude that this was not his Creators designe in that command; though he took it for granted, that it was his purpose that he should do as he bade him.

What you say is clear enough: But did not God, by the Prophet, tell Nineveh that in fourty days she should be destroyed? did he mean as he spake then?

Yes doubtless that he did; for there was a condition so plainly implied in that threatning, ( viz. If she repented not) that the Ninevites themselvs were inclined, of their own accords, so to under­stand it. And it is ordinary among men to imply conditions in both threatnings and promises that sound absolutely, but especially in threat­nings; and so such are usually under­stood. Nay, some conditions are [Page 210] always understood by us in the most absolute promises and threatnings that are ever uttered by the tongues of men; and must be so.

The truth is, I am but a sorry Objector.

Your Objections have as much weight in them, I think, as any that the Scripture affordeth: but, I confess, some more baffling ones may be urged from seeming Reason: but whether we can answer them or no, we ought not, in the least, to be shaken by them, much less to be o­vercome. XII. That we must re­solve to believe nothing at all, if we may believe nothing against which we cannot answer all Obje­ctions. For if I may not believe any thing against which I am not a­ble to answer all Objections; I must resolve to believe nothing at all, & to set up for a perfect Sceptick. There are Arguments invented by Wits against the certainty of evidence from Sense; which he must have a good Metaphysical pate of his own, that is able to answer; would all men therefore that han't such heads do [Page 211] foolishly in giving undoubted cre­dit to their own senses? I know no man that can give a satisfactory answer to an Argument that is brought against the possibility of so close an union of the particles of matter each with other, as to make a solid body; but will any man in his wits therefore doubt, whether or no there be any such thing? The Argument that is brought for the infinite divisibility of matter, hath hitherto puzzled the most acute Phi­losophers, and so it is like to do to the worlds end; but yet I cannot imagine that any one doth notwith­standing really believe it. And from thence, all bodies may be pro­ved to be of a like bigness; and that a Mountain is as small as an Ant­heap, and an Ant as big as either: And this with so great a shew of rea­son, as I must acknowledge I cannot answer; but ought I therefore to suspect whether this be not true? [Page 212] So there are some Metaphysical Niceties that may seem to make the Opinion (and those it is founded on) probable, which we last expres­sed our selvs against: but what of that? All we ought thence to infer is no more than this, That Man is a weak, shallow creature.

But our Adversaries will say, Then you may believe their do­ctrine, for all the strong Objections you think you can make against it; and answer them all with an Oh the depth!

But what saith S. Austin? Because we cannot understand things that are difficult, shall we therefore deny those that are plain?

I wish that good Father had always born in his minde that Saying.

I wish so too: But to our business: That doctrine doth as evidently contradict the natural no­tions God hath imprinted in the ori­ginal [Page 213] constitution of humane souls, as can be; XIII. That the foremen­tioned doctrine evidently contra­dicts our natural notions. at least to me it seems so to do, and so doth it to thousands of others that are neither Fools nor Mad-men: and I must adde, that I cannot question but it would to all, that will be but perswaded freely to consult those innate notions: And besides, it is expresly against the whole strain of Scripture from Ge­nesis to the Revelation.

But you know that there are divers Scriptures that seem to make for Gods absolute decreeing mens damnation, and their sins too, which are much urged.

Truly, Philalethes, if our Translators had been pleased, they might with the alteration of but one little particle for another of the same signification, have preven­ted the taking almost any arguments out of Scripture to prove Gods de­creeing mens sins, any otherwise than barely to permit them. I [Page 214] mean, if they had put [ will] in a multitude of places, where mens sins are foretold, in stead of [ shall]. The [ shalls] make those places look as if they contained declarations of Decrees, whenas [ wills] would have made it at first sight to appear that they contain onely predictions, and expressions of Gods foreknowledge that men would commit such and such sins, not of his will and purpose that they should. I heartily wish that Authority would please to com­mand the Printers to make that lit­tle alteration in their future Impres­sions of the Bible. You may smile at this as an odde Fancie; but I as­sure you, I am upon good grounds confident, that it would be to very good purpose so to do.

No Wise-man or Scho­lar will fetch an argument from such a trifle to prove that or any other opinion.

What of that? the ge­nerality [Page 215] of people are neither Scho­lars nor yet wise: and I have great cause to suspect, that the vulgar sort have that wretched doctrine insensi­bly instilled into them by the fre­quent reading and hearing such pas­sages as these, viz. In the later days perillous times [shall] come; men [shall] be lovers of themselvs, co­vetous, proud, &c. There [shall] be false teachers, who [shall] pri­vily bring in damnable heresies, &c. And many [shall] follow their per­nicious ways, &c. And there are innumerable passages of this nature. But then, Philalethes, whatever Scriptures are brought to prove ei­ther the one or the other doctrine by, it must needs be acknowledged, that they are but very few, in com­parison of those that (most evident­ly say I, but) all will confess do seemingly contradict them. And which is the safest course, think you, in reconciling seemingly-contrary [Page 216] places to each other? To interpret a multitude of plain Scriptures by a few difficult ones, XIV. Which is the safest course in reconci­ling see­mingly contradi­ctory scri­ptures. or a few difficult ones by a multitude of plain ones?

The later, without all doubt. But it will be said that the Scriptures that make for those Do­ctrines, are as plain as those that make against them, though, as to their number, there is no compari­son betwixt them.

But I say they are more difficult, in that, their most obvious sence doth, (as none can deny) at least, seemingly contradict the natu­ral notions of our souls; which the plainest sence of the other no less gratifie. But however, is it not much the better way, to understand a few Scriptures, in their less obvious sence, to reconcile them to the most obvious sence of a multitude of o­thers; than to understand a multi­tude of Scriptures in their least ob­vious sence, to reconcile them to the [Page 217] most obvious of, in comparison with them, extremely few?

I have, since I suffered my self to think at all freely, been of your minde, and concluded that the Scriptures produced on the other side must necessarily be taken in an­other sence than that they fix upon; except we will make them contra­dict the greatest part of the Bible besides: And those that endeavour to reconcile all other to those Scri­ptures, make the Bible an extremely more difficult Book, than I am verily perswaded God hath made it.

For my part, I can be­lieve no sence of any Scripture true, XV. Theo­philus can be­lieve no sence of Scripture that doth contra­dict self­evident notions. that plainly contradicts the self-evi­dent notions of Good and Evil, that God hath put into my soul, and were born with me: For, (as hath been shew'd) I could have no reason to be­lieve the Scriptures to be Gods word, no, nor yet any thing I am sure God himself saith, to be infallibly true, [Page 218] were it not for those notions. And can't you remember that 'twas pro­ved also, that the goodness of the Doctrine delivered is necessary to convince us, that it is of God? Mankinde hath a natural sense of Moral good and evil.

But those of the other Perswasion say, That whatsoever God doth, is just and good, because he doth it. I am sure many of them, at least, will.

There is no other way to defend their doctrine, XVI. Of that opinion, That whatsoe­ver God doth is therefore good and just be­cause he doth it. but to prove that: But do not those, in so saying, plainly make nothing in it self to be just or unjust, good or e­vil? And so, in calling God a just God, say just nothing of him, (par­don the Quibble, I designed it not) that is, no more than this, that he wills what he wills: and I wonder who does not. Thus you see, they are forced to make good and evil to depend upon arbitrary will; and [Page 219] so make the Holy God a meer Wil­ful Being, and his nature perfectly indifferent to any thing: And thence it follows, that it is consistent enough with the Divine nature, to forbid all that which by being commanded is now called Holiness, and by that means make it wickedness; and to command all that which by being forbidden is now called wickedness, and by that means make it Holi­ness. But if this doth not raze and overturn the foundation of all Reli­gion, no opinion in the world tends so to do.

If Abraham was of that minde, he strangely forgot himself, when he said to his Maker, Shall not the Iudge of all the earth do right? And whether he was of that minde or no, if the Doctrine be true, he was guilty of a monstrously-absurd impertinence in so saying; and yet (which is more strange) he had no check for it.

Nay, did not God him­self appeal to mens innate notions, and so confute that doctrine, when he said to the Rebellious Jews, Are not my ways equal, and your ways unequal? Can those men think that he onely meant, Are not my ways such as I please to fancie, and yours such as it is my pleasure to dislike? Who would dare to fix such an expostulation as that on the infinitely-wise God?

Well, I am clearly sensi­ble, that nothing reveled by God can possibly contradict those princi­ples that are impressed in (as I think) indelible characters upon the souls of men; and therefore whatsoever places may seem to speak mens be­ing necessitated to be either sinners, or miserable, must be understood in another sence: especially seeing that God hath so often declared that mens ruine is of themselvs, and that their help is to be found in him; and [Page 221] that he willeth not their death, but the contrary; (and therefore much less can he will their sins; as he hath also, as plainly as can be, declared:) And moreover affords them means whereby they may obtain happiness; (which, who will not say that all that enjoy them are greatly behol­den to God for?) and expresseth his grace and good will to them all without any exception.

You have put me in minde of a passage I have met with in a Sermon of a most pious and learned Divine now in heaven; which, when I read it, did greatly affect me. It is this: Consider im­partially with your selvs, what an unreasonable, horrible thing it is, seeing there are so many several fre­quent expressions of Gods general love, and gracious favour to Man­kinde, inforced and strengthened with such protestations, and solemn oaths, that the cunningest Linguist of you [Page 222] all cannot, in your whole lives study, conceive or frame expressions more full and satisfactory. I say, is it not desperate madness, for a man to shew such hatred and abomination at the comfortable and gracious promi­ses of God, that he can be content to spend almost his whole age in contri­ving and hunting after interpreta­tions utterly contradicting and de­stroying the plain apparent sence of those Scriptures: And will be glad, and heartily comforted, to hear ti­dings of a new-found-out gloss, to pervert, and rack, and torment Gods holy Word.

Me-thinks this passage should affect any good man. But, Theophilus, what should induce so many to be led by a few Scriptures against such a torrent of others, to cry up such strange Doctrine?

You love to ask me Que­stions which you can answer as well your self: You know they pretend [Page 223] that this is the onely way to advance Gods grace in mens conversion and salvation. XVII. What is the Mo­tive in­ducing the good men of that per­swasion to go that way. And this, no doubt, is the onely motive that prevaileth with all the truly good men among them to go that way. It sounds as harsh in many, at least, of their ears, as it doth in ours; as I have great reason to be assured. And Calvin himself, in the 608 page of his Insti­tutions, calls Absolute Reprobation Horribile Decretum: And the Pre­sident of the Synod at Dort said it was materia odiosa; and therefore declared to the Remonstrants that that Controversie should be waved, and said that they would onely hear their Arguments against Absolute Election, for that was materia sua­vis. As I finde in their Letters cal­led Epistolae Ecclesiasticae, &c. I say, it is very harsh doctrine to many of them as well as to us; but be­cause they cannot otherwise than by admitting it, magnifie, as they think [Page 224] they ought, the divine grace to Gods elect, they force themselvs to swal­low the bitter Pill, as much as their stomacks nauseate it; and therefore, as those that drink down loathsome Potions stop their noses, so do these their ears to the clamours of their own Reason against it; and will not sedately advert to, but violently sup­press the natural dictates of their understandings. Have you not se­veral times observed that the good­natured people of that way com­plain more than others of Blasphe­mous thoughts? I am sure I have; and have found when I have dis­coursed with them, that this doctrine was the occasion of them. So that whether they will or no, their Rea­son, or innate sense of their Souls (call it which you please) suggests to them the dreadful consequences of it, which they would fain believe to be the devils temptations.

But don't you believe, [Page 225] that the men of this opinion are al­so induced to it, because they are not able to interpret in any other sence those places of Scripture that seem to make for it?

I do not think that the Learned men are: For I cannot ima­gine that those should think, that such Scriptures are unintelligible in any other sence than that they un­derstand them in, that know how few, and therefore how ambiguous the original words of the Hebrew Tongue are, as also that there are different sences of the same Verb in several Conjugations; and that there are strange Idioms and Pro­prieties of speech in that Language, which are also imitated in the Greek Testament; and lastly, that the oc­casions of several passages do fre­quently make another sence neces­sary to be imposed on them, from that which at first sight, and consi­dering them simply and absolutely, [Page 226] and as entire propositions, without relation to any other thing, offereth it self.

