1
^.s^SKea
■'•S'j3^aa3
a«i**'45s,%'aa«
■r^J..ll
iMKS2??Via^ ^i*-'''- - «N
•SSL 4^^" -■*!•
'.r,:■!*;• i' .V *
t northwestern
I university
LIBRARY
EVANSTON
ILLINOIS
7
»= ■ SOME
Seafonable Reflections
O N T H E
DISCOVERY
I
late ^lot^
BEI'NG A
SERMON
Preacht on that Occalion. "
I^WILLIJM SHEKLOeK,T>.Ti.
! Redlor of St. George Buttolph lane^ London.
. L 0 N D OM:
Printed for Thom.is Baffet, at the George in Fleet-
Jlreet, and Ftncham Gardiner, at the White horje
in Ludgate-ftreet. 1683.
The Preface to the Reader.
THe reafon, why I puhlijh this Sermon, is partly to
gratifie the defires of fome, partly to prevent the
mifreprefentations of others,but chiefly for the fame
end,forwhich Ipreacht it, viz. to take the advantage of this
prefent opportunity,to make fome imprejfions upon mens minds,
which J fear at other times, they will notJo eafily receive.
I hope all honeflmen, even Dijfenters themjelvesjo from
their hearts abhor thofe villanous defigns againfl the Life
of our King , which God of his great mercy to thefe King"
domSfhas fo lately brought to light: and while they are pof-
fefl with fucb an abhorrence of the Treafon, itfeems to me,
to be a very properfeafon to put them in mind by what means
fuch evil defigns have been firfl formed and encouraged^and
brouglot to ripenefs andperfetlion ; that thofe, who have
been cheated into a Fall ion by fome plaufible pretences, and-
have followed the general noije and outcry in thefimplicity of
their hearts , may take warning for the future, and avoid
every fiep and advance towards Sedition andT''eafon,as well
as abhor the Treafon it felf
Jt was impojfible to do this , without calling to mind a
great many things, which to befure, thofe who are any ways
concerned,are not now willing to hear of; and that withfuch
plainnefs, as is necejfary to convince men of the evil nature
and tendency of fuch praliices: but God is my witnefs, that
I did not this with the leafl defign to upbraid or reproach-
any men, or party of men, but with the fame honefl and cha-
ritable intentions, though it may be not with the fame skill',
that a Chirurgeon ufes in fearching a wound to the very hot-
torn ; which is very painful indeed, but abfolutely necejfary
to a Cure.
Some perfons, I hear,have ohjelled' againfl this Difcourfe~,
that Ifeem to charge this flot upon the Proteftant Diilen-
A 2 tcrs>
The Preface to the Reader.
tcrs, and infinuate that it is 2. Fanatick, a true Proteflant
Plot. Godforlid thai flll Pjotefiant Diffenters Jhould he
concerned in this Plot, I hope letter things of many of
them', nor do I undertake to meddle xoith fuchifta^^ri.
All that I meant, is nothing hut what fs'evident to an^ian,
who belie ves a Plotthat this horrible Confpiracy has been
contrived and carried on by thofe men, who of late have
pretended to be the only VtyxQ PfQtelbnts ^ n^hich
they would not allow to any man, who appeared zealoiijly
concerned either for the Kh'g , or the Church of England.
Whether fuch men have any Religion or none, whether they
go to Conventicles , or to give the better grace to the huji'
nefs, fometimes hear the Common Prayer , is all one to me.
I am Jure the turbulentfpirit , which has of late a^ed our
Dijfenters, and their unwillingnefs to believe any Plot ftili,,
gives too jufl a fufpicion of many of them.
Though we are all bound to praife and adore the Divine
goodnejsin defeatingjlich wicked defigns, yet I am fo far from
triumphing over thefe men, that I cannot but pity and mourn
over them; my heart bleeds for that fcandal, that is done to
Religion, that advantage which is given to the common ener
my, for the fin and the fall of great Men, and the ruine of
Noble Families; but what is done,, cannot be undone again :
our care mufl look forward, to times to come, to remove the^
occafions, to root up the very feeds and principles of Sedition,
that thefe fisaktngs and convulfions of State may at laH fettle
in a profound and fecure Peace and Tranquillity.. .. If this
plain dijcourfe can contribute any thingto (0 happy an end, /
have all that I airrid at,both in Preaching and Printing it ;
however,! have the fatisfaSiion of an honefi defign, whkh is
a reward to its felf; and gives that inward contentment ml
pkafure, which the reproaches and^ cenfures of the World-,
which too often attend fuch undertakings, can never 'dk
(lurb.
. A
XVII1. PSAL M, ty o.
s
E R M O N.
Great deli'verance giveth he to his King , and
Jherveth mercy to his Anointed^ to David and to
his Seed for e'vermore.
His Pfalm was pen'd by David in a thank-
ful remembrance of thofe many won-
derful deliverances, which God had
wrought for him; and particularly his
1 deliverance from the hands of Satd, a
jealous, powerful, and implacable ene-
my, as we are exprefly told, z Sam. zz. i.
This Pious Prince, though he were immediately ad-
vancedto the Throne by God himfelf, could notefcape
the Confpiracies of his enemies both at home and a-
broad: for Men of Turbulent and reftlefs Spirits,will be
fure to find or make fome pretences or occafions of quar-
rel, under the moft jufi; and equal Government.
Sometimes men difpute the right of Succeflion ; but
this they could not do here., unlefs they would difpute
Gods right to place and difplace Princes; for David was
immediately chofen by God , and anointed by his Pro-
pher, and yet this could not fecure him from Confpira-
cies and Rebellions.
B ' Others
Others pretend great Oppreflion and Male-admini-
ftration of Government, though their licentious noifes
and clamours fufficiently confute it; for men, who are
moft oppreft dare fay the leaft of it. The Liberties and
Properties of the Subjeft, is an admirable pretence to
deprive the Prince of his Liberties and Properties; and
thofe who have any Liberty and Property to loofe, fel-
dom gain any thing by this: for when they have fecured
their Liberties and Properties againft their Prince, it is a
much harder task to fecure themfelves from their fellow-
Subjecls. Men who have no Property have fome en-
couragement to Rebel,and fight for Property ; for it is
pofTible they may get Ibmething in the fcramble , when
all Law and Property ceafes , but the property , of the
Sword : but methinks men of Honour and plentiful
Fortune, lliould not be fo zealous for transferring Pro-
perties, to enrich Beggars, and fubmit their necks to the
Yoke and Government of their own Slaves; which our
late experience has taught us to be the glorious effed of
Rebelling for Liberty and Property.
Others make Religion a pretence for their Rebellion,
Religion, the greatefl and the dearefl: intereft of all;
but methinks it is a dangerous way for men to Rebel to
1 Rom' Souls , when God has threatned Damnation
"" againft thofe who Rebel: but this is as vain a pretence
as Liberty and Property ; for no men fight for Religion-,
who have any. Religion is a quiet, peaceable, gover-
nable thing; it teaches men to fufTer patiently, but not
to Rebel. And were there any true concernment for
Religion in this pretence, can we imagine, that the moft
profeft Atheifts, the moft lewd profligate wretches,the
greatefl Prodigies and Monfters of wickednefs, fhould
be fo zealous for Religion ? But it's evident,it is not Re-
ligion,fuch men are zealous for, but a Liberty in Religi-
; on ; that is, that every one may have his liberty to be
of
[3l
of any Religion, or of none; which lervestheAtheiRs
turn, as well as the Sedaries, but is not much for the
honour or interefl; of true Religion.
So that whatever tlie pretences are, it is an ambitious,
difcontented, revengeful fpirit,an uneafie, reftlefs, fickle
and changeable humour, which difiurbs publick Go-
vernment,and undermines the Thrones of Princes; and
therefore it is no wonder, if the bell; Princes and the beft
Governments in the world be difturbed by fuch men ;
David himfelf could not efcape , he had a great many
enemies, but Davids God was greater than they all,
for great deliverance g iveth he to his King , and Jheweth
mercy to his Anointed ^ to David and to his feed for ever-
more.
There is fomething peculiar in thefe words, which
cannot be applied to any other Prince: for as David was
King of Ifrael, fo he was a Type of the Meffias , who
was to defcend from his loynes, and that promife or
prediction that he would ihew mercy to his Anointed,
to David and to his feed tor evermore, i eceived its full
accomplilhment, in the Kingdom of t\\Q Meffias, who is
faid to fet upon the Throne of David; but yet tliofe
deliverances God wrought for David, were perfonal too,
and an example of Gods care and protection of Pious
and Religious Princes. And when we fee the fame good
providence watching over our Prince, and fecuring him
from the bloody defigns of wicked men , we have rea-
fon thankfully to acknowledge it, as David did ,* great
deliverance he hath given to our Prince , he hath fhewn
mercy to his Anointed- Now know we , that the Lord fa-
veth his Anointed, he will hear him from his holy Heaven
with the faving flrength of his right hand. Some trufi
in Chariots, and fame in Horfes , hut we will remember the
Name of the Lord our God: they are brought down and fal-
len, but we are rifen andft and upright.
B My
[4]
My prefent Difcourfe therefore lliall confift of thefe
two parts. I. Briefly to obferve to you, thofe many
great Deliverances which God hath wrought for our
King. 2. I fliall make fome praftical Reflexions on
it, elpecially with reference to this late Difcovery.
I.. To obferve to you, thofe many great deliverances
which God hath wrought for our King. His troubles
have not been much unlike, I am fure not inferiour to
Davids, and his Deliverances ha ve not been lefsflrange
and wonderful. I am not a going to give you a Hifto-
ry of iiisLife, but only to point you to fome remarka-
ble paflagesof it, which it becomes us all thankfully to
remember.
I fuppofeno man doubts,how many dangers a Prince
is expofed to, who flies before an enraged and viXorious
enemy ; who knows not whither to go, where to hide
himfelf, whom totruft : this was the condition of our
Dread Soveraign, who was hunted as a Partridge in the
mountains, purfuedby his own Rebellious SubjeXs, who
had ufurpt his Throne, and thirfted after his Blood. But
then God found a hiding place for him , and delivered
him from the defire and expedation of his enemies.
But ftill his condition was calamitous, he was forc't
to live in Exile and Banifliment, diverted of Royal pow-
er, and all the enfignes of Majerty , reduced to a pre-
carious , and fometimes a neceflitous rtate, while he
law his Friends impoverilht and ruined, his Loyal Sub-
jertrs opprert, his Enemies triumphant, too vigilant, and
too powerful to allow any hope to fee an end of thele
troubles. But that God, who can do what he pleafes,
and oftentimes does fuch things , as no humane force
nor power can effeX,. put an end tothefc troubles alfo ;
and rertored him to his Fathers Throne in Peace and Ho-
nour, and with the univerfal joy and triumph of his
Subjeds : and I fiippofe you will reckon this a delive-
ranee,
\
c?]
ranee, a great and wonderful deliverance both to Pnncc
and People ; a deliverance immediately wrought by
(jod , without Humane policy, contrivance, or power.
To fee a Prince whofe Father was Murdered , and him-
felf forc'tinto banifliment by his own Subjects, uith-
out any power of his own, without the help and aiTifi-
ance of Forreign Allies; while his Friends at home were
opprellv vvliile the fame power tint drove him our, was
flail in the hands of his enemies; while fo many per-
fons who were in greateft power were concerned for
their own prefervation to keep him out; while thofe
who wiflit his return, durfl; not whifper any thing tend-
ing to call the King back again; I fay,to fee a Prince in
fuch circumllances , without flriking a blow r without
fliedding a drop of Blood, return again in the throngs
and crouds, and with the acclamations of his Subjefts,
is no lefs a Miracle, than dividing the fea to give a fafe
paflage to the Ifraelites: for the Pfalmifl; reprefents it
as an argument of equal power to fl 'tll the mife of the
the feas, the noife of their waves, and the tumult of the
people. This is the Lords doings , and it is marvellous in ^sPfaf. 7.
our eyes ; now know we, that the Lord faveth his Anointed,
he will hear him from his holy Heaven with the faving
flrength of his right hand.
And that good Providence, which brought our King
back again, has watcht over him ever fince. Though
he returned in a happy day, when the Seas were fmootli
and calm, when no frowns were to be feen on mens for- , ^
heads, but fuch cheerful looks as fignifyed the inward
pleafure and ferenity of their minds, yet it could not
be expected, that this calm would always laft. I think
we may now venture to fay, without fear of being cen-
fured, that there are two forts of men, that are reftlefs
and implacable, and always working under ground,and
both of them with an equal pretence of Religion : I
mean
■ I ■■■ ■ — « ~ 'Y
mean the Papill and the Fanatick.I fliall not take notice
of thofe feveral weak attempts they have made fincethe
happy Reftauration of our Prince ^ there is fomething
greater to imploy our thoughts at this time, fome more
fignal demonftrations of that great deliverance Godgi-
veth to his King.
We have now for many years had little other dif-
courfe than of a Popifli Plot, a wicked hellilh defign a-
gainfl the Life of our King , and the Religion and Li-
berties of his Subjefts. This was a formidable defign,
laid clofe and in the dark, profecuted with deep Coun-
fels and combined interefts. We may remember, for I
think we cannot eafily forget, what horror and confter-
nation furprized us at the news ; we lived in perpetual
fear of the Life of our Prince, in perpetual fear of our
own : how did the name of Popery defervedly Rink
among us! how did men abhor a Religion, which is
nourilht with Blood , with Royal and innocent Blood !
How zealous were men in their difcoveries, how watch-
ful in their Guards, how devout in their Prayers for the
prefervation of their Prince, and of their Religion!
And though pofTibly we have not feen to the bottom of
that Plot to this day,and it may be never lhall, yet bleR
fed be God, there was enough difcovered to prevent
the mifchief ; we Rill enjoy our Religion , we Rill fee
our Prince, and rejoyce under the benigne influences of
his Government; hitherto God hath faved his Anointed
from a Popifli, I pray God Rill defend him from a Fana-
tick Plot.
i
A Fanatick, a true ProteRant Plot ? furely that is im-
poffible; there can be no danger from that corner; this
is only a fcandal caR upon innocent and peaceable men.
Truly this has been fo often faid, and with fo much con-
fidence,that we had like not to have believed it poffible,
till it had been too late. It was fuflicient to prove any
^ man
[7]
man to be aPapift, who durfl own it poflible, for fuch
good men to Rebel, or Plot againfl: the King and Go-
vernment; and yet it was very hard not to think that
pofTible to be done, which had been done once already,
and that fo lately , as not to be forgot, though it was
pardoned; an A£t of Oblivion could not wipe it out of
mens memories, efpecially when they (aw the fame
things begin to be afted over again, with tiie fame Re-
ligious pretences. I am apt to think , we had been
more fecure from the Popifli Plot, than for ought I
know, we may yet be, had not thefe men abufed peo-
pies fears and dangers of Popery to the difturbance of
the Government, and to the carrying on their Antimo-
narchical and Fanatick defigns. We remember how
foon the PopilhPlot was turned into a great noife and
cry againft the Church of England; and no way was
thought fo $t to keep out Popery, as to pull down the
Church ; and thus the poor Church of England,^\\\z\\-
had efcaped the rage and fury of Rome, had like t'o
have been facrificed to a true Proteftant zeal, which no
doubt had given a fatal blow to Popery. Hoc Ithacus'
'velit, ^ magni mercentur Atridae.
How things proceeded after this to the difturbance of
the publick peace, and the interruption of the ordinary
courfe of Juftice , you all know,as well as I; and wife
men quickly faw, and hoaeft men could not forbear
warning the people, whither thefe things tended: and
they met with a good reward for it; they were all Pa-
pifts in Mafquerade , and efpecially the Loyal Clergy
were loaded with all the contempt and ignominy,which,
an inraged and envenomed zeal, and fome witlefs fcrib-
lers could caft on them. Whole vollies of Pamphlets
flew about to poyfon the people with lewd and Seditious
Principles; but to talk or write or preach about Obe-
dience to Government , or patient fuffering for a good
m caufe
[8]
caufe, was to betray the Proteftant Interell:, and to in-
vile a Popifli Succeflbur to cut our Throats: and what
all this ends in,thanks be to God,we now fee,and I hope,
time enough to prevent it.
I do not pretend to tell you any thing which you do
not all know; Time, and the care of our Governours,
and the guilty Confciences of Rebels, and the good pro-
vidence of God,I hope, will make further Difcoveries, and
bring thefefecret works of darknefs into open view; but
we know enough to praifeGod for his great deliverance,
which he hath given his King ; we know enough to ad-
mire and adore that infinite wifdom who by the moft
feemingly cafual and contingent events , can fo eafily
difappoint and defeat the defigns of wicked and bloody
men. Who ever fufpefted, that the fire at Newmarket
was fent by God for the prefervation of our King and
his Royal Brother , for the prefervation of thefe King-
doms, of our Liberties and Religion ? Wonderjul are
thy works, 0 Lord, and thy ways paji finding out.
This fliort account I have given you , is an excellent
Comment upon my Text, a cafe very parallel to Da-
vids. The deliverances of our Prince are no way in-
feriour to that mercy God Ihewed to David, when he
delivered him from the Lyon and the Bear , from the
uncircumcifed Philiftin, from a perfecuting , from
a Rebellious Ahfolom , from a Treadierous Achitofhel,
from the drivings of the people. • Great deliverance
fheweth he to his King , and Jheweth mercy to his Anoin-
ted.
%. And thus I proceed to make fome i>ra£l ical Re-
marks and Obfervations on this, which was the thing
I principally defigned. And they are thefe."
I. What a vain and fruitlefsattempt it is to Plot a-
gaioft the Life and Crown and Dignity of our Prince,
when God undertakes tlledelcnee and protedion of him.
- • Set-
[p]
Setting afide the wickednefs and impiety of it, it is a
foolifli and dangerous defign. Whoever confiders only
the probable events of humane actions, will be eafily
convinc't, how unlikely it is, that fuch Plots fliould
take efFed. To mifs the very critical minute,fpoils all
the defign ; and yet after all the skill and contrivance
they can ufe, there are ten thoufand cafualties to difap-
point them. Such defigns cannot be aded alone, but
require numerous confederates; and what fecurity can
there be,that no one man in fuch a number fliall betray
the Secret ? Some poffibly may be toucht with remorfe
and horror of Confcience , may be frighted with the
very thoughts of that Villany which they defigned to
aft ; and then they need no body to betray them but
themfelves, for no man can long together conceal the
fire, which burns in his own bread. Other men may
get into the company , and acquaint themfelves with all
their Intrigues, and aft ib cunning a part, as to be mi-
ftaken for confiding perfons; may appear mod zealous
and mod forward in the bufinefs, and all this while be-
tray their Counfels, and put an effeftual dop to them,
when they are ripe for execution : and it isimpoifible
fot the cunningsft men to prevent this, who have not
a Cafement into mens Breads. Other men, who enter
into the Confederacy to make their Fortunes, may hap-
pen to confider, that it is much the fafed and mod effe-
ftual way to do this by difcovering tli^pfot, than by
afting it. The power of Wine fometimes unlocks a
Secret, and faves a Kingdom ; fome unexpefted Quar-
rels and Animofities among the Confpirators, a mutual
jealoufie of each others greatnefs; a hady difpute about
dividipg the Riches and Honours and Power i?f tfie Na-
tion,. before they have it, may tempt them to hang one
another, and leave the Spoil which they had already
devoured in their hopes and expdftations, to the right
owners. C A
[.o]
A defire to refcue feme friend out of the common
ruin,may fave a Kingdom. Walls and Hedges ha^e Ears,
and the very Birds of the Air may teil the' matter.
Their Cabals may be obferved and fufpefted, and their
afreftation of Secrecy may betray them. Their guilt is
often feen in their looks, and creates jealoufies and lu-
fpicions of fome fecret defign; and an unlucky word,
which he meant nothing by, who fpoke it, may make
them think themfelves difcovered; and this is a ready
way to make them difcover themfelves. The Heart of
the ftouteft Rebel may fail him, when he comes to
give the fatal blow ; or he may mifs of his aim, or his
Gun may not go off, or he may diftrufl: his own e-
fcape, and not be hardy enough to facrifice his own life
in the Caufe ; and a thoufand other accidents, which it
is impoflible for me to reckon up, may fave the Devo-
ted Prince, and Hang the Confpirators : and thole had
need be men of very defperate Fortunes, or very little
underftanding, who engage in fuch defpafatb defigns.
But when to this we add the confideration of the
Divine Providence, which peculiarly interefls it felf in
the difpofal of Kingdoms, and in all the great Changes
and Revolutions of Publick affairs, unlefs thefe men were
of the Privy-Council of Heaven, and could hold intelli-
gence with the Secret Decrees and purpofes of God for
the Government of the World, they can never be fecurc
of Succefs, how hopeful foever their projedfs and defigns
appear.
If God take any care of human affairs, if he concern
himfelf at all in the Government of the World, we may
certainly conclude that his providence does principally
order the Fate and Revolutions of Kingdoms and Comr
mon-wealths. Some Philofophers have queftioned, whe-
therGod condefcended fo far,as to take notice of particu-
iar creatures; but all who acknowledged his Providence,
' thought
[•o
thought the great Concernments of Kingdoms, the pJa-
cing or difplacing of Princes, worthy of his care and pe-
culiar regard : and therefore we, who are aflured by our
Saviour, that Gods care and providence extends to tiie
Sparrowsand the Lilies of the Field, cannot doubt,
whether he Rules and Governs in the Kingdoms of men,
whether he who takes care of every particular creature,
takes care of the general concernments of humane Socie-
ties, wherein the happinefs of all particular men is in-
volved.Ahd can thefe men then think to pull down and
tofet up Princes at their pleafure ? God may fometimes
fuffer Treafon and Rebellion to be profperous, but it can
neves profper, but when God pleafes; and it is im-
poRible Rebels fliould ever know that, and therefore
it is impoffible, they fhould have any reafonabie fecuri-
ty of fuccefs.
There is nothing more exprefly contrary to the re-
vcaled will of;. God, than Treafonable Plots and Con-
fpiracies againft Soveraign Princes: and though God does
many times'permit thofe things to be done, which he
has forbid to be done, or elfe no man could ever be
Guilty of any Sin; yet his forbidding of it is a plain
argument, that he does not approve it, that he will
not countenance it, nay, that he will not permit it, but
where he fees great and wife reafons to do fo.
God never indeed interpofes by an irrefiftible power
to hinder men from choofing that which is wicked, for
he offers no force and violence to mens Wills:but when
this wickednefs is injurious to others, who are the ob-
jedts of his care and providence, he many times in-
terpofes to preventthemifchief.. ,The lives of private
men are hot at the difpofab of every -Ruffian; not a
Sparrow falls to the ground without our Father, much
lefs a man, much lefs a Prince, on whofe life and for-
tune the lives and fortunes of fo many thoufands de-
pend. C z And
[..]
And therefore no man can reafonably promife him-
felf fuccels in Plotting againft his Prince , but he who
certainly knows, that God for fome wife but hidden
reafons, will fuffer fuch a Villany to take effbd; which
no man can know without a Revelation; and we cannot
think, that God will encourage any man by an extra-
ordinary Revelation to do that, which he himfelf has
exprefly forbid, and threafned with Eternal death.
So that all fuch men ad at infinite uncertainties;
befides the punifliments of the other World, which are
referved for Traitors; befides the many Natural con-
tingencies and uncertainties of humane adions : if they
believe, that there is a Providence which Goveri?s,the
World, they have ten thouland to one againft them,
that God will not permit them to do, what they de-
fign : and thofe are bold men indeed, who dare vie Stra-
tagems and Power with God ! . ' ,
Efpecially when they Plot againft a Prince who .feems
to be the Darling of Providence, who has received fo
many wonderful and miraculous deliverances7 as if he
vjere ftill referved for fome Extraordinary fervice in the
World. One would have tliought, the difc'overie of
the Popilh Plot, which no doubt was managed with as
much Secrecy, with as wary Councils, and deep In-
trigues, as anything ever was, fliould Have"difcouraged
any new attempts in this Age : it fhould have brought
^ to mind that Triumphant Pfalm, do the Heathen
2 3) 4- ' people imagine a vain thing > the Kings of the
earth fland up, and the Rulers take Counfel together ( a
more powerful Faftion than fome private Male-contents)
againjl the Lord, and againfl his Anointed, faying , Let
us break their Bonds afunder, and caB away their Cords
from us. He that dwelleth in the Heavens fhall laugh
them to fcorn, the Lord fhall have them in derifion. At
leaft it is time now to take warning , left we be found
fighters
. C'sJ
im- fighters againfl God : it is a vain and a dangerous at-
i'ho tempt to confpire his ruine , whom God hath hitherto
den fo miraculoufly preferved.
lich . Secondly, There is another Obfervation oii thefe late
mot Plots and Confpiracies,which no man can avoid making,
:tra- and that is, how dangerous the difputes and differences
has of Religion are to the publick Peace and welfare of any
• Nation. Chriftian Religion indeed'is thfe greateft fecu-
Mks', rity of Government,both in its pfSceptsand examples;
ichaie It commands every Soul to befubje<Jl to the- higher pow-
il coQ. ers, and threatens eternal Damnation againfl Rebels;
if they It teaches us to give to every, one their due; Trihute
riisthe to whom Tlrihutt is due, Cuflom\owhoni Cuftom , Fear to
them, wham Fear, Honour to whom Honour.' It flriclly enjoyns
leyde. the practife of all fociable Vertues, and charms thofe
ieStra- boiflerouspaffions, which diilurb hunlane converfation ;
it requires us to obey our Superiours in all lawful things,
3feei and quietly to fubmit and fuffer, when we can't obey,
ived fo And the blefledjefus, who was the Author of our Reli-
sifhe gion , and our great Pattern and Example, did himfelf
in the ptadtife thefe Laws, which he gave to us. He lived in
erjgd obedience to the Civil powers ; and though the Jewifh
Nation, which was a free people, the lot and inheritance
op jj. of God himfelf, were then in fubjedlion to the Romans,
Med would not give them the leaf! encouragement
oonht ake off the yoak, but commands them to give nn-
hth C afar the things that are Cisfars, and to God the things
eftk Gods. Though he was a King, yet he was not
J Cafars Rival; for his Kingdom was not of this world,
. & therefore he did not arm his Subjedlsto fight for him,
as he told Rilate. His.Kingdom was not to be fet up in i8joh.3^.
the world by force and power but he gave teflimony
i I to the truth with his,Blood , and commanded his Dif-
ciples to do fo too. He died himfelf upon the Crofs,
and made this the condition of our Difciplelhip, to take
tsrs
[•4]
Hp our Crofs and follow him ; and thus the ApoAles
and the Primitive Chridians did , they cheerfullyfol-
lowed their Madcr to the Crofs , and qonquered byfuf-^
fering. Chridianity was planted ■ in the world by ho o-
ther arts but the fooliflinefs of Preaching, by pfdachirig
that abfurd and ridiculous Doftrine , as the world then
accounted it, of a Crucified Jefus ; and it defended it
feif only by ,airefolute:fand ipatienc fuffering for the
Nameof Chvift-: This is the trueiemper and fpirit of
Chriflianity., linder the mofl; barbarous and perfecu-
tingEmperours , no Chriftian ever fufiered as a Rebel;
they gave no other difturbance to the Government,than
by confelhng themfelvesChriftians, and fuRering for it;
Their numbers indeed were very formidable, but no-
thing elfe ; for in imitation of their great Mafter, they
went as Lambs to the (laughter, and as Iheep before their
lliearers are dumb, fo they opened nottheir mouths.