I have sometimes thought, that those need never despair of un­derstanding the places they produce to serve their Hypotheses, in a diffe­rent sence from that they are so fond of, who can invent a Figure to make All men, nay and every man too, to signifie but some few; and can re­concile I will not the death of a sin­ner, with I desire the death of most sinners; and, He will have all men to be SAVED, with He will have the generality of men to be DAMNED; and many the like Propositions which sound in my ears as contradi­ctory one to the other, as any I have ever heard or can invent. So that, Theophilus, it must needs be, as you said, their desire to magnifie Gods grace to the Elect, that alone pre­vaileth with those of them that are good-natured & truly-pious people [Page 227] to go that way. But yet I wonder that they should no more consider, that, to magnifie Gods grace to some few, so as to deny it to all others; and so to advance his mercy, as to rob him of his holiness, truth and justice, is to take ten thousand times more from him, than is given thereby to him.

I would advance Gods grace as highly as ever I am able, (and so I perswade my self would the Divines we have been speaking of) so as not to destroy his other perfections: nor do I (nor I believe they) desire to attribute any more to man, in the business of his salva­tion, than needs must, and not sup­pose him a perfect Brute. But to say the truth, I, and those I am ac­quainted with of those Divines, do magnifie in all respects the grace of God, as much as any of the other Way; and in one respect incompa­rably more.

What is the way you take so to do?

A middle one betwixt the Calvinists and Remonstrants; XVIII. Those Divines middle way be­tween the Calvi­nists and Remon­strants. which, in short, is this: That there is such a thing as distinguishing grace, whereby some persons are ab­solutely elected, by vertue whereof they shall be (having potent and in­fallible means prepared for them) irresistibly saved. But that others, that are not in the number of those singular and special favourites, are not at all in a desperate condition, but have sufficient means appointed for them to qualifie them for greater or less degrees of happiness, and have sufficient grace offered to them some way or other, and some time or other; and are in a capacity of sal­vation either greater or less through the merits of Jesus Christ; and that none of them are damned but those that wilfully refuse to co-operate with that grace of God, and will not [Page 229] act in some moral sutableness to that power they have received. And as for those that have been in an extra­ordinary manner wrought upon, and finde themselvs very powerfully ex­cited and carried to that which is good; such at least have reason, so long as they are also careful to walk in all ways of holiness, to believe themselvs in the number of the Ab­solutely elected. Now (as a learned Divine saith) the Arminian need not repine at this way, nor yet the Calvi­nist: for whatsoever good Armi­nianism pretends to concerning all men, is exhibited to the part not ab­solutely elected; and to the other part, the goodness of God is greater than is allotted by Arminius: And what­soever good is pretended in Calvi­nism to that part that is absolutely elected, the same goodness is here ex­hibited; and besides, that direful vizard pulled off, that Ignorance and Melancholy had put upon divine [Page 230] providence, and the lovely face of the Gospel.

I am glad to understand that you and they have made choice of this way; which is not new to me, (no more than another Middle way, which I cannot be satisfied with) but for some time I have been greatly inclined to prefer this before any other, as having by much the fewest and least difficulties.

I did not think you a stranger to it, and believed you could not but like well of it; nor can I conceive why either any Cal­vinist or Remonstrant should mislike it. But that we see in all professi­ons there are those that will hardly be brought to allow that there may be any farther improvements made, than those which their great Masters had attained to. Though both Cal­vin and Arminius were excellently-learned and pious persons, yet me­thinks their respective greatest Ad­mirers [Page 231] should acknowledge each of them short of infallibility, and there­fore not presume them in any thing attained to a Nè plus ultra. Every Age, sure enough, improveth in knowledge, having the help still of those foregoing: and as this is seen in other Sciences, so especially is it discernible in that of Divinity; as all but ignorant, and extremely pre­judiced persons must needs acknow­ledge.

But this way is not so new as some have imagined it: XIX. This way proposed by Ca­tharinus at the Council of Trent. for I have read it in the History of the Council of Trent, as that which Ca­tharinus, a Moderate and Learned man, proposed there for the accom­modation of the difference between the Dominicans and Franciscans a­bout this point.

The same person (as I am informed by one that hath read it) hath also written a very ingeni­ous Piece upon that subject, wherein [Page 232] he layeth down, and defendeth very handsomely this very way.

But indeed, if I did not think that this way were as much elder than that Gentleman, as were our Saviour and his Apostles, I should not have, at all, given credit to it.

No, nor I hope any else, if they did not think so: XX. How it came to pass that this way for some Ages had fewest friends. Id verum quod antiquissimum, being in Divi­nity an indisputable Maxime. And I verily believe that this way is much more befriended by the great Standard of Truth, the Scriptures, than any other. But how it should, if true, have for some Ages the few­est, if any Friends, is no wonder: For Truth is too frequently, if not always lost in a Scuffle, and forced to give place to extremes by eager contests. And indeed this is too moderate and yeelding a way to have so much as entered into the thoughts of the Hot men of either [Page 233] party; who like nothing so well as to keep themselvs at the greatest di­stance from each other. And there is great cause to suspect, that in most other Controversies that have been managed with that fierceness that this hath been, the several contesting parties have over-done, and out­shot the mark: and that Truth will one day be found to have been on neither side, but to have layn un­observed between the Combatants, though nearer to some than others.

This way, XXI. This way a great ease to Theo­philus his mind. I must tell you, Philalethes, hath, for divers years, been a mighty ease to my minde: And I will communicate to you something concerning my self, that I never, before now, had occa­sin to tell you. The Doctrine of Absolute Reprobation did ever since I was of years of discretion lie very unevenly and ruggedly in my brains; and seemed extremely harsh to me. [Page 234] And though I for some time thought that I was bound to believe it; yet could I not endure much to think, or to hear others talk of it. But after I betook my self to studie the Controversie, I had so quick a sense of the natural consequences of it, as did greatly distract me: For I was fearful of letting go the Premise, as much as the Conclusions scar'd me. But while I thought, or rather feared that the Doctrine was too too true; I was frequently disquieted with blasphemous thoughts, and most black apprehensions of the loveliest of Beings; nor could I think of God many times without consterna­tion. Those thoughts I was ready to look upon as injections from his and Mankindes enemy: Till at length, after I had weighed things more impartially, (having read a Book or two that prepared me with some free Principles) I found that I had wrong'd the Devil, and that my [Page 235] affrighting thoughts were the too natural off-spring of that Principle: And came to be convinced that till I let go this, I was not like to be rid of them. But then I was as much to seek where to fix, and how to steer my self, as to the doctrine of Election; (for very fearful I was to entertain any opinion that might at all lessen Gods grace to any) where­upon for a while I was well pleased with that Middle way you now gave an intimation of; till after better weighing it, I found but very little, if any thing, gotten by it. Then I fell to considering that other I have given you an account of, and have ever since been as well satisfied with this, as I was with that dissa­tisfied. And so I took my leave of the forementioned Principle, and was thereupon, I thank God, well rid of its troublesome attendants. For some time I could not be per­swaded that those sad consequences [Page 236] were so fast tyed to that opinion, but that they might be loosed from each other: whereupon I set my very teeth to the knot, and tryed all my skill to undo it; but when I found that it was labour in vain, I was, as I said, chiefly encouraged by the acquaintance I took with this way, to send both Principle and Conclusions packing together; and so bade them all Goodnight.

I am no less beholden to it than you are; XXII. Philale­thes no less behol­den to it; which causeth Theo­philus to ask him some que­stions. nor do I think that any ones minde hath been more re­lieved by it, than mine hath.

And have you not found, Philalethes, that since you exchan­ged the Calvinistical for this way, you love God better than before, and can think of him with more de­light and pleasure?

Yes, I thank God; And whereas before I loved him chiefly from some hopes I had that he loved me; I can now love him for himself, [Page 237] and the consideration of the amia­bleness of his nature, and essential perfections: And therefore my affe­ction to him is more constant, than it was while it chiefly depended up­on the apprehension I had of his affecting me.

So it must, I should think, needs be; although you still loved him onely in regard of his love to you: For though you may some­times, possibly, be without any great sense of his love of complacence, yet I dare say you now never want that of his love of benevolence.

You have also a clearer sense of the goodness of the divine precepts, and of the hatefulness and vileness of sin, han't you?

Yes, a much clearer; which I hope hath some good influ­ence upon my life.

So your love alone must needs have; but much more that [Page 238] and this together.

But, Theophilus, what a Catechist are you grown all of a suddain? I pray desist from put­ting any more Questions of this na­ture. Did I not so well know you, I should have done but foolishly in thus freely answering those you have ask'd me: And had I of mine own accord told you, what you have now heard, you your self would have accounted me too guilty of boasting and vain-glory. But yet though (thanks be to Gods grace) I am somewhat better than I have been; yet am I still sensible of so much weakness, of such great dis­composure of thoughts, and disor­derliness of affections, as may well keep me exceedingly low in mine own eyes, and Antidote me from pride and conceitedness in regard of my attainments, (were they greater than they are) even though I should onely be beholden to my [Page 239] own strength for them. But see­ing you are so good at Catechizing, why may not I be so also?

So you have been, I think, sufficiently, since the begin­ning of this discourse.

But why may not I re­peat to you your own Questions?

But you have time lit­tle enough, at present, for other matters: don't you see? the Sun grows low.

Well then, to pursue more closely the business in hand: Do not our Adversaries in this point accuse those Friends of ours of Ar­minianism in asserting Free-will, XXIII. Of Free­will. notwithstanding that their Middle way?

This way teacheth us to assert no Free-will that is opposite to Free-grace: And onely thus much, that men are invested by God with ability to do much in or­der to salvation; as, to abstain from [Page 240] the external acts of sin, to hear his Word, read it and consider it, and to endeavour to subdue all their lusts, and perform whatsoever duties are required of them, &c. And likewise by the infinitely-strong motives contained in the Gospel, by the motions of his holy Spirit, vari­ous providences, or in one word, by his preventing grace, may they will so to do. But that we can, of our­selvs, turn our own wills from the ways of sin to the ways of God, is peremptorily denyed by us; and, for ought that I can learn, by the Remonstrants themselvs also; as much as they are accused by some for so asserting.

But don't we see that the generality of men that enjoy the means of grace are never the better for them, but continue in wilful dis­obedience?

'Tis too true, and mat­ter of saddest lamentation: but [Page 241] what of that? Let us, in Gods name, charge it wholly upon them­selvs; and not say, they are not able to do otherwise: if this were so, I should think it the greatest folly in the world to be angry with a wicked man. Don't we see that the threat­ning of an easie punishment, or the promise of a small reward, will make men finde a will to abstain from se­veral sins, which they would not be kept from by all the threatnings and promises in the Book of God? Therefore, surely, by the help of these, (and especially if we take the other helps along with them, that were but now named) they may will not onely to keep from some sins, but also to endeavour to keep from all. Mens Wills being so sel­dom wrought upon, doth not prove that they have no power to will thus to do: For we see that it is the ve­ry same thing as to all other habits, as well as sinful ones: there is not [Page 242] one among many, scarcely, that will be broken of such Customs as are in themselvs very innocent, no, though they finde them prejudicial to them; as I need not give you instances. But then for so few mens being throughly converted by the means of grace, let us much less run to Gods absolute decreeing their non-conversion or damnation to give a Solution of it. Nor let us so wrong God, as to say that it is any way long of him, or that he hath been want­ing to them; and by this means ex­cuse them. What reason have we to imagine that they are not them­selvs in all the fault? and that God would not have given them such a measure of grace, as would have ef­fectually converted them, had they but acted in some sutableness to the power he hath given them? Had they but done what they could, and might have willed to have done too, but that they freely chose the con­trary; [Page 243] And against the checks of their own Consciences, and all the methods of Gods grace, with a free, not fatal willingness, preferred the pleasing of their senses before the salvation of their souls. God hath said enough to perswade us not to imagine this; as may be largely shewn.

I could never hear the most wicked wretch, when he is wisest, and most himself, (I mean when on his death-bed, or under some smart affliction) either com­plain of God, or curse Adam for his neglect of the means of grace, and unmindfulness of his precious soul: And those of them whose consciences are awakened do ever lay the blame on themselvs princi­pally, of their carelesness and disobe­dience: And not at all, I say, either on their Creator or first parents; as if by the one or the other they were brought into so sad a condition, as [Page 244] to be under an impossibility of so much as willing to do otherwise. But then they are heard to befool themselvs exceedingly, and to make God a many fair promises how good they will be, if he'll but please to prolong their lives, or remove their afflictions: which is a plain Argument, that (whatsoever speci­ous shews of Reason any of them might once have pleased themselvs with, for their being under a necessi­ty of behaving themselvs as they did) their own experience, and in­ward sense of their souls undoubted­ly assures them, now that they have leisure sedately to consult them, that they are much freer creatures than they were once willing to fancy themselvs to be.