But notwithftanding this , our daily experience tells
us, that when Religion is divided into Fafbions and Par-
ties, or rather men are divided into Fadions and Parties
upon account of Religion, there is nothing more imbit-
ters mens fpirits againft each other, nor gives greater di-
fturbance to publick Government. All the troubles and
miferies,\yhich for thefe late years have overwhelmed this
unfortunate Ifland, have been owing to this caufe; Reli-
gionlias been made either the reafon or the pretence otall:
Papifts.plpt and confpire the death of a Protefiant Prince
to bring in Popery , and profeft Protefiants, it feems, do
the fame thing to keep out Popery ; and thus a Prote-
Rant Prince, and a truly ProteRant, or rather.a true Pri-
mitive and ApoRoljck Church, is in danger of both.
And is there not great reafon then lor Princes, who
love their Lives and their Crowns , to .keep a watchful
eye over fuch bufie , potent, and dangerous Fadions?
fliall it be called Perfecution for Religion, to puniihTrai-
tors,
[■5 1
tors, or to keep under a fadVious and turbulent Spirit ?
;ll. the Confciences of Subje&s ,will ferve them to Rebel
for Religion , it feems a very hard cafe, if theCooTci-
ence of the Prince muft not allow him to hang 'em for
their Rebellion : or.d yet no wife Prince will put it up-
on that hazard neither , if he can help it, to fuffer iiis
3ubje<Rs.to deferve to be hanged. To curb a growing
IFaftion by prudent and timely Reftraints , is-a much
better and falcr way.
The truth of this is readily owned, when it isappli-
.ed to the Papifts.- They are men of fuch dangerous
iprinciples and Pradkes, as not to be fuffered to live in
any Proteftant Kingdom; and truly fothey are , and
thanks be to God, we have very good Laws againft
them; and whatever they may do in private, they dare
not outrface Government with their publick and nume-
rous Conventicles; they walk in the dark, and dare not
own-themfelvcs to be what they-arc.
But yet I cannot but wonder upon what Principles
thofe men Ad, who are fo Zealous agiinft Popery, and
think it fuch an unpardonable fault in Governors, to
fufTer any Papift,efpecially aPopilh Prieft,though never
fo obfcurely and privately^ to live among us, and yet
at the fame time tliink it Perfecution,a horrible Perfecu-
tion, not to grant a general Liberty and Indulgence to
ail other Dillenters. The difference between thefe two
cafes muft either rcfped their Religion, or the fecurity
of the Government; i
As for their Religion, I believe Popery to be a very
corrupt Religion , and the greateft Apoftacy from
Chriftianity of any other Seft or Profeflion, which de-
fervesthe name of Chriftian ; but yet I am fo profeft
an enemy to Popery, that I abhor that Popilh principle
of perfecuting men meerly for Religions fake,which can
no more be juftified in Proteftants againft Papifts, than
[16]
in Papifts againft Proteftants. It is certainly the duty
of a Prince to ufe his power and intercft to Eftablim
the true Religion in his Kingdoms, to encourage the
fincere profeflors of it, and to lay fuch reftraints up-
on others, as may be fufficientto make them confider,
and hearken to wile inllrudfions, that it may be no
mans temporal intereft to dillent from the Religion of
his Prince: and it is the duty of Church-Governors not
to receive any into the Communion of the Church, or
to call them out again, who do not profefs the fame
Faith, or will not conform to the Worfhip and Difci-
pline of the Church. And this is all,that I know of in this
matter; and if men will call this Perfecution, it is a
fign, they know not what Perfecution means; for the
Primitive Chriftians, who were indeed perfecuted, would
have thought fuch ufage as this, avery eafie and pro-
fperous State.
So that the difference rriuft lie, if anywhere, ifi'the
Security of the Government. That no Proteftan^
Prince or Kingdom, can be fecured from tlie attempts
and^Confpiracies of Papifts, whofe Principles and Pra-
cticesare deftrudive. to Government: and this is the
very true reafon of thofe fevere Laws, which were
made in this Kingdom againft Popery. -And it muft
be acknowleged, that there was formerly a vaft diffe-
rence between Papifts and Proteftants upon this account,
and therefore a fufficient reafon for any Prince to make
a difference between them ; and I wifli, I could fay, k
were fo ftill, but I dare not, I cannot fay fo. To deny
that profeft Proteftants have ever Rebelled againft their
Prince, is to deny, that there ever a Civil War in
England, that there ever was a Proteftant Prince Mur-
deredTy his Proteftant Subjeds with all the mockTor-
malities of Law and Juftice; and he muft have fome-
what more than the impudence of a Jefuit, that can
deny
C«7l
deny this. And I would to God, we had but one in-
ftance of this, though that was a very bad one; it might
have left fome place for ho|^eftiIl, that this was not the
temper nor the Principles of the men, but fome unlucky
junfture of Affairs, which tranfported them beyond the
bounds of their Duty, and their own avowed Principles.
The happy Reftauration of our Baniflit Prince might in
fome meafure have expiated their former guilt, and they
might have recovered their innocence, and the reputa-
tion of Proteftant Loyalty, had they manifefled the
fincenty of their repentance by abhorring all the Prin-
ciples and Praftices of Rebellion: but he muft be a
bold man indeed, who dares make excufes for thofe
who prove Rebels afecond time; and he muft be a bolder
Prince, who will truft them.
And when every little Creature is fo vaftly concerned
for Liberty and Property, can we think our Prince
Ihould be the onely unconcerned Perfon, when the Li-
bcrty« and Property of his own Life and Crown is at
ftake ? Or can any reafonable man exped, that he
Ihould encourage thofe Religious Fadions, which by fre-
quent experience he finds troublefom and dangerous to
his Throne? When Religion turns into a State-faftion,
to curb and reftrain and quell fudi pretences, is not to in-
vade the rights of Confcience,or the liberties of Religion,
but to fecure the publick Peace, and to prevent the oc-
cafions of new Rebellions. And no fober Difienter can
reafonably blame his Prince for this, though he may
blame thofe, and ought to exprefs a juft indignation a-
gainft them, who forfeit this liberty by abufing it for a
Cloak of malkioufnef.
And if we ever defire to fee the peace and profperity
of our Sion, is it not high time to unite in Religion,
which is the onely thing, that can blefs us with a firm
and lafting peace ? All our late troubles have been ow-
D ing
[i8]
.owing to the diflerences of Religion; and while the
caufe of diflentions remains, though there may be fome
expedients at prefent found out to palliate the diftemper,
yet nothing can remove it. All men feem to be very
fenfible of this, and very defirous of an Union ; but the
queftion is, how or in what we (hall Unite.
Shall we unite in Popery? God forbid! the falvation
of our Souls is fomewhat dearer to us than temporal
peace, andtliat we believe tobeexpofed to infinite ha-
zard in the Communion of fo corrupt a Church. A
firm and univerfal Agreement indeed in any thing, will
fecure the publick peace, but we mull; not make our
Religion fo wholly fubordinate to temporal ends. If we
can fave our Souls, and fecure the publick peace toge-
ther, fuch a Religion ought to be chofen upon a double
account; but if both thefe interefts cannot be united, we
muft take care tofave our vSouls, and truft the Providence
of God with our other concernments.
Shall we then unite with the different Sefts and Parties
of Chriftians, which are among us ? This is to unite
without Union. It is to unite indeed agatnB fomething,
but to unite in nothing. The feveral parties of Diflen-
ters, who feparate from the Church of England^ differ
as much from each other, as they do from usv They
may unite and combine together in pulling down, but
they can never unite in fetting up anything: they can
unite in Tumults, and publick Difturbances, but they
can never unite in Peace. When they had pulled down
the Church of England, they could fet up nothing in
its room, but a prodigious encreafe of Herefies and
Schifms.
There is nothing then to unite in, but the Church of
England, as by Law cftablifhed, which will both fecure
the interefts of our Souls and the publick peace. And
why Ihould we not unite in this Church ? which is the
Glory
C'p]
Glory and the Bulwark of the Reformation, the envy'
and the terror of Rome}Nhok, Fathers and firfl; Reformers
were Martyrs againft Popery, and who her felf has'
been a Martyr for Loyalty. Thofe infinite dangers we
are furrounded with on all hands, methinks lliould"
ftrongly enclineall honeft men, impartially to examine
the reafons of their Separation: and I am confident,
not onely what has been formerly written in the Defence
of this Church, but what has been lately oflered for
the fatisfaftion of Diflenters, would open the Eyes of all
(incere men to fee their miflakes, if they would but
calmly, without prejudice or pafiion, read and confider
it. It is demonftrable, we can unite no where elfe; and.
is it a defirable Rate, to be perpetually ftrugling and
contending with inteftine Commotions > to be hating,
reviling, undermining, each other > For Gods fake, be-
loved Chriftians, let us at laft confider the things which
make for peace, and thofe things^ whereby we may edlfie each
other. And in order to do this, I obferve further,
3. How dangerous a rafh boifterous intemperate
Zeal is, though it be for the beft things , and againft
the worft. Whatever private difcontents, revengeful or
ambitious defigns, might fecretly aft: fome great men,
who know how to praftife upon the zeal and the igno-
ranee of the people ; yet nothing is more evident, than
that the firft vifible occafion of thefe new Troubles and
Confpiracies, which have endangered the Life of our
King, and the Ruine of his Government, was laid in a
mighty zeal againft Popery, and for the prefervation
of the Proteftant Religion. The Popifii Plot was the
firft Scene in this new Tragedy. Thofe bloody defigns
raifed the fears, thejealounes, tlie indignation of men,
and a love to their Prince and to their Religion, kindled
and blew up their Zeal into fuch a violent flame , as
threatned an univerfal defolation, and became more for-
D z midable,
[so ]
midable,than the clanger it intended to remove. A great
and pafTionate Zeal,like a diftempered love, blinds mens
eyes, and makes them miftake both their Enemies and
their Friends. It fills their head withendlefs jealoufies
•and fears , and makes them ftart and run away from
their own lliadow. Such a boiflerous Zeal is the Frenzy
and Calenture of Religion , which makes men uncapa-
ble of all fober Counlel, and prudent Refolves, and pre-
cipitates them into the moft wild extravagant and irre-
ligious attempts. There is nothing more pernicious
than Zeal when it gets a head , and bears down all the
confiderations of Reafon and Religion before it. When
men are confcious to ihemfelves, that they are engaged
in a good Caufe, and have honeft defigns, it makes than
more bold and venturous: for though few men dare
own it, yet theadiona of too many fufficientlypro-
claim., that they think they may ftrain a point, and
difpenfe with flrift duty , when it is to ferve a good
Caufe , when the honour of God , and the intereli of
Religion is concerned r fuch a zeal does violently pulh
men forward , but it does not fteer well, nor obierve
its Compafs ; and thus it is too often feen,that men who
begin with a zeal for Religion, infenfibly flip into State-
Faorions, and are engaged vaftly beyond what they firfl;
defigned, and engaged fo far , that they cannot retreat
with fafety or honour, but mull either Conquer or be
Conquered.
Let us then above all things have a care of our Zeal,
that we may not miftake an earthly fire, whicli burns
and confumes, for that divine and harmlefs flame,
which is kindled at Gods Altar. A true Zeal for Religi-
on, is nothing nipre nor lefs, than luch a hearty love lor
it, as makes us very diligent in rhepradife of it our
felves, and contented , if God fees it fit , to lay down
our lives for it, and very induftrious to promote the
know-
C 21 ]
knowledge andpradifeof Religion in the world by all
lawful and prudent means. A true Chriftian Zeal will
not fuller us to tranfgrels the ftrift bounds of our du-
ty to God, or of our duty to Men.efpecially to Kings
and Princes, whatever flattering profpedl: of advantage
it may give. To lie, to forfwear our felves, to hate and
revile each other , to Reproach and Libel Governours in
Church and State, to flir up, or countenance with the
leafl thought, any Plots, Seditions, or Rebellions againft
the King , is not a Zeal for God, nor for Religion; for
this ivifaom is not from above, hut is earthly, fenfual and
devilifh : for nhere ftrife and contention is, there is confu-
fion, and every evil work.
4. Let our part experience therefore teach us,to watch-
over the leafl: ftirrings, and firlt appearances of a fedi^ ,
tious and factious Spirit, either in our felves or others,
however it may be difguifed with a pretence of Religi-
on. Fadion , like other Vices, has but very fmallbe-
ginnings; but when tbofe beginnings are indulged , it
foon improves and gets flrength. Omne in.pracipiti vi-
tium Jletit: when men once efpoufe a Party, like thofe,
who are a running down hill, they cannot flop, when
they pleafe. Difcontents and Jealoufies are*i^f>ly fb-
men ted, when we have once given admiflTion tb" them;
and the bufie Faflors and Agents for Sedition, when they
f^nd us never fo little difpofed and prepared to receive
the imprelTion, ufe their utmoft art and skill, all the
methods of infinuation and addrefs , i to make us Profe-
lytes. I doubt not but many men hav^e died Rebels,and
fuffered as Traitors , who at firfl did as much abhor the
thoughts of Treafon and Rebellion , as any of. us can.
Thus I doubt not but it s\'as in our late Troubles , and
thus I believe it is at this day.
Let fuch examples as thefe make us wary , how we
be^n to entertain , or to w nifper our Difcontents and
Fears;
Fears; how we begin to lifteh to fufpidons of our Prince,
or of his Government, and to hear with pleafure, any
fcandalous ftories or reflexions on either : thofe who can
with content and pleafure hear their Prince,and his Go-
vernment reviled, will foon think him not fit to be
their King.
And the great danger of fuch beginnings is, that we
are not apt to obferve them in our felves or others, when
Religion is concerned in the quarrel. We think it all
Zeal, pure zeal, and cannot fufpeft our felves or others,
to be in any danger of turning Rebels. But whatever
is in its own nature a degree and tendency towards Re-
bellion, is fo,where ever,and in whomfoever it is found
and there is always more danger, that the beginnings
, of Vice lliould corrupt the belt temper of Mind , than
any hope, that a found and Religious difpofition fliould
corred the malign influences of fuch a Vice. Some
mens Religion does as much incline them to Fadion, as
fecular intereft does other men ; and there is no fuch
dangerous Fadion, as that which is bred and nourillied
by the Corruptions of Religion. The Jewifh Zealots,
and the Chriftian Enthufiafts of all forts, are too plain
an example of it. And therefore when men, who make
great pretences to Religion begin to talk or ad Fadi-
oufly , a fair opportunity is as like to make them Re-
bels as any other men. Thus we often fee it is, and this
is a fufficient reafonto fufped all fuch beginnings, either
in our felves or others, whatever glorious pretences we
may have.
Let this at laft teach us to learn from experience. One
would wonder, that there fhouid be any occafion for
fuch an Obfervation as this : for thofe,who have not un-
derftanding nor reach enough to forefee the iffues and
events of things, yet when they have once fbn, what
th^ events of kichadions have been, when they fee the
fame
fame things afted over again , they exped to fee the
fame effecls. Thus indeed it ufual ly is, thus it ought to
be, if men ever intend to grow wife and happy ; and yet
our late obfervations will tell us, that it is not always
thus. For if it had, the fame Game would never have
been played over twice, by many of the fame men , in
the lame Age, and by the fame Arts and Methods, and
yet the people deluded, and the world bore in hand, that
they defigned nothing lefs, than to play the fame Game
again.
We faw all the Zeahand all the Intrigues of40.and 41.
return again^nd yet it was an unpardonable crime for a-
ny man to fay fo, or 'for any man to look as if he
thought fo. The cry againft Popery was renewed, but
indeed with a great deal more reafon, than they former-
ly had, for we were in eminent danger of Popery; which
is the onely difference between thofe times and ours: but
then our real fears and dangers of Popery were prefent-
ly abufed to Fadious defigns, and made a property of
to ferve fome more fecret Intrigues. The old cry was
againft Popifh Bifhops, and a Popifh Liturgy, and Po-
pilh Ceremonies, and in a word, againft the Popifli
Church England', but one would have thought it
impolfible, that ever the Church Ihould at this time
have been charged with Popery, when the Popilh Plot
was principally intended againft the Church of England-
and our King as the Supream Governour and Defender
of it; and yet this was done too, and the King and the
Church had like to have been brought into the Plot a-
gainft themfelves. We heard new ftories told of the
growth of Popery and Arbitrary Government, when
thanks be to God, we faw nor felt no fuch thing. This
was the main fubjed of thofe infinite numbers of Pam-
phlets, that flew about; the Bilhops and Clergy were
fure never to efcape, befides thofe many objique and
■ • fcur^".
Cm]
"fcurrilous reflexions, which were made upon the King
and his Government: and it is hard to name any ftep,
which was formerly taken to ruine Church and State,
which thefe men could poflibly take, and did not. And
yet few men would fee, whither all this tended, though
no men were thought fit tor any pubhck Trult or
Office, but thole who were eminent tor their difaffedi-
on to Church or State. I hope your eyes are opened
now, to fee what all this n eant: and methinks it is but
a reafonable requeft to you, that it ever u e fliould be
fo unhappy, as to fee thele things aXed over again, you
would not need being put in mind, what the natural
tendencies and confequents are; which is the onely rea-
fon why I mention them now. We had like to have
paid very dear for disbelieving our own eyes and fenfes,
and former experience ; it is certainly a cheaper and fa-
fer way to learn by former experiences than by new
ones.
6. let us now learn how dangerous a thing it is to
interrupt the ordinary Courfe and Methods of Juftice,
let the pretence be what it will. Juftice is the only fup-
port and fecurity of Humane Societies ; and a flop or a
breach here, is as fatal and dangerous, as a failure in the
foundation, or the main pillars,which fupport the build-
ing. When men are refcued from the hands of Juftice,
againft the moft clear and notorious Evidence, upon a
meer prefumption of their innocence, and a good opini-
on of them. What fecurity can there be to the Go-
vernment, when let men do what they will, if they can
get and maintain a reputation of Zealous Patriots for
their Country and Religion , they are out of the reach
of Juftice? Had not the good Providence of God in-
terpofed, this very thing might have coft our King his
Life and his Crown, and involved this miferable Nation
in a bloody War This Plot might pofllibly have been
dif-
C'5]
difcovered fooner, before it was fo ripe for execution,
had Juftice had its due courfe ; which I think,it becomes
all Perfons, who are concerned in it, ferioufly to confi-
der,with fuch guilt and confufion, as it deferves.
7. 1 obferve, that in times of publick danger, when
We have Enemies on both fides, it concerns us to keep
a watchful eye upon both extreams. It is indeed a ve-
ry hard thing to do this, but it is impolTible we fliould
be fafe without it. While our thoughts are wholly em-
ployed to fecure ourfelves on one hand, where our dan-
ger is prefent and vifible, it gives opportunity to anun-
feen and unobferved Enemy, to aflault us on the other.
When the Popifli Plot was dilcover'd,all mens mouths
were opened againft Popery;we faw no other Enemy,we
feared none,we fufpefted none; nay,when there was too
much reafon lor our fufpicions, we would believe none;
we thought it impolTible, that men,who expreft fuch an
abhorrence and deteftation of the Popifli Plot, lliould be
laying new Plots themfelves. And we fee now, what ad-
vantage they made of our fecurity. And now the great
danger is, that the Difcovery of this Anti-Popifli Plot,
Ihould make men fecure of Popery,and think there is no
danger now from that corner. For ray part, lam abun-
dantly fatisfied , that we are in great danger of both,
and in the greater danger of both , becaufe their con-
trary aflaults give great advantages to each other. The
Papifts now may Father their Plots upon Proteftants,
and Proteftants upon Papifts ; and we may be involved
in Blood and Confufion, and neither know our Friends
nor our Enemies. God of his infinite mercy preferve
our King and thefe Kingdoms, our Liberties, Laws, and
Religion,fromthe wicked confpiracies ofall our Enemies.
Which is the laft thing Ilhall recommend to you, to
praife God for his prefervation of our King hitherto,and
earneftly to beg, that the fame good Providence would
ftill watch over him for the time to come. E And
And certainly if ex'er We had reafort to pralfe God for
any Deliverance, we have for this,which is fuch a com-
prehenfive mercy , as "extends to all our concernments
of Soul and Body in this world. If we value our
own Lives, our Liberties, and Religion, if we value the
Security of the Government,and the publick peace and
fafety , we have reafon to blefs God for the prefervati-
on of out King. Who can without horrour confider,
what a cliftraaed face of things we had feen at this day,
had this Plot taken effeft ? who knows,who fliould have
aded his part in that Tragedy? by what Mark or Teft,
they would have diftinguiihed Friends from Enemies >
Or what comfort had it been to any LoyalSubjed, and
goodChriflian, to have furvived the Murder of his
Prince, and the ruines of Church and State, and to have
been aneye-witnefsof thofe barbarous Villanies, which
would have been aded under a Mask of Religion ? BleR
fed be that God, who giveth deliverance to his King,and
Iheweth mercy to his Anointed. Blefled be that Al-
wife Being , who fits upon the Circle of the Heavens,
and fees and laughs at, and defeats all the moft (ecrct
Plots and Confpiracies of wicked men. Let us blefs
God, and let- us honour our King, and receive him with
Joy and Thankfgiving as a new Gift and Prefent from
the hands of God. When we are heartily thankful for
the mercies we have already received,this will make our
prayers more effedual for the continuance of them.
€) JLo^ti fahc t|)e fiitno; ? tnho puttcth hi'is trull m
tljee t fcnu bim help from tt}p bolp place, aitu ehec--
iUQ?e tniffbtiiP PefentJ Ijim t let bus enetnie^ baue no
nnpantaffe againft b»ti, no? tbe ftjicfeen approach to
butt bun* Which God of his infnite mercy grantyhrough
our Lord Jefm Chrift , to whom with the Father and the
holy Ghoji, he honour-andglory and power,novo and fir evex:.^
Amen. . ^ . vO • -i '
F I N I
BOOKS Printed for F I NC H J M
GARDINER,
A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of
Dr. Stillingfleets Unreafonablenefs of Separati-
on, in Anfwer to Mr. Baxter and M.r.Lob, ^c.
Confiderations of prefent ufe, confidering the Dan-
get refulting from the change of our Church-Govern-
ment.
I. A Perfwafive to Communion with the Church of
England.
X. A Refolution of fome Cafes of Confcience which
refpe£t Church-Communion.
3. The Cafe of Indifferent things ufed in the Wor-
fhip of God, propofed and Stated, by confidering thefe
Queftions,
4. A Difcourfe about Edification.
5". The Refolution of this Cafe of Confcience, Whe-
ther the Church ^Englands Symholhingfo far as it doth
with the Church of Komt, makes it unlawful to hold Com-!'
munion with the Church (^England ?
6. A Letter to Anonymus., in anfwer to his three Let-
ters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion.
7. Certain Cafes of Confcience refolved, concerning
the Lawfulnefs of joyning with Forms of Prayer in
Publick Worffiip. In two Parts.
8. The Cafe of mixt Communion : Whether it be
Lawful to Separate from a Church upon the account of
promifcuous Congregations and mixt Communions ?
9. An Anfwer to the DiflentersObjedfions againft the
Common Prayers, and fome other parts of Divine Ser-
vice prefcribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England.
10. The Cafe of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament
Rated and refolved, ^c. The firfl Part.
11. Certain Cafes of Confcience, The fecond
Part 12.A
Books Printed for Fincham Gardiner.
IX. A Difcourfe of Profiting by Sermons, and of go-
ing to hear where men think they can profit mod.
13. Aferious Exhortation, with fome important
Ad vices, relating to the late Cafes about Conformity,
recommended to.^th^^tefent Diflenters from the
Church oi
14. An Argument for Union ; taken from the true
intereftof thofe Diflenters in England who profels and
call themfelves Proteftants.
I. A Difcourfe about the charge of Novelty upon
the Reformed Church of England, made by the Papifts
asking of us the Queftion, Where was our Religion
before Luther ?
1. A Difcourfe about Tradition, Ihewing what is
meant by it, and what Tradition is to be received, and
wha| Tradition is to berejefted.
3. The difference of the Cafe between thie Separa-
tion of Proteftants from the Church of Rome, and the
Separation of Diflenters from the Church of England,
'W
I ,
I
I;'-
IMPRIMATUR.
C, A^n R. T, D. Hen. Epfc.
Loud, h Sacris Domefiicis.
I
*
PAPIST
Not Mifreprefented by |
PROTESTANTS-
BEING j
A REPLY
TO THE
REFLECTIONS
Upon the Anfwer to [_A Pafiji Mif-
refrejented and Refrefented. J
S Vv ■
LONDON:
Printed for l^ic. Chifwel, at the Rcfe and Crown
in Sc.'Pdw/'s Church'Yard. MDCLXXXVI.
(I)
A REPLY to the Reflecti-
' o n s Hfon the A n s w e r the
Papfl Mifrefrefentedy &€►
IDo not love to be. behind-hand in Ovility
with any Man, and therefore, in the Name
of the Anfwerer, I return the Reflefter his
Complement, and that with fbme advantage r
For I heartily thank him for the Civility of
his Language, and more for the Civility of
his Arguments ; and having done this once for all,
I fliall apply my felf to confider his Refledions,
and will complement no more.
His Refledions confifl: principally of two general
Heads.
I. What concerns the Mifreprelentation of a
Papift.
II. Concerning the Rule of true reprelenting.
I. The Mifreprefentation of a Papift. And here
I confels, he has (hewed fbme Art, but very little
Honefty. He was told in the Anfwer, that fome of
thole Milfeprefentations which he had made of a
Papift, and given out for the Proteftant Charader of
Po.peiy, were his own igmranp^ or chitdijh^ or wilful
A 2 Mijlakcs
( I )
Doftrines and ]\iij}akes. As that Papijls are never permitted to hear
die'chS-dfof Sermonsf ^vhieh they are able, to underfiand \ or, that they
.RomijkcyAo. held it lawful to commit Idolatry ', or, that a Papi(i
believes the Pope to he his great God, and to be far a-
bove all Angels. Thefe, I think, may pafs for Mil-
rcprefentatioiis, and very childifh and ignorant ones
too : and hence the Refiefter craftily infinuates, that
we grant all his Mifreprefentations of a Papift, to be
ignorant, childilli, or wilful Miftakes; and is willing
to end this Difpute ( and I very mudi commend him
for it) upon thefe terms, that his Character of a Pa-
RcfleU. p. 4. pijj; mifreprefented, fhould be confeffed to be made up of
falfe Apprehenftons,, ignorant, childifl}, and wilful Mif-
takes and that he maythe Authority ol the An-
fwerer to ajfure his Friends and Acquaintance, that
wherefoever they /ball for the future, either hear, or read
fuch things charged upon the Papijls, they mujl give it
no Credit, and ejleem it no better than the falfe Appre-
henfwns, ignorant, childi/h, and wilful Mtjlakes of the
Relators. This would be a great Point gained in-
deed, and I am forry we cannot oblige him in it.
Elpecially, fince he has taken the Pains to prove
by great and good Authorities, that his CharaTcr of
a Papift mifreprefented, is not made up of fuch chil-
difti Miftakes; but is indeed what the belt and wileft
Men liave believed of them ; and this we thank him
/iiW. 2. for. He aljeadges the Aut^iority of the Homilies, a
Book which we greatly reverence. Foxj Book of
Martyrs, where we read, how many were burnt for
not believing, as his Papijl mifreprefented believes.