That one Argument would satisfie me, more than the most plausible ones I ever met with of the other side.

But we see, Theophilus, [Page 245] whither too many of those are car­ried, that deny all freedom of will in unregenerate men, as to that which is good: for, I think I may say, that even all those that best un­derstand themselvs in that way, do also oppose this Liberty as to all the actions of all men: wherein they are not a little beholden to Mr. Hobbs, as hard an opinion as too deservedly they have of him.

But the Philosophical subtilties whereby that Gentleman and his Brethren in this point, have defended that opinion, may be a­bundantly confuted by the contrary and confessed sense of almost all Mankinde, and by the knowledge we have of our own souls. For we are able at any time to make an ex­periment to our selvs, that there is an [...] or self-moving principle in our Wills, and that they are nor blinde powers necessarily following the dictates of our Understandings; [Page 246] (the Will being doubtless no really-distinct faculty from the Understan­ding, nor from the Soul neither; but the Soul it self, as it simply under­stands or apprehends an object un­der the notion of true or good, or as by comparing one with another it judgeth of them, is called the Vn­derstanding; and as it putteth it self forward towards the doing or ha­ving any thing, or refuseth so to do, it is called the Will). For we finde that we are able to will to do what we know ought not to be done, and to omit what we are assured we ought to do: I say, we finde this by sad experience; and therefore when we do thus, our Wills contradict and disobey the dictates of our Under­standings. And if this were not so, (let those men say what they can) there could be no such thing as a sin against Conscience.

Our own Feeling and Sensation is a thousand times more [Page 247] convincing than any Argument can possibly be that is onely founded in Speculation.

Yes verily. But where­as I said, that this strange opinion is against the sense of almost all Man­kinde; I think I spake too modestly, and might have spared that [ almost]. For I cannot imagine that those men themselvs, that are the greatest Zea­lots for the Doctrine of mens Wills being under a fatal necessity, either by the means of Gods Decrees, or upon any other account; (I say, I can­not imagine that) they really be­lieve it themselvs, except in some certain Fits; as confidently as they may talk or write (I will not say to shew their parts, but) to manage a di­sputation. For they will as much be­fool and vex at themselvs when they are sensible they have done amiss, as other folk. But how a mans Con­science, or the reflecting of his pra­ctical Understanding upon his acti­ons [Page 248] should trouble him, so as to make him condemn himself; I can­not by any means understand, if he be not at the same time conscious to himself, that he might have done otherwise.

None are more angry with others neither, than they use to be, and that not onely upon the ac­count of actions, but also of opi­nions: there are none in the world more impatient towards those that are not of their minde than I per­ceive the violent men of that way are: Nay, they will be ready to call you Heretick if you don't think as they do in Philosophy, as well as in Divinity.

But there is nothing in the world more certain, than that if all mens actions and opinions be the necessary result of an irresistible Fate, they may onely pitie Naughty men, and poor Hereticks; it would be the most unaccountable folly to [Page 249] be angry with them. And though they are never so willingly so, this can make them the objects of onely so much the greater pitie; seeing, according to their doctrine, they cannot but will so to be. And he therefore that shall storm against you and me, for talking against this Doctrine, XXIV. Of the state of the Hea­thens. will in so doing take our parts, and declare himself to be of our minde.

But we have all this while, Theophilus, been discoursing onely of such as enjoy the means of grace; but what say you to the Heathens, that never heard of Christ, or saw one letter of the Bible? Are not they under a fatal necessity of being damned? And is not God wanting to them, think you?

To say the truth, many of them, for all their not having heard of Christ, and their being strangers to the Bible, have out-done most Christians, to our great shame [Page 250] be it spoken. But, I say, that God is not nor hath not been wanting to them neither, as to the enabling them to do so much, as he expects from them; and so making them ca­pable of some lower degrees of happiness. Hath not our Saviour told us, that where little is given, but little shall be required? And I have heard of a meer Natural Fool, that on his death-bed said, Lord, where thou givest but little, thou dost not expect much. God hath given the meanest of them a sense of good and evil in divers instances, and that he is willing to assist them with his grace to live accordingly; as also that he sometimes excites their Wills, who dares deny? Hath not S. Paul told us, that they are without excuse, or rendered inexcu­sable? but how can they be so, if they are denyed what is, at least, so far necessary as was now said? But, Philalethes, we need not trouble [Page 251] our selvs about them; we shall, no question, at the great day (if we can but have patience to wait till then) clearly understand the infinite ju­stice of God Almighty's proceed­ings with them; and that those of them, that shall then have the sen­tence of condemnation past upon them, will accuse themselvs mostly, and not at all their Maker for it. For my part, I will not say that they are any of them saved; but I would not for a world, neither, pronounce them all damned. I know that there is no name under heaven whereby men can be saved, but one­ly the name of Iesus Christ; but I am nowhere told, that those which never heard of him cannot be saved by him, without faith in him. If this be so, what becomes of poor Infants? nay, of all those, except a Prophet or two, that lived before the coming of our Saviour? He shall be my great Apollo, that can [Page 252] give me sufficient reason to believe that any under the Law, except some few extraordinary persons, had faith in Christs death for the remis­sion of their sins; whenas his own Disciples had not, till after his Re­surrection: but yet eleven of them will be acknowledged to have been good men before his death. Nay, it is evident, that till after his Resur­rection, they retained too gross a notion of the Messiah. So that, I say, if any of the Heathens be saved (which if they are not, it will be their own faults) it may be time e­nough to understand their obliga­tion to Christ for it, when they are come into the other world. But why should we Christians be less charitable toward them, than were the very Jews? who admitted those that observed the seven Precepts of Noab, and worshipt the true God, (who were called Proselytes of the gate) to the hope of eternal life. [Page 253] And the saying of Trypho the Jew to Iustin Martyr is very observable. If thou hadst continued a Heathen Philosopher, said he, and lived un­blamably, there would have been hope of thee: but seeing thou leavest God, to believe in a Man, what hope can there be of thy salvation?

So that if I were bound to give my sense of the honestest of the Hea­thens, I would chuse to judge on the right hand: but we have nothing to do with them; nor can any Argu­ment drawn from the consideration of their circumstances, establish the doctrine against which we have so freely expressed our selvs.

From that little you have said of them, it plainly enough ap­peareth. But besides, there are some, you know, that are of opini­on that those who have been in the worst circumstances in this state, and enjoyed the least means, may continue in a state of probation for [Page 254] some time betwixt their departure hence and the day of Judgement, and have better means then afford­ed them.

Whether that will be so or no, XXV. That God hath ways, though they may be per­fectly un­known to us, to clear the justice & good­ness of his dealings with all mankind. God onely knows: But this, me-thinks, should be by all granted, that the infinitely-wise God hath ways enough, though never so much unknown to us, to clear his Justice and Good­ness, in his dealing with the whole world; though the Doctrine some are so fond of, and we no less dislike, should have no truth in it: And that he may have most wise ho­ly and good ends in those dispensa­tions that seem most harsh to us; which we cannot so much as dream of. Nor is it fit for us to desire that unsearchable wisdom it self should make us acquainted with the reasons of all his actings; or level his Providences with our most shallow capacities, and gratifie our licourish [Page 255] curiosity in all our enquiries. We may well be abundantly satisfied with this, That God is perfectly ho­ly, wise, and good; and that he can­not do any thing disbecoming or unworthy of those attributes. And therefore as desirous as I am to de­fend, according to my weak ability, what the Almighty hath declared concerning himself in the plainest manner that words can express, from the attempts of those, that I think in my conscience do take a course (as well as they may mean) to render it insignificant, and to vindicate him from those notions that most evi­dently tend to eclipse those perfe­ctions which he most desireth to be known by: yet I altogether dislike prying into those matters that he hath kept secret, and affecting to be wise above what is written.

If all men were of that minde, the Controversie in hand would be soon ended. But, Theo­philus, [Page 256] there are those that say, that what we are forced to acknowledge to defend our Middle way, XXVI. Whether what must be acknow­ledged, to defend that mid­dle way, tends to encou­rage se­curity, &c. tendeth to encourage men in Security, and to defer the great work of Repen­tance to the very last: For that it from thence followeth, that it is in mens power, when they please to have a minde to it, to put themselvs into the number of Gods faithful and elect people.

We most heartily abo­minate that consequence; nor can any doctrine of ours be at all char­ged with it. For we say that men may sin away their day of grace, even before that of their lives be expired. And by their often grie­ving Gods holy Spirit, and quench­ing his blessed motions, they may cause him quite to leave them, and give them over to the hardness of their own hearts. And let me speak to the man, that is hereby inclined to be more secure, in the words of [Page 257] the excellent person, a passage in whose Sermon I before quoted, and which presently follow it. Thou wretched Fool! darest thou make an advantage of Gods goodness to assist and patronize thy security? Hath he promised to give thee Re­pentance, whensoever thou pleasest to allow thy self leisure to seek it? No, know, there is a time, (and pre­suming security doth hasten and add wings to that time) when there shall be found no place for Repentance, &c.

I wish you could as easily vindicate the contrary doctrine from tending to make men secure and careless.

I wish I could, XXVII. That the Doctrine discour­sed a­gainst doth a world of mischief. but for my life I cannot: And I am sure it doth a world of mischief. Many whom I hope are good people would be better, I verily think, were it not for that doctrine: But I am certain that multitudes of wicked wretches [Page 258] are greatly hardened in their sins by it; and will not endure to be told that it is not true, that they may not be deprived of the main prop of their security. They will fleer in the faces of their pious Ministers, when they pathetically excite them to work out their own salvation; and flatter themselvs with this, that what­ere the Preacher is pleased to say, there is no necessity of any such strictness and diligence, or of any at all: for their fate is determined; and that though holiness be necessary to happiness, yet if they are absolutely designed for happiness, God will sure enough, at one time or other make them holy; but if not, let them do what they can, he will not. And who can answer this? Were there no other mischief attending the do­ctrine than this, it would make one conclude it false. And would it not vex one to the very soul, to be liable to be baffled by every sorry Rascal; [Page 259] and that too in a business of infinite­ly the most weighty importance?

I see you have some hot bloud in you, and can for a need be very heartily angry. One would think all the veins in your body to have emptied themselvs into your face.

Say you so? I must con­fess I can never think of this Mis­chief, but I am apt to be much mo­ved: and to say the truth, I give my self leave to be angry upon such ac­counts; I wish that no much slighter occasions could ever make me so, and then of all my sins, I should least bewail that of Passion. Well, Phi­lalethes, I am sure that our doctrine is a mighty incentive to holiness, and the other a no less obstacle; as many as there are whose true goodness doth antidote them against the poi­son of it. And this is the great Test and Standard, whereby I examine points of Controversie; I consider [Page 260] which of the opposites tends most to the advancement of real holiness, (which I have more than once had occasion to tell you, XXVIII. The Test by which Theo­philus examines contro­verted points. is the great de­signe of the Christian Religion) and that I think my self bound to prefer, which I finde doth this: but that which apparently tends to make men careless in their prosecutions of it, I account my self obliged to reject as false, as great shews as it may have of probability. Nor is it any thing in the world, but the clear sense I have that this doctrine doth so, as al­so that it, with its unavoidable con­sequents, shamefully misrepresents our blessed Creator and Redeemer, that makes me oppose it, as I some­times do, and conclude it to be erro­neous.

But you likewise reject it because it contradicts (as was said) such an innumerable company of Scriptures?

The forementioned con­siderations [Page 261] make me interpret those few Scriptures that seem to make for it, by these many; and not these ma­ny, by those few.

I believe this doctrine would quickly be exploded by all good men, if they could once be perswaded to think that the Ninth to the Romans is capable of another Exposition than that which is com­monly given to it: For I know no other Scriptures urged for it, but may be answered with ease enough.

Though I will not say, XXIX. Of the great ob­scurity of S. Paul's style in many places; and the causes of it. that it is easie to give the true sense of every verse in that Chapter, any more than it is in many others of S. Paul's Epistles, (whose style is often the most obscure I ever read, the connexions in many places being not to be found without extreme diffi­culty; which is occasioned, I think, chiefly by his many tacite Answers to Objections, and Questions made to him by those to whom he wrote, [Page 262] which we are unacquainted with; as also having a very curt and short way of expressing himself, (observ­ing very much in the Greek Tongue the Hebrew way of speaking) and besides, making so many excursions as he doth, and very long Parenthe­ses; upon which accounts, if not more, no Apostle hath been so mis­understood as he; and, if you ob­serve it, you shall finde that they are S. Paul's Epistles out of which al­most all our wilde opinions have principally had their original, through the ignorance of men, or what is worse. The Apostle S. Pe­ter observeth, that even in his days, (when they were much more easily intelligible than now they are) there were some things in them hard to be understood, which those that were unlearned and unstable wrested (as they did the other Scriptures also) to their own destruction). I say there­fore, though it may not be easie to [Page 263] give the true sence of every verse in that Ninth to the Romans; yet I count it far less difficult to vindicate it from patronizing Absolute Repro­bation, than to prove it doth so.

If it be not too great a trouble, I could wish that you would run it over with a brief Paraphrase.

That I need not do, nor above half that Chapter; there be­ing but about so much of it that sig­nifieth any thing towards the coun­tenancing of that opinion: And so far I will comply with your desire. The Apostle having in the five first verses expressed his great sorrow for his Country-men the Jews, XXX. A Para­phrase upon se­veral ver­ses in the Ninth to the Ro­mans. in that by their killing the Messiah, and most obstinate persisting in unbelief, they had provoked God to resolve upon the casting off and rejecting their Nation in general, that is, to put them into the same circumstan­ces with the rest of the world, and in some respects into worse, viz to [Page 264] deprive them of their good land, and even to cause them to cease to be a Nation or Body Politick, but to be dispersed here and there up and down the world; and therefore ne­cessarily deprived of the extraordi­nary advantages for their souls they had an enjoyment of, which are there summed up, together with not a few temporal ones; they having been a people owned by God above all other, and his most special Fa­vourites: I say, having done this in the five first verses, it followeth

In the 6. Not as though the Word of God had taken none effect; for they are not all Israel that are of Israel.

In which words he answers an Objection they might make against the possibility of Gods rejecting them, viz. If this be so, how can the promise of God to Abraham con­cerning his seed be performed? And he replieth, They are not all Israel [Page 265] that are of Israel; i. e. God hath reserved to himself a liberty of de­termining at several times, according to his pleasure, who shall be esteem­ed that seed of Abraham to whom the promise belongeth, and there­fore he may restrain it to those that were never the seed of his loyns, but of his faith onely. And he sheweth next that this liberty God did use immediately after the promise: for, saith he in

V. 7. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all chil­dren, but in Isaac shall thy seed be called: i. e. Those which came from Abrahams loyns were not all ac­counted those sons of Abraham that should have a share in the promise, but those onely which he should have by Isaac. And he saith in

V. 8. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are accounted for the [Page 266] seed. i. e. They that descended from Abraham by carnal generation were not all heirs of the promised Bles­sing; but onely those children he had by vertue of the promise were accounted for the seed that should so be. Then it followeth,

V. 9. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. i. e. The birth of Isaac was a special effect of Gods promise; he being miraculously born of a naturally-barren woman, and according to the ordinary course of nature past childbearing, had she been never so fruitful; and his father being a very old man. Then saith he,

V. 10, 11, 12. And not onely this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac (for the children being yet unborn, nor ha­ving done good or evil, that the pur­pose of God according to election might stand not of works, but of him that calleth) it was said unto her, [Page 267] The elder shall serve the younger. i. e. Neither did God at one time onely declare, that he reserved to himself liberty to distinguish between the sons of Abraham, as to their enjoy­ment of the promised inheritance, and other extraordinary priviledges; but he declared it again concerning the sons of Isaac: For before the birth of the Twins which he had by Rebecca, and therefore when neither had done good or evil, whereby there should be any difference made between them, it was reveled by God to her, that her elder son, that is, the people that should be born of him, should serve the younger, or the Nations that should descend from him. This I say, because E­sau in his own person did never serve Iacob. And this appeareth farther, in that God told Rebecca at the same time, that two NATIONS were in her womb. So that God de­clared to Rebecca, that he intended [Page 268] to restrain the promise made to A­braham to the seed of Iacob onely; and that they alone were chosen by him to inherit the good land, toge­ther with its appendages. And this priviledge, he tells them here, they had not upon the account of any foreseen desert of theirs, but onely of his free goodness that called or designed them thereunto. Then he thus proceedeth,

V. 13. As it is written, Iacob have I loved, and Esau have I ha­ted. This is a quotation out of Ma­lachi 1, 2, 3. where Esau's person was not spoken of; but by Esau, his posterity the Edomites are under­stood; as you will see, if you con­sult the place. Some conceive, that whereas God saith by the Prophet that he hated Esau or the Edomites, he meant no more than that he less loved them than the Israelites, or was not so kinde to them, as he was to these; in that whereas he gave [Page 269] Iacob or the Israelites a land flow­ing with milk and honey, the por­tion of Esau or the Edomites was the stony and barren mountains of Seir. And it is certain that so the word that signifieth to hate is in ma­ny places to be understood. As Gen. 29. 31. Iacob is said to hate Leah; i. e. he loved Rachel better, as appeareth by the foregoing verse. In Luke 14. 26. we are required to hate our father and mother, &c. and Iohn 12. 25. to hate our lives. But no­body understands by hating these, any more than not loving them so well as Christ. But however, I con­ceive that by hating in this chapter of Malachi, is to be understood very severely punishing: and indeed, the words following make this evident. And observe that the Apostle doth here onely allude to these words of the Prophet: nor doth he say, that before the children had done either good or evil, God said, Iacob have [Page 270] I loved, and Esau have I hated; but onely, The elder shall serve the younger. But as for that saying, E­sau have I hated, it was after their wicked and most unnatural behavi­our towards their brethren the Isra­elites, and also upon the account; as you will see, if you compare this place with the Prophecie of Oba­diah; where, in vers. 10. it is said, For thy violence against thy brother Iacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever: And in the next verses, we see what the violence they are charged with was. I confess I do not know but that I am singular in this Exposition; but it is so very evident, that I should wonder if several Expositors should not have hit upon it. Now then the Apostle saith,

V. 14. Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. i. e. Will God be unjust in casting off the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Iacob, [Page 271] which strictly observe the Law gi­ven them by Moses, and making those of the Gentiles his special fa­vourites in their stead, that believe his Revelation made by Christ and his Apostles? No surely, we cannot accuse him of injustice if he doth so; for it is but agreeable to his own words to Moses.

V. 15. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compas­sion on whom I will have compassion. i. e. I will bestow my kindness where I please, without giving ac­count thereof to any one. And therefore God may justly accept Gentiles to his special favour, as ido­latrous and wicked as generally they are, (for he is not obliged to damn all that deserve it) and cast off his ancient people the Jews at his plea­sure, as strict observers as they are of one Law, they being disobedient to another. Then he thus pro­ceeds:

[Page 272] V. 16. So then it is not of him that willeth, or of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. i. e. From thence it is evident, that this mercy and favour of God is not the desert or prerogative of those that with great zeal aspire to it, but in a wrong way, viz. by the Mosaical performances; as the Jews do, (this you will see is very clear by v. 31, 32.) but to be had from the free grace and mercy of God by faith in Jesus Christ. Then in the verse following the Apostle pro­ceeds to shew that God had reser­ved liberty to himself, not onely in bestowing benefits on whom, and on what conditions he pleaseth; but al­so in inflicting punishments, and so casting off the Jews, notwithstand­ing their zeal for the Law of Moses: for this he tells them God had given them a plain testimony, concerning his dealing in the like case, viz. shewing his severity against obsti­nate [Page 273] sinners, as the Jews were in re­jecting Christ and his blessed Go­spel. And instanceth in that of Pharaoh;

V. 17. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this same pur­pose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my Name might be declared throughout all the earth. i. e. Pha­raoh having long hardened his own heart, notwithstanding the several warnings he had by Moses, and no fewer than six Judgements inflicted upon him; God at length saith con­cerning him, that he would harden his heart in his just judgement, i. e. do that which he would be farther hardened by: and addes, that he would presently cut him off, but that he preserved him, and raised him out of great dangers, for no o­ther end, but to make him an exam­ple of his just indignation against obdurate and stubborn Rebels, in [Page 274] the more signal and illustrious man­ner. That the word [...], which is translated [ I have raised thee up] is to be understood as was now said, is apparent, in that it signifieth to raise out of some low condition, and often from some disease or danger, as a very learned Critick hath obser­ved. Particularly, Iames 5. 15. it is used to signifie raising out of a disease. And farther, this appears from the Hebrew word that is used Exod. 9. 16. which is the very place that is here cited by the Apostle: the word there is [...], and it signi­fieth Stare feci, I have made thee stand. The Vulgar Latine renders it, Sustentavite, I have sustained thee. The Septuagint, [...], Thou wert kept, or kept alive. It follow­eth,

V. 18. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will be hardeneth. i. e. From hence I conclude, that God [Page 275] may without the least injustice, have mercy at his pleasure, on some wic­ked persons that have deserved the contrary; and harden others.

By Gods hardening in Scripture, XXXI. How God is said to harden sinners. we are not to understand any posi­tive action of his, whereby he put­teth wickedness into men, or intends and increaseth that which is already in them; for then would he be the author of sin; which to assert is the highest blasphemy. Neither have we any cause to believe that it is to be understood of Gods withdrawing all manner of necessary helps where­by sinners may be mollified. For the Signes that were wrought upon Pharaoh, were in themselvs very proper to soften him; and most of them, while they continued, had that effect: but Gods still removing of them, seems to be the great cause of his induration; as among others is observed by Origen. And I remem­ber he saith, that it is usual for fa­fathers [Page 276] to speak after this manner to their disobedient children: 'Tis I have hardened you, 'tis I that have made a Rogue of you: for had not I been so indulgent towards you, you would not behave your self as you do towards me. So that by Gods hard­ning, we are to understand no more than his doing such things to wic­ked men, which are not in their own nature, but accidentally, through their wickedness, the occasion of their farther hardening. And so, and no otherwise, did he harden the Jews; nay, chiefly were they har­dened by the divine forbearance to punish them for their rebellion and unbelief; by which means most of them came to be, through their own naughtiness, more and more obsti­nate; and so rendred themselvs the more fit objects of that vengeance that forty years after our Saviours death, according to his prediction, brake forth upon them. That not­withstanding [Page 277] this induration, each particular person of them was not in an absolutely hopeless condition as to their eternal state, appeareth in that many of them were converted to the faith by the Apostles preach­ing; though it is certain, that the re­jection of them, considered as a Na­tion, was inevitable; and the decree concerning their being deprived of those priviledges, whereby they were for a long time distinguished from other people, irreversible. In the next words a reply of the perverse Jews is brought in, to what the Apostle had said to them in those foregoing; which, 'tis like, they had sometime made upon the like occasion.

V. 19. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet finde fault? for who hath resisted his will? i. e. Why doth he still accuse us for, and up­braid us with not believing in your Jesus; when he hath (as it seemeth [Page 278] from what thou hast said) hardened us, and is resolved to reject us? for his counsel shall stand; who hath ever resisted his decree? though we should now believe the Gospel, it will be to no purpose. Nay, now he would not have us believe it, that his decree concerning us may take effect. To this he answers,

V. 20. Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? shall the thing formed say unto him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? i. e. Nay but, O man, who art thou, that thou darest tax the wisdom of God, upon the account of his so doing, as if he could do foolishly? (And as for his dealing in such a manner with you, as that you become by that means more hardned, and averse to obey his Go­spel; you may thank your selvs for it, and therefore have no cause to object against Gods justice neither: and besides, 'tis onely long of your [Page 279] own wickedness that you become more hardned by any of his provi­dences). For you therefore to talk after this rate, is as arrogant, as if the thing formed should say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me after this fashion?