Bijhop Ridly^r Writings, a very learned and holy
Man, who may be fuppofed to have underftood what
Popery was, and that he was not lb fond of mifte-
prefenting, as to burn for it. The publick Tejl, a ve-
ry
(3)
authentkk and lafting Proof of this Matter ; with
everal other good Authors he mentions, whole
Credit is never the worfe, becaule he hath thruft one
bad Man into the Company. Nay, lie has been l6
civil, as to grant the Anlwerer to be as very a Mifre-
prefenter as the reft ( and he had been a very ftrange
AnpA'^erer, if he had not;) which argues gi-eat Mo- ^''2* 3"
defty in him, to defire leave to life his Name.and
Authority to condemn the Mifteprefentation ; that is,
to confute his own Book, ( wliich in all the material
Points, pro^'es what he calls the Mifteprefentation (I
wo'nt fay not- to be ignorant Miftakes, but ) to be
the avowed Do(ftrine and Practice of the Church of
Rome ) which is the only way I know of, that it can
be confuted; for unlefs he condemn it himfelf, Iain
fure this Reflefter can never confute it. ' /
Well, but what then is the meaning of all this
pother and.noife about this doidle Charaifer of a Pa-'
f-ijl mifreprefented and reprefented ? W hy are we fb
angry with what he calls the Mifi'eprefentation, if it
be true? or, what is the fault-of it? This is a Myfte-
ry which ought to be explained: and I doubt our
Reflefter will have no reafbn to glory, that he gave
the occafion of it. And I fball do thefe two things.
I. Sliow you what are the Faults - of the Mifre-
prefentation.
XL That allowing for fuch Faults, the Papift re-
prefented (excepting fbme very few cafes) pro-
feffes to believe all that the Papift mifreprefen-
ted is charged with.
I. As for the Faults of the Mifteprefentation, they
I are briefly thefe.
)'"■ i.-Tliat
1 ■
( 4 )
1. That 'he puts fuch things into the Chara£ler
of a Papift, as no Man in his Wits ever charged
them with; and theie the Anfwerer Z2^i chiUijh^ mi
ignorant, or wilful Mijlakes.
2. That the Opinions of Protelfants concerning
Popifli Dcflirines and Praftices, and thofe ill Confc-
quents which are charged, and juftly charged upon
them, are put into the Charadter of a Papifl mifre-
■prefented, as if they were his avowed Dodrine and Be-
lief; which is mifreprefenting indeed, but is his own,
not our Mifreprelentation. We charge them with
notliing, but what they exprefly profels to believe, and
what they praftile,and wc tell them what we think of
fuch Doftrines and PradHces, what their Nature, and
what their Conlequences are; but do not charge them
with believing as we believe, concerning thefe Mat-
ters; and therefore it is not fair to put fuch things in-
to a Proteftant Cliaradler of a Papifi mifreprefentcd.
As to give an Inftance of a like nature; There are
Ibme diifenting Proteftants, who think it lawful to
relift their Prince, and take up Arms againft him :
this we lay is Rebellion; and yet it would be a very
ridiculous Milfeprefentation of fuch Men, to lay,
they are thole, who believe it lawful to rebel; for no
Man believes Rebellion, no more than Idolatry, to
to be lawful: and they no more believe taking up
Arms in fuch cales to be Rebellion, than the Papift
tliinks his Worlhip of Saints and Images to be Idola-
try ; which Ihows how unjuft it is, to put the Inter-
pretations and Confequences of Mens Opinions and
Pradtices, which they themlelves dilbwc, into their
Charadter. And tho we never do this, the Mifrepre-
lenter has done it fOr us; which makes it a falle Cha-
radter, tho every thing which is faid in it may be true.
f It
( 5 )
3- It is ftill fo much the worfe, when the In-
terprctations and Conlequences^ which are charged
upon Mens Practices and Opiniore* are, fet in the
front of the Charafter, as firft and OriginaJ Prinei-
pies. As, to keep to our former Inftance. To fay,
that Men believe Rebellion to be lawful, and there-
fore make no fcruple of taking up Arms againR their
Prince ; is a very diiferent thing from faying, that
Men believe they may lawfully take up Arms in
fbme Cafes, and in doing lb are guilty of Rebel-
lion.
Thefe are fbme of the principal Arts our Author
lias ufed in drawing the Charader of a Papiji mi/re-
prefentecL, as I will preiently fhow in particular. But
then on the otlier hand, to draw a fair Chai"a£Ief of
A Papifi reprefentedHe, (i.) as eafily he might,
denies that he believes thofe Interpretations and
Coniequences, which we charge their Doftrinesand
Praftices with, and wlitch the Miffeprclcnter has
put into their Chara£fer, and charges them with be-
lieving. But, (2) he generally owns theDoftrines
and Practices, which we charge them with, and at-
tempts to vindicate them, and to put new Xiolours
on them; fb that the main diderence between us is
not in the Character, but whether their DoQirincs
and Praftices be of fb hainous a nature as we fay they
are, which is matter of Dif^te, not of Repr^nta-
tion. Thoi^h, (3.) in fqme C^s he difowns that
to be the Doarine and Belief of their Church, which
manifeflly is fb, and has been proved on them, be-
yond all poflibility of a fair Reply, by the Learned
Anl\verer.
B That
• ■
( 6 )
■ That this IS tlie true State of tlie Cale, with refe-
rence to the two-fold Charafter of a, Papifi mifrepre-
rented and reprefented; I come now to Ihovv, whicli
I fhall do in thefe Charafters, which he himfelf has
given us of them : Only I muft defire the Reader,
ibr his own fatisfadtion, to compare what I write
with his Charabters, for I lliall not tranfcribe them
at large^ both to lave my Labour and Paper.
I. Of to Images,
THe Mifreprefentation here, as to the Matter, is
every word true; but yet is a falfe Charafter
by the fecond and third Rules of Miireprefentation.
Papijt mtfreprefentedy worjhips Stocks and Stones for
Gods. We only charge them with worfhipping Ima-
ges; and the fault of that, we lay, is, (though we
never charge them with laying or thinking fo) that
they mrfljip Stocks and Stones for Gods. But now to
mifreprefent us in the Charabfer of a Papijt mifrepre-
fentedy he makes us charge a Papift with believing
his Images of "Wood and Stone to be Gods ; and that
this is the realbn and foundation, (not meerly the
true Interpretation) of their Image-worlhip ; as he
adds, And for this reafon he ereUs fiately Monuments
to tPem in his Churches falls down proftrate before
them J and with his eyes fixed on them^ cries out y Help
me Mary, &c. Whereas we only charge them with
worfhipping Images, and do %, and prove too,
that in the ^ripture-Notion, this is to worlhip Stocks
and Stones for Gods.
Now
( 7 )
Now comes the Reprefenter, and he fays, That
a, Papift Reprefentedy believes it damnable to mrjhip
Stocks and Stones for Gods : That is, he does oot be-
lieve, that worfhipping Images, (as we fay, it is) is
worfhipping Stocks and Stones for Gods: And who-
ever faid that they did believe this? But does he
worfhip Images or not ? This he grants, when he
fays. That the honour which is exhibited to the Imagesy
is referred to the Prototypes, which they reprefent,
which is all that can be poflibly meant by worfhip-
ping Chrift, or his Saints, by Images; that they re-
fer all that woriliip, which they pay to Images, to
Chrift, or tlie Saints, whom thofe Images reprefent.
Now if they refer that worfhip, which they give to
the Image, to Chrift, they muft worfhip the Image;
and this (Image-worfliip) is all we exprefsly charge'
them with owning. What the nature and true Inter-
pretation of this worfhip is, which we fay, is worfhip-
ping Stocks and Stones for Godsy we will difpute with
them when they pleafe,
II. Of Worlhippitig Saints.
THus the Papift Mifteprefented, is faid to make
Gods of dead men: Whereas we only charge
them with Praying to the Virgin Mary, and Saints
departed ; and this we fay, is to make Gods of them,
fiich Gods as the Heathens made of their Inferior
Daemons, and IntercelTors between God and Men.
And does the Reprefenter deny that they pray to
Saints ? No, but owns and defends it, as well as he
can J and there we are ready to joyn liTue with
him.
B 2 Well,
( 8 )
Well, but lie VoKfides in Sxmti 4s his Mediators and
^tdetnrers, mdeistfe^s m hetwhat is te tome
to him hy their Merits, and v^ou^ their hands. That
tl]t7 truft in Saints, as their Redeemers, no imcier-
landing PrOteftant ewr y^t -laid, though they think
it a -great in jury to the Interceffion of our Saviour, to
app^y to any other Advocate^of what nature fbever,
Vl^jxciahy to tbink, that Chrift, who died for us, and
is otir Advocate with the Father, needs any other
Advocates to tnaho him tnerciftil and .propitious to us;
tfr that Ite, w?io merited with his own Blood, needs
any additicinal Merits of the Saints to make his Intei--
c^On tile more efficacious. But I am not to Dif-
pute now, but only Reprefent; and the Rapift re-
prefented owns all that we Proteftants charge them
■with. His Arguments and Coloui's muft be dif-
miffed, till there be faither occafiom to eonfider
them.
HI. Of y^ddrejsing more SuppUcatiam to the Virgin
Mary, than to Chritt.
WE charge them with nothing, but what is their
daily p*a£tice, of laying ten Jve Maries for
one. nofter, or ten Prayers to the Virgin Mary
for one to God. And this we think (if Prayer be a
hgn of Honour) is to honour her ten times more,
than they do her Son, or God the Father; and if
Prayer fignifie our belief cf tlie pcrwer, or interefi'of
that ]^ng, to whom we pray to help us, the fre-
-quency'of- our Prayers to the Virgin mulf fignify,
that we expedl:'more help and relief firom praying to
her, than from direding our Prayers immediately to
God
w
(?)
God or Clirift; for it is natural to pray oftenefi- to
tlioie, from whole power or intercolSon (which is
|Mwertoo) we expeft molh But nowour Mifreprc-
lenter has made a very falLs Cbarafler of this, by
putting thcle conlequential charges into the Chara-
dter, and letting tliem in the firft place as t}>e Rea-
Ibn, not tlie Confequences or Interpretation of tlieir
frequent Prayers to the Virgin. That -f/e believes the
Virgin Mary to be much more porverful in Heaven than
Chrifi^ and that fife can command him to do what jbe
thinks good ; (u'hich is not a Proteftant but a Popilh
Mifreprefentation, if it be one, it being found in
fbme of their old Miffals, and Modern Poets) and
for this reafon he honours her more than he does her Son^or
God the Father, for one Prayer he fays to God, Jaying
ten to the Holy Virgin. And now the Reprefenter
might lafely deny, that they believe tlie Virgin more
powerful than God, or that they intend to honour
her more; for we pr(^end not to know their private
Belief and Intentions, and therefore never made this-
a peribnal charge, but only a charge upon their Pra-
ftice ; he owns the Practice, and we'll make good
the Charge, when he pleafes, not by inquiring into
their private Xntentions, but from the natural Inter-
pretation of luch Aftions.
IV, Of pdyhig Divune Worjhip to ^'Ucks.
WE only eharge them with giving Religious
Honour to the Relicks of Saints and Martyrs,,
by falling proftrate, kneeling down to them, killing
them, and going in Pilgrimages totheir Shrines and
Sepulcliers, and expecting aid and help from them,
to
( lO )
bo go to them opis im^etmnd^te causa^ as the Council
of fre/tt directs. This is Matter of Faft, and own-
ed by the Reprelenter. Now we think this is to aF-
cribe Divinity to them, if Religious Worihip figni-
fies any Divinity in the Objeft of Worfliip. This
the Milfeprefenter puts into the Charaflier of a Fa-
pift, which we never did ; and the Reprelenter on
the other hand denies, that they believe any llich
thing, which for ought I know, may be true : but
the (;^efl:ion is. Whether they do not give a Divinity
to them by worlliipping them ? And this we aifeit
they do, and this they may do without believing any
Divinity in them,
j V. Of the Eucharifl,
AS for worlliipping the Hofl:, we only charge
them with woi-fliipping the Conlecrated
Bread, which we fay is Bread ftiil; but which, they
fay, is the natural Body of Chrift, which was born
ot the Virgin, and fuffered on the Crofs : and for fo
doing, Ibme Proteftants charge them with Idolatry
in worlliipping a Breaden God; and Ibme Papifts ac-
knowledge it would be Idolatry, if what they wor-
flipped were only Bread, and not the natural Body
of Clirift; but no Proteftant ever gave fuch a Cha-
rafter of a Papift, That he believes it lawful to commit
Idolatryf that he worjhips and adores what he believes
only to be a Breaden Gody and the pe)or empty Elements
of Bread and Wine. The Querfion is not, what a
Papift believes, but what the truth of the thing is ?
not whether he believes the Hoft to be only Bread,
but whether it be lb or not ? not whether he believes
Idolatry
LT
"V
)
Icblatry to be lawful, but whether he be not guilty
of Idolatry in worfhipping the Hoft ? and therefore
this ought not to be put into the CharaQer of a Papift;
for thole who believe that, he worlhips nothing but
Bread and Wine, and is guilty of Idolatry in it, do
not charge him \A'ith believing fb. And therefore,
the Reprefenter, who acknowledges the woriliip of
tlie Holt, might very truly deny all the reft.
As for Tranfubftantiation, we charge tliem with
believdng no more, than what they themlelves own.
That the Conlecrated Bread and Wine is changed
into the natural fubftance of Chrift's Flefh and Blood ;
which the Mifreprelenter very fallacioufly - calls
Chrift's being frefent under thofe appearances ;
that our People may not perceive the difterence be-
tween Tranfubfiantiation, which the Church of Eng-
land denies, and a real prefence^ which Ihe owns, not
undtv the appearances of Bread and Wine, but in the
ule of the Conlecrated Bread and Cup; which differ
as much as a Bodily and Sacramental prelence. Now
if this Do6trine of Tranliibftantiation be true, befides
many other Abliirdities, we lay, Chrift muft have
as many Bodies, as there are Conlecrated Hofts;
and that his Body muft be on Earth, and that in fifty
thouland diftant places at tlte lame time; though the
Scripture affures us, That he alcended in his Body
into Heaven, and is to continue there till he come
to Judgment. But we do not charge the Papifts with
believing thele Abfurdities, (for we cannot guels
what they believe) ; much lels do we charge them
witli believing, that there are^<r many Chrijls, ns ma-
ny Redeemers^ as there are Churches, Altars, or Priefts.
For there is (we grant) fome little difference be-
tween Chrift's having many Bodies, and there be-
( *» )
ingmany Chrifts. What an eafy Task has the Re-
prefenter to take off fuch Charaaers as thefe.
VI. Of S^erits and Good Works.
I
H Ere we only charge them with faying, as the
Council of Treftt does, That the Good Works
of Perfonsy are truly meritorious of the in-
creafe of Grace, and of Eternal Life : And though
j we think this is too much for any Creature, efpeci-
; ally a Sinner, to pretend to Merit, and know not
1 how to reconcile Grace, and ftrid Merit together;
' yet we never charged a Papift with believing ChrijFs
Death and Pajfton to be ineffectual and injignifcant,
and that he has no dependance on the Merits of his
Sufferings, or the Mercy of God for attaining Salvation,
For, it IS plain, the Council of Trent owns both the
Grace of God, the Merits of Chrift, and the Merits
of Good Works.
The Reprelenter indeed qualifies this by faying,
That through the Merits of Chrifi, the good Works of
a jttfi Man proceeding from Grace, are Jo acceptable to
God, that through his Goodnefs and Promife, they are
truly meritorious of Eternal Life. The Anfvverer al-
leages the Canon, Sejf. 6. of the Council of
Trent, where no fuch Qualification is ufed, wliich
yet is the Canon purpofely defigned to elfabiifh the
Merits of goods Works. This the Refled:er grants,
{^pag. 8.) and refers us to the 26th Canon of that
Sefhon, where there is not one word of the Merit
of good Works; and therefore, how we fliould learn
from that Canon, in what ienfe good Works are faid
to merit, I cannot tell; but in the fixteenth Chapter
()
of that Seflion, this Doflrine is explained at large^
and there we may expetl the fillip Account of it,
which in fhort is this. '
That that Divine Vertue which Howts from Clirift
into juftified Peribns, as from the Head to the Mem-
bers, and from the Vine to the Branches, makes the
good Aflions of fuch Men acceptable to God, and
meritorious; and that Iiich good Works wJiich are
done in God, do fatisfy the Divine Law, and truly
and properly merit Eternal Life. That this is called
Our Righteoufnels, becaufe we are juftified by its
inhering in us; and the Righteoulheft of God, be-
caufe it is infuled into us by God, through the Merits
of Chrift; and that the Goodnefs of God as to this
matter, confifts in this, that he will have his own
Gifts to be our Merits: And tlierefore in the 5 2d Ca-
non, they pronounce an Anathema, againft thofe, who
fhalllay, that the good Works of a juftified Man arc
fb the Gift of God, as not to be his own Merits. So
that though they do indeed own the Grace and Pro-
mile of God, and the Merits of Chrift, as the Caufe
and Foundation of their ovm Merits; yet they do
alfert, that the inherent Righteoufiieis and good
Works of a juftified Man, have that intrinfick Ver-
tue, as to fatisfy t^e Divine Law, and to be truly
meritorious of the increafe of Grace and Eternal
Life. This we think injurious to the Grace of God,
and the Merits of Chriff: they think it is not, and
we never laid they did.
C VII. Of
( *4 )
Vn. of Confefskn.
E charge them with making a particular Con-
fefhon to a Prieft of all our Sins committed
after Baptifm, neceffary to obtain Pardon and For-
givenefs, and with attributing a Judicial and Praetori-
an Authority (fuch as is exercifed by Judges and
Magiftrates ) to the Prieft to forgive Sins. And the
we do not fay, that he believes it part of his Religioft
to make Gods of Men \ yet we fay and prove it too,
that this is a Power, which God has referved wholly
to himfelf. We do not charge them with faying,,
that the Abfblution of the Prieft is valid without
any thoughts or intentions of Amendment in the
Penitent: but they do fay, that Attrition, which is
but an imperfeft degree of Sorrow for fear of Hell,
and can produce only fome faint and fiidden thoughts
of Amendment, does qualifie Sinners for Abfbluti-
on; and we fay, whatever the Doftrine of their
Church teaches, the conftant Praftice of abfblving
all that confefs, without any apparent fi^s of Re-
pentance, and purpofes of a new Life, and that after
many and r^eated Relapfes, is apt to teach Men to
place their Confidence in the Prieft's Abfblution,
witlwut any ferious intention to forfake dieir Wic-
kednefs.
VIIL Of
VIII. Of Indulgences,
WE charge die Church of Rome with teaching
the Pope's Power to grant Indulgences, not
to commit Sin for the future, but for the Pardon of
thofe Sins which are committed; that is, for the re-
mittingthofe Temporal Punifhments, which are due
to Sin in Purgatory. The Abfblution of the Prieft
remits the Eternal Punilhment of Sin, and keeps
Men out of Hell; but ftill the Temporal Punifbment
in Purgatory remains due; and this muft be taken off,
either by humane Satisfactions and Penances (of
which prefently ) or by the Pope's Pardon, which
fiirely is a different thing from the Relaxation of Cano-
nical Penances, as the Reprefenter Rates it; for I
never heard before, that Purgatory Fire was a Ca-
nonical Penance, enjoyncd by the Church ; for lure
the Decrees of the Church did not kindle Purgatory,
and it is ftrangc the Church fhould grant fb many
thouRnd Years Pardon of Canonical Penances, (if
they concern this Life ) as fbme Indulgences contain,
when few Men live an hundred Years in this World,
and then have no need of all the reff. :
We fay the Popes have, and do to this day fell thefe
Indulgences, at different rates, according to the na-
ture of the Crime; and Men who have Mony, need
not fear the Purgatory Fires, and Men who have
none, muft be contented to endure them; this we
grant with the Reprefenter to be a great Abufe, but
it is an Abufe of their Popes, and hardly feparablc
from the Do<ft:rine and PraClice of Indulgences.
\
IX. Of
(l<5)
IX. Of SatisfaH'm.
E charge them with making human Penances
necefTary to fatisfy for the Temporal Puniih-
ment which is due to Sm in Purgatory, when the
Eternal Punilhnient is pardoned for the Merits and
Satisfaftion of Chrifl; j which we lay is injurious to
the Satisfaction of Chrift: for all Men muft grant,
that Chrift had been a more perfeft Saviour, had he
by his Death and Paflion delivered us from the Tern-
poral Punilhment of Sin in Purgatory, as well as
from the Eternal Pains of Hell. Yet we do not lay,
that 4hey believe very injurionjly of the Faffion of
Chrifi^ that his Sufferings and Death were not fnffici'
ently fatisfa5lory for our Sins ; and therefore tliink it
neceflary to make Satisfalfion for themfelves; but
that they believe, as their Church teaches them, that
they muft latisfy themfelves for the Temporal Pu-
nifliment of their Sins, and this is injurious to the
Satifadlion of Chrift. We do not charge them with
evacuating ChriJPs Faffion by relying on their own peni'
tential Works ; but that they rely on Chrift to latisfy
for the Eternal Punilhment of Sin, and on their own
Satisfaffionsfor the Temporal Punilhment; which
afo-ibes indeed the better half, buttiot the whole, to
Chrift; and all this the Reprelenter owns.
X. of
X. Of reading the Holy Scriptures,
7"\7S only charge them with denying the Pco-
V V -pie the ufe of the Bible in the vulgar
Tongue, as every body knows they do, and as die
Reprelenter owns, and defends it. And to juftify
this Pradice, we fay, many of their Divines have
charged the Scripture with being a very dark, ob-
fcure, unintelligible Book ; and that it is of very
dangerous coniequence to grant a liberty to die Peo-
pie to read it; and this we think is not much for the
Credit and Reputation of the Holy Scriptures. But
we do not, aS the Mifrepreienter fays, charge the
Papift with believing it part of -Ins Duty, to think
meanly of the Word of God, and to fpeak irreverently
of the Scripture. Whether denying the People the
ufe of the Bible in a Language they underftand, be
an Argument of their Relpecl or Difrepe£t to the
Scriptures, let any Man judg; but for whatever
reafbn they dp it, the ElFe£f is plain, that it keeps
People in great Ignorance ; and as we fear, occafions
the eternal Damnation of many Souls; though we
do not fay, as the Mifi eprefenter does, that they do
it with this defign, Tkat Men may be preferved in Ig-
nor ante, and damned eternally. But they know their
own Defigns beff. r.
1
II
XI, Of
•! I
{ i8 )
XI. of ^pocr^^hal 'Books*
He re can be no pretence of mifreprefenting, un-
lefs it be in the firft claufe, which he ufually
takes care fhall contain fbme Miffeprefentation.
That he believes it lawful to make what additions to
Scripture his party thinks good. For, as for their re-
ceiving flich Apocryphal Books, as Tobit^ fudeth,
EccleJiafticuSy Wifdom^ and the Maccabees, into the
Canon of Scripture, which is all we charge them
with, the Reprefenter owns and defends it. This
indeed we think to be making -Additions to the
Scripture, but we don't charge them with believing,
that they may make what Additions to the Scripture
they pleafe *, for we believe they have lb much Wit,
as to know itlafer to do it, than to j&y it may be
done.
XIl. Of the Vulgar Edition of the Bible,
All that we charge theng with here, is, that they
make the^V^ulgar Latin Edition of the Bible lo
Authentick, as^to allow of any Appeals to the Origi-
nals for the Interpretation of doubtful places; and
we know not what Autliority can make aTranfla-
tion more Authentick than the Original. That this
is truly charged on them, the Reprefenter cannot de-
ny, tliough the Mifreprefenter makes tragical work
with It; as any one may fee, who will divert him-
felf with reading that CharaQier; which though in
fbme parts it may have too much Truth in it, was
never
( «9 )
never before made the Character of a Papift; but
we mull give them leave to fpeak fome blunt and bold
Truths of themfelves.
XIII. Of the Scripture ds the ^le of Faith.
XIV. Of the Interpretation of Scripture.
WE do not charge them with denying in exprels
words the authority of the Scripture to be a
Rule, but with faying that which is equivalent to it,
That the fenfe of it is fb various and uncertain, that
no man can be iiire of the true meaning of it in the
moft necelfary and fundamental Articles of the Faith,
but by the Interpretation and Authority of the
Church, which does effectually divefl: it of the au-
thority of a Rule: for that is mv Rule, which can
and muft direCt me, which (it feems^ is not the
Scripture confidered in it felfj but as interpreted by
the authority of the Church, which makes the Faith
and Interpretation of the Church, not the Scriptures,
my immediate Rule. But why does he now com-
plain of Mifrepreientation ? When the Reprefenter
owns and juftifies every particular of it; except it
be, thofe goodly Introductions; That he believes it
lawful., najy that it is his Obligation to undervalue the
Scripture, andtakefrom it that Authority which Chriji
garue it ', and that he believes his Church to he above the
Scripturey and prophanely allows tb-her an uncontroul^
able Authority of being fudge of the Word of God.
For though there may be fbme truth in iuch Confe-
quences as thefe from their DoCfrine, yet they were
never
( JO )
never charged upon them ns, as their Principles,
or Faith: Which is the chief Art he ules in drawing
up thefe Milreprelentations.
XV. Of Iradkiom,
WE charge them with making fbme unwritten
Traditions of equal authority with the Serif)-
ture, and believing them with a Divine Faith. This
we fay, derogates from the perfeftion of the Scrip-
ture, or the written Word of God. For if our Rule
be partly the written, partly the unwritten Word 9
then the Scripture (or written Word) is but part of
the Rule; and part of a Rule cannot be a whole and
perfeff Rule. And we lay. That thele unwritten
Traditions are but humme OrdimtiofiSy a»dTradit 't-
ms of men : but we do not fay a Papift believes them
to be Humane, but Divine, though unwritten, Tra-
ditions : and therefore, though we affirm, that
they give equal authority to fuch Traditions as are in
truth no better than humane Ordinations, as to the
Scriptures themfelves ) yet we do not fay, that they
admit what they believe to be only humane Traditi-
ons, to fupply the defeds of Scripture, allowing
equal authority to them, as to the Scri^xures them-
felves; which is the only Mifreprelentation in this
Cliaradfer, all the reft being owned by the Repreien-
ter himfelf, who then had very little caufe to com-
plaki of Mifrepreienting.
XVI. Of
A
( 21 )
XVI. of Councils,
vntti:
ife
;Sq
irRii
Word
Uea
ijiwrin
'Ink,
estk/i
1, i
tl tf:
iTri
ate
resfe
DEir'
lepfi
tocS
*^116 difference between the Mifreprefenter and Re-
-2- frefenter in this Article, is no more but this,
That the Papijl MifreprefenteA is laid to receive new
Additions to his Creed from the Definitions and Au-
thority of General Councils, and to embrace them
with a Divine Faith. The Pap 'tfl ReprefenteA^ owns
the Authority of General Councils, as well as the
other, and receives all their Definitions, and believes
them as firmly ; but though they define flich Do-
dfrines for Articles of Faith, as were never heard of
in the Clirifiian Church, leaft were never put in-
to any Chriftian Creed before, yet he will not believe
them t-o be Additions to his Faith, or to what was
taught by Chrilf and his Apofiles: But Pope Rim the
4/^ his Creed muff be the Faith of the Church from
the Apoftles days. Now here I fancy our Author
miftook his fide, for the Papifl Reprefented has much
the worfe Charafter, that heisfb void of all fence,
that he cannot tell which is moff, twelve, or four
and twenty Articles in a Creed. This is a hard cafe,
that Men muff believe all the Definitions of their
Councils, but though they fee their Creed increafe
every day, mufl never own that their Faith receives
any Additions. However, I think, he has norea-'
fbn here to complain of Mifreprefenting, fince he
owns all that any Proteffant charges him with, fuch
?n Implicit Faith in General Councils, as receives all
D their
( II )
riieir Definitions^ and rather than fail in defiance of
Senfe and Hiftory, will believe that to be the old
Faitli, which was never defined till yefterday.