V. 21. Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel to honour, and ano­ther to dishonour? i. e. If you think that God hath dealt unjustly with you, I pray answer me this Question: Hath not the Potter power over his clay, to make of it what vessel he thinks good? And when a piece thereof is marred upon the wheel, to make a meaner vessel of it than otherwise it might have been? and shall not your Creator have as much power to deal with you as he pleaseth, and (if he thinks good) to harden some of you, when he converts others; seeing you have rendered your selvs as liable to his [Page 280] wrath, as is the clay to the Potters pleasure? By Ieremiah 18. 4, 5, 6, and the following verses, will this Exposition be made very plain and clear: to which place the Apostle, in these words, doth very probably allude; and you will by those verses understand, that the onely use God himself makes of this similitude, is the very same with that which you now heard. Then he goes on thus:

V. 22▪ 23 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured (or will en­dure; here being, 'tis like, an Ana­lage of the Tense) with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction; and that he might (or that it may please him to) make known the riches of his glory, on the vessels of mercy which he hath be­fore prepared unto glory? i. e. What if God doth not presently punish you according to your desert, but [Page 281] goeth on for some time to bear with you, and, while he doth so, findes fault with you for your unbelief? What if he doth not immediately destroy those that have long pro­voked him to it, and by their con­tinued Rebellions made themselves most worthy and fit objects of his wrath; but is pleased still, with great gentleness and patience, to bear with them (as he did with Pharaoh) to chide and threaten them (as he also did him) that so he may the more severely pro­ceed against those, that shall be more hardned by his forbearance, and continue refractory notwith­standing his threats, and punish them in the more exemplary man­ner, (as he did that wicked King) I pray what shew of injustice is in this? But much less can God be taxed with unrighteousness in having mercy on some as ill-deser­ving Jews, and even wicked Gen­tiles [Page 282] (see the next verse) by prepa­ring them by a true and effectual faith in Christ for eternal blessed­ness, to demonstrate, in the most signal manner, the riches of his grace and goodness.

Observe, that the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, are such as the Apostle saith God endured with much long-suffering; and therefore they were not made so by any abso­lute Decree of his, but made them­selvs so by their wilful and free sin­ning: For what long-suffering can it be, to bear with the sins of those that could never have possibly been avoided?

That verse alone is e­nough to warrant the truth of the Paraphrase you have given of those foregoing, at least as to the sub­stance of it.

But, Philalethes, those that would have the Apostle to de­signe in those verses the proving of [Page 283] the doctrine of Absolute Reproba­tion, and the justice of it; how be­sides the purpose do they make him in this verse to conclude that dis­course?

It would have been a thousand times more pertinent to such a designe, for him thus to say: What if God willing to declare his Soveraignty, was pleased from Eter­nity to determine concerning you, that you should be unavoidably dam­ned, and to make you for that very end, notwithstanding all the means of grace he hath afforded to you; which of you dares therefore to say or think that he is too hardly dealt with, or can complain upon that ac­count?

Ay well said, this would be to the purpose with a witness: but thanks be to God, there's no such talk as this in all the Bi­ble.

But give me leave to of­fer to you another interpretation of the 19 and 20 verses: XXXII. Philale­thes offe­reth ano­ther in­terpreta­tion of the 19 & 20 verses. Why doth he yet finde fault, for who hath resisted his will? i. e. Why doth he now finde fault, ( [...] may be so rendered, for it signifieth jam as well as ad­huc) for who hath disobeyed his Law? Why is he so angry with us, and resolved so severely to punish us? for we are so far from refusing obedience to his Law, that it is one­ly our zeal for that, which makes us reject your Christian Reli­gion.

Then saith the Apostle, Nay but, O man, who art thou that replyest against God? Shall the thing for­med? &c. i. e. You may be asha­med of that sawcie and profane an­swer: for may not God your Crea­tor impose what Laws he pleaseth on you? is he bound never to abro­gate the Law given by Moses to [Page 285] you, and to require your obedience to no other? And then it follow­eth, Hath not the potter power over the clay? &c. And therefore why may not God, for your obstinate disobedience to his Son Jesus, as zealous as you are for the Law of Moses, of a glorious Nation digni­fied with extraordinary priviledges, make a base and contemptible peo­ple of you; and continuing in un­belief, make your condition far worse too in the other world; as well as the Potter, when he findes a piece of clay untractable, so that it will not be made a fine vessel, doth make a courser, and one for a mean use, of it?

This Exposition of yours is ingenious, and for ought I know the truest; if either there can be found a good connexion between the 22 verse, and those so interpret­ed; or the 22 verse be related not [Page 286] so much to these, as to the 18 verse.

But whatsoever mean­ing the Apostle had in some verses of this Chapter, the oftener I read it, the more am I convinced, that there is not a syllable of any such Doctrine as that you have been disproving to be found there: and that he saith nothing to prove ei­ther Esau or his posterity to be put into a desperate condition, by Gods decrees, concerning their eternal state; but onely that the seed of Iacob were distinguished from that of Esau by the enjoy­ment of far greater priviledges in this world. Nor that he asserts any other Reprobation of the Jews, than that which their wilful reje­ction of the Messiah, and his Gospel, was the cause of.

No, nor yet, as I said, doth the Apostle say, that they [Page 287] were in a hopeless condition as to their eternal salvation, notwith­standing their unbelief; but onely that upon this account God had passed an irreversible Decree for the rejection of them considered as a Nation. For the conversion of any particular persons among them, is not asserted to be abso­lutely impossible; but all that may be proved from any of his words is, that Gods purpose to cast them off so far as that they should be no more a distinct Nation or Body Po­litick, was unchangeable.

I have been often told that the most ancient Fathers were not so Eagle-eyed as to espie that doctrine either in this Chapter, nor yet elsewhere.

Several, nay most of them, most plainly, I assure you, contradict it in their Writings in the plainest expressions; as I am [Page 288] prepared to shew you at large, whensoever you shall please to desire me. XXXIII. That the most an­cient Fa­thers were ene­mies to absolute Reproba­tion, with its conco­mitants. And this is so true, that you know they are suspected by many of that Doctrine which was since their days called Pela­gianism, though without suffici­ent ground; if at least the Pela­gian Doctrine were what it is now commonly represented to be; but it is not certainly known what it was.

This alone is almost a demonstration to me, that the A­postles never preacht this Do­ctrine: For those Fathers living so near their days, 'tis not easily conceivable how they should so unanimously concur in mistaking their sence, they being in far bet­ter circumstances to understand it, than we that are at such a distance from them.

But how is it imaginable then, that they should run so soon from one Extreme to another, as they must have done, if the fore­mentioned suspicion of some be true. But however, I can by no means understand how it should come to pass, that those Fathers of the Church that almost immediate­ly succeeded the Apostles, should in such a point as this, (which is pre­tended to be so clearly revealed) de­part from them. Iustin Martyr wrote his Apology for the Christians but fifty years after St Iohn's death, as appeareth by the Apology it self; I mean that written to the Empe­rour, Senate, and People of Rome; for therein he tells them, that it is now one hundred and fifty years since Christ's Nativity; and St Iohn died according to both Eusebius and St Hierom sixty eight years after his Passion; and therefore a 1000 or 101 after his Birth. Now Iustin in [Page 290] several of his undoubted Books ex­presly contradicteth that Doctrine; and so he doth particularly in his First Apology, viz. that to Antoninus Pius; which the forementioned Eu­sebius and St Hierom say was the first, though it be set in the second place. The like also doth Athenag [...]ras who was Iustin's Equal; and Irenaeus frequently, who was Scholar to Po­lycarpus, who was Scholar to St Iohn the Evangelist. And I can give you many more instances, as Tatianus, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Ori­gen, &c. but that this is a most plain and confessed case.

This Doctrine, as it hath of late years been stated, (as I have been informed) was never known till fourteen hundred years after our Saviours Birth▪ in the Christian world.

But I assure you, Philale­thes, whosoever told you so, mis­informed you: For that which is [Page 291] as like to it as an Egg is to an Egg, or Milk to Milk, was held and taught in the first Ages of the Church.

You seem now to con­tradict what you last said.

No, but I do not.

By whom was it taught then?

By the Old Gnosticks; XXXIV. That the Old Gno­sticks were great Friends to it. as you will see if you consult Irenaeus, and Origens Philocalia: where you have them urging the very same Scriptures for it, that are now urged; and by those Fathers, but especially by Origen, you shall find them an­swered. And by this means it was that the first Fathers were so express in declaring themselves in this mat­ter.

Those Gnosticks (as ancient as they were) are but a slender Cre­dit to that Cause they are found Friends to.

They were (as I can [Page 292] largely shew you) the most mon­strous Hereticks that ever the Chri­stian Church was infested with, from its first Plantation to this very day; as many other vile ones as there have been: And they were as horribly prophane Devils also, as ever the Earth bore: And the Do­ctrine of Men's being under an ir­resistible Fate of being wicked and miserable, or good and happy, was their great Encouragement so to be, as appeareth by their being so con­cerned for the propagation of it. Nor were they so meal-mouthed as to stick at declaring the too na­tural sequel from it that all good men abominate, viz. That God is the Author of sin: As also that other which all such must abominate al­so, that understand it, viz. That all Vertue and Vice are made so by arbitrary Laws; and founded in the Divine Will; that is, that they are meer [...], only imaginary [Page 293] things, and nothing in themselves. Well, Philalethes, it is high time to have done with this, we are gotten into a large field, and scarcely know how to get out of it. The truth is, I did not think, when we entered on this Discourse, to be held in it one quarter of this time; but one word hath insensibly drawn on a­nother; and indeed we may as easily persist in it twice thus long. Let us therefore bethink our selves, and proceed to what remaineth.

I shall only desire first to mind you of a passage I have read in the Life of the most Judicious and Pious Mr Ioseph Mede, written by the Learned Dr Worthington, and affixed to his Elaborate Works; which is this: XXXV. Mr Jo­seph Mede his Iudg­ment con­cerning this Point. If at at any time (as it was said of St Paul at Athens) his Spirit was stirred in him, it was when he observed some to contend with an unmea­surable confidence, and bitter zeal, for the Black Doctrine of Absolute Reproba­tion, [Page 294] upon which occasion he could not for­bear to tell some of his Friends, that it was an Opinion he could never digest; being herein much of Dr Jacksons mind, that generally the Propugners of such Tenets were men resolved in their Af­fections of Love and Hatred, both of which they exercised constantly, and vio­lently, and according to their own tem­pers, made a judgment of God and his Decrees. Several more passages re­lating to the same matter, you may (if you have not already) there also read; which shew his judgment in this particular; as much a Calvinist as he was accounted.

He therein shewed him­self to be of his Mother the Church of England's temper; XXXVI. The Church of England no favour­er of it. who injoyns us, in Her 17 Article, To receive Gods Promises in such wise, as they are generally set forth to us in Holy Scriptures. And now let us return to those Sons of Hers, that were the occasion of all this Talk. And [Page 295] take notice, that as in this last, so in divers other of those Points, about which there hath been so great a Contest, and which have raised such Feuds and Animosities betwixt Protestants, their moderation is ve­ry remarkable. XXXVII. The Mo­deration of those Di­vines in other mat­ters of Contro­versie which Theophi­lus hath not time to insist upon, very remark­able. For they have not (as hath been too general a practice) Endeavoured to run as far from their Adversaries as possibly they could; but carefully observing what truth may be found in their Opinions, and heedfully separating it from what they conceive Erro­neous in them, they have, I say in some more, which with too great heat have been Controverted a­mong us, steered a middle Course; which time will not admit me now to inlarge upon, and therefore I will not so much as instance in them.

Therefore it is no great wonder, that it fares with them, as usually it doth with those that en­deavour [Page 296] to part a fray, that they are beaten on both sides, and exclaimed against by the hot men of the seve­ral extreams.

But whomsoever they dissent from, XXXVIII. None more disliked by them than the Mono­polizers of Truth to a Party. there are none they can worse brook, than the Mono­polizers of Truth to a Party, or those that make the judgments of such, as they most admire, the Standards of it. Nor will an ipse dixit be admitted by them as a suffi­cient Argument to prove any Do­ctrine by, if it be understood of any but God himself: They not think­ing the wisest and best of men, or Churches either, as priviledged from a possibility of being deceived. They therefore look upon it as ve­ry unreasonable, for any to go a­bout to knock down their Adver­saries with humane Authorities, and to deprive each other of their liberty to judge for themselves.

This is so great a fault, that it is not possible any Prote­stant should be guilty of it, XXXIX. Infallibi­lity in the best of Men, or Churches, denyed by them. and not contradict his own professed Principles. For do we not all most highly condemn the Pra­ctice of the Roman Church, in erecting an infallible Chair for the Judicial deciding of Contro­versies in Religion, and to give men the true sense of Scrip­ture?

And upon the same grounds, that all Protestants complain of that Corrupted Church; these Persons greatly blame those, whose practice is in this particular, like to theirs: and that while they inveigh a­gainst the Pope, make Popes of themselves; or of the Masters of their several Sects; and so in­trench, as he doth, upon God's Authority.

But I perceive, there [Page 298] are those among our selves that seem, by their talk, to lay no less weight upon the Judgment of the Church, than the Papists themselves do.

But I would gladly hear them speak out, XL. Of the in­fallibility of the Church, and those Prote­stants that seem to be Sticklers for it. and tell us what Church they mean. Surely they cannot mean the Church of England; for if she be infallible, it is more than she knows or be­lieves her self; for whoever reads her Articles, may swear she renounceth all claim to In­fallibility. But if she did not, how miserably would she be baffled out of her Pretence there­to by her Sons Arguments a­gainst the infallibility of the Church of Rome?

I suppose they mean the Truly Ancient, Catholick and Apostolick Church.

Very good; But where shall we look for her Decrees? [Page 299] If it be said in the Writings of the Apostles; we will cry up the Churches infallibility, and be­lieving as she believeth as much as any. But then, who shall judge of the true sense of those Writings, in matters dispu­table?

Surely they say more than so.

Will they say, That the Churches Judgment is to be found in the Ancient Fathers? But we are like to be but sorrily helped by that means too, they differing so much among them­selves, as 'tis well known they do; and there being but few things, if any, besides such as are most plain­ly revealed, wherein they are all unanimous. And in such points, why may not We also be unani­mous, and that as well without their help as with it?

But there are some that [Page 300] cry up the Four first Oecumeni­cal Councils, XLI. Of acqui­escing in the Four first Oecu­menical Councils. as our great Stan­dard; and assert that their Deter­minations ought to be by all ac­quiesced in.

But there are few Con­troverted Points determined by them; what then shall we do as to all other? But besides, what assurance have we that those Councils ascribed Infallibility to themselves? But suppose they did, must we believe them in­fallible upon their own bare word? If any will assert so, they must prove it, except we are bound to believe them as infalli­ble as those Councils; and if they undertake to prove this, who shall judge whether they do it well or no? They must say e­very man's own reason, or hold their peace; and if so, then all is at last to be thereinto resolved. Nor is it any mens saying that [Page 301] General Councils are infallible, that will cause considerative men one jot the sooner to em­brace their Decrees, unless their understandings be first convinced by a proof of it. If any will say, that those Councils proved them­selves, or shall for them go about to prove that they were infalli­ble; the same Question recurrs, who shall judge whether this be done convincingly? And so the matter comes again to the same Issue.

But you do not contemn the Authority of those Coun­cils?

I am so far from it, that I have a great Veneration both for the Ancient Fathers, and all General Councils that have been impartially Called; and whose members have been under no re­straint, but were freely permit­ted to speak their minds, and give [Page 302] their Suffrages; but I must tell you, that such have been at most very rarely known. Yet I will not ascribe more to such neither, than I have good reason for; much less will I believe them in­fallible against plain reasons, too many to be now given. If I could think any so, I should be most inclined to believe it, of the Great Jewish Sanhedrin, because the Jews were expresly Com­manded to stand to their Deter­minations; but he that will say that Council could not err, must renounce his Christianity, and believe that it justly Condemn'd our Saviour.

What is the Venerati­on then that you say you have for those Councils?

I say, XLII. What re­spect is due to Councils. that we ought rather to suspect our own pri­vate Judgments, than without ve­ry apparent reason to conclude [Page 303] their Determinations false. And moreover, that it is our duty in order to the preserving of the Churches peace, not publickly to oppose them, whatsoever opi­nion we have of them. For sup­posing them obnoxious to errour, yet I will grant them to have the Authority of Courts of Ap­peal, and that their Power is so great as to bind men to outward submission, when their errours are not so weighty as to prepon­derate the Churches peace. But though we ought for peace-sake to submit to them, in all things that are not contrary to the great Essentials of our Faith; yet (as I said) there is no warrant for our being obliged to assent to their Decrees ( quatenus so) as infallibly true. But for all this saying, neither I, nor those friends of ours (who are all, I believe, of the same Judgment in this [Page 304] point) do no less value all General Councils then doth our Mother the Church of England, as appears by what she saith of them in her 21 Ar­ticle, whose words are these; XLIII. The Church of England's sense of General Councils. General Councils may not be gathered together without the Commandment and Will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, forasmuch as they be an Assem­bly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God, they may erre, and sometime have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Where­fore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation, have neither Strength nor Authority, unless it may be declared that they are taken out of Holy Scripture. And it will not be amiss to mind you also; that in her 19 Article she declares not onely that the Church of Rome, but also that those of Ierusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have actually erred. By these Cita­tions you will easily guess, who are most of the Church of England's [Page 305] Judgment in this Point; whether we or those Persons, whose talk we but now took notice of, and which occa­sioned this Discourse. And the like to what was said of General Coun­cils, we also most heartily acknow­ledge concerning our own particular Church, XLIV. The De­termina­tions of our own Church not to be opposed in Matters disputa­ble. viz. That we are bound by no means to oppose the Determinati­ons of her Governours and Represen­tatives in disputable Matters; nor do they (as hath been shewn) require our internal Assent to their Articles, but enjoyn our submission to them, as to an Instrument of Peace onely. And what wise and good man can think, though he should suppose them (not only subject to error, but likewise) to have actually erred in some of them, that Contention a­bout them can by any means make amends for the loss of the Churches Peace?

It is too apparent that those which contend for an Infallible Judg [Page 306] of Controversies in Religion, are like to do no service towards the ending of them, but indeed so much dis­service as to encrease them. Seeing there is nothing more hard to prove, than that there is any such Judge; and, if there be, where he is to be found: And in the determining of this Controversie, the Reason of e­very mans own mind must be ap­pealed to, except there be another Judge to resolve us concerning that Judge; and again, another to satisfie us concerning him, XLV. An Ar­gument that Christ in­tended us no infal­lible Iudge of Contro­versies. and so we shall never have done. And I look upon this as a most certain Argument, that our Saviour never intended us any o­ther, besides our own Reason, assist­ed with his Blessing; for if he had, he would, no doubt, have been so plainly deciphered, as that there should be no dispute about him; much less would that which was or­dained for the Churches Peace, be an unavoidable occasion of Contention.

For my part, I see no need of any other Judge, for the Rule of our Faith, the Scripture, is in all Es­sential Points so plain, that we can not reasonably desire to have it plai­ner: And moreover, in such Points, XLVI. Private Christi­ans pro­mised In­fallibility in the same sence that the Church Repre­sentative hath the promise of it. every private honest Christian hath a promise of Infallibility in the same sence, that the Church Representative hath. If any man will do his Will, (saith our Saviour) he shall know of the Doctrine whether it be of God, John 7. 17. If ye continue in my Words, then are ye my Dis­ciples indeed; and ye shall know the Truth, Joh. 8. 31, 32. & several other promises there are to the same purpose. I grant, the Church cannot err in Fundamen­tals, while she continues so, for should she, she would, ipso facto, cease so to be; and therefore the same is to be asserted also concerning every parti­cular Member of it. And as for Cir­cumstantials, why may not men di­spute about them, and maintain peace and love notwithstanding? What is [Page 308] there in not thinking just alike in doubtful Matters, that should make people so much as angry with each o­ther? XLVII. Of Dis­putacity. I like not, I confess, a Dispu­tatious wrangling and contradicting Humour; I despise nothing more; it argues those, in whom it is obser­vable, to have attained to no solid judgment or sense of things; and be­sides, there is a deal of conceitedness and pride in it, and too much, ordi­narily, of a cross-graind and ill na­ture. XLVIII. Of Friendly Disputes. But amicable Disputes some­times, meerly in order to the finding out of Truth, can have no other than a good effect: and moreover, they add much to the pleasure of Conver­sation. XLIX. The way to peace. And therefore let the Profes­sors of Christianity labour for the true spirit and temper of Christians; and it will be as well with the Christian World, as if we were all of the same mind. I mean, let us not magiste­rially impose upon one another, and be so charitable as to believe well of [Page 309] Dissenters from us that live good lives, are of a modest and peaceable deportment, and hold no Opinions, that directly oppose the design of the Christian Religion, and of making men like to God; and then we shall see, that there will be little reason to desire an Infallible Judge of Contro­versies, to make us all of one Opinion. So that by this pleading for one, L. The mis­chief of conten­ding for an Infal­lible Iudge. (the Case standing as it doth) there is no hope of having an end put to them, but by this means (as you said well) is there another Controversie added to the rest; and this alone, except it were more plainly decidable than it is, may cause as much wrangling, as the Church is now disturbed with. So that, LI. Forcing others to be of [...]r mind ty­ranni­cal. Philalathes, those Friends of ours cannot but judge it a piece of Tyranny, too near of kin to that of the Cruel Procrustes, for any to endeavour to force others to be just of their pitch and size in Opinions, and to approve of their Sentiments.

And well they may: For by this means, though men may make Hypocrites, and cause some to pro­fess what they do not believe, yet they can never make any sincere Converts; but rather so much the more alienate Dissenters, both in their Judgments and Affections, from their Religi­on.

There cannot be a more effectual Course taken so to do, than this is. And though men of some Tempers may not be able to contain themselves from over-much warmth in managing a Dispute; yet it is no less unreasonable to malign our Bre­thren, because they are not in every thing, or in several things of our Judgment, than to quarrel with each other, upon the account of the un­likeness we observe, in our Faces and Constitutions.

'Tis, LII. To con­demn men for dissen­ting from us unwar­rantable. surely, utterly unwar­rantable, and most unaccountable to Censure and Condemn those Persons [Page 311] as Hereticks, that dissent from us in any matters, not very clearly revealed in Scripture, for no other reason, but because they do so. It being very e­vident, that where its sence is doubt­ful, we have a liberty of thinking one way or other: and that we are not so much as Culpable in misunderstanding such places as are capable of various Interpretations, if we are not wan­ting to our selves in our endeavours to understand them; If we suffer not our selves to be lead by Parties, Pre­judices, and the like, in our Enqui­ries after Truth.

Our understandings are not free, as are our wills; but the Acts of them are natural and neces­sary: Nor can they judge but accor­ding to the Evidence that is presen­ted. The Understanding is like the the Eye, which cannot apprehend the Object, but as it offereth it self; nor can it otherwise judge of Objects, than the nature of the Reasons that are offered will endure.

But Theophilus, though that faculty can never properly deserve blame, when it is deceived; yet mens Wills may, and I fear often do; and that many suffering them to lie under the power of prejudice, and to be governed by some inordinate affecti­on, are by that means careless of pro­viding their understandings with due helps for making a true judgment.

You say well; but this no man can be a competent Judge of in any one that doth not declare it by unwarrantable practising upon his Opinions; and therefore to be in­censed against men meerly for not being of our mind, and not having the same thoughts that we have in uncertain points, may be to find fault with the make of their Intellectuals, and to condemn them for that which they cannot help.

If our Saviour had laid such great weight, as too many now­adayes do, on such things; if he had [Page 313] made a right understanding and belief of them a necessary condi­tion of Salvation, we may be as­sured that the love he beareth to man-kind, would have caused him to speak most plainly, and to have taken a course that his Apostles should do so likewise, where it is of such infinite importance not to mistake his meaning.

There is no doubt to be made of it. LIII. Of those Divines candour towards dissenters from them. Now then I say, Phi­lalethes, that those Divines, from these Considerations, and such like, are not at all forward to conclude any man an Heretick, or erring damnably, that is of a Perswasi­on contrary to theirs; supposing his Opinions do not so evidently contradict the Scriptures, as that it is unimaginable how any should not see it, that do not purposely shut their eyes. And can hope well of any one, notwithstanding his mistakes, if they be not incon­sistent [Page 314] with true Goodness, and have no bad influence upon his Practice. They are so perswaded of the graciousness of the Divine Nature, that they verily believe that simple Errors shall be destru­ctive to none, I mean, those which men have not contracted by their own default; and that where mi­stakes proceed not from evil affe­ctions, and an erring judgment from a corrupt heart, through the goodness of God, they shall not prove damnable. But that he will allow, and make abatements for the weakness of Mens Parts, their Complections, Educations, and other ill Circumstances, whereby they may be even fatally inclined to certain false Perswasions.

I remember, to this pur­pose, a good saying of the Lear­ned and Pious Chillingworth, in his excellent Book against the Papists. I am (saith he) verily perswaded, that [Page 315] Errors shall not be imputed to them as sins, who use such a measure of industry in finding Truth, as humane Prudence, and ordinary Discretion (their Abilities and Opportunities, their Distractions and Hin­drances, and all other things considered) shall advise them to.