XVII. Of Ufdl'ihlllty In the Church.
^T^He Mifreprelenter fiiys, a Papift believes that the
Pafiors anil Prelates of his Church are infallible:
which, if it be underftood of every particular Paftor
and Prelate, no Proteftant ever charged tliem with,
and therefore the Reprefenter might very fafely deny
it; and this is all the difference between them, ex-
c^t it be this. That what the Mifreprefenter barely
afnrms, the Reprefenter endeavours to prove, viz.
the Infallibility of the Churcli, at leaft, as alfemblol
in General Councils; and yet this muft be called
Mifreprefenting too; a Word, which (I fuppofe)
muft have ibme fecret Charm in it to Convert He-
reticles.
XVIII. of the Po(e.
HEre the Mifreprefenter is very Rhetorical and
facetious, and we may give him leave to be a
little pleafant with his own Univerlal Paftor. He
fays', the Papift beli&ves the Pope to be his great God,
how great I cannot tell, but Ibme Flatterers of the
Papal greatnefs, have given tlie Title of God to the
Pope,
(M >
Pope, and poflibly feme Proteftants have repeated the
fame after them, but never charged the Papifts with
believing it; much lefs do they charge them with
dtnymg Chrijl to he the Head of the Church, or with
faying, That the Pope h^u taken his place; but we do
charge them with making the Pope the Univerfal
Faftor and Head of the Church under Chrifl: and
this (I hope) is no Mifrepreienting; for it is affert-
ed, and proved after diis Fafhion, by the Reprefen-
ter. But why is tlie Pope's perfbnal Infallibility put
into the Charafter of a Papift Mifteprefented?
Why not as well the Infallibility of General Coun-
cilsr Since he grants fbmc Papifts do believe the
Pope's Infallibility, and fiich Papifts are not Mifre-
prefented by charging tliem with it; and there are
others, who do not believe the Councils Infallibility
without the Pope, which therefore cannot be an
inherent Infallibility in them. The truth is, the
Infallibility of the Church is the Faitli of a Papift ;
but in whom this Infallibility is felted, whether in
the Diftiifive, Reprefentative, or Viitual Churchy
in Pope or Council, or the whole Body of ChriftL-
ans, is not agreed among them. But neither of
thefe are Miireprefentations of a Papift, unlefs you
tell, what particular fort of Papifts you reprefent;
and then, I am flire, you mifieprefent a Jefiiit, if
you make him deny the Pope's Infallibility.
D 1 XIX. Of
ch >
XIX. of Dif^enfations,
HEre, I confefs, the Mifre^refenter and Reprefea^ i
ter do flatly contradiO: each other ; and I am
heartily glad to hear the Reprefenter fo fully dilbwa
thole Principles, which are deftruftive to all Reli-
gion, as well as to Humane Societies ; and lliould be
more glad ftill had there been never any foundation
for what he calls the Mifreprefentation. However,
this he does very ill in, to charge Proteftants with
this Mifreprefentation of a Papifl:; for I know no
Proteflrant that charges thefe Principles upon Papifts
in general: but I hope it is no Mifreprefentation to.
charge thole Men with fuch Principles, who charge
themlelves with them; and I fuppole our Author
■tvill not lay, that thele Principles were never taught.
or defended by any Papifl:. Whenever he is hardy
enough to lay this, I'll direO: him to fuch Popilh'
Authors as willfati^y him about it.
XXi Of
( »5 )
XX. of the Vepojin^ Power-, ^
T_T Ere the difpute between the Milrepreienter and -
X X Reprefen.ter, is only this^. WhetherDepo-
Power be.the DoQirine of the Church of Rome ?
11 Rdi' Eor it's granted on all hands, that it isj or has been,
louldk the Dcdtrine and Praftice of many Popes, Divines,
indatic. and Canonifts;, but that it has been condemned by
oweve other Divines, and fbme famous Univerfities, tho I
a\s\jii; do not hear, that it was ever condemned by any
kowB Pope. But what does he think of this being de- -
oaiapi creed by General Councils ? Does not this make it
mm: the Doftrine of their Church ? This he lays nothing.
!0(fcj|;tohere, butwefliall meet with it by and by in his-
\A\ RejleBtons, and therefore-will difraifi this Caufe tilT
then.
XXI, Of Qommmion in one kind,'.
HEre we charge the Church of Rome with alter-
ing the Inftitution of Chrift in the Sacrament)
of the Lord's Supper; for Chrift inftituted it in both t
kinds, but the Church of Rome denies:tlre Cup tc
'h ' the Layity : but yet we do not fay. That a Papift.
believes that he is no longer obliged to obey -ChrijFs
Commands J thdn his Church wi lb give him learve 5 but
w«
\ )
^we fay, that herein he ti^nfgrefTes the Inflit^tlons
of our Saviour, to comply with the Innovations of
his Churcli. And does the Reprefenter deny this ?
Yes, he denies, tliat they alter the Inftitution of
Chrift; for (he fays) Chrift did not command
them to receive in both kinds, but left it indiffe-
rent. But does he deny, that the Church of Rom
takes away the Cup from the People ? No, this he
owns and juftifies. 'Wherein then do we Mifre-
prefent them ? -For we charge them only with ta-
king away the Cup: whether this be agreeable, or
contrary to the Inifitution of our Saviour, is not
Matter of Repreimtation, but of Difpute.
XXII. Oj the Mafs.
eEr& we charge them with making the Sacra-
ment of the Lord's Supper ( as the Council of
Trent defines) a true froper propitiatory Sacrifice
for the Qjdck and the Dead. And this, we fay,
infers ah infufficiency in the Sacrif££, rnade by Chrijl
upon the Cro/s. For if Chrift by his Death upon
the Crofs had made a complete and perfcQ: Atone-
ment and Propitiation for fins, by his once offering
himfeify .what Qccafion can there be for the repetki-
an of fiieh a. Propitiatory Sacrifice ? for the only rea-
foQ tlifi Apoflfo-aifigns, why the legal Sacrifices were
fo often repeated, was, becaufe they could not mak
the Comer £ thereunto perfeBy Hehr. lo. But we do
not> charge them with believing an infuffmtncy in
the* Saeri^ made hf Chrifi on tiw Crofs, Maeh left
do
( 17 )
do we fay, that they are taught, wholly to rely on
the Sacrifice of tlie .Mafs, and to neglect the Faffion
of Chrijl^ and to fut no hopes in his Merits., and the
Work of our Redemption. The firil is a Confe-
quence which we charge upon their Doftrine and
Pradice, but do not charge them with believing
it. The fecond was never charged on them, that
I know of before. So, that if there be any MifrC"
prefentation here, it niufli be in charging them,
That they believe the Sacrifice of the Mafs to be
a true proper propitiatory Sacrifce for the Quick and
Dead. But this is the vef y definition of their Coun-
cil, and an Anathema" pronounced againft thole,
who deny it; and this the"Reprcfenter acknow-
ledges, though he conceals as much of it as he Can,
calling it a Commemorative Sacrifce, reprefenting in an
unbloody manner, (what, when the B1o(m of Chrift
is aftuaily fhed in the Sacrifice of the'*Mafs, is it
ftill an unbloody Sacrifice) the bloody Sacrifce rthich
was offered for us upon the Crofs: But is it '^Pro-
pitiatory Sacrifice or not ? Does it make an aftual
Propitiation for our Sins ? If they do not own this,
then indeed we mifreprelent them; if they do ( as
they muft, if they own the Council of Trent) we-
reprefent them truly; and whether the Confequences
we charge upon this Doftrine, be true or falfe, that
is no pait of the Reprefentation: we may argue ill,
but w^e reprefent right; though we are ready to jufli-
fy that too whenever they _pkafe.
xxni. Of
( 1.8 )
XXin. of Purgatoryl
TO carry on the humour of Mifreprefentln^y he
complains of Mifreprefentmg here too; when all
that is charged on them is, the belief of Purgatory,
a middle puce between Heaven and Hell, where
Souls departed , vvdio are acquitted from the Sen-
tence of Eternal Punifhment, muft undergo a Teni-
poral Punilhment for thofe Sins, which were notcx-
piated in this Life. That there is fuch a State, the
' Kef refenter mbft induftrioufly and zealoufly proves:
Why then is the belief of Purgatory thruft into the
CharaHer of a. Kafifi mtfreprefented, ? All that I can
perceive is. That the Mifreprefentation confifts, not
in charging "them with believing a Purgatory, but
contrary to all Rea/on, the Word of
Qodf and ^lll2.ntiqmtf} for the Reprefenter fays, he
believes -it damnable to admit of any thing for Faith,
that is'xantrary to Reafon, the word of God, and all
Antiquity. Damnable is a very dangerous word, e-
Ipecialfy when it is applied to believing things con-
trary to Reafon; and therefore thougli it may ferve
now and then to blufter with, I would advife him to
ufe it fparinglyj but though I mufi: confefs, we
think, that they dp believe a Purgatory, and a great
many .other things, which are contrary to Reafon,
Scrij^ure, and Antiquity; yet we do not fay, that
they admit any thing for Faith, which they believe
contrary to Reafon, Scripture, and Antiquity ; and
therefore .this is no part of their Charader, and
therefore ho Mireprefentation.
XXIV. Of
( )
XXIV. of ^yajing in an unknown Tongue,
HEre indeed I meet with fomewhat of Mifre-
prefentation. For he fays, He (the Papift mif-
reprefcnted ) u counfelled by hU Church to he frefent
at Sermons^ but never permitted to hear any he u able to
underjiand,', they being all delivered in an unknown
Tongue. This is milfepreienting with a witnefs.
But noProteftant ever charged them with preaching,
as well as praying in Latin: but the meaning of this
is eafily underfto^, to perfwade thofe People, who
place ail their Religion in hearing Sermons, that it
is no matter what Language their Prayers are in
(which they carc not much for hearing when they
are in Englifh) if they have but Englifh Sermons
to entertain "their Curiofity and itching Ears. And
it is, I confefs, a cunning Suggeftion, and I hope
will warn all fbber Chriftians to joyn more devout-
ly in the Prayers of the Church, which they do un-
derftand, and that will teach them the difference
between an Englifh Liturgy, and Latin Mals-Book.
The reft of the Charadter only charges them with
praying in Latin, a Language which the People do
not underftand ; and therefore, whatever other de-
vout Thoughts they may have, they cannot joyn
with the Prieft in offering up the lame Petitions to
God, when they do not underftand what it is he
lays: All this is granted on ^11 hands to be true, and
yet this alfo which the Reprefenter owns, is called
mifreprelenting.
E
XXV. Of
( }o )
s XX V. of the Second Commandment,
WE charge them with making the fecond
Commandment, which forbids the Worfljip
of Images, only a part and branch.of the firft, which
forbids the Worfhip of other Gods, which is defigned
to obfcure the true fenfe and interpretation.of that
Law, and to excufe all Men from the Sin of Image-
woriliip, who are not fo fenflefs to believe the Images
to be Gods. And yet not thinking themfelves fafe in
this, they dare not trull the People with the fecond
Commandment, but leave it out of their Catechifms
and Manuals, and fuch Offices as are like to come into
Peoples hands. Is this charge true, or is it not ? The
Reprefenter grants the whole, and excufes it \ thinks
the fecond Commandment too great a burden to
Mens Memories, and a needleE Explication of the
firft : but whatever may be faid for or againft it, if
the Charge be true, why is this called mifrepre-
fenting ?
XXVI. Of cMental ^eferVations,
The Reprefenter himfelf grants all that we
charge thtm with not that this Do(Trine was
ever defined by any general Council, or that it was
univerfally received and praQiifed by all of that Com-
munion, but that it has l^en taught and defended by
great
(JI)
great numbers of their Divines, and Caluifts
( not to take notice of any greater Authorities
now) and praQiifed, asocc ''" '
in general with this, would indeed be a Mifrepre-
ftntation, but I hope it is none to charge thole
who are really guilty.
"V T T T E do not think lb ill of any Sect or
V V Profellion of Chriftians, but that they
will all grant, that Men ought to live, as well as
die in the Faith and Fear, and Obedience of God ;
nor did w'e ever charge the Church of Rome
with teaching otherwife: but then we lay, that
Men may teach fiich Doctrines, as may give great
encouragement to Sinners to take their fill of Sen-
fual Lults, and to put off the thoughts of Repen-
tance to a Death-bed; and tliis'indeed we think
the Church of- Ror^ has done j but do not charge
her with teaching her Children to make fuch an
ill ule of thele Doftrines, or with encouraging
them to live wickedly in their Health," and to re-
pent when they are fick. This is no part of the
Charafter which we give of a Papift ;• but we
alleadg it only to convince Men, how dangerous
the Communion of fuch a Church Is, which has
found out lb many eafy ways to keep good Ca-
tholicks out of Hell, as without her teaching any
fuch Conlequence, is very apt to incline Men, who
lelves and their Dilciples.
XXVn. Of a Death'hed ^pentance,
E 2
be-
(\^)
belierc them, to take greater liberties than are
confiftent with the iafety of their Souls.
XXVIIl. Of Fajiinp
X 7T 7E do not blame the Church of Rome for
V V enjoyning Fafting, which is a very ule-
ful Duty, when it ferves die true ends and purpo-
fes of Religion ; nor do we deny, that a Papift
may faft very devoutly and religioufly; but we lay
the common Praftice of Fafting among Pa^
pifts, is far enough from being religious; an Eccle-
fiaftical Faft being very reconcilable with the
greateft Exceflfes: and though this be the fault of
the Men, and we charge none with it, but thofe
who are guilty, which, I fuppofe, is not mifte-
prefenting, yet their Church has given occafion to
It by making Fafting to fignify Eating, fb they do
but abftain from all Meats forbidden by the
Church; and their Caftiifts have ftated this matter
fo loofely, that no Men who have not an And-
pathy to the beft Fifti, and moft delicious Wines
and Sweet-meats, need do any great Penance in
Fafting; and it is hard we cannot be allowed to
complain of thefo Abufes without being charg^
as Mifreprefonters.
XXIX..iOf
( 3} )
XXIX. Of T>iyiJions- and Schifm in
the (Jburch,
IN this Point we are not the AfTailants, but
are only on the defenfive pait^ when they
make it an Argument againft the Reformation,
that there are fo many Divifions and diderent Opi-
nions among us: We defire them to look home,
and to the eternal liiartieof apretended Infallibility,
confider how many different Opinions there are
among themfelves. We are all agreed in follow-
ing the fame^Rule of 'Faith, as he fays they arc,
only our Rule indeed differs ; we take the Scrip-
ture to be the fafeft Rule, and we all agree, that
it is fo; they the Senfo, and Judgment, and Faith
of their Church J and I doubt not, but we fhali
as foon agree in the Senfe of every Text of Scrip-
ture as they will, what tlmt Authority in the
Church is to which they niuft yield, what thele
Traditions are they muft receive, and what is
the true Senfo and Interpretation of the Definitions
and Decrees of their Councils. We agree in the
Articles of the Apoftles Creed, which was the
ancient Faith of the Churchand our Differences
as to matters of Faith, are as meer School-Difputes,
as they fay theirs are, and in moft cafes the lame
as about Predcftination, Election and Reprobati-
on, the Efficacy of Grace, and Free-will.. We.
have fbme indeed which they have not; and they
have.
( 54 )
liave fbme that we have not; as about the the
immaculate Conception, the Infallibility of the
Popp. drc. They have a way indeed to cbnfine
thefe Difputes to their Schools, which we
have not, and that is to keep the Common Peo-
pie in Ignorance, which will effeftually cure
their dif}3uting; but we think it . better that
OLfr Pecyle Thould underftand t;heir Religion, tho
they dilpute aJittle about it. Now we are lb far
from mifreprefenting in this cafe, that we do not
think this a. reafbnable Objeftion againft eitlier
fide; .but if (they will-needs'be talking- of pur Di-
yifions^ to. perfwade People-fbr Peace -and Unities
fake to take Sandluary in an Infallible Church,
they muft give us leave to tell our People, that In-
fallibility, tiio it. founds bi^, does not dofueh feats
ia the. Ghur.GlK.of as is pretended. Their
Common People ihdeed do not difpute about Reli-
gion-, becaufe they know little of it; arid their
iPivjnes. and Scholars agree juft as our Divines do,
or it .may be not fo well: And this-is all the miT
repreientixrg we aiu ghilty of in' this matter.
d" ^
'■ 't e'.'i ■ =
XXX. of Friers and Num: '
..j .a-. • ->■
. 2:.,/ ■> . ,
Herein the Mifreprefentation he complains
df'lkfe GcMififts, -! cannot ^ibfs ; Is it,
that Papifts are taught to liave an high efteem
of-Friers and Nuns? ^his lie himfelf owns; Is
k, that many who enter into this religious courfe
of Life,, live very- irreli^gioully ? khis he alfo con-
■ - fcifcs.
( 55 )
fefTes, and'apologizes for J and th'fefe two things
make/tli$; Charafter: I fuppofe he forgot feme-
tJiing-elfcy which was to be the Mifreprefonta-
non. — .
n
XXXli of Wickid Principles and Trafikes,
4 r
• ■ 1 ^
HEre alfol cannot find wherein the Mifrepre-
fentation confifts. There are a great many
ill things faid to be committed by fome Perfons
of tlie Roman Communion; thjs the^eprefonter
grants, and" excufes the Church "from the fcan-
- dal of fuch Examples; how well is not my bufi-
nefs at prefent to enquire, who am no farther con-
earned, than to fee Right done them, that they
be not mifreprefented. ^.v- c* , v.!,
f
XXXII. Of Oikaeks. ,
HEre thePapiff is charged with beireving^r^?/
many idle Stories^ and ridiculous Inventions',
in favour of his Saints, which he calls Miracles.
And if this be a Miireprefentatiori,^'thie!y-their^
felves are guilty of it; for theie Popifh MifScI^s
were not invented by Proteftants, but publiChed
by themfelves, who are the only Perfons that ever
faw them; but their believing fuch Miracles (which
I hardly think awife Man among, them^oes, tho
they are willing the People fhould ) is the leafl
thing
( 56 )
thing in it: for bare Credulity, which does no
hurt, is very innocent, though very fdly; but to
recommend fiich Miracles as credible, which are
no better than Impoftures, is an injury to common
Chriftianity, and makes Men fuipcQ: the Mir-
acles of Chrift and his Apoftles to be Cheats too";
and it is a horrid abufe of Chriftianity to coin fuch
Miracles to nurfe Men up in Superftition, which is
the general defign of them: So that here the mat-
ter is not reprelented lb bad as it is, which is the
only Mifrepreientation I have hitlierto met with.
\ XXXdI. Of Holy Water.
THe Papift mifreprefented, is laid highly to ap'
prove the fuperjiitwus ufe of mmy inmimite
things^and to attribute wonderful Effe^s to Holy Wa*
ter, Bleffed Candles, Holy Oil, and Holy Bread. The
Papift reprelented, difproves all fort of Super-
Jlition, but yet is tuught to have an efcem for Holy
Water, kc. So that when we charge them with
ufing llich Religious ChaiTns as thefe, we do not
miftepi-elent tliem, for they own they do lb v but
the Mih'eprefentation is in cliarging thefe ulages
with Superftition ; but if this be milreprelenting,
it b flot to mifteprelent a Papift, but to milreprelent
Popery^ h charge them with nothing but what
they ptyn ^and juftify, but we charge their Do-
^Irines and Praftices with fuch Guilt, as they will
not own i but this, is not matter of Reprefenta-
tion, but pf Dilpute.
h .oiSih;'.- h... ■ j , XXXIV. 0/
■( F •)
M
XXXIV. Of hm£ng hp 'ftofi m .
* hnorance.
O
*•
WE do indeed charge t-herai widi bleeding peo-
pie up,and tlierti in-IgfWiph'Cb,
becauie tiicy deny them tJie"melius and
of knowledge ; will not fulfer tliem ^td the
Bible, nor lay their publick Pmyers in a Language,
which tliey underftaad,*^-and forbid tlTcm-to-tead
fuch Books. as might infohrtkhem better^"'.K
true or not ? If it be, ^ then -tdiough td«iy - may
have a great many Learned Men among them ,
their Learned Men may keep the People in. Ig-
norajice. We deny not, but they do infeacl Peo-
pie after a fafhion, but yet they take care ^o__Iet
them know no more, than* they ^e ple^d'itoite&di
them, and they may be very ignorant' for all that.
But I think, though tliis be a very 'great fault, it
belongs neitlier to the Chara£^:er of atPapift-mif
reprefejnted nor reprefented; but is the'fault df their
Governours, .their Popes, ^and Biftiops knd Ptiefts,
and I charitably hope, it will be lofnc excale to tlie
Ignorant and deluded People; . .
• .i. : /.in
hi.. ..i <it ? ill iiX iO : - 1
> ; •ts'i. V j veu-ri'>--ni
zz
F XXX\h
(38)
XXXV. of the Uncharitahlenefs of
the Tapijis,
E here charge them with damning all, who
are not of their Church and Communion;
and this we think very Uncharitable. For it damns
far the greateft number of Chriftians in the World.
The Reprefenter does not deny, that they do this;
only endeavours to prove, that it is not Unchari-
tablenels in them to do it. I am not to diipute
this point with him now, but if this be his charity,
riikc itas little, as I do his Faith.
XXXVI. Of Ceremonies md Ordinances.
WE charge them with corrupting the Chri-
ftian Worihip by a great number of Cere-
monies and Ordinances, which we judge ulelefs,
burdenlbm, or Superftitious, unworthy of the
limplicity and fpirituality of the Chriftian Worfhip,
and a great infringement of true Chriftian liberty.
That they do command great numbers of fuch Ce-
remonies, the Reprelenter grants; and therefore we
do not mifreprefent them in it: whether they do
well or ill in this, is no part of the Charader, but
the matter in Controverfie between us.
XXXYIL
(19)
XXXVII. of Innovations in matters of Faith.
3^, wl: \ N D lb is his laft Charader about In^ovati-
XX a meer diipute, and cannot be made a
Jiitifc Charader, unlefs we fhould charge them with
tlttWoT! believing thole Dodrines to be Innovations, which
e/tbtl we lay, and prove to be lb ; but never charge them
l/flck with believing lb : at this rate he may make Cha-
D (iiipi; raders of a Papift mifreprelented, out of all thedif-
ite putes which are between us. It is but laying, what
we charge their Dodrines and Pradices with, and
this makes the Charader of a Papift mifteprelen-
ted ; and it is but denying this charge in another
Column, and then you have a Charader of a Pa-
pift reprelented ; if we charge them with believ-
ing any thing, which they do not believe, or with
doing what they do not, then indeed we milfepre-
lent them : but he has not given any one inftance
' qI" of this in all his jy Charaders. But if to condemn
WorHi Pradices, if to charge them
with contradiding the evidence ofSenle, of Rea-
fon, and of Scripture, that they are innovations in
, ^ Faith, and corruptions of the Chriftian Worllup, be
, , to mifreprelent them; we confels we are luch mifre-
ii prelenters, and, for ought I can perceive, are like to
rausr, continue lb ; unlels they have Ibme better arguments
in relerve , than ever we yet law ; for Characler-
making will not do it : lb that all this cry about
milreprelenting is come to juft nothing. We like a Pa-
^ , jnft as little, as he has reprelented iiim, as when
i'iii 1^ him reprelented by a Proteftant Pen j for
F 2 there
(4=) .
there is no di^brence at all in the Parts, Propor-
tioiTs, and Features , though there is feme difference
in the . Colours. A Papift is the fame in both Cha-
rafters,- only \rith tfiis difference, tliat'a Proteffant
thinks him a very bad Chriftian; and a Papift, we
may be fure, thinks him a very good one. A Pro-
teftant thinks the Pakh and "Worfiiip of a Papift to
be contrary to Seiife, Reaibn, hnd Scripture, and
tire Faith and Praftice of the Primitive Church j a
Papift thinks it agreeable to all thefe Rules , or can
give a Reaibn why it ifiould not. And therefore
I coukl not but fmile at his concluding Propofal,
. Pjge ip. to eonvwce .us y that the Faith, as he has refref'entei
it, is really the Faith of the Faff , (which we be-
lieve is true, excepting the depofing Doftirine, and
fbme few other Points, which I have already ob-
ferved ) that the decifion of this whole .Affair depeni
upon an experience. Do hut you, or any Friend for
you, give yaitr ajfent to thefe Articles of Faith in the
•x^ery form and manner as I have fated them, and if
upon your Re quef , you are not admitted into the Com-
munion of the Roman Catholicks, and owned to believe
aright in all thofe Points , Til then confefs , that I
have ahttfed the World, &c. and truly I am apt to
think fb too; but we muft like his ^aith better, be-
fore we fhall make the Experiment.
Secondly , But it is time now' to proceed to his
other Refleftions, which concern the Rule, where-
by the Doftrine of the Church of Rome is to be
known. For though the Faith of their Church
be infallible, it is wonderful hard to know what
their Faith is. Now his Refleftions may be redu-
r.4'-)
ced to two general Heads. Firtd, Concermng the
.Autliority of the Council of Trent in England^
and the Rules of expounding it. Secondly, Con-
oteRa; cerning the falfe Rules the Anfwerer has ufed in
judging of the Faith and Doctrine of the Church
h of Rome.
* Firlt, Concerning the Authority of the Council
hird, of Trent ^ and the Rules of expounding it. The
) ore Author of A Papijl mifreprefented and repre/ented, in
tferet drawing tl>e Character of a Fapift repi-eiented, protef-
ProKii fes to follow the Doftrine preferred in the Council
rtjriftj!. of Trent. This the Aniwerer fays, he finds no fault.rvx intro-
diTO with, and therefore would not ash, How the Coimcii^^^-^^-
line, I of Trent comes to he the rule and meafure of Doclrine
'csij'n to any here , where it was never received, p. 9. ed. i.
liricfti Totliis the Refledter anfvvers, That the Council of - •
iriiBl; Trent is received here , and all the Catholick World
Pirhji over, as to all its definitions of Eaith., p. 5. By which,
I fuppoie, he means, that all Engltfh Catholicks
toikC! do own the Authority of the Council of Trent,
jiifkk and take their Rule of Faith from it; but this is
r. not, wh^the Anfwerer means by that Queftion;
amaa Whether Englifij Catholicks fingly for themfelves,.
and in their p'r^ate Capacities, own the Dodrine
' of the Council of Trentbut by what publick Ad.
of Church or State it has been received in England,
^ uIj as it has been in other Catholick Countries. I'he
yjg. Church of England had no Reprefentatives in that
'■jjj, Council, nor did by any after Ad own it's Autho-
Qjj, rity, and therefore it is no authentick aiid obliga-r
tory Rule here...
{ 4^ )
But allowing the Authority of this rule to deter-
naine, what is Popery, and what not, which the
Anrwerer allows reafonable enough, confidering
•that its definitions of Faith are received all the
Catliolick World over, as the Refle£ter faith, the
greater diihculty is about the Interpretation of this
rule. For not only we Hereticks interpret this
Council a little difierently from our Author, but
Cathoiick Doftors themfelves cannot agree about
it. Now when other good Catholicks differ from
him in explaining the definitions and Decrees of this
Council, why muft his fenie, and not theirs, pafs
•for the charafter of a Papift ?