'Tis a saying, like one of that brave Persons, who had he lived till these dayes, would most assuredly have been branded with the hateful long Name, as he was before his death; with those of Papist and Socinian (and which adds to the wonder) for the sake of that his Book.

I scarcely ever more ad­mired at any thing, LIV. Of Mr. Chiling­worth's Book. then at the Cha­racter I have read of that Piece.

As vile a Book as not only all Papists, but some also that would be thought no Friends to them think it; I am sure he would do a very excellent piece of Ser­vice, (which all good Protestants [Page 316] would have cause to thank him for) that would take the pains to translate it into the Latin Tongue. I think it great pitty that it should be kept lockt up in our own Lan­guage. But to proceed, LV. Of their Opinion concern­ing Fun­damen­tals, and that they are not forward to give a catalogue of them. as that Gentleman was not, so these also we are speaking of, are not at all forward to give a Catalogue of Fundamentals; but instead there­of, content themselves to tell their Hearers, that it is sufficient for any mans Salvation, that he as­sent to the truth of the Holy Scrip­tures, that he carefully endeavour to understand their true meaning, so far as concerns his own duty, and to order his life accordingly. And that he whose Conscience tells him, upon an impartial in­quiry into himself, that he doth thus, need not fear that he erreth damnably. But into the number of the Doctrines, they account Fundamentals, they will by no [Page 317] means admit any, that are not plainly revealed, as hath been al­ready intimated, with the reason why. And for the same reason they doubt not, but that accor­ding to mens various Capacities, means of knowledge, and such like; the same points of Faith may be to some fundamental, and to others not: I mean, may be neces­sary to be known, and explicitely believed by some, but not so by o­thers; which was likewise before in effect said.

Well, LVI. The use of the foregoing Princi­ples. Theophilus, you have imparted to me, I thank you, very excellent Principles. Without doubt they would be greatly effe­ctual to the cementing of our pre­sent differences, and healing our lamentable wide Breaches, if they were generally entertained by Chri­stians, and improved. What a brave World should we have, would we but all practise upon [Page 318] such Principles? This would be the way to unite those in Affection, that differ in Opinion.

And this would be the way too, to make far fewer diffe­rences in Opinion: For then would not men be superstitiously fearful of impartially examining those Doctrines, the truth of which, they now think it a sin so much as to call in question. And by this means, taking all those they have been instructed in for granted, there is little hope of ever unde­ceiving them. These Principles, being well digested, will likewise mightily quiet mens minds, and cure them of all tormenting fears, of their being out of the true way to Blessedness, while they are not conscious to them­selves of living in the allowance of any known sin, or neglect of any such duty, that they seek Truth impartially, and adopt [Page 319] not any Opinion, in order to the gratifying of any corrupt af­fection.

They will certainly un­shakle, and disintangle mens minds and give them their due liberty; they will enlarge and widen their Souls, and make them in an excel­lent and most commendable sence, men of Latitude.

You make me smile at that conceit. LVII. That those Di­vines procure to them­selves E­nemies of divers sorts, by their en­deavours to propa­gate those Princi­ples. But yet, Philalethes, as excellent and very useful as they are, and must needs appear to be, to any one that will give himself leave to consider them, those Friends of ours, by their endea­vours to propagate them, have pro­cured to themselves enemies of di­vers sorts. Their thus doing, vexeth to the heart all peremptory and magisterial Dictators of what­soever Party they be: This whets the Tongues of those against them, whose great ambition it is to lead, & [Page 320] of those no less, that take as great pleasure in being led, and in follow­ing blind-fold either some particular men, or certain Church.

Concerning these latter, it may be said, (as Tacitus doth of some) that they are, Natiad Servitu­tem, Born to be Slaves; and think bondage a great blessing: For other­wise how could they be so highly displeased with the charity of those that would set them free? I presume, Theophilus, that it might be upon this account that so much Choler disco­vered it self in a Reverend Doctor, (whose years alone, it might be thought, should have taught him much more discretion) and provo­ked the angry man, not very long since, to shoot from the Pulpit most dreadful Thunderbolts against these Divines, in a Learned Auditory.

There are those that su­spect, that 'twas envy chiefly that put him upon taking so much vain pains [Page 321] to render them odious to Gentlemen too wise, to do other than pity him for his labour; he finding himself (as great as he thinks his own deserts) less regarded, than some of those vile persons. Moreover, Philalethes, thence it is that some who have more Zeal than Discretion, (and I wish I had not cause to say more Passion and Pride than either) do inveigh a­gainst them as those, that are so far from true Sons of the Church, that they are her Enemies, and undermine her; and more dangerous people than the worst of Sects. And thence it is that others too, who are of the same temper, though of a contrary Faction, joyn with these in accusing them as men luke-warm in the Cause of God, and unconcerned for the Orthodox Religion; nay such as are so far from contending earnestly for the Faith once given to the Saints, that they expose it, and endanger the loss of it.

I think in my Conscience, they take the only course to preserve it. But it seems those men take it for granted, in the mean time, that those Opinions they are pleased to call theirs, must needs be of no less account with God, than with them­selves; and that those they think good to brand with the black mark of Fundamental Heresies, cannot be otherwise; and that there can be no effectual confuting of them, but when the Persons that hold them are cursed with Bell, Book, and Candle, and have the severest and most dismal of Sentences past upon them.

You may be sure of it. But is it not time, think you, Philale­thes, to acquaint you with those Di­vines Judgment in Matters of Disci­pline?

Yes, I. Their judgment in mat­ters of Disci­pline. if you think so.

Come on then. This fol­lowing, be you assured, is a true ac­count thereof. Namely, That to all [Page 323] Forms of Ecclesiastical Government, they greatly prefer that of Episcopacy; because it is apparent that so much as is essential to that Government, did universally take place in the Church presently after the Apostles times, and therefore it is very probable that it was also in their dayes: II. That they prefer E­piscopacy to all o­ther Forms of Church Govern­ment. It being hardly conceivable, that so great an alteration as that of Presbyterian, or Congregational to Episcopal Govern­ment, could in a little time have pre­vailed over all the World, and have continued for so many Ages together, if it had been otherwise.

How much do they or you conceive to be Essential to Episcopacy, and therefore agreeable to the Primi­tive Pattern?

Mr. Chillingworth shall an­swer you that Question. III. How much es­sential to Episco­pacy. If we ab­stract (saith he) from Episcopal Govern­ment all Accidentals, and consider onely what is essential and necessary to it; We shall find in it no more than this: An ap­pointment [Page 324] of one man of eminent Sanctity, and Sufficiency to have the care of all the Churches, within a certain Precinct or Di­ocess; and furnishing him with Authority (not Absolute or Arbitrary, but regulated and bounded by Laws, and moderated, by joyning to him a convenient number of As­sistants) to the intent that all the Churches under him may be provided of good and a­ble Pastors: and that both of Pastors and People conformity to Laws, and perfor­mance of their duties may be required, un­der Penalties, not left to discretion, but by Law appointed.

By the account you have given me of those Divines, IV. That they unchurch not those Churches that will not admit it, though they think it desirable that all would. I am con­fident they do not unchurch those Churches that will not admit of this Government, as highly as they them­selves approve of it.

If they should, they would be very inconsistent with their own Principles. But let me tell you, they cannot but look upon it as very desi­rable, that those few Churches that [Page 325] refuse it, would receive it, upon more accounts than that of its great Anti­quity. V. Their O­pinion of the power of the ci­vil Ma­gistrate in Sacred Affairs. I need not tell you, that they moreover believe the Civil Magi­strate to have a Power, both Legisla­tive and Judiciary, as well in Sacred, as in Civil Affairs.

But this will not be admit­ted by many Protestants, any more than by the Papists themselves.

I know it will not; and that some very fiercely talk against it, where they think they may do it safely, but they bewray too much ig­norance in so doing. VI. That the Civil Magi­strate hath a power both Le­gislative and Iudi­ciary in Ecclesia­stical Affairs. For (as the Learned Author of the Ancient Li­berty of the Britannick Church hath shewn) as Fathers of Families were at first both Princes and Priests, and as by the encrease of Families, and their enlargement into Cities and Communities, the Oeconomick Au­thority at length became Politick: So it is apparant, that in the first In­stitution of Priesthood, Moses took [Page 326] away no part of the Supream Juris­diction from the Politick Authority; for he, as King of Iesurun, was con­stituted by God himself the Keeper, as well of both Trumpets, as Tables. And as Moses, not Aaron, delivered the Ceremonial Law; so long after Moses, King David, instituted the Courses of Priests, and Solomon thrust out Abiathar the High Priest. And when Christ inaugurated his Apo­stles, he furnisht them with great powers of his own, such as the Ad­ministration of Sacraments, and the power of the Keys; but all that he bestowed on them, he did it Cumu­latively, and nought at all Privitive­ly; for he detracted nothing from the Authority of the Civil Power; nor gave any Commandment that Kings, because Christians, should have their Jurisdiction abated. But you may find this Subject excellently, and more fully handled, in the for­mer [Page 327] part of the Discourse of Ecclesia­stical Polity, lately publisht.

Seeing, Theophilus, those Di­vines are of those good Subjects, that heartily acknowledge the Kings Majesty to be Supream Governour, in these his Dominions, in all Causes, as well Ecclesiastical as Civil; they must needs likewise believe, that the Church Government He hath Con­stituted, may not without the guilt of Rebellion be violently opposed, or of Sedition, be in any kind affron­ted by any of his Subjects.

You may be assured of it, VII. Their O­pinion of the Au­thority of the Church. Philalethes, of any (as well as them) that are not next door to Mad-men. And these our Friends acknowledge also, that it is in the power of the Governours of the Church to Com­pose Forms of Prayer to be used in Publick; and such Rites as they in their Wisdom shall conceive most proper for the decent, orderly and Reverend Solemnizing of Divine [Page 328] Worship: And that it is the duty of all under their Authority to Submit to the use of such Forms; supposing the matter of them be agreeable to the Holy Scriptures, and that they are directed onely and immediately to God in the Name of Christ; and that they ought to conform to those Rites, so long as they are of an in­different nature, and not imposed as necessary in themselves, or essential parts of Worship, or to recommend the Worshippers to God, and make their Service accepted, or to convey Grace, or as laying an Antecedent Bond upon the Judgment, as well as on the Practice; but only as things alterable, and in their own nature indifferent: And such they conceive the Forms of Prayer, now enjoyned, to be; and the other Rites of our Church; and to be no otherwise than as such imposed.

But do they not likewise hold that Governors are obliged not [Page 329] only to make choice of such Rites as are in their own nature indifferent; and to impose them as such, but also to beware how they enjoyn any, that they are not on good grounds assured are for Edification?

This is out of doubt: And I presume they also believe; that no Rites may be enjoyned, that are known to be but by accident, and the infirmity of the people generally inconvenient. VIII. That they believe Magi­strates are to be obeyed when they com­mand things inconve­nient, if lawful. But yet though Go­vernors should miscarry in the dis­charge of their duty, they question not but that the people are bound to obey them, while they command nothing but what is lawful, though it should be inconvenient.

That Command of the A­postle; Obey them that have the Rule over you in the Lord, hath no such li­mitation as this annexed, [ When they command things convenient.] We are also required to submit to every Or­dinance of Man, for the Lords sake: [Page 330] Whether it be to the King as Su­pream, or unto Governors, as those that are sent by him.

Nor ought that limitation to be implyed in these or the like Precepts: For that, though those that are under Authority ought to judge for themselves what is lawful; yet it is most unreasonable, that the judg­ment of what is convenient, should not be left to their Governors.

Nothing is more apparent, than that if the people should have this liberty, it would tend to the in­validating of all Laws, and utter subversion of Government.

That's certain: There­fore these Divines, though they could heartily wish that nothing may be injoyned in the Worship of God a­mong us, but what (considering the very outward Circumstances we are in) may be as expedient as lawful; yet they esteem it as unquestionably true, that the people ought to obey, [Page 331] even in those things that the Magi­strate should not command: And that a certain duty (and such is Obe­dience to Authority) may not be for­born upon uncertain Conjectures, or any miscarriage in those to whom they owe it. The mischiefs of con­tending with Governors about sup­posed inconvenient things, being in­comparably greater, than any that can follow upon obedience in such things.

By what you have said, I easily guess what Opinion they have of that conceit, that hath of late years been broached and practised upon, viz. That when the Supream Magistrate refuseth to reform what is amiss in Church or State; the Sub­jects ought to take that work into their own hands.