Pope Pms IV. did ftriQily forbid any private Man
to interpret the Council according to his own private
fenie and opinion ; but if any difpute happened a-
bout the true meaning of their definitions and De-
crees, he referved the decifion of it to the Apofto-
lick See; and a very wife Decree it was, confider-
ing that many of their definitions were penned in
loofe and ambiguous words on purpofe to compofe
the difputes and differences of their Divines ( who
were many times very troublefbme to the Council)
that each party might think their own fenfe fa-
voured; but then confidering what iHl confequence
this might be of, to fuffer them to difpute the
fenfe of the Council, ai;id wreff: it to countenance their
private opinions, which would rather inflame, than
compofe tliefe difputes ( a frefli example of which,
diey had in the difpute between Catharinus and So-
to while the Council was fitting ) the Pope very
prudently forbids this ,. that if they would ffill
wrangfe among themfelves, yet the authority of
the
(45)
the Council might not be concernccd in it. But
todete jiow if their Do£bors do differ ftill about the fenfe
hich of the Council, and affix their private opinions on
(iiideri: and Popes think fit rather to connive at thele
(all i differences,than to undertake to determine them, why
Wli, i niuft any one of theie different opinions be fo made
the charafiter of a Papift, as to exclude the otiier ?
i If fbme, and thole of greateff: ' note and authority
utb,: in the Church, and not inferiour in number ( tci
i^eealc fay no more) are for the depofing Doffrine, and
others againft it, why muff thole only be thouglit
■ees oft Papifts, who deny this depofing power, and not thole
fflR, pi alio, who alfert it ? Whether it be the Faith of
the Church or not, is a dilpute between them : and
ivaieMi though our Author denies, that it is the Faith of
rapric the Church, and therefore that a Papift is not
p/jf/ifti bound to believe it; yet thole who are for the de-
poling Power, alfi^rt that it is the Faith of the
i ^po!l Church, and that with much greater realbn than he
I (xinfii denies it; and what authority has he to decide this dif-
pennd pute, and who gave him this authority ? Does not
oconip his reprefentation of a. Papif, in this,>point, depcfui
les (li lipon his own private fenje an,d opinion.
CouD No, he lays. He is fo far from bein^ guilty of this ^
fenfe) fault of interpreting the Council o/'Trent in his own
nfe]iE fenfe 1 that he ^as only d.elivered it^ as it is inter-
ifpUKD preted to him^ and to all their Church, in the Cate-.
\n<f^ tthifm ad Parochos, ■ compofed and fet forth by the or-
der of the Council and Pius V. for the infiruclwn
)fffliiii of the faithful in their Chrifiian duty touching Faith
and good Manners, in. conformity to the fenfe of the^
wje:i Council: And is he fure, that all his repreleritati-
fl ons are conformable to the lenle of this Catechirm ?
[is
.iK*"
2"'
fesi
?.-,3|
Page 7.
( 44)
Jvkiy he not play tricks vi itii the Catcchifin, anii
expound that by a private fpirit, as well as the
Council?
Well, but he affeakd in hU conclufwnto Veron^/
rule of Faith. And what of that ? How comes
Verons rule to be fb Autheritick, as to juftifieany
interpretation, which agrees with k ? Why did not
our Author appeal to his own charadler? which
may have as much authority, for Ought I know,
as Verons rule. But beiides F"eron-, he appeals to
the Bijhop of Qondom y who drew uf a, like thara^er
in Paris of the. belief of a Pafijl. And what is the
authority of this Bilhops charadler ? For Biihops
have no more authority to expound the Council of
Xrent ( which is intirely relerved to the Apoftolick
See) than private Doflors. Yes, the Bifhop of
Condomh Book lias all requifite authority, becaufe
the fecond Edition was f>ublifhed with fe'veral diflinB
att eft at ions of many Bifljops and Cardinals, and of
the prefent Pope himfelf wherein they at large ap-
prove tl'je Doflrine contained in that Treatife for the
Faith and Dodirine of the Church of Rome, and con-
form to the Council of Fvont. I fliall take it for gran-
ted , that it is, as the Reflefter fays, but what then ?
Had not Cardinal Bellarmins controverfies as great
■an atteflation as the Bifliop of Condom's Expoftti-
on of the DoHfine of the Catholick Church ? Did he
not dedicate them to Pope Sixtus V. and that
with the Popes leave and good liking, Te annuente,
as he himfelf fays ? and how much inferiour is this
to a Teftimonial under the Popes hand ? And why
then are not Bellarmins Costroverfies as authentick
' ' a imle
SS56H;Ti'esroiur:r:%v''-v.':f.;:;r.:z:;s
( 45 )
a ruts for the expofition of the- Catliolick ^Faith,
as the jBiHiop. qi ,Condemns 1 ^ • j
But MeLchior Cxnus^ to whom the Reflefter re-
fers us, would have taught liim, tliat tlie Popes
private approbation is as little worth, as any other
Bifhops. Thtit the name of the Apojlclick See does Sdls Apdjloii-
not figmft■ the Pope in his perfoml capacity, but ^rpimfurmum
Bing as it becomes the Chair that is, not giving Pohtipcm ftg-
his' own private fenf^, btit proceeding
the advice of good and learned Men. And therefore la, ad.
that is not to be accounted the judgment of the A-
pojtolick See, which is given only by the Bi/hop efRomQ qLhnus
pxivately and^ inconfiderately-, or with-the ■ advice only ho fed
of feme'few of-hv own mind, but-what 'he.,determines
upon a due examination of the thing, by the advi. e doaorum
and cotmfel of many^ wife Men. And tlierefore
doubt,.mC!t^yith^l:anding tlie prelei3t,Pope^ appro- indicia in-
bation, jie is a little, out , :\ylieqAie_.palIs^this_the
Authority of the Jp^olick S^f
' V • • - v». • r' • ' ■ r ■ • • piyjolum Ro-
munum EipfcopUmd^ ant etiam cumjrakcis^ fiht^fnuntibHSi' frojerunt^*:, fed qti^e ab eo ex confi-
lio ptirimorm.'vherHm fapmtim flhe prius n examinatA predexat. Czrus dc And. Concil
libr. <• , ■
:
■ij'
But the ■ Ahrvyeref did itiat only chai'gO^-him ih
general with interpreting the Goiincil of Trdhfiby
his own private fenle and opinions, but ga-ye-fotrle
particular inftances of it, and^ I miift now corifider,
how the Reflefter takes off this chaige:'^., ; / *
I. As to Invocation of Sdlp'tf^helimify ihAkptfrdr Yzgt. 7.
helping us to Prayers oilly',' wdiereas'hfe graiii^
Council mentions their Aid and AJJifance, as well'its
Prayers. And the only vindication he thinks' ne-
cellary to make for tids \s f rhat no-cthdr' niP^s
of .their aiding ^and affijling us:, ri exprcffed in t^e Cfdan-
cil, "or in the Catechi/?n zd Parocfios', befdef rhaP'of
tf their
{"46)
their Prayers ; and it is thus limited by the Bijhop of
Condom on this Subjebl rvith the Pope and Cardinals
approbation. But though the Council does not fpe-
ciHe, what other aid and ajfjlance we may expe£b
from the Saints befides their Prayers ; yet it menti-
ons Aid and Jffijiancey without limiting it to the af-
fiftaftce of their Prayers ; and the Anfwerer (P. 2 5.)
told him what realon he had to believe, that neither
the Trent Council nor Catechifm did intend any fiich
limitation : but this he thought fit to take no notice
of, for it had been very troublefome to anfwer it.
As for the Biftiop of Condomy though bis authori-
ty is nothing, yet I do not find, that he limits their aiH
and afftftance, only to their Prayers for us ; for after
repeating the Decree of the Council, That it is good,
and ufefulto inn/oke the Saints by way of fapplication
and to have recourfe to their fuccors and affijlances,,
&c. he quietly drops tl:»e laft claule without fay-
ing any thing of it, and only tells us. It is evident
that to invoke the Saints according to the intent of this
Council., is to re fort to their Prayers^ for the obtaining
the blefjings and benefits of God by Jefus Chrijl. And
no doubt but this is true; but the Council fpeaks
not only of invoking the Saints^ but of flying to their
aid and affiflance: and pray what does that fignifie ?
That he had no mind to tell us , and when he fays
nothing of it, how comes our R.eflefter to know,
that he limits it to their Prayers ?
As for the point of merit, I have already con-
fidered that,though I do not fee upon fecond thoughts,
how the Anfwerer is concerned in it; for he does
not alledge the 32 Canon to oppofe, what,he af-
ferts, that good works, are meritorious by the good-
nefs and promife of God, but for the fake of the Anar
thema, which it denounces againft thofe, who deny,
that
(47)
tliat good works are truly meritorious of the m-
creafe of Grace and eternal life ; And therefore his
r. next inftance is the Pofes ferfoml InfdlihiUty. This
our Reflefter denys, and makes it the Characler of
a Papift miireprefented to alfert it: and yet there
are as many Papifts, who believe the Popes Infallibi-
lity, as there are, who deny it; and Were they to make
Charafters, to deny the Popes perlbnal Infallibility,
would certainly be one Charader of a Papift mil-
lonra reprefented : But he fays, this is only a School-de- page ?.
wen hatCf and mt matter of Faith, hecattje not yofitively
Wtlio; determined by any general Council. And yet whoe\''er
reads Cardinal Bellarmin and feveral others on this
fe afe fubjed, would think they made a matter of Faith
'^1!? of it. But I would ask him, Whether the Infallibili-
'hm ty of the Church be an Article of Faith ? If it be, my
next queftion is. In what general Council it was de-
fined? It ieems indeed to be taken for granted in
i MM ibme later Councils, but I am yet tofeek, what Ge-
utifi neral Council has pofitively defined it. I am ftire Bel-
dta larmin and other learned Divines of the Roman Com-
if. i munion, who uie all manner of arguments, they can
i fp: think of, to prove the Infallibility of the Church, ne-
tjt' ver alledge the authority of any Council for it: So that
Cgsi: it feems infallibility it felf was never determined by
alo any GenerSl Council ; and if the Infallibility of the
tob Church be matter of Faith, though it were never
defined by any General Council, why, may not the
Infallibility of the Pope be fo too ? hay liow does our
Refleder come to believe the Infallibility of a General
liei Cohncil ? for this is no more defined by any General
jlji Council, than the Infallibility of the'l^pe is.
If there muft be Infallibility in the Church fbme-
f,£jj where, I think, the Pope, whom they acknowledge
idt to be the lupream Paftor, has the faireft Pretences
I ' G 2 to
(48)
to it. For Infallibility ought iiireafon to accompa-
ny the greateft and moft abfblute Power. If we
mud have an infallible Judge of Controverfies, it
mud b6 tlie Pope, not a Council; becaufe if you
place Infallibility in a Council, the Church has no
infallible Judge any longer than while the Council
is fitting. For the Definitions and Decrees of Coun-
cils, how infallible Ibever they are, yet certainly can-
not be art infiillible J udge, which they will not al-
low to the Scriptures them lei ves. And therefore if
the Church can never be without an infallible Judge,
he who is the lupreme Pador and Judge mud be
infallible. Now this being, the Caie, I defire to
know, why our Reflefter prefers the Infallibility of
a General Council, before the Pope's perfbnal In-
fallibility ? how one comes to be matter of Faith,
and not the other ? or if neither of them be, why
one makes the Charaffer of a Papid mifi'eprefented,
the other of a Papid reprelented. For though he
pretends not to deliver his own private Sentiment or
Opinion concerning this Point; but only to relate
matter of Fa£l, yet he has fb cunning a way of tel-
ling his Tale, as to let every body know, which
fide he is of. For we may guels, that he does not
over admire the Papif snifreprefented ^ and then he
cannot be very fond of the Pope's Infallibility, which
is part of that Charaffer.
And now I come to the Goliath-argument, as he
calls it, concerning the depofing Power , which he
Page 9. puts into this form. In my Char alter of a Papijl re-
prefented y I pretend to declare the Faith of a Roman-
Catholi^k, as it is defined and delivered- in allowed Ge-
mral Louncils and yet though the depofing Doltrine
has bee ft as evidently declared in. ftich Councils, as ever
Purgatory and Tranfubfiantiation were in that of
T reat;
(49)
**rrent; yet ft ill with me, it is no Article of our Faith.
This indeed is an untoward Argument, and I widi
him well delivered , and I think he does very pru-
dently to keep at a diftance with a fling and a ilrone,
and not venture to grapple with it. To this he
thus replies:
" I anfwer it in fliort, that thougli all DoTrinal
Points defined in any approved General Council,
and propofed to the Faitiiful to be received under
" an Anathema, are with us fb many Articles of
" Faith , and are obligatory to all of our Comma-
" nion; yet not fb of every other Matter declared
in fuch a Council: tliere being many things treat-
ed of, and refbived on in fuch an Alfembly, which
concern not the Faith of the Church,, but only
ibhae matter of Diicipline, Government, or other
" more particular Affair; and thefe Conffitutions
and Decrees are not abiblutely obligatory, as is evi-
dent in the Council of Trent——whole Decrees of
Do£frine are as much acknowledged here by Catho-
licks in England or Germany, as witliinthe Walls,
of Rome it ielf, or the Vatican, And yet its other
" Conftitutions and Decrees are not univerfally re-
" ceived, and it may be never will. Now, Sir, al-
" though we allow fbmc Councils have made Decrees
" for depofing in particular Cafes; yet the Power
" it felf not being declared as a doffrinal Point,
"and the Decrees relating only to Difcipline and
Government, it comes fhort of being an Ar-
" tide of our Faith, and all that in your AnFver
. depends on it, falls to the ground.
Now in anfwer to this, I muft inquire into thefe
three things. Firft , Whether nothing be an Ar-
tide of Faith but what is decreed with ah Anather
ma. Secondly, Whether the depofing Decree be" a
Dodriaal
(5°)
Dodrinal Point, or only matter of Difclpliiie and
Government. Thirdly , What Authority General
Councils Iiave in Aecretis morum, or flich matters as
concern Difcipline and Government.
Firft, Whether notliing be an Article of Faith^
but what is decreed witii an Anathema. Now
here we mufl: ( i) confider, what they mean by
an Article of Faith. For an Article of Faith may
1)0 taJicn in a ftrifl, or in a large Senle. In a
ftricl Senfe, it fignifies only fucli Articles, the be-
lief of which is neceflary to Salvation; in a large
Senfe, it includes all DoiTrinal Points, whatever
is propofed to us to be believed : There are Articles
of both tlieie Kinds, both in Scripture, and in
fome General Councils; and the ditference between
them is not, that we muft believe the one, and
may refufe to believe the other, when they are
bodi propofed with equal Evidence and Authori-
ty'; but that a miftake in one is not of fuch dan-
gerous confequence , as it is to miftake the other.
Whoever refufes to believe, whatever is plainly
taught in Scripture, and which he believes to be
taught there, is an Infidel, and guilty of disbe-
lieving God, though the thing be of no great
confequence in it felf, but what he mi^t lafely
liave been ignorant of, or miftaken in ; and thus
it is with General Councils, if we believe them
to be infallible j though their definitions are not
all of equal neceflity , yet they are all equally
true I and therefore we mufl: not pick and ehufc,
what we will believe, and what we will not
believe in the Definitions of a General CouiKil;
"but we mull believe them all, if not to be equal-
ly neccilkry, yet to be equally true; and therefore
to reject tke belief of any thing plainly tauglit
in
(50
in the Council as points of Doctrine, is to difown
the Authority and Infallibility of the Council.
Whatever is defined in the Council is the Faith
of the Council, and therefore of the Catholick
Church, which is both reprefented, and infalli-
bly taught by a General Council *, and if we will
give Men leave to dihinguiih, they may foon
diftinguifh away all the Council; for it is eafie
for every Man to find a diftinftion to exciife him
from believing, what he does not like. And I be-
lieve this is the true reafbn of this Difpiite about
the Marks and Charafters of Articles of Faith,
that Roman Catholicks muft maintain the infalli-
bility of their General Councils, and yet meet with
fome things in them which either they do not be-
lieve or dare not ovm: and therefore (though it
may be they do not believe the Infallibility of Coun-
oils tliemfelvS's, yet) they are put to hard fliifts, to
firid out forae Salvo to reconcile the Infallibility of
their Councils with their dilbwning fbme of their
Decrees. But this will not do; for though Men,
who believe thefe Councils to be infallible , are not
bound to believe all their Definitions to be Articles
of Faith in fuch a ftri£l: Senfe, as to make the belief
of them^eceifary to Salvation, yet they are bound to
believe all fheir Definitions to be true: and there-
fore we have no need of any other Mark of the Ro-
man Catholick Faith, than to examine, wliat is de-
fined in their Councils, whether with or without an
Anntbema, it is all one; for all Do£l:rines decreed
the Council muft be as infallibly true, as the
Council is, and muft be owned by all thofe, who
own the Authority of the Council.
Secondly, and therefore the uft of AnathemA is
not to confirm Articles of Faith, but to condemn
Hereticks,
(5^)
Heretlcks, snd does not concern the Faidi, but the
Difcipline of the Church. Affathemas relate pro-
perly to Perfons, not to DoQ:rines. The Faith of
tlie Church is fctled by the Definitions of Councils,
and muft be fb, before there can be any place for-
Anathemas. ' For till it be determined, what the
true Faith is, how can they curfe or condemn Here-
ticks? The infallible Authority of the Council to
declare the Faith, gives Life and Soul to the Decree;
the Anathema fignifies only what Cenfure the
Church thinks fit to infliO; upon Hereticks, who
deny this Faith. And therefore even in the Council
of Trent the Decrees of Faith, and the Anathema-
tizing Canons are two diftinbt things ; the firfl: ex-
plains the Catholick Verity, . and requires all Chrl-
ftians to believe as they teach, and this eftablifiies
the Faith before the Anathemas are pronounced by
their Canons -, and whether any AnathernahdA been
denounced or no. And thus it is even in the Coun-
cil of Trent, which decrees the Do£trine of Purga-
tory without an Anathema,, and yet alferts it to be
the DoTrine of the Scriptures, and Fathers and
Councils, and commands the Bifhops to take care this
Doftrine be preached to allChriftian People,and belie-
De auft Conc. ved by them,which,Mf/r^/cir Canns faies, is dCufficient
* 5- mark of an Article of Faith without aif ; Anathema;
and I fiippole our Refleflrer wili grant, that the Do-
Trine of Purgatory is an-Article of Faith. The va-
lidity of the Anathema depends upon the truth and
certainty of the Decree or Definition of Faith, not the
truth of the Definition upon the Anathema', fork
is ftrange, if the Church cannot infallibly declare the
DoTrines of Faith without curfing; that the mofl:
damningCouncils ihould be the mofi: infallibiej which,
ifitbetrue, I confels , gives great Authority to the
"Counak of TVm. ' I do
( 53 )
I do not deny, but that there is great reafon for the
•Church in fome cafes to denounce Anathemas againft
great and notorious Hereticks j liut I fay this belongs
to the Difcipline, not to tlie Faith of the Church;
and it is very unreafonabie to think, that when a
Council defines what we are to believe in any particu-
lar point, they fnould not intend to oblige all Clirifti-
ans to believe fuch definitions, unlefs they curfe tJiofe
who do not: In the Council of Florence they decreed Concii. To.
the Proceliion of the Holy Ghofl: from Father and ^3- p- 5i»-
Son, tlie Dodrine of Purgatory, the Primacy and Su-
premacy of the Bilhop of Rome, without an Anathe-
ma^ which I fuppofe, the Church of Rome owns for Ar-
tides of Faith, and the Council intended fhould be re-
ceived as fuch : And in the fame Council Pope Euge- ib. p, 53a.
n'lHS IV. in his Decree for the Union of the Armenians^
dehvers them the whole Faith of the Church of Rome^
all their Creeds, feven Sacraments, ^c. without any
Anathema ; wliich fliows that tho Anathemas have
been anciently ufed, yet this is but a late invention to
diftinguilh Articles of Faith from fome inferior Theo-
logical Truths by Anathema s\ for had it been known in
the time of the Council of Florence^ we may fuppofe
they would have anathematized too, as well as decreed.
But this Council fuppofing that now the Greeks and
Armenians were united to the Church of Rome^ the He-
refie and Schifm at an end, and the Perfons reconciled,
there was no need to' exercife any Church Cenfures,
and therefore noufefor Anathema's: Forthisfeemsto
be the true reafon why the Council of Trent was fo
liberal of Anathema's^ tecaufe there were fo many ob-
ftinate and incorrigible Hereticks at that time.
a. The next Enquiry is, Whether the depofing De-
creebea Dodrinal Point, or only matter of Difcipline
H and
w
( 54 )
and Government: For thus the ReflecSler fays, That
the Depojing Power is not declared as a Doctrinal Point-,
and the Decrees relate only to Difcipline and'Government^
and therefore cowe fhort of being an Article of Faith.
This I confefs, I look on as a very childifh Evafion. For
as they have been lately told, lo decree what Jhall he
Vlndlcat. of includes a virtual Definition of that Dodrine on
Setm. p. i8. which that Decree is founded. But I will only ask this
Refledler one fliort Queflion, Why he rejedts this De-
eree of Depofing Heretical Princes, or Favourers of
Hereticks ? Is it becaufe he thinks the Dodfrine of De-
pofing Heretical Princes, erroneous, or only becaufe
he don't like the Pradiice of it? If the firft, then it
feems this is aDodirinal Decree, as well as a Decree of
Difcipline and Government: If he only condemns
the Pra(9:ice of it, without, renouncing the Dextrine;
let him fay fo, and fee how Princes will like it. When
Papifts difpute among themfelves about this Depofing
Decree ; thofe who are for it, vindicate the Popes
Power to depofe Princes ,♦ thofe who are againft it, de-
ny that the Pope hath any fuch. Power; which fliows
tlaat they think it a Dodtrinal Difpute ; for there is no
other diwence between them, but whether the Pope
Iws, or has not, Power to do it, which is a pdnt of Do-
dfrine: But when they difpute with us Hereticks, then
the Church has not decreed it as a Point of Doikrine,
but only of Difcipline and Government: But let them
tell me then, if this Decree do not involve a Dodfrinal
Error, what is the fault of it ?
3., But fuppofe this Decree muff be only ranked
among the deer eta morum., which concern the Difcipline
and Government of the Church, Is not the Authority
of the Church as facred in fuch matters, as in points
of Dodfrine ? h not the Church guided by an infalli-
ble
I
( 55 )
ble Spirit in making fuch Decrees as concern "the
hU whole Chriftian World, and the propagation andfecu-
/ hit rity of the Chriftian Faith ? At lead;, Is not the
!rm Church fecured from making wicked and finful Dc-
f h CXCQS?
itmi; The only Example they have in Scripture, v\diere-
'tfiii on to found the Authority and Infallibility of General
oSrin!: Councils, is theConncil of the Apollles at 'Jerufalem^
' aslit! A^s 15'. And yet that contains no definition of Faith,
> tliisD but a Decree of Manners, as they call it, that is, a
oiffffi rule whereby they are to guide their Adtions, with-
KofD out defining any point of Doc9:rine, whereon that De-
• beai cree is founded : It feemed good to the Holy Qhofl^ and
to us, to lay upon you no greater hurden than thefe neceffa-
Dtcffi ry things ; that ye ahftain from meats offered to Idols,
condc tind from Blood, andfrom things fir angled, and from For-
nication, from which if you keep your felves, ye fhall do
i i well; fare ye well. They might as well objedt here, as
Depot they do againft the depofing Decree, That there is no
tlicPe Point of Dodtrine determined in it, but it is only a De-
cree todiredi them what to do; and yet we find the
lichlr Fioly Ghoft alTifting in fuch Decrees; for indeed the
there; rules of Difcipline and Government, to diredl the lives
•tlief and manners of men, is the only proper fubjedF of Ec-
clefiaftical Authority; and therefore we may mod;
reafonably expedl, that God fliould alfid; anddiredthis
Church in fuch matters. The Church has no Authori-
tlai ty niake new Articles of Faith; the Gofpel was
preached by Chrift, and what Chrid: could not per-
tedily inflrudt them in, becaufe they were not able
to bear it at that time, was fupplied by the Holy Spi-
to rit, who led the Apollles into all truth; and now
we mud: expedl no farther Revelations. And
■ ^ therefore as to matters of Faith , the Authority
5 Hi of
of General Councils was no more than the Authority
of Witnefies, to declare what Dodirine they received
from Chrift and his Apoftles ,* and therefore their Au-
thority could reach no farther, than we may reafon-
ably prefumc them, to be credible Witnefies , that is,
while the Tradition might be fuppofed clear and
Ibrong, which I doubt, will go no farther than the
four hrfl" General Councils, which are Received by the
Church of Englvnd; but tire Authority of the Church
in Decrees relating to Difcipline and Government is
perpetual j and therefore in all Later Councils (if there
be any Infallibility in the Church 3 I fliould more fe-
curely rely on fuch Decrees than on their Definitions of
Faith. And therefore Bellarmln for the Pope, and
iBdiarm. de Melch'torCatfusfor General Councils(the twoAuthors to
Rom. Pontiff ^yPom out R^flecRer refers us}declare,that they cannot
err in thofe Decrees which relate to manners, if they
concern the whole Church, and are in things necefi
fary to Salvation, that is, that they cannot forbid
any Vertue, nor Command anything which is a Sin.
So that they who believe the Infallibility of Popes and
Councils,mufl acknowledg the Lawfulnefs of depofing
Heretical Princes; for if it were UnlawTul to do it,
Popes and Councils could never Command it.
Our Refled:er indeed proves, That fuch Decrees and
Conjlitutions as concern Difcipline and Governments are.
not alfolutely ohligatory from the Example of the
Council of Trent, whofe decrees of Dotlrine are as much
acknowledged here hy Catholicks in England, and Germa-
ny, as iviifoin the Walls of Rome it felf or the Vatican;
arrd yet its other Confkitutions and Decrees are mt TJnB
'verjally receivedy and it may he never will. But pray
can he tell me, for what reafon this is ? Let him fay,
if he dare, that it is for want .of Authority or Infalli-
bility
1. 4. c. 5.
Canus de
Audi. Concil.
1. 5,
P. 9.
( 57 )
bility in the Ccnncilto make Electees to oblige all the
Chrifuan World ;■ and Chrifiian Princes will not
lubmit to the Decrees of Councils, and the Church
dares not compel them to it, does this juflify. fuch a
refufal ? The truth is, fuch Decrees ought not to take
place, nor become Laws in a Chriflian Nation,without
the Confent and Authority of the Soveraign Prince;
and therefore the Roman. Emperors gave Authority to
die Decrees of Councils, and made them Laws ; but
fince the Church has pretended to ad: Independently
on the Secular Powers, and to give Laws to them
without their confent ; no wonder that Princes, who
underftand their own Authority, and have power to
defend it, take w hat they like, and rejed the reft.
And for the fame reafon (as our Refleder obferves}
the Popes fuffer fo many Tofitive ajfertors of the no-
depofing power to pafs withottp any cenfure of Herefy.
Which is no Argument, that they do not believe it an
Article of Faith^ as he fuggefts ; but only that they
want power to do it. Princes will not be depofed
now, nor fuffer thofe. to be Cenfured, who* deny the
Depoffng Power; But ffiould the blefied FdiUehrand'
times return again, we ffiould quickly fee, whether
the Depofing Power be an Article of Faith or
not.
What I have now difcourfed will abundantly juftify
an argument which I find our Reffeder much grie-
ved at. The Anfwerer in his Introdudion (p. 14.}
lays two pallages together, which he thinks will ob-
lige them to own the depofing power ; For in the Pa-
pijl mifreprefented the Author faies, the or-
ders of the fupream Paftor are to he obeyed^ whether he
he Infallihle or not; and in another place he confeffcs,
that Popes have owned the depofing Dohirine^ and ahled
( 58 )
accordhigtoit; and others are bound to obey their Or-
ders, whether Infallibie or not, and confequently by
tlic Dodbrine of their Church, to adb M'hen the Popes
fliall require it, according to the depofing power. Xo
this the ReflecSter anfwers. That he only ir a Je a com-
Pag. 15.16. parifon between Civil and Ecclefiaflical power , Ta/jf
as in the Civil Go vernment the fentence of the fupream
Judge or highejl. Tribunal is to he oheyed^ tho there he no
afurance of Infallihility or Divine protefiion from error
or mijlake ; fo is he taught fhould he done to the orders of
the fupream Paflor , whether .he he Infallihle or not.
Now he faies, it is as unjuft from hence to infer, that
all the Orders of the Pope muft be obeyed,as it would
be to fay that Subjects muft obey their. Princes in eve-
ry thing they command, whether it be good or bad:
And I ackowledge his anfwer to be good, if he wUl.
grant the depofingi Decree to command a rin,wliich he
has never, done yet; and when he does it,I would de-
fire him to confidcr how to reconcile himfelf to his
two Friends BeUarmine and Canus , who aflert that
Popes and General Councils can make no finfiil Decrees
wliich lliall relate, to the^whole Church.
vly. Let us now confider what faults the Refledber
finds with the Anfwerers way of proceeding; and they
are reduced to Four heads.
i/. He laies, that in fome points the Anfwerer owns
the Doflrine (which he has reprefented to be the Faith
of a Roman-CatholicF) to he the eftahlijhed belief of the
Church of England\ as in partyhat of the power of Priejl-
ly ahfolutioHy confefion, of due veneration to the Relicks
of Saints, of merit, of fat is faflion, of the authority of
the Church, of General Councils. Now here our Re-
fleder retu-ras to his old trade of Mifreprefenting
-again;
( 59 )
again; for every one who will believe his owneyes»
may foon fatisfie himfelf, that the Anfwerer in thefe
Dodbrines owns nothing which is peculiar to the Faith
of a Papift, as diftinguiilied from the Common Faith
of all Chriftians. He might as well fay, that becaufe
Protellants own that Chrift is to be worfliipped,
therefore they in part own the Dodtrine of the
Church of Reme, that Chriftis to be w^orlhipped by
Images.
This is the- very cafe here. The Anfwerer grants,
that Chrift gave to the Bi/hops and Priejis of the Catho-
lick-Churchy authority toahfolve any truly penitent finner
from his finSy and that fuch ahfolution is ratified in hea-
ven. Therefore in part he owns the Popilli Dodtrine of
Ahfolution,which is a Judicial and Pretorian Authority
to forgive fins ; tho we thinkjthat toabfolveasa Mb
nifter and as a Judge, are two very different things; as
different as the Kings granting a Pardon, and the Chan-
cellors fealing it, which is a publick and authentick de^-
claration of the thing. The Anfwerer owns the ancient
praHice of Canonical confejfton , as part of the difcipline Pag. 62.
of the Church for puhlich offences-; that is , tltat thofe
who had been guilty of any publick and fcandalous
fins,were not reconciled tothe Church without making
as publick a confelFion, and giving publick Teftimonies
of their forrow and repentance; therefore he in part
owns the Auricular confeflion of the Church of Rome;
there being little difference itfeems, betw^een confef-
fing our fins to the whole Congregation, and in the
ear of a Prieft. He owns the ufe of voluntary confef-
fiony for the eafe and fatisfaliion of the perplexed
minds ofdovhtmgoxdejelied T<?«/^f»/j-;and therefore he
in part owns the Sacramental Confeflion, as^ neceflary
to the RemijQSon of Sins before God.
The -
( )
'P. 40. The Ajifwcrer allows, A clue Verierat'im to the Bo-
dies of Saints and Martyrs, i, e. Religious Decency
to he ohferved towards them ^ which lies in avoiding
any thinz^ like contempt or difhonour to them^ and ufing
all fuch Teftimonies of Refpefi and Decency, which he-
comes the remains of excellent Perfons. And therefore
in part, he agrees with the Church of Rome mowing
Divine Worlhip to Relicks, juft as much as a decent
refped: is a part of Religious Worlliip.
^ The Anfwerer grants, The necejfity of good Works
in order to the reward of another Life. And if he will
call this Merit (in which large Senfe the Fatliers
fometimes ufe that word} we will not difpute with
him about it; but is this to own the Popilh Dodrine
of Merit ? That the good Works of juflified Perfons,
are truly meritorious of the increafe of Grace, and Eter-
nal Life.
The Anfuerer difiinguifhes between fatisfafiion to
^7* ihe Church before Abfolution, (according to the Difci-
pline of the Primitive Church, which did not ufe to
reconcile publick Penitents, till by a long courfe of
Penance and Mortification, they had given fufficient
Teftimonies of the Sincerity of their Repentance,
and had made Ibme Satisfadion for that Scandal they
liad given to the Church} and Satisfaflion to the fu-
flioe of God, for fome part of the Punijhment to Sin,
which is unremitted. The firfl we own, as a very ufe-
ful part of Church Difcipline, and wijQi the reftoring
of it; but the fecond, we utterly difown; for there
is no other Satisfadion to the Juftice of God for Sin,
but the meritorious Death and Sacrifice of Chrift;
whereas the Church of Rome takes no notice of Satif-
fadion in the firft fence, but has changed the Ancient
Difcipline of Satisfadion to the Church, into Satisfa-
fdion to the Juftice of God for Sin. The
( -r, )
Tlie Anfwerer grants, That truly ptnitential Wor%t
are pleafing to Gofi Jo as to avert his DifpleafurCy hut
denies the Popifh Dodtrine of Satisfadlion, that there
can he any Compenjation hy way of Equivalency^ between
what ive Suffer, and what we Dejerve: and is this in
part, to own his Dodfrine of SatisfacStion ?
The Anfwerer owns the right and necejfity of Ge-
neral Councils, (fupon great Occafions^ if they he truly
fo; which have heen, and may he of great ufe to the
Chrifiian World, for fietling the Faith , healing the
Breaches of Chriftendom, and reforming Ahufies; and
that the Decrees of J'uch Councils ought to he fiuhmitted
to, cohere they proceed upon certain Grounds of Faith,
and not upon unwritten Traditions. But this is no part
of the Dodtrine of the Church of Rome concerning
Councils, which owns the Authority of all Councils
called by the Pope, and confirmed by him, tho Qxs
we fay) neither Free nor General; and alcribes an un-
erring Infallibility to them, and fo puts an end to all
inquiries into the Grounds of their Faith. We are forry
we are at fuch a diftance from the Church of Rome,t\\2.t
there are few things befides the common Principles
of Chriftianity, wherein we can own any part of their
Dodtrine; and if we own no more than the Anfwerer
has done, I think the Refledter lias no great Reafon to
Glory in it.
, vly. The Refledter charges the Anfwerer, with ap-
^^0 ® pealing from the Definitions of their Councils, and fienfie
rot®? of their Church, to fiome Exprejfions found in old Mafis'
for t® Books, Rituals, &c. what this ©c. means, I cannot P-
for» tgi]. Pqj. [ jgQt one inftance of this in the whole
finli jf^nfwer, relating to the Worlliip of the Virgin Mary,
That famous Hymn,
I 0
0 felix puerpera mjlra pians 'fcelera
Jure Matris impera Redemptori !
0 happy Mother ! ivho dojl expiate our fins! ly
the right of a Mother command our Redeemer^ be-
ing found in the old Paris Milial, which the Anlwerer
himfelf has feen, and as Balinghem a J.efuit faith,
in the Miffdls of Tournay , Idcge, Amiens , Artois,
and the 0/</-Roman. Now I confefs, I fliould not
have thought it fo great a fault, to have taken the
fence of their Church from their MilTals, be they never
To old : for their Millals are not like private books of
devotion, but are the allowed and approved worlhip
of their Church, as our Liturgy is; and therefore is
either the fence of their Church at prefent, or once
was fo; and if it be damnable to own that the Virgin
is more powerful than her Son {or can command
him, which feems to bean argument of greater power)
it is very hard to charge it upon an Infallible Churclij
that her publick Offices did once contain damnable
Errors; for furely. She was not Infallible then ; which
may bring her Infallibility into qbeftion ftili. And
therefore old Mihals have fo much Authority ftill,
that nothing Gontained.in'-them ought to be thought
damnable.
And yet the AnfwerertiOes not appeal from- the De-
finitions of Councils, to old Mafs-books; for the
Church of Rome has never-^ condemned this Hymn,
nor the Dodtrine of it. The Council of Trent^ in her
Decree for Invocation of Saints, faith nothing in par-
ticular of the Worfliip of the Virgin Afdrr^, and yet all
Roman CzxhoXvcks makea vaft difference between the
Woriliip of the Firgin,. and other Saints; how then
fliall w e learn the Senfe of the Church, but from her
Pfadbbce, ^ from her publick.Offices and Hymns ? And
■
( <^3
tho, fincc Hereticks have been Intiuifltive into thefe
matters, they have reformed fome of their Hymns,
/»j! yet they have ne^^er condemned the old ones. And
m,: if he remembers, the Anfwerer in the fame place
told him a notable Story, whereby he might
tj»it if guefs at the Senfe, at leaft, of the governing part of
their Church ftill; that a Booky which was writ ly a
1 fliocli!: Gentleman ten Tears Jince, to bring the People to a hare
e taker, Ora pro nobis, to the hleffed T'irgin, was fo far from ^ ^
tthevif being approved^ that it was condjemned at Rome, and
te book vehemently oppcfed by the Jefaits in France, and a whole
d WOT: dume puhlifhed againfl it.
therefor ' He complains, that the Anfwerer //■(?«»
ntoto Declaration of their Councils y and Senfe of their
ttlieV' Clourchy to fome External Acliony as in cafe of refpell
] coiBi!! to Images ^nd SaintSy upon, whichy from our Exter- P. it, i2«
jrerpos Adoration, by ccnflruliion of the Fall, viz. Kneel-
ie C/iii ^ 'loing, &c. you are willing to conclude us guilty
I iw ^ Idolatry: As if a true Judgment could be made of
thefe AtHonSy with"ut rejpell to the Intention of the
ftill ■ ^ho diretis themy and of the Perfon that does
horityi Paragraph in the Anfwer (/>. n.) to
which the Refledrer refers us, is but a ihort one, and
if he had thought fit to anfwer it, it would have
cleared this point. He faies. To Worjloip Stocks or
jjj Stones for Godsy (as far as we charge them with any
Inch thing} fignifies, to give to Irnaies madeofVP^ocd
i and Stoney the Worftoip due only to Gody and fo by con-
h Jiflf the Fally to make them Godsy by giving them
Divine Worfhip. And if they will clear theynfdves of
eK y they muji either prove that External Adrar
Tu t tTat is ^0 part of Divine Worfhip (notwithflanding the
frtiB ^^tipture makes it fo, and all the reft of mankind look
f ^ upon it as fuch, even Jews, Turks and Infidels} or that
I X their
. ( ^4 )
ihe'ir External A^oratvn hath no refpe^to the Images
(jvhkh is contrary to the Council of Trent) or that Di-
'vine Worfhip being due to the Being reprefented^ it may
be likewife given to the Image ; and how then could the
Gnoflicks be Condemned for giving Divine Worfhip
to the Jmaze of Chrijl^ which Bellarmin conf -tjfes, and
is affirmed by Irencciis, EpipJianius, St. Auflin, and Da-
mafcen ?
Wherein now does the KcfivcQxctc appeal from the
Declarations of their Councils., and fenfe of their Church,
to External Ablions ? Does the Council forbid fuch
External Adfs of Adoration, as Kneeling, Bowing,
Offering Incenfe, ^c. to be paid to Images > No it
injoynsit. Does the Council then deny, that the
Worlliip which is paid before the Image, has regard
to the Image ? No, both the Trent Council and Ca-
techifm teach the Worlliip of Images. The wliole
Myftery of this pretended Appeal from their Church
and Councils to External Ad:ions, is no more than this,
that they do not believe the giving fuch Worlliip to
Images, to be giving the Worihip due to God to Ima-
'ges; and the Anfwerer confidering the Nature of thofe
External Adts of Adoration, knows not how to ex-
cufe them from it, but has put him into a way of
"doing it, if he can j if he can either prove, that
External Adoration is no part of Divine Worlliip,
or that they do not give this External Worihip to
Images, or that Divine Worfhip being due to the
Being Reprefented, it may likewife be given to the
Image; then he will grant that they are not guilty
of Worlhiping Stocks and Stones for Gods ; but
till he can do this, he muft give us leave to Inter-
pret fuch Adbions, as all Mankind befides themfelves
Interpret them.
But
( 6s )
But our Refle(3:er did not like tliis , he is for
Judging of Adtions hy tke intention of the Church
that direHs them^ and of the Ferfon that dies them.
Well, and what is their intention in it ? Is it not
to Worlliip Images? Yes, this is the Intention, and
the exprefs Declaration of their Churcli. Riglit!
but their Church does not intend to break the
Second Commandment, and to commit Idolatry in
the Worlhip of Images, and therefore you ought
not to charge this upon them. Very true! nor
did ever any man in the World intend to commit
Idolatry. We charge them not with any'fuch in-
tention ; but if they Worlhip Images, we dcfire to
know how they excufe themfelves from breaking
the Second Commandment, and committing Idola-
try ? Whether they are Idolaters or not, let God
Judg ; but we think we fhould be guilty of Idolatry
if we did it, and, that is the reafon, why we cannot
comply with fuch prad:ifes.
I would only defire to know, wdiether there be
any fuch thing as External and Vifible Idolatry t
If there be, it mull confill in External and Vifible
Adlions, for we can never know w hat mens inten-
tions are, but by their Adlions ; and then if men do
fuch Adlions as are Idolatrous, how can the intention
excufe them from Idolatry > Eipecially no intention
can alter the nature of adlions, which are determin-
ed by a Divine or Human Law; for then men might
Murder, or commit Adultery, or Steal, or For-
fwear themfelves, and yet avoid the fin and guilt of
fuch adrions, by intending to do no eVil in them;
if then the External Adls of Kneeling or Bowing to
or before an Image, diredling fuch Ad:ions to the
Image, be called Woriliiping of them, and are forbid
in
[66)
in the Second Commandment, without any regard
to what intentions men have in doing fo, we put no
other Interpretation upon fuch Adlions, but what
the Divine Law puts upon them; and if they will
venture to Expound them otherwife, and think to
Juflify themielves in doing forbidden AdmnSj by
their good Intentions; Jdwy-oJ+ink they may j but we
dare not.
As for what he fays, that thefe A(5i:ions, luch as
Bowing, Kneeling, ^c. are in-themjelves indifferent^
and capable of being paid t9 God and men; I i ca J.ily
grant it; but is there tiicn ho way to uiftinguiih ee-
tv^en Civil and ReJigious Worfnip , betwcien the
Worlliip of God and men I will tell hirn one In-
fallible Diftindtion, alloM ed by all the reft of man-
kind, -viz. the Worlliip of the Invifible Injiabitants
of the other World, tlio yith fp'eh External .Adlsas
may be paid to Creatures, has alv a}^ been account-
ed Religious Worlhip. Civil Refpedls are confined to
this World, as all Natural and Civil Relations, wliich
are the Foundation of Civil lie fpe^is, are ,• but we have
no IntercQUrfe with the other World, but .what is Re-
ligious. And therefore as the difterent kinds andde-
grees of Civil Honour are diftinguiflied by the light of
the objedt, to which they are paid, tho the External
Adls and Exprelljons are the fame; as when men bow
the Body, and are uncovered, you know what kind
of Honour ft . is by feeing who is prefent, whether
their Father, their Friend, or their Prince, or fome
other Honourable I^erfons j fo the moft certain mark
of diftindtipn between Civil and Religious Worlhip
is this, That the one relates to this World, the other
to the Invifible hihabitants of the next.
But
m
()
But God aHows us to Worfhip no InVifible Being
but himfelf, which would unavoidably confeund tire
Worfliip of God and Creatures.. If the Refle(51cr can
give me any one Inftancc of any Nation in the World)
which did not accoimt tlie Worfliip of all fnwillble
Beings to be Religious, I will own my felf miflaken.
And if all Worfliip of Invifible Beings is Divine and
Religious Worfliip, this puts an end to this Difpute,
and Abigail might fell dow n on her Face before Da'
and the Beggars in Lincolns-Inn-Pieldi may beg
upon their Knees ( as the Refledfer argues ) wdthout
any conJlrUblive Idolatry; but lb cannot a Papift, who
prays to the Virgin Mary, to Saint Peter, and Saint
Paul; now they are in an invifible State, with all the
External Signs of Worfliip and Adoration, excepting
SacrLtice, which we can give to God himfelf. And
as for his fnllance of JoJhuds felling down before the
Angel, when he can prove that this was only a crea-
ted Angel, and that Jojhua took him for no more,
we will confider it farther.
■ Nmv, if to Worfliip any Iiiviflble Being,- be to give
Divine Honours to it; then to be fure, to Worlhip
the Image of fuch an Invifible Being, muR be Reli-
gious Worfliip alfa For if the Worlhip of the Image
be referred to that Invifible Being, whom the^
Image reprefents j it. cannot be Civil, but Religious
Honour.
4. The laft: Complaint is, That the Anfwerer appeals
from their Councils, and fenfe of their Church, to the fen-
timents of fome private Authors. And this I confefs
were ajufl; Exception againft the Anfwer, if it were
true ; but I challenge him to give any one Inflance of
it, wBcrein the An^erer has fet up the judgment of
private Authors againfl; .the declaredSenfe and Judg- -
meat -
( )
mcnt of their Councils and Church. He has indeed
quoted feveral of their Authors, and to very good
purpofe; as to give an account of matter of Fad:,
and what the pradice of their Church is, and what
Opinion Wife Men among them had of fuch pradi-
ces; to which purpofe he cites fome French Authors,
Wkelius^ and F"tves^ ( p. 27, z8.} which our Refleder
is fo much grieved at; or to give an Hiftorical Ac-
count of the Rate of the Controverfie, what it was
before, and what fince the Council of Trent; as about
the worlliip of Images, p. 17. about the necelTity of
ConfelTion, p. 61. or about the Senfe and Interpreta-
tion of fome controverted Texts of Scripture ; or to
Rate the notions of things exprefled, but not defined
by the Council ; as what Merit is; (/>. 57. } for tho
the Church has defined the good works of juRified
Perfons to be truly meritorious, yet it has not told us
what true and proper Merit is, and therefore we muR
learn this from" the allowed and received definitions of
their Divines. Thus the Council has determined due
Honour and Worfliip to be given to Images, but has
not determined twliat this due Honour and Worlliip
is; and therefore we have no way to know it, but by
appealing to the general PracRice of the Church, and
theDo(Rrine of their Divines; which is not to oppofe
the fentiments of private Authors to the judgment of
the Church, but where the Church has not explained
her felf, to learn her fenfe as well as wx can, from th eir
nioR approved Divines. Thus the Council has de-
creed the ufe of Indulgences, but has not defm'd in
what cafes and to what purpofes they may be ufed ;
and therefore when the Reprelenter lays confidently,
that it is only a relaxation of Canonical Penances,
the Authority,and efpecially the argument of Grig, de
Falent.
VaUnt, and Bellarmin are good againft him, tho not
againft their Church, had their Council defined it.
When he allerts that Indulgences are not
lold, the Tax of the Apoflolick Chamber is good Au-
thority againft him; efpecially, if thofe who fell In-
dulgences- receive the Moaey only under the notion of
J Alms, which is allowed by the Council; and when he
denies, that Indulgences do concern the remillion ei-
ther of mortal or venial fins, the Anfwerer might well
, appeal to the very form of the Popes Bulls, which not
only grant the remiliion of fins, but in fome cafes
the plenary, and moft plenary remilTion of fins.
T ' Thus in what cafes the Pope can difpenfe, and in
' I what not, is not determined by the Council, and there-
fore there is no other way of knowing how large this
power is, but by appealing to the pradice of Popes in
J granting Difpenfi-tions, and the Opinions of their Di-
vines and Canonijls about it : And I cannot imagine
J what fhould make the Refle(3:er fo angry with the An-
^ fwerer for ftating this matter, as he fecms to be (/. 17.)
but that he rebukes his confidence by difcovering his
unskilfulnefs in fuch dilputes : Nor do I difcern the
' Anfwerers fault in faying, We know this difpen^ng power
is to be kept as-a great Myfiery^ and not to he made ufe
'PF' of but upon weighty and urgent caufes of great confequence
and benefit to the Churchy as their Dotlrines tho the
Errata^ which a RefleAer ought to have co.nfulted,
'"'j would have told him it fliould be Dolors } declare-'^
® for if their Dodors, who may be prefumed beft to un-
derfland the intrigue, do fay this, what fault did the
Anfwerer commit in faying it after them; and thus it
is in feveral other cafes ; the Anfwerer has alledgtd
the Opinions of their Divines and Cafuifts, Not to .jp-
pofe them to the Authority of the Cimrch, but to
^ karit
( 7° )
learn from them what is the molt received and currant
Dodrine in fuch matters as are not exprefly defined
by their Councils"; and is this like picking up fome
particular fayings out of private Authors, to charge
them upon any Church > .1 do not think my felf con-
cerned to examine his citations out of fome of our Au-
thors, there being fo great a difparity between thefe
two cafes; but if he have dealt by others as he has
done by the Anfwerer, he is a very Mifreprefenter flill.
He fays, The Anfiverer feems to maintain^ that good
works of juflifed perfons are not free. And the Anfwe-
rer indeed does fay, that they are not free, as freedom
is oppofed to a Divine afiiflance in doing them, and to
an antecedent obligation to do them, which freedom is
necefiary to merit; but does this defircy the liberty of
the Will as afiifted by the Divine Grace ? Or will the
Refleder own fuch a freedom as the Anfwerer denies ?
Pagf 17. Thefe are all the material Exceptions the Refleder
has made againft the Anfwer, which come to little
more than lome popular talk; for I do not think the
Vifion of St. Perpetm worth difputing about; and if
he did not think this Vifion gave fome Credit to the
Dodrine of Purgatory, I would know why he men-
tioned it. The Anfwerer does not charge them with
making fuch Vifions and Apparitions, the only Foun-
dation of Pui'gatory; but certainly thole who have
taken fo much pains to tell, if not to invent, fuch Sto-
ries, and to father them upon ancient Writers, did
think that they would do fome fervice to propagate
the belief of it in the World: and if be true, I
know no reafon they have to be aihamed of them, and
notwithfianding all their other arguments, I confefs I
think they want them, |:
V
C 71 )
And now I know nodiing in his Refle<9:ions un-»
anfwered but feme Popular Harangues and Infinuati-
ens; but plain truth, like a true Beauty, needs no Paint
and Varnifli;and therefore I lhall only for a Conclulion
afliire our People,That the Anfwer is every way agree-
able to its Title, the DoBrines and Pra^ifes the
Church of Rome truly Reprefented; and when thisHe-
fledfer, or any one for him, ftiall think fit to examine
any part of it as it becomes men, and Scholars,
they ftiall either have a fair Reply, or a Recantatioo.
C A, CJ'J!.
o T -y-i
I y. J-
< 1
J -jr.
■.onc o .r j> .i'M
vd
,j3ai u-.t")
FINIS.
fudii
■fitefiiti
errata.
■pAg.iS. 1.20, for to altow. r. not to. n. zr. I /^,v w i.,a , ^ ^
i
! ,
i
TH E APOLOGY of the Church of England; And
an Spiftle to one Signior Sdfio^2. Venetian Gen-
tleman, concerning the Council of Trent. Written
both in Latin, by the Right Reverend Father in God,
^HNJE^VEL Lord Bifhop of 5<7m^;^/^.MadeEngli{h
by a Perfon of Quality. To which is added, The Life
of theif'd "F^'^op J CoIle(iled and Written by the fame
Hand.
printed for l(icbard Chilmil at the ^Je and Cromi in St. Pauh
Chnrch'Vtrd, 1685.
no- i
A N
ANSWER
T O A
DISCOURSE
INTITULED,
l&aptOfi againft }S?oteIlatit=''| opcc?;
• Beinga VINDICATION of
Taftjis not Mijrefrefented by Trotejimts:
And Containing
A Particular Examination of Monfieur de ME AV X, late
Biftiop of Condom^ his Expofition of the Docffrine of the
CHURCH oi ROMEy in the Articles
O F
INVOCATION of SAINTS,
AND. THE
WORSHIP of IMAGES,
Occafioned by that Difcourfe*
LONDON:
Printed for John Amery at the Peacock^ and William Rogers
at the Sun; both againfl St. Dunjlans Church in Fleetflreet.
MDCLXXXVI.
Li
fi
■llll
J-J
4
!
1
> V
! ?
u
A N s'w E R
T O
Papifts Procefting
AGAINST
SINCE the Protefter thinks my Anfwer to his Re-
fledlions fo great a Complement, I am refolved to
oblige him a little farther, and to complement him
very heartily, and I fee no reafon, but Complemen-
ting may be as good a word for Difputing as Reprefen-
ting is.
The Reply confifted of two parts, i. Concerning the Mif-
reprefentation of a Papift. 2. Concerning the Rule of true
Reprefenting, and I fhall conlider, what the Protefting Pa-
pilt fays to each of them.
As for the Firft, a Mifreprefenter isfo foul a Charader,
that no Man can wonder, if we think our felvcs con-
cern'd to wipe off fuch an imputation; and therefore I ex-
prefly denied the charge, and made it appear from compa-
ring his own Charaders of a Papift Mifreprefented, and Re-
prefcnted together, that we had not charged them falily in
any matter of Fa(ft, and therefore are no Mifreprefenters:
for if we charge them with believing and doing nothing, but
B what
( 1)
wliat tliey themfelves confefs to be their Faith and Praftice,
wherein is the Mifreprefentatioa? Thus I particularly (how-
ed, that all matters of Fa(a (excepting fome points, where-
in they difown the Do(5lrine of their own Church) in the
Charader of the Papift Mifreprefented, are confeffed and
defended in the Charader of the Papift Reprefented ^ and
the Protefter himfelf acknowledges, that I have learnedly ( as
he is pleafed to fpeak ) dijil»gui/hed between matters, of Dlffute^
andof'Reprefentation-y and" if fo, then he ought to ownj'that'
we do not Mifreprefent them: and this is all I undertook to
pove in the firft part of my Reply, and for that reafon gave
it the Title of, A Pagifi not Mijfigrefented hy ProteJt^ntSy wholly
with relatioti to liis Charader of a Papift Mifreprefented,
which I had proved to contain nothing in it, which in a
ftrid and proper fenfe can be called a Mifreprefentation. We
truly related what the Faith and Pradice of the Church cT
Rome is,and this is true Reprefenting^^ and though we fay their
Faith is erroneous, and their Pradkes corrupt or fuperftiti-
ous', contrary to the Laws of God, and the ufages of the
Primitive Church; yet whether this be true or falfej it is no
matter of Reprefentationbut Difpute; though we believe
thus of their Faith and Pradice, we do not charge them with
believing , fo , and therefore do not Mifreprefent a Papift.