Do you only guess at it? You may be most certain, that they judge no Fancy more wild and mad, nor of more pernicious Consequence. [Page 332] And know also that they profess un­feignedly to believe (as well as sub­scribe to it) that it is unlawful for the people to take up Arms against their Prince, or those commissionated by Him, upon any pretence what­soever. I need not now inform you, Philalethes, whom by their foremen­tioned Moderation, they greatly of­fend: You know that also upon that account they are condemned by some; who without any reason take themselves to be the only Sons of the Church, as false Friends to her: And that as by acknowledging no more, they anger that extream; so, by granting so much, X. That they are for shewing favour to Dissen­ters out of Con­science. they no less dis­please the other. But to proceed: These persons are not more for obe­dience to all lawful Commands of Authority, than desirous that Mercy and Indulgence should be shewn towards those whose Consciences will not permit them to comply with [Page 333] the Will of their Governours in some things disputable.

But do they not conceive it to be most unfit, that Seditious Practices should pass unpunisht?

Yes that they do: XI. Whom they con­ceive are not to be dealt with as men of tender Consci­ences. And do believe that those Dissenters from the establisht way of Reli­gion, ought not to be esteemed or dealt with as men of tender Con­sciences, who are not quiet and peaceable, modest and charitable in their behaviour towards those, that are not of their Way and Mind: And that think it not e­nough, not to obey; but they must needs be likewise confronting Au­thority; and refuse to yeeld Obe­dience in those things against the lawfulness of which there can be no pretence, that carrieth any shew of Reason.

I suppose they cannot but look upon it as extreamly de­sirable, that (if our Governours [Page 334] shall see it good) the tearms of Communion with the Church of England, and likewise of exercising the Ministerial Function therein, may be so inlarged, as to take in all that are of any Reason, Sobriety and Moderation.

I wonder that all wise men should not; it being so very plain a case, that this would tend exceedingly to the Churches secu­rity, and the strengthening of her hands against unreasonable, ill­minded, and wild-headed men of divers sorts, who would rejoyce in nothing more, than in her utter Ruine, XII. Theo­philus presumes that they would be glad, if some things that most offend were re­moved. and are ready to catch at all advantages to effect it. And for that end, I presume they would be very glad, if our Church Doors were set wider open, I mean, if some things that most offend were taken out of the way; and that no such weight may be laid on any little things, as that they should [Page 335] be insisted on, to the endangering those of an higher nature, and ha­zarding the Churches prosperity and peace. And particularly, that there might be no Expressions in our Forms of Prayer, that contain disputable & uncertain Doctrines; and so give occasion to those that are dissatisfied concerning the truth of them, to refuse to joyn with us in those Forms: And in a word, that there might be nothing in our Ecclesiastical Constitution, that may give any plausible pre­tence for Separation or Non-con­formity. This, I say, they can­not, I am perswaded, but hearti­ly desire, but with submission to the wisdom of their Governors.

And now, Philalethes, I have per­formed my promise of giving you an impartial Representation of those our Friends; and I pray tell me your thoughts, in a few words, upon the whole matter.

From the account you have, XIII. Philale­thes his Opinion upon the whole account. I thank you, given me, I can­not but confidently conclude, that were many more tongues let loose against them than there are; there would need no other Solution of the Phoenomenon, than that of the Philosopher, A wise man is the great­est Prodigy. And I believe them the only sort of men, that are in any likely-hood of, or qualified for the repairing of our present dangerous Breaches, and curing our very ill presaging Animosi­ties.

For my part, I must pro­fess to you, that I could scarcely perswade my self once to hope, that there may be any prevention of our utter Confusion, but that it hath pleased the Divine Provi­dence to raise up among us so con­siderable a number of such good spirited and generously minded Persons, the thoughts whereof [Page 337] are my best Antidote against De­spondence.

That they chiefly design the propagation of Truth, and true Goodness, and not any pri­vate selfish interest, from what hath been said I have cause to con­clude: For the Practices and Principles that distinguish them from other men, have never yet, in any times, been the way to raise a­ny; but the contrary.

'Tis certain they have not. XIV. Why the Bigots of the seve­ral Par­ties are mostly their E­nemies. And the great reason why the Bigots of our several Parties, do chiefly set themselves against them, must needs be because they are a­ware, that of all their other Ad­versaries, there are none that do them so much disservice as do these, by shewing, that those things they raise such a dust about, and make such a hideous stir and noise, signifie nothing (what ere they pre­tend) to the promoting of true [Page 338] Religion, the advancement of Christ's Kingdom, and the real and true welfare of his Church, but are available only to the carrying on of such little, narrow, and low designs as the making & strength­ning of Sects and Parties, and gaining to themselves Greatness and Popularity. Those high and hot Gentlemen know very well, that if these persons Principles should once get good footing a­mong the People, they must either grow more cool in those matters that do most exercise their Zeal, or there will be little for them to do.

The truth is, those men trouble themselves most about matters which (as an excellent Person saith) are neither Religi­on, nor the Body of Religion, nor scarcely the Garment of the Bo­dy of Religion; but are rather the Fringes of the Garment of the Bo­dy [Page 339] of Religion. They are Things, or rather Circumstances and man­ners of things, wherein the Soul and Spirit are not at all concerned.

But yet as great an Anti­pathy as those kind of men profess against these Persons; XV. That it is pity there should be any di­stinction of name between them and the mo­derate men of some par­ties. I observe there are Prudent and Moderate Men in some of the Parties, that have a re­verend esteem of them, and look upon them as men very valuable. Which Sober Persons are no less ho­noured and loved by them also; be­tween whom the difference in Opi­nion is so inconsiderable, that it is pity there should be any distinction of Names between them.

And if the generality of each of our Parties were as true to the Cause of Christ Jesus, and so self-denying, as to prefer his Interest before their own; I question not but that they and their Principles, would find incomparably more Friends a­mong them, than they do now Ene­mies.

But whereas I now spake of the distinction of Names, XVI. What Name they only desire to be known by. I must desire you to take notice, that if o­thers were not better at Coining them, than these our Friends are, they would be known by no other than the good old Antiochian one, viz. Christians, or (if they must have one that is more discriminating) Obedi­ent Sons of the Church of Eng­land.

To which Church I can­not better express the sincerity of my affection, than by wishing that all those who are ambitious of being ac­counted her most genuine Off-spring, were of the Temper and Principles of these here Children, if they were, I doubt not but that her Circumstan­ces would be far less sad than now they are.

Nay it is not at all then improbable, but that in due time, her condition (as seemingly despe­rate as at present it is) may be very [Page 341] good. I need not tell you, Philale­thes, that these mens temper and free Principles are of no late standing; XVII. That their temper and free Princi­ples are of no late standing, &c. for they are no whit younger than Christianity it self, nor yet than the Blessed Founder of it: Who, were he now upon the Earth, and conver­sant here among us, would, I doubt, narrowly escape the reproach of the Long Name, as much as those that in spite and contempt use it, pretend to be his only Friends and Followers. For I might shew in several Instan­ces, that it was upon the account of his being such a one, as they are ac­cused for being, that the Zealous Pha­risees could by no means endure him. As particularly his Free Conversati­on, void of all Sourness, XVIII. Why the Pharisees could not endure our Sa­viour. Starchtness, & Affectation; his condemning their Ostentatious shews of Sanctimony, their base Censuring and Judging, their Scrupulous straining at Gnats, when in the mean time they swal­lowed Camels: Their teaching for [Page 342] Doctrines the Commandments of Men, and making more species or kinds of duties and sins than God hath made; Their Zeal for Mens Traditions, more than for Gods Com­mandments: Their great exactness in little things; such as Tything Mint, Anice, and Cummin; and preferring them before the weightier matters of the Law, Judgement, Mercy and Faith; Their placing Religion most­ly in Externals; Their cloaking their Naughtiness with Long Prayers; Their accounting themselves defiled by any thing without them, &c. And moreover his forbidding to call none Master upon Earth, or to pin their Faith on any mens sleeves: His freely and ingenuously shewing them wherein the power of godli­ness consisteth, viz. in inward Puri­ty and Holiness: And preaching up only an inward, real and truly Moral Righteousness.

And to be sure the Apostles did in all things follow the Example of their Great Master.

Yes, no question, as far as they were able: And among other, it may be shewn they did so in such in­stances as the forementioned. And, I fear, were they alive now, that there are many pretended Christians that would quickly change their Opinion of them, and upon such accounts carry themselves towards them (as much as now they profess to admire them) as our Saviour intimated to the Jews, they would towards the Prophets, were they then living, as great honour, as in garnishing their Sepulchres, XIX. When the temper and spirit that have been de­scribed, began to decay in the Chri­stian World. and otherwise they pro­fessed to have for them. And for ma­ny years after our Saviour and his Apostles, did the temper and spirit we have been describing, mightily prevail: but as the Christian World grew worse and worse, which was e­specially after it came to be freed from [Page 344] Persecution, and to enjoy rest and pro­sperity, it more and more decayed: And the generality of Christians grew miserably narrow Soul'd, and conten­tious with each other about little mat­ters, and rigorously to impose their own private Conceits upon their Brethren, and pronounce those Here­ticks that would not receive and ad­mit of them: To lay a greater stress upon that which they pleased to call Orthodoxy, than upon an innocent and holy Life: To evaporate Religion in­to meer Air and Speculations: To burthen the Worship of God with unprofitable & needless Ceremonies; and by overmuch pomp and gaude­ry, to rob it of its Primitive Simpli­city and Spirituality: And in a word, quite to forget the great end and de­sign of Christ's Gospel. XX. The Pope beholden to the de­cay there­of for his Power. So that the excellent Spirit we awhile since com­mended, seems to be utterly lost in those Places where the Bishop of Rome bears the sway; the very great [Page 345] decay of it being that to which he was first beholden for his Power. But, blessed be God, it hath been much revived in the Churches, XXI. That it is much re­vived in the Pro­testant Churches though the gene­rality are still greatly defective in it. which have thrown off his Yoak; though there are yet but few in these neither, in whom it is in that measure and de­gree discernable, that it was in the most Ancient Christians. And the generality of our greatest Professors are still very defective in it: And even most good men in too many Instan­ces yet to seek for it.

If it were once, in some good measure, prevalent in the Prote­stant World; I am perswaded we should soon see those very Blessed Dayes, that have been so much talked of, and that all pious Souls, and good Christians long for.

I verily believe we should: And that we shall not much longer wait for the downfal of the Visible An­tichrist, if the Spiritual and Invisible One, whose Seat is erected in our [Page 346] own Breasts, were once fallen. This being that which is like, as long as it continueth, to keep the other in his Chair, in spight of all our Prayers, and other endeavours to pluck him thence.

But my dear Philalethes, 'tis high time now to conclude this Discourse, and refresh our selves with a short Supper: for we cannot but be both of us sufficiently tyred, and hungry too.

If I am tyred, then well may you.

Yes truly am I, XXIII. The Con­clusion. and as sharp set, as one that hath lost his Dinner. Wee'l therefore no longer exercise each others patience, than while we put up our most earnest Prayer, that at length it may please the God of Peace to guide all our Feet into the way of Peace: That he would give us teachable Tempers, modest and meek Spirits: and that the differen­ces in our Sentiments may cease to have so ill an influence upon our [Page 347] minds; as to create such unchari­table heats among us, and unchri­stian Animosities; to the great dishonour of God; the no less Scandal and Reproach of our most Excellent Religion, the raising of Jealousies in our Governours, the Exposing our Church and State to the Common Enemies, and the greatly endangering our Immortal Souls. That the Profession and Practice of Christianity may not so rarely go hand in hand: And that we may place our Religion in doing, rather than in talking and di­sputing: And may behave our selves as those that understand wherein the Life and Power of Godliness doth indeed consist. That [ Non magna loquimur sed vivimus] may be ours, as it was the Ancient Christi­ans Motto, and that the old Pri­mitive Spirit may now at last pre­vail among us. That we may not peremptorily pursue our own pri­vate [Page 348] Humours, and the Concerns of Parties, and prefer them before indifferent and impartial Enqui­ries after Truth; or oppose them to the publick Peace, Reason and Interest. That we may hate a sel­fish, private Spirit, as unworthy of the benignity, and generosity of the Christian Religion. And lastly, that we may contend with each other about nothing more, than who shall express, in the midst of our different Perswasions, most Charity and most Candour. God grant that our Jerusalem may at length be made a praise in the Earth, by a con­fluence of these, infinitely above all other, desirable Blessings.

Amen.