Whether they or we be in. the right is matter of Difpute,
and not to be determined by Charader-making, but by an
appeal to the Laws of God, and the. didates of right Rea-
fon,_and the Authentick Records of the ancient Church.
While we agree about matter of Fad there can be no Mif-
reprefenting on either fide, for there is a great deal of dif-
fer.ence between a Mifreprefentation, and a falfe Judgment of
things; and thus I hoped, the talk of Mifreprefcnting would
have feen at an end.
But our Author, though he confeftes I am in the right,
will have us to be Mifreprefencers ftill ; He fays, I declare
flainly^ that Popery is really that AntkhrijUan Religion^ which Pro-
tejlants fay it is., that it teaches and praElifes all thofe fopperies^ fu-
perfiitions and non-fenfey which have at any time been charged againft
it by Prctefiants. But I never faid any fuch thing yet, but only
faid and proved, tlrat all matters of Fad complained of in
(n .
the Giarai^er of a Papift MifreprejeiKed, are owned by
himfelf in the Character of a Papift Kep'rerentc'd •, and this, I
thought, was proof enough, that We were no Mifreprefenters.
But the Title of my Reply offends him, A Pafifi mt M'tfre^re-
fe»t»d hy Protefiants, which he fays, u a cmdemrtdtion of the Re-
Ugion to all thefe horridJhapes and monjlrous forms^ it has been at
any time expofed in hy Aicmbers of the Reformation'^ by no means I
If tiiere have been other Mifreprefentations of them,which our
Author has not yet given us an account of, I can fay nothing
to them, till I fee what they are s but my Title related only
to my Book, and that related only to the Ciiarader of a Pa-
pift Miireprefented, which our Author had given us, and 1
undertook for that then, and will defend it ftill, that there is
no Mifreprefentation in it.
Of the fame nature is what he adds, Tiiat I tell my Reader
in the name of all my Brethren^ rve charge them ( the Papifts)
nothing, but what they exprefy Rrofefs to believe^ and what they
praBife •, and thuS 0ys the Protefter, in this one ajfertion vouches
for the truth of all that tnfamy, and prophanenefs, which is laid at
their doors: and thus, for ouglit I fee, I am drawn in for a
great deal mOre than I intended s I fpoke with reference to
his Charadlers, and how I muftdifcharge ^he fccres of all
Prbteftants fipce the beginning of the Refonnation 5 but
when a Man's in, he mutl get out as well as he cah : but \y6uld
not one wonder, that there fhould hot be one \yord of his
Own Charaders all this while ? tliat inftead of defending
his own Mifreprefentations, which he has fo unjuftly fatlier'd
Upoh us, he fhould, be hunting about to pick up fpme new
Mifreprefentations for me to anfvvef ? 'there muft be a rea-
fon for this, and T believe, I can guefs 'wliSt it is.^
But however he tak^ this occafion to ranfack the Wri-
tings of . Proteftants, and to fee v;hat fine things they have
faidof Papifts, and to colled a new Gharader of a Papift
Mifreprefented out of them. Forjince all that proceeds fronidPa-
pi/h hand of, this nature is fufpeBed and challenged, aHd the doublp
Charter of a Pdpifb Mifrehrefentedand Reprefented f about which,
as the Replier fays, there is jb much pother and Hoife ) is epysefiioned
Jas to itj 'method, its Jihcerity, and erxaUnefs, we'll mw follow our
Auihr s calif and learn what Popery is, from the Pens of Prote-
B 2. # Jlants,
( 4 )
fiants^ und effttial^ from fame of thofe, who are ftfffofed to hpapr
what Poftry is. And thus our Author makes as many turnings
and doublings as ever any poor Hare did, which was almoft
run down. B^aufe Iliave proved, that his Charadler of a
Papift Mifreprefented, contains no Mifreprefentation in it,
properly fo called, therefore forfooth we will not take Cha-
rafters from a Papift, becaufe we confute them, as foonas
they make them, which is not very civil s and therefore
- hoping that we will be more civil to Proteftant Charafters,
he turns off the Difpute to them^ never did any Man take
more pains to defend Popery, than he does to prove a Pa-
pift to be Mifreprefented s it feems there is fomething in the
World called Popery, which he is very much alhamed of,
and it is well if it does not prove to be his own beloved
Popery at laft,
I had told him as plainly as I could in Anfwer to his Gha-
rafter of a Papift Mifreprefented, what I called Popery, and
what I take to be the general fenfe of Proteftants about it,
and ftiewed him evidently, that what he calls a Mifreprefen-
tation is none ^ nay in moft cafes I have allow'd his own Cha^
rafter of a Papift Reprefented, and furely there is no Mifre-
prefentation in that,unlefs he has mifteprefented a Papift liim-
felf 5 and why is he not fatisfied with this? why fo much Zeal
to prove us Mifreprefenters, when ^^'e are willing to fall with
the Market, and to abate as much in the Notion and Idea of
Popery, as they are pleafed to lower it? Why muft we be
bound to juftifie that Reprefentation of Popery, which fome
Proteftants have formerly made of it, when Popery was quite
another thing, than the Biftiop Condom, and the Reprefenter
have now made it, any more than they are bound to juftifie
every thing, which Thomas J^uinas, or BelUrmin, or Vafquer.
have taught for Popery ?
But let us confider that Charafter, he has made of a
Papift out of the Writings of Proteftants, only I muft
put him in mind , that he muft ftill diftinguifh between
matters of Reprefentation and Difpute. If the matter of
Faft they charge them with be true, they are no Mifre-
prefenters 5 as for their Reafons and Arguments, I will
no more undertake to defend all the realonings of I^o*
teftants,
4
( 5 )
teftants, than I fuppofe, our ProteHcr will all ths reafon-
7®! ings of Papifts.
wm\ jj^g gj.[t Mifieprefenter, he brings upon the Stage, is
^r}foh>f Lord Archbilhop of Tork,\n his Manual or three fmall
' and plain Treatifes, written for the ufeofaLady, to pre-
(erve iier from the danger of Popery. And all that I mall
looDj to this, is, that if what he tranfcribes out of his Book, be
KtWrt a Mifreprefentation, it is not a Proteftanr, but a Popilh,
Mifreprefentation. For the Archbifhop cites his Authors
MJiii for what he fays, as the very Title of the Chapter tells us,
which I ftiall here prefent to the Reader, \vich all the Rcr
ferences and Authorities as they are Printed in his Book, and
leave the Proteller to confider of a good Realbn, why he
D bdjTi left all thefe Autliorities our.
It 1 • -
CHAP. VI.
DO,ft f^afons of refufal to lea^e tk ^mijh ^ligtotiy
colleBed out of Trinted Authors,
toMni
lOlhil
rliidifB
yKp
Itojfa
01 fk
B'
llElffI
DO life
DC,
I cannot leave my Religion.
I. Reafe/t,
Ecaufe we muft fimply believe the Charch of Rome^
whether it teach true or falfe. Sta^l. Antidot in Evani.
Lnk. 10. 1(5. fag. yz8.
And if the Pope believe there is no life to come^ we muft
believe it as an Article of our Faith.. Bulgradns.
And we muft not hear Pmefiant Preachers, though they
preach the Truth. Rhem. ugonTit. 3. lo., And for yourScri-
pture, we little weigh it. For the Word of God, if it be
not expound^ as the Church of Rome will have it, is the
IJ word of the Devil HoRms de exprejfo verba Dei.-
It
■ IL Rtafon..
di
(<5)
II. ReafoH.
You rely too much upon the Goffel^ and S. Pauts Epiftles
In your Religion j whereas, the Gofpel is but a Fable of
Chrift, as Pope Leo the tenth tells us. A^ol. of H. Ste^h^
fol, 35-8. Smtm. cbntra Hamilton pag 104.
And the Pope can difpenfe againft the New Tefiament. Ph.
normit, extrA de divortiie.
And he may check, when he pleafeSjthe Epiftles of S.
Carolus Ruintu Condi. lop. nnm. i. Volttm.
And controul any thing avouched by all the Apoftfe.
'Rota, in d&cif. I. tim. 3. in novif. Anton. Maria in addit. d
dedf. Rot£ nov. de Big. n. I o. And there is an eternal Gofpcl,
to wit, that of the Holy Ghofi, which puts down Chrifls. cu
reUw a Carmelite fet it forth.
III. Reafon.
You attribute all yourSalyation to Faith in Chrift alone.
Whereas, He is the Saviour of Men only, but of no Wcmeit.
Dial, of Dives and Pauper, compl. 6. dted by Rogers upon the
Artie. ZTt^Poflellm infejuits Catech. I. i. cap. 10.
5, Clare.
For Women are^
faved by
Mother Jane.
Bo?^. in Morn, de
Ecclef. cap. p.
Poflellus in fefu.
^its Catech. Lib. S,
cap, lb.
N,,
kit
ii:
['Mi.3
Nay to fpeak properly, S. Prdncu hath redeeined as ina-
ny, as are ftived fmce his days. Conformit. of S. Fran.
And the blood of S. Thmas a Hor. Scat. J7rg.
And fometimes one mati, by his fatisfadtions, redeems an^
other. Pcfi. Rhem. in iJow. 8.17.
IV.
I
f
( 7 )
IV. Re/ifon.
Pttfst'In your Chjirch there Is but one way to remiflTion of
Hit a^hich you call Faith in Clirift, but we have many. For
iiifG put away ^
Drtwi'i
ioiflKii
:»ur^
Aiortals, by
VenialsjVl\\h a little Holy Water,?'•/, Rhem. in Rom.%. 17.
f I. Merits of die B. Virg. B. Virg.
The Blood of Beckett lb.
3, Agnos Dei, or Holy Lambs, Cerent.
L 1 .1. 7>
4, Litde parcels of die Gofpel, Brevinr.
■ <). Becoming Francifcms,co^,l. \ .fol. 101.
6. A Bidiops pardon for 40 days, a
I Cardinals for an 100. days, and
the Popes for ever.
Taxa Gamer, afttd. Eff.in i ad Tint.
r.Cc
'"nf^ You ftand too precifely upon your and requirea
' je Faith, in the partakers. Whereas with us, to become
Monk^, or a Nm, is as good as the Sacrament of Baptifm.
, ^ qvin. de Dgref, Relig. I. z.e. zl.
And the very true, and real Bodj of chrifi may be de-
'/•'fhuredof Dogs. Hogs, Cats and Rats, Alex. Hales, part^
, f. 4j. Thorn parte 3. 8. art. 3.
'tnljif
VI. Reafon.
io,
, Then for your Minifters, every one is allowed to have
tvifeor elfe inforced to live chajily : whereas with
. the Pope himfelf cannot difpenfe with a Prieft to marry,
Hsr.kt more than he can priviledge him to take a Purfe. Tttr-
found fault withal by Ca^an. confalt. art.zp,.
But Whoredom is allowed all the year long. .y^^SparksV
fcovery, pag. 13. and canfiitut. Othen. de concnbit. Cleric, re-
vend.
And
(8 )
And another fin for June^ which you muft
not know of : Allowed for thu lime by SixtUS QuartUS to aS
the Family of the Cardinal of S. Lucie, Vepl. Grovingenf. trail,
de indulgent, chat, d facoh. Laurent, 'jefuit. lib. fag. 1^6, vide
fo. r^olpi leHion. mentorab. cent-en. I J-83^.
For indeed rhe wickednefs of the Church men is a prime
Argument of the woi thinefs of the Roman ChurcL Bellar.
I. 4. de Rom. Pont. cdf. Uf. artic. z8.
And the Pope can make that righteous, which ist*»righte-
eus, I. I. Decretal. Greg. tit. 7. f. y.
And yet can no Man fay unto him, Sr, why do you fo^
Jn extrav, torn. ti. tilul. ^. c. ad Afoftolatsu.
V IL and lafl Reafon,
You in tlie Qiurch of England have call oiF the Bilhopof
Rome, whereas the Bifhop of Rome is a God. Lift, 96. c.
fatis evidenrer, Panorm. eaf. Quanta Abbas.
The Ufe and Application of this Dodlrine you may find '
in the next Chapter, and a particular proof that fome Do-
(Strines of the Roman CllUrch defray juflke towards Men h
all relations •, as the Popes power of difpenftng roith the duties of*
all delations : their Dolhrines of probabilities, of mental refet'
vations, that the intention regulates the aSfion, that no Faith is
to be kept whh Heretickf •, that the Pope may depcfe Princes, and
difpofe of their Kingdoms, pardon, nay canonize King-killers, andab-
folve Subjelks from their Allegiance^ &C.
I know our Author calls all this Mifreprefentation, but
that is not our Difpute now •, but whofe Mifreprcfentation
it is. It is plain, this is not Preteflant but Popi/h Popery for,
not Proteftants, but Papifts, were the Original Authors:'
And I doubt not, were it worth the while, it might eafily
be proved, that the groffeft Mifreprefentations, which this
Author charges on Proteftants, are only tranfcribed out of Po-,
piili Authors s and this he feems to own, when he is fo angry!
with us for proving thefe Mifreprefentations, as he calls them,
by appealing to their own private, but approved,Dodors,who
have in plain terms aflerted thofe things, which poor Pro-
teftants muft not repeat after them, vvichouf incurring the
Cenfure of Mifreprefenters.
Now
( 9 )
Now though we grant, that every Doiftrlne,. which w-e
find in Popifh Authors, ought not to he accounted an Article
of theRomilh Faith, yet if fuch Books be publiOied by the
authority of Superiors, and when tliey are publiHied and
known in the World, efcape the InquifTtion and the Index
exfmg^ton'Ks, the Dodrines contained in them ought at leaft
to be looked on, as licenfed and tolerated Dodrines, and
•therefore.confiftent with the Romilh Faith, not a Mifre-
prefentation of it- For will a Church fo ftrid and: ievere
itJ 'itsDifeipline, and fo ■ jealous of Herefies, which cenfures ■
^1. die Ancient Fathers, and expunges out of their Writ-
ings every pa0age, which in the leaft favours; of Here-
lie.-,' wliich will not entruft the People to'ufc the Bible
for fear of their learning Herefie from it 5 1 fay will fuch a.
Church fuffer their ownDodors to publidi fUch Opinions-
to the World, as Mifreprelent her own Faith and Wor^
lliip,. without condemning, or pafling the leaft cenfure on
tl;ena ?-■
And therefore, though we cannot prove from thefe pri-
vate-Dodors,. what the Faith of the Church of Rome is
and wliat all are bound to believe, ivho are of chat Com-
munion, yet: by their Authority- we may confute the charge
of Mifreprefentation. For no Proteftant can be juftly ac-.
cufed of Mifteprefencing the Dodriries of the Church of'
Jiome, who charges them with no Dodrines,. but what are
allowed to betaught in that Church, as all thole Dodrines-
are, which are allowed by publick Authority to" be Printed
and Read in die Communion of that Qiurch, efpedally,-as
I obferved before, where the Prefs'is-kept under fuch IRid
Difcipline, as it is in the Church of Rome.
We muft not indeed charge all Papifts with believing
fuch Dodrines, becaufe all are not bound to believe them,.
as they are to believe the Decrees and Definitions of their
Councils; but we may Fay, that they are not contrary, to
the Faith of the Church, becaufe all. Papifts are allowed to
believe them, who will; for Iprefume all Men are allow-
ed to believe that, which any Man among them is allow-
ed to teach.
_ However-I iiope, it may be fome excufe to the Arch-
billiop, that be i^repiefents only ac- lecond hand, (fince
C our
( lo )
our Author will have it to a Mifreprelentation) and
fays no more than fome Papifts themfelves fay, and re-
folves all into the Credit and Authority of his Authors;
and I cannot think it a greater fault in a Proteftant to give
an account of fuch pernicious Dodlrines and Opinions, as
are owned by fome of their own Writers, than it is in the
Church of Rome tofuffer them to be publifhedby Autho-
rity, and to pafs without any Cenfure, if they diilike the
Do^rine.
As for what he tranfcribes out of Dodtor Bea,rd^ and
Mr. Sutclif, I prefume, he intended we Ihould take it all
upon his Authority 5 for he has not diredtedus, where to find
any of thofe paflages lie has cited, and it is a little too much
to read two great Books in Quarto to pick them out. With-
out looking on the Books we might eafily perceive, that
thofe fayings he has tranfcrib«d out of them, do not con-
cern Reprefenting but Difputing, and I never undertook to
juftifie every faying in Proteftant Writers againft Popery j
but yet fome things founded fo harfli, that I vehemently
"fufpedled foul play, and therefore had the curiofity to exa-
mine, and found it to be,_ as I fufpedled. Some paf&ges for
which they produce their Authorities, and that very good
Authorities as the World went then, are cited by the Pro-
tefter, without any Authorities, as he d^t before with the
Archbilhop 5 or what they prove by variety of reafons, is na-
kedly Reprefented without any reafon to back it 5 or their
words are curtailed, or tranfplaced, which alters their (enfe
and fignification. I fliall give fome few inftances of this out
of Mr. Sntcliffj to let the World judge, v/ho are the Mif-
reprefenters.
^otittiotis opit of JUr. Sutcliff the
Papifts Protefting, &c, Mr. SutcliffV Survey of Popery.
THey fpeak what tinally they lay, they are obfcure
they canin dilgrace X and hard to be underftood,
of the Holy Scriptures. thej ffeak^what they can in difgrace of
the Holy Scriptures. P. 6.
They give the Office of Chrift's They give the offer, &c. teaching
mediation to the \'irgin Mary, to that by their Merits Chriftians oh-
tain
p. 12.
('«)
Angeis and to Saints, they make
affo Saints our Redeemers.
They overthrow Grace and aT
cribe the merit of our Salvation
not to Gods mercy through Chrift,
not to tlie merit of his P^ffion,
but properly: to our own Works
and MeritSi
They cut out the Second Com-
mandment becaufe it cannot ftand
with the Popifli worfhip of Images.
They pray before Stocks and
Stones, nay they put their truft in
them.
Papifis think tiiey do God good
fervice, when they murder true
Chriffians.
By the Dodrine of Papifts the
Devils of Hell may be faved.
Papifts blafphemoufly make
Chrift; not only a defperate Man
without hope, but alfo an Infidel
without Faith, p. 13.
Tiiat Chrift is not the Redeemer
of ail Mankind.
tain tfielr defires, and are delive-
red out of Purgatory, ihid.
Albeit they exclude not Grace
from the work of our Salvation,
yet making Grace a Habit or Ver-
tue, they everthroiv Grace, &C. 5?.
They cut out the Second Command-
meat iff the Offices of our Lady
and their Primers, hecaufe, dec. Ik
Nay they put their truft in them
for if this were not fo, why fliOuld
they hope for better fuccefs at the
Image of our Lady of Loretto or
MorTferat, than at any other Image
or form of our Lady? 10.
Proved from the cruel Executi-
ons in England, France, Germany ,
Spain, p. 23.
They teach, that the Devils of
Hell may Jiave true Faith, but cue
Saviour faith fohn 3. that whofoever
believeth in hini (hail not pefipj, btit
have everlafiing life. So it follovt^
eth by the DoFrine of Papijls, that
the Reprobates, and in Hell
may be faved. p. 28.
They take from Chrift both
Faith and hope. Aqui. p. 3. q, 7. art.
4. So that which they falfely obje-
ded to Calvin doth rightly fall up-
on the Papifts— that they blafphemouf
If make Chrif, &C.
They affirm the Virgin Mary to
be conceived-without original Sin ,
&c. of which it follows, that
Chrifl is not the Redeemer of all Man-
hind, for what needed they a Re-
deemer,who were not born linners ?
A C2 They_
' f.
;l
( 11 )
. They make Chfift inferiour to
Saints ,and Angels^
They prefer the Pope before
Ciirift.
To the Images of the Crofs and
Crucifix, they give as much ho-
.aoiir as is due to God./. 14,
They fall down like Beafts
fore die Pope, and worfhip him
.as Godr afcribing.to him moft blaf-
phemoufly the honqur due to Chrlft.,
•
They give divine honour tolma--
gesj which they themfelves c^not
deny to be Idolatrous.
They fay Mafles in honour of
Angels and Saints, but he, inwhofe
vhonour a Sacrifice is offered y is
greater than the Sacrifice: doth ic •
not then appear* that while they
offer Chrifts Body and Blood in
honour of Saints and Angels, they
make Chrifi inferior to Saints and jIn-
gels ? p. 42.
They prefer the Rope before Chrifiy
for Chrift's Body, wlien the Pope
goeth in prpgrefs, is fent before
with the Baggage^ and when the
Pope is near, goeth out to meet
him, while all the Gallants o^Rome.
attend on the Pope./-. 43.
Tot the Images^ &C.—teaching
their followers, that it is but one
honour given to the Image, and
the thing Reprefented by the Image.
/• 74*
They fail down, &C. Paulas r^mi-
Uhs 1.2. telleth, how the Ambaffa-
dors of Sicily cried thus to the Pope,
Thou that takefl away the fins of
the World have mercy upon us.—
Stapleten tO (Preg. \ 3. caifs him fu-
premum numen in terris : They gall
him Vicar of Chriff, the Monarch
of the Church, die Head, the
Spoufe, the foundation of the
Church, afcrihing to him mojt- blaf^
phemoufly the honour due toChrif,p. j2._
They confefs it Idolatry to give
divine honour to Creature. But
they give divine honour to the Sa-
cament, to the Crofs,and, to Images
of the Trinity^ which, I hope, they
will not deny to be Creatures.
The
( '3 )
The Rpmiflb Churcb confifts of
a Pack of Infidels, f. i j..
Scripture and Fathers they read
not.
In a member of the Cathollck
Church (they fay ) neirhet int^'ard
Faith nor other virtue is required
but only that he profefs outwardly
the Romilb Religion, and be fob-
jeft totbe Pope.
They make moteConfcienceto
abftain from flefh on than
to murder ChriftianSi
Faith is of things (as the Papifts
(ay in their Catechifm) only pro-
pofed to us by the Church 5 fo
that if the Church propofe not to
us the Articles of Faith, we are not
to believe them, if thele Men teach
truth. Further this flieweth, the
Rsmifh Church conjtfls of a pack, of
fdels % for if the fam.e believed not
without the authority ofthe Church,
then fhe did believe 'nothing Or
. Chrift, feeing the Papifts acknow-
ledge no other Church but that of
Rome-, and do Church can teach it
fclf. p. 178.
Spoken of the Schoolmen (riOt
of all Papifts) upon the authority
of Ferdiriando p. 200.
This Opinion he attributes to
Cardinal BelUrmin and cites de Ec-
clef, milk, tap. i.
Divers point? of Popifti. Do-
drine are efpecially faid to proceed
from the Devil.
The^ rhake more Cofifilcnc'e, 8cc. as
thdf cUriofity in keeping the Faft,
and their cruelty in iiiaftacring
QiriRians declares,
Hcinftances iri forbidding Mar-
rlage, and commanding to abftain
from meats i which he fays are
called in Scripture Dodlrines of
Devils*
That the Poptfh church hath nb true Bifhbps^ that Popery la many points is
mre abfard and abominahk than the Cbilrine c/MahOmet: That Papifis ,
that pojitively hold ihe heretical andfalfeDoblrinei of the modern Church ^Rome,
cannot pojfibty befaved, are the Titles of feveral Chapters, in which he en-
deavours to make good thefe charges, how well let our. Author confider 5
but all meawiil fee, diat this is not Reprefeming but Difputihg;
This.
( 14 )
Tliis is, abandantly enough to givo die Reader-a taft of the ^(^efters
honehy in Reprefentingi and how little t am concerned in thefe Quotar
tions. If fome procetonts kive charged the t)b6trines and Praaices of
the Cliurch of Rome with fuch confequences as they cannot juftihe, \vi-
fer ProceRants difown it, andPapifts may confute it, if they pleafc, which
•will be a little more to the purpoie, than to cry out fo Tragically about
Mifreprefenting.
But to make good this charge of Mifreprefenting againftus, he con-
eludes with ieveral paffagesout of the HomilieSjConcerningtheworuiipaf
Saints and Images. Now if our Church be guilty of Mifreprefenting
in her very Homilies, which we are all bound to fubfcribe,_ vre muft
acknowledge our felves to be Mifrepretenters. But wherein does the
Mifreprefencation confift ? Do^ they not fet up Images in Churches ? And
do they not worfliip them.? Have they not a great number of &ints,whom
they worfliip with Divine Honours ? The matter of fa£t is plain and
confcffed, and therefore our Church does not Mifreprefent. them. So
that the only Miixeprefentatlon he can complain of, is, that he does not
like the judgment of our Church about the worfliip of Saints and Images,
and we cannot help that. This is the belief of our Church, and this is
our belief, and let him prove us to be Mifreprelenters in. this, if he can^
for that is not proved meerly by his calling it Mifreprefenting.
Only I would gladly know of this Author, what he takes the judg-
mentof the Ciurch of England to be about the worfliip of Images?
"Whether it be Idolatry or not? If he thinks our Church charges tliem
with Idolatry in worfhippinglmages, ( which 1 fuppofe he means when
he complains of Mifrepreientation, and picks out fome paflages,. whiA
look that way ) there is the authority of Dodor Godden againft Him (uar
lefs he has changed his mind lately) who accufes Dr. St. with contradift-
ing the Church of England in his charge of Idolatry upon the Churcli of
Rome., and makes it a certain mark of Fanaticifm to do fo: and then hon^
ever we maybe thought to mifreprefent the Church of in. this
charge of Idolatry, we do not mifreprefent the Church of England in it,
which is fome fatisfadtion to us, that we are not Mifreprefenteis on both
fides. But tiiefe Men take great liberties in Reprefenting the Faith and
Dodrines of Churches. In one Kings Reign the Church of England does
not charge the Church of Rome with idolatry, in the next it does j. thougii
. their Articles and Homilies be the fame ftill: but they deal with the
Church of England 110 wotfe than they do with their own Church*, in one
Age a BelUrmlne ti uly Reprefents the Dodrine of their Church, in an-
other a Biihop of Condom •, and though die Coimcil of Trent be bat
one
I ^.
itUl
■( 15 )
•ae and the foiuc, the Faitli of it alters very often, as it tnty
bejft ferve the interefl of the Cacholick Caafe-
Our Author having expofed tke Proteftsirt CimaEler (as
Mix calls It) of a Papifi, nfhieh he alreajs looked upon m other,
than of a Papifl Mifreprefented, he falls a Commending the zeal 17. '
jCLi, of Proteflants againftfuch Popery with great earneTtnefsand
palTion, and therein we agree with him, as believing it to be
It: very commendable •, and do not doubt ( as he fays) but
thefe Martyrs recorded by Fox, who for not embracing this Popery
faffed the fiery Try at, had furely a glorious Caufe, and that the
^ W Triumphs and Crowns of Glory, which waited for them in Heaven,
-n^ere not inferior to what thofe enjoyed , who fuffered under Tfzcius
k" or Diocleiian. I agree with him alfo, that there is no need of
jffe any longer difagreement, that there is no necejpty of keeping up names -of
t iSfi divijion 5 that Protejkant and Papifi may now fhake hands, and by one
eUllH fubfcription clefe into a Body, andjoyn in a fair and amicable cor-
kks refponeknce \ For if (ashefays) there is no Papift, but will
DtSIti: pve his hand for the utter fuppreffing this kind of Popery, I fee no P- ti.
(i* reafon, why they may not joyn in Communion with the
Church of England which has fuppreffed it. But I am not of
fflOij his mind, that all the Strife has been about a word j for the
•ifis Difpute has been about the Worlhip of Saints, and Images,
liiijiiih about Tranfubftantktion, worfhipping the Hoft, Commu-
iikf men in one kind, Ser\dceinan unknown Tongue, the au-
■If m thoricy and the ufe of the Holy Scriptures,the Sacrament of Pe-
.jsiiipi nance. Indulgences, Purgatory, the Popes Supremacy, and
25^ J feveral other material difeences 5 which are fomething more
thana meer Word 5 will they now part with all thefe Do-
itrines and Pradfices,/w<; thiy have been informed by great and
j) i'X'd authorities,whsx. the nature and evil tendency of thefe things
juu'is? No I by no means, they will retain all thefe Dodtrines and
Pradtices ftill,but will renounce and abhor all that evil, which
Proteftants charge them with- They will pray to Saints, and
0 worhiip Images ftill, but they will abhor all Heathenifh Idoda-
try in fuch Worfhip, d-r.but what reafon is this for Proteftants
■ g, to joyn with them in one Communion, while they retain the
• fame Faith and Worlhip, which at firft made a feparation ne-
Hjj, ceflkry, and we retain the fame opinion of their Faith and
Worlhip, which ever we had ? If F^pifts be the fame, &Pro-
teftants the fame, that ever they were, if Separation were
once
( i6 )
•once neceffary, furely it is fo ftill. What cjhange is thei^
now in Papifts, which was not bef9re, that ihould now in-
vite us to-mibrace their Communion ? Yes they abhor all
that wliieh Proteftants call Popery. This is good news, but
let us- a little better underhand it. Do they abhor the Wot-.
Ihip of Saints and Images, and the Hoft? Do they abhor
theDt^rines of Tranlubftantiation, Penances, Indulgences,
Purgatory ? Do they Renounce the Popes Supremacy, cr-c.
no fuch matter .' but they abhor thofe Opitiions-, wbfchPro-.
teftants liave of thefe things s did they-then ever believe that-
thefeDo6trines and Praaices were fo bad, as Protehants ab
ways did, and to this day, fay they are? if not, what change
is therein them, that flapuld invite us now to a rec-onciliati-
on? Did Proccftants feparate from Papifts, becaufe tb^ be-^
lieved, that Papifts thought Idolatry lawful ? If not^ why
is> their abhorring Tdolat^, while they do the fame things,
:t:hat ever they did, a fumcient reafon for a re-union? Sup-
pofe fome Comnaon-wealths-men, who take up Arms a-
gainft tire King„ ftrould tell the Royalifts, who fight for him,
that they have all this while miftaken one another, that for
tlieir parts they hate Rebellkm, as much as they can do, and
have been greatly roifreprefented by thofe who have called
them Rebels s the firife has hee>t only ahnt a wordj and therC-
fore it is time for them now to joyn all together, not in their
duty to their Prince, but in oppofing him*, though I dare
not fmile at our Author for fear of his difpleafurc again, yet
I fancy a good Subject would entertain fuch a propofal with
a very difaainful ftnile.
And therefore as^ for mlfreprefenting, our Author may
complain on till he is a weary, but he can never prove us
CO be Mifreprefenters, while they ftill own that Faith and
Worflrip, which we charge them with, and if he thinks we
cenfure their Dodriaeand Worlhip too feverely, let him vin-
dicate it, when he can.
In my Reply I confidered, what were the faults of his two-
fold Char after of Pafifl mifrefrefented^ and reprefented, and
fhall now briefly examine, what he fays to it.
As for the Charadter of a Papift niifreprefcnted, I obfer-
ved, I. Thsit he fat fuch things into the Charadler^ as no Man in
his vpits ever charged thern^mth',. AS) that Papifis are not permitted
t)
f 17 )
to hear Sermons^ rehlch they are ahle to tcaderjland, or that they keUh
lawful to commit Idolatry ^ or t -.at the Paptjl Relieves the P(fe to be bis
great God, and to be far above all Angels^ whIch the Allfvverer calls
Childljh and wilful mtfiakes. And yet ( fays the Pl'Oteller, p. 19, J
thofe very things almojl in exprefs terms, and others far more abfurd,
■we fee cha-rged on them, as Is jhewed above 5 that is in the Quotati-
ons out of the Archbiiliop and others. But I can fee no fuch
thing, unleis the Supremum mimen in terrls ( as Stapleton calls Greg.
13.) fignifie that the Pope is their great God, and then I iciuft
beg his pardon, that I did not think any Man in his wits fo lilly,
as it feems fome of their own great Divines have been, for this
is not a Proteftant, but a Popifli reprefentation cf them.
2. I found fault. That the Opinions of Protefiants concerning Po- Reply
pifh DoEirines and PraElices, and thofe ill co-nfequents -which are charged
and jufily charged upon them, are put into the CharaEter of a Papifi
mifreprefe-nted, as if they -were his avowed DoElrine and Belief. For
whoibever gives a Character of a Papift, ought only to repre-
fent, what his Faith and Pradice is, not what Opinion, he, who
gives the Charader, has of his Faith and Pradice: for this does
not belong to the Charader of a Papift, but only fignifies his
own private Judgment, who gives the Charader; uhile we
charge Papifts only with matter of Fad, wiiat they believe and
what they pradife, this is a true Charader, and no Mifrepre-
fenting*, but if we put our owm Opinions of his Faith and Pra-
dice into his Charadfer, this is Milreprefenting, becaufea Papift
has not the fame Opinion of thcfe things, which we have, and
this makes it a ftlfe Charader.
To this the Protefter anfwers p. ^0. This is a pretty fpeculative
quarrel, I confefs, and might dejervedlyfind room here, were » ■ our buftnefs
to confder the due method of mifreprefentatien in the abftraEl: But as our
prefe-nt concern fiatids,here's a quaint conceit loft for coming in a wrong place.
For what had the Author cf the Alifreprefentation todowiththefe Rules ?
He did not intend to mifreprefent any Body. This is very pleafailt ! a
Man, who undertakes to make Charaders, is not bound to con-
ftder, what a Charader is, nor what belongs to reprefenting, nor
mifreprefenting. Any Man would have thought lb indeed, who
had read his Charaders, but I never expeded, tiiat he iliouin ■•e
faid fo But he did not inte-nd to mifreprefent a-ny Body, and therefore
had nothing to do with thofe Rules 5 but he intended, it feems,
to give an account, how Papifts are mifreprelented by Proteftants,
and therefore ought to have underftood, what is Mifreprefenting,
and not have called that Mifreprefenting, which is not.
D But
( i8 )
But his Province ( he feys) only to dravn forth the CharaBer of a'
Papifi, ris it is commonly apprehended hy the Vulgar or the Adultitudsy
■with the common prejudices and miflakes. that generally att end fuch a no^
tion. Now J Tvouldfain k^powy whether this CharaBer, as it lies in the
Peoples he ads y is difiinguifihed into antecedents and confequentsi, nhe-
ther they, when they hear ene declaiming againft Popery for committing
Idolatry, as bad or worfe than that of the greffejl Heathens, worfhipping
Stocks and Stones for Gods, dijlinguifheth between the DoBrine of the
Papijds, and thefe interpretations, and confe^uences charged againfl it..
P- 23> Thus in fliort he tells US» The CharaBer of a Papifi Mifrepre-
fented was inte'nded only, a^s the Author exprejfes himfelf in his intro-
duBion, for a Copy of Popery as painted in the imagination of the Vulgar,
and if it be conform to that, it is exaB andperfeB and if there be any.
faults in it, the blame mufl faU on thofe, who drew the Original. This
is the fum of his excufe for putting fuch things into the Qia-
rader of a Papift Mifrepcefented, as do not belong to Charader-
making, nor are in a ftrid and proper fenfe Mifreprefentations».
That the common People, who do not diftinguifli between An-
tecedents and Confequents, have fuch an idea and notion of a
Papift, as he has defcribed in the Charader of a Papift Mifre-
reprefented.. Well, fuppofe this, how does this mend the mat-
ter ? If Iris Charader of a Papift Mifreprefented, be no mifre-
prefentation, then our People, who have this' notion of a Pa-
pift, arenotMifreprefenters. Now this is that, which I under-
took to prove in my Reply, That there is nothing of mifrepre-
fentation, properly fo called, in his Charader of a Papift Mifre-
prefented ; It is a faUe Charader indeed, becaufe it contains fuch
things, as are not matters of Reprefentation, but of Difpute,2nd;
therefore do not belong to a Charader-, but feparate matters of Fad
from matters of Opinion and Difpute,as I have particularly done in
my Reply,and the Charader of a Papift Mifreprefented contains no •
matter of Fad, excepting fome very few things, but what the Cha-
rader of the Papift Reprefented owns. And therefore as far as it
can be called a Charad€r,it is a true one. And if this ( as he fays) be
a Copy of Popery as painted in the imagination of the Vulgar, Original:
can have no more ofmifreprefentationin it, than the Copy lias.
But though tlie Protefter does acknawledge, that there is a:
real diffprence, bet ween Reprefentingthe Dodrines and Pradices
of Papifts,. and declaring- our own Judgment and Opinion
concerning .them , he fufpecds tlie People do not difiinguifh.be'
tween- Antecedents and. Confequents , between the DoBrincs cf the
Papifis. and. thefe: interpretations and confsqucnces charged, on it.
'9 )
They fwallove all down greedily in the Inmg^ [Antecedents and Con-
fequents go down with them all at once. BuC what doCS he mean
by this ? that any Proteftant People arc fo filly as to think
tliat Papifts believe as bad of their own Religion, as they be-
lieve of it ? That Papifts believe Idolatry to be lawful, as
he tells us in the Charadler of a Papift Mifreprefented 5 or
that they believe the Worfliip of an Image to be Idolatry ?
no, I afliire him, our People are taught, what Popery is in
its genuine gfsrity, as he fpeaksj they know in the moft mate-
rial points, what the Dodlrine of the Church of Rome is, and
are taught, what to think of it 5 and when they hear or read
our Difputes againft the Church of Rome, they are not fo weak
as to believe, that we and Papifts have the fame Opinions
about Worfliipping Saints and Im^es, and the Hoft, &c.
and therefore are not in danger of affixing fuch Opinions on
Papifts,as they hear us charge on Popery. So that this is^a very
needlelsfear he is in, and ifnothingelfe hinders, he may fas he
promifes) reform hisCharader of a Papift Mifreprefented.
I muft confefs we are pretty pofitive in declaring to our
People the evil and danger of Popery. We tell them what
we think of it, not as thinking fignifies doubtfulnefs and uh-
certainty, but an affiured perfvvafion founded on Reafon, Scri-
pture, and the bcjft Authorities; as he complains, that we go
beyond thinking, and infiead of faying we think, fo, we fojitively fay,
fo it is. But if we are in the right, there is no hurt in this, and
we fljall believe fo, till tlrey can prove, _ that we are in the
wrong *, we do not indeed pretend to Infallibility, but we think
our felves as certain, as tlrofe who do.
This is the fum of what lie fays in defence of his Cha-
rafter of a Papift Mifreprefented, that though he acknow-
ledges my diftinftion to be good between Matters of Difpute
ana of Reprefentation 5 and confequently that his Charafter
of a Papift Mifreprefented has nothing of mifreprefentation
in it, truly fo called j yet he fays, this is the Idea of a Papift,
as it is commonly apprehended by the Vulgar, who do not
diflinguifli between Antecedents and Confequents, but what-
ever they hear faid of Popery, they take to be the Faith of a
Papift, without diftinguiihing what it is the Papifts own, and
believe, and praftife, and what guilt Proteftants charge them
with for thus believing and doing: tliat when they hear the
Papifts charged with Idolatry for Worfliipping Images, they
as verily think, that Papifts believe Idolatry to be lawful, as
D i they
p. 21,
-m
(li'i
'i;
'f1
they do, tiiat they believe it lawful to Worfliip Images. If
tliere be any among us fo very filly, I dare fay, they can nei-
ther Read nor Write, and therefore he might have fpared his -
pains in writing and printing Charadters for them 5 and if his
Charadler of a Papifi (as he fays) be what he thouglit of a Pa-
pift, while he himlelf was a Proteftant, it feems lie was in a
very low difpenfation then, and could not himfelf difiirgm/h
betTveen u^ntecedcrts and Confcquents', hut jwallovped all down to^e-
ther, though lie is now improved into a Writer of Charaders j
and may they never have any wifer Converts. However this
does plainly yield the caufe, that the Protefiant Clergy, and
underftanding Gentry and Laity, who can diftingaifii between
Antecedents and Confequents, are no Mifrepreftnters; and as
for others, we fear, they have a great many moreMifieprefen-
ters on their fide, than we hope, we have on ours.
Let us now confider his Charader of a Papift Reprefented
and what the faults of that are. Now the general fault is, that
wdiereas one might reafonably exped, that there fiiould be
fome difference between theCharader of a Papift Mifrepre-
fented, andof a Papift Reprefented, and he has endeavoured
to'make his Readers believe, that there is, yet in truth there is
none in moft parts of the Charader. For what does ftridly be-
long to Reprefentation, that is, all matter of Fad, is the fame
in both. For, i. He having put the Opinions of Proteftants
concerning Popifb Dodrines and Pradices into the Chara-
der of a Papift Mifreprefented, as if they were his avowed
Dodrine-and Bielief; in the Charader of a Papift Repre-
ftnted lie denies, that he believes thofe Interpretations and
Confequencess and this he might very eafily do,becaufe(as
he obferves,/'. 24.) no body charges him with that belief-, and where-
as he fays, then he contradiEls m Body, and he hopes there is no fault
in that, he is fo far in the right •, but his fault is, that he im-
poles upon his Reader, with an appearance of a Mifreprefen-
tation, when there is none5 and by his denying that they be-
heve fuch things, would perfwade the World, that Prote-
ftants charge Papifts with believing all thefe ill things them-
lelves, wluch we fay of their Faith and Worfliip 5 a fign that
he was hard pur to it, to find out fome Proteftant Mifreorefen-
rations of Papifts. And 2. As for matterof Fad, wdiich alone
IS proper for a Charader, he generally owns the Doblrines and
PraEltces we charge them with-, and his faying, how could this pof-
Jib/y be ctherwife, if they charge tts with none, but what we ex-
prefly
N.
( 21 ) -
? prejlj profefs to oron (in which he refle(5ls ii]ron what I had faid
in my Reply, tliat we charge them with believing nothing,bat
expt^lly profefs to believe) is nothing to the pur-
pofe *, for it is not abfolutely nvhat w ch.-trge them r^ith, but
what he himfelf makes us charge them with in hh Charadter
of a Papift Mifreprefenf^d, and calls us Mifreprefenters for do-
.p. ing fo, that he owns in f' 'e Character of a Papift Reprefente^.
as I particularly (hewed >h my Reply •, now the quefiion is,
'feuc why he calls one Character a Mifreprefentation, and the other
a Reprefentation, when the matter of Fad is the fame in both ?
rSt But tiien (3.) I obferved, that in fmecafes he difowns that to
lUltej he the doElrine and belief cf their Church, which manifefilj is f<r,
and has been proved on them, beyond all pcjfibilifi of a fair Reply,
by the learned Anfwerer. To which he Anfwers then for all his
Tvord, we are in fame cafes charged with more than we exprefly prtu-
fpwtt fefs to believe. But he muft know we do not take the prcfefli-
wiv on of the Roman Faith fi'om every private Charader-maker,
ete' but from the authentick Records of their Church and if
I Mife they deny what their Church teaches, and requires them to
MSfx: believe,, it is not indeed their Faith, but yet it ought to be fo:
and though he may huff at I fufped,
sfe he will take a little time before he brings it to the Tryal.
,ist!ieb This is a fufficient anfwer to liis frefli complaint of Mifre-
prefentations. I now proceed to the fecond part of the Reply,
tiefe The rule of true Reprefenting, or the Rule whereby the Do-
liis jrsj drine of the ChurCh of Rome is to be known. He appealed to
pill the Council of Tr^»r,and the Catechifm ad Parochos, and thefe
jtasK- I acknowledged to be authentick Rules j but fince Gatholick
j,e£3i^" Divines differ about the fenfe of the Council and Catechifm,
rhequeftion is. Why we muft prefer his fenfe of the Council
2nd Catechifm before Cardinal Bellarmins, or any other Di-
ttelifj vines of Note and Eminency irTthe Church of Rome, who
lived fince the Council of Trent, and may be prefuraed to
underftand the meaning of it, as well as the Reprefenter j
and therefore to remove this difficulty in his Refledions he
■ I ju appealed to the Bifhop of Condom, as the Authentick Expo-
i fitor of the Council and Catechifm, and told us, how his
Book had been approved by many Bidiops, and Cardinals,
fS and by the prefent Pope himfelf, and therefore has the aa-
thority of the See Apoflolick^,
To this I anfwered in my Reply (p. 44-) that the attefia-
■ tion given to Cardinal Bellarmins Conttovcrfies was not infe-
rior
nor to that given to- the Bifhop of Condoms Expofitlon of the
Dodtrine of the Catholick Church •, tliat it was Dedicated to
Pope Sixtus 5. and that with the Popes leave and good li-
king, which is not much inferior to a teftimomal under the,
Popes hand 5 and why then are not BelUrmms Controverfies
as authentick a rule for the Expofition of the Catholick
Faith, as the Bilhop of Condom's ? But to this he thought fit to
anfvver nothing.
And whereas he pretends that tlie Popes approbation gives
it the authority of the Jpofiolkl^ See; I acquainted him out of
Jhfelchior Cams 5 That the name of the AfojloLick^ See- does not fig',
nifie the Pope in his private capacity, but in his Chair, or doing fucis
things, and in finch a manner, as belong to the Papal Chair, that is,
not giving his own private fienfe, but proceeding in Council with the
advice of good and learned M.en; and therefore that is not to be
accounted the judgment of the Apofiolicfi See, which is. given only
by the Bifihop c/Rome, privately, malicioufly, and inconfiderately,
or with the advice only of fiome few of his own mind, but what he
determines upon a due examination of the thing, by the advice and
Counfiel of many wife Men.
To this the Protefter anfwers that it is only an ungrounded
and ill-turned confequence, that becaufe that is net to be accounted
ihe judgment of the Apofiolick. See, which is given only by the Pope,
privately, malicioufiy, and inconfiderately, or with the advice only of
fiome few of his own mind, therefore this learned Prelates Expofiti-
m of the Cat ho lie Faith is to be thrown by, as of no Authority 5 fi
■that our Replier has here concluded without any more ado, that the
approbation of this Bookwas only given privately, malicioufiy, in-
confiderately, or elfie with the advice only of fiome few- of the Popes
own mind, otherwifie the Confequence will not hold. But I thought
had told US, what was neceffary to make the Popes ap-
probation thejudgmentof the ApoftoiickSee, as well as what
iiinders it from being fo. That the Pope muft give judgment
according to the due form and method of proceedings be-
longing to the Apoftolick Chair, in full Council, after due exa-
mination, and with the advice of many wife Men. Now I
only defire to know, wliether the Pope in a full Council of
Cardinals, did give judgment ex Cathedra, that the Bilhop
■of^ Condom's Book was a true Expofition of the Cadiolick
Faiths For if he did not, though tlie Pope and all his Cardi-
nals, fiiould fingly for themfelves give their own private judg-
aient and approbation of it, accor^g to Canus his rule, it is
not
r 2?)
not t^ie judgment of the Apoftolick See •, for it is a private-
judgment , whether it be malicious or not, which I was
lb far from concluding voi'thout more ado, that, as the Protefter
obferves, I did not lo much as tranlkteit, (thoughI put it
in the Latine Quotation in the Margin, which is an argument
I did not defignedly conceal it) becaufe I thought it was need-
lefs to my purpofe: and yet the Confequence holds good
without it,if it be not a judgment ex Cathedrd^n is not the judg--
ment of the ^pofialick^ See, which was all I intended to prove j
and our Author in his long harangue has faid nothing to prove
that it was^ nay is fo far from thar, that he avoided the very
mentioning of that, becaufe he knew not what to fay to ir.
A/a/itioufiy and inconfiderately were pretty words to defcant up-
on, but the Cathedra ehoaked liim-.
The truth is the principal Commendation, which is given
to the Bilhop of Cmdoms Book, is, that it is a new way of
dealing with Hereticks, and that which they hope may be
more etfedlual than Difputing has been s but there is none of
them, that make it die Rule, much le'fs the only Rule of
the Catholick Faith. Cardinal de Bullion acquaints. Cardinal
Bona, rW (and he fpeaks of Catholicks) find Czxd, BonAi]
fome fault in it and Cardinal Sigifmond Chigi in his Letter to
the Abbot of Dangeau, though' he highly comm.ends him,
yet is far from allowing his Book to be the- Standard of
the Catholick Faithr or the Authentick interpretation of the
Council of Trent, when he tells the Abbot, certainly it was
never his- (Condomb) intention to give the interpretation of the
Tenets of the Council, hut only to deliver them in- his Bookjright-
ly explicated, in fuch forty that Hereticks may he convinced: that
is, he did not allow him to interpret the Council, but com-
mends him for dealing with Hereticks in a new, and, as he
thought, more advantageous method, than had been former-
ly ufed ^ and to this purpofe the Pope commends him, that his
Expofaion of the Catholick^ Faith contains fuch HoSlrine, and is com-
pofed in fuch a method, and with fo much prudence, that it is thereby
rendre-d proper to inftruSi the Readers clearly in few words, and to
extort- even from the unwilling, a confeffion of th: Catholick^ Faith.
Now. to me this feems to fall very fhort of making the Bidiops
Expohtibn the Authentick-interpretation of the Council of
Trent-, that what evet the Bilhop of Co Wow fays, is the fenfe
of the Council, muft be aclmo-vvlodged to be fo, though othej-,.
as good Catholick Divines,;as faiBOus. ia their Generation,
and:
(wr
and whofe.Books have been received with as unlvei-fal appro-
bacion, are of another mind j and which figniHes a little with
us Protedants, where the plain words and reafon of the
Council is againft him. , , ,
I would delire our Author to tell me,wi-iether the Pope,when
he approved the BifliopofCoW&w's Book,did at the fame time
condemn Cardinal Be/Urmms, or tlrofe other Divines and
Schoolmen, who give fuch a different explication of theCoun-
cil of Trent, from what this Bifhopdoes 5 if he did not, what
authority has he given to this Expofition, more than any other
Catholick Dodtor may challenge > Why may we not, if we
pleaiie, follow or Saarez, orVafquez, or Caietan,^^
well as Condom ? Our Author thinks it the fiiorteft and cafieft
way to decide this Controverfie whether he have truly Repre-
iented the Faith of a PapiR, by making an experiment:
Thus he concluded his Refledlions, f. 15?. Do but jou, or any
Friend for (though I did_ not know before, that the
Church of Rome would admit Proxies in the profeffion of
our Faith) give jour affent to thofe Articles of Faith, as I
have Refrefented it, in the very form and manner as I have fated
them, in that Char abler of a Pafifi Rej>refented 5 and if ssponjourre-
^juef, JOH are not admitted into the Communion of the Roman Ca-
tholick/i ttnd owned to believe aright in all thofe joints, Rle then
confefs, that I have abufed the World, that my Ke^refenting is Mif-
frefenting the Faith of the Pafifi, To this I anfwered in my
Reply, f. 40. that I did believe that his Reprefentation was
the Faith of a Papiff, excepting what concerned the depoling
Dodtrine, and fome few other points,_ which I had before
particularly remarked (not that this is the whole of what
jPapifts believe, but that it is right as far as it goes) but we
did not like his Faith io well, as he had Reprefented it, as to
make the experiment. This I thought had been anfiver
enough for any reafonable Man, but in his Anfwer to the Re-
ply, he is ftill for new experiments, as being much eafier than
Difputing,which he does not like, and now the trial is, That if
Tap flsPrO' notwithfianding my refufal to admit the depofing DoEirine, and the
tefi. p. 29. j>o^es InfalHbility, but as flated by the Reprefenter ( thatis, notas
Articles of Faith ) I be not judged fufficiently qualified as to thefe
points, to be received into the Communion of the Roman Catholicks,
then he will grant, that lhave reafon to charge the Reprefenter not to
have done his part in thefe particulars, that iS, llOt tO have truly
Reprefented the Faith of a Papift.
Now
C "5 )
Now in anfwer to this, 1 beg his leave, that I may take my
turn too in making Propofals, and I will do it very gravely,
without the leaft Smile, fince 1 fee, he is olfended at it, and
that is this. Suppofe I Ihould refolve to be a thorough-paced
Papift, and inftead of aifenting to his Reprefentation, Ihould
rather chufe that Reprefentation, which Cardinal Bdlar-
m»e has made of the Faith of a Papift, who does not mince
the matter as to vVorlhipping Images, and praying to Saints,
and trufting in their aid and affiftance who makes the
Pope's Infallibility and bis Depoling Power an Article of
Faith i ftould 1 be thought fufficiently qualified, as to thefe
Points ( wherein the Cardinal exprefly contradids and con-
demns our Author's,and the ^iihop of Condoms Reprefenta-
tion ) to be received into the Communion of Roman Catho-
licks ? If I Ihould (and 1 will venture the Protefter to fay, that
1 Ihould not) then if his Argument from Experience be good j
it is plain. That Cardinal Bdlarmtnt has made a true Repre-
fentation of the Roman Catholick Faith \ and thus we have
Experience for both fides, for Cardinal Bdkrsnine^ and for the
biihop of Condom^ and our Reprefcnter i and yet it is fome-
what ftrange, they Ihould be ail true Reprefenters, cfpecially
in thofe points, wherein they contradid each other.
This the Bifhop of Condom was aware of, and therefore
concludes his Book with a Caution againft it to thofe, who
Ihould think fit to anfwer it. That it would be a c^uittin^ the
dejign of this Treatife^ to examine the different Methods which
Catholfck Dhines n.ak^ wfe of, to efiablijb or exflicate the DodrineCondotds Exr
of the Council of Tr^nt, and the different Confe(]uences, whichpofp-51.
particular Dodors hare drawn from it. Which is a plain Con- ^
feftion, that other Catholick Divines do not agree with him
in this Method, nor allow of thofe narrow Bounds, which he
hasfetto the Catholick Faith ^ and therefore it was wifely
done of him to perfnade his Anfwerers, to take no notice of
any fuch Difagreemert, and it will be a great peice ofCivili-
ty and good Breeding in them not to do it •, but how other Ca-
tholick Divines will take this, 1 cannot tell.
This is enough in all Confcience concerning the Bifiiop of
CoWow'/Authority, which 1 muftftill fay is nothing, whef,
wc fpeakof an Authentick Rule of expounding the Catholic^
Faith, in which fenfe our Author appeals to him ^ though
we will allow him the Authority of a wife and prudent man
E whofe
■{16>
whofe writings are publifhed and approved by Pnbiick Au-
thority, as the writings of other Catholick Dodors are,
which is all the Authority we Proteftants give to our belt
Writers j and therefore the Protefter has no reafon to com-
plain ( as he does p. 27 ) of a» uneven k}nd of Jufiice and
a^afomni in this matter, and whoever defircs a more particu.
lar account of the Biihop of Condoms Authority, and thofe
Glorious Teftimonies which are given to his Book, if he be
a reafonable man,7may find Satisfadion in the Preface to the
late Anfwer to the Bifhop of Condom.
But the truth is, I know no reafon there is for all this
Difpute. I told the Refledor before, that I did not like his
Faith, though it were as he has reprefenced it •, Ihould we al-
low the Biihop of Condom's, Expolition, and his Gharader of
a Papift reprefented, to contain the true Catholick Faith, and
that this is the whole of what the Council ot Trent de-
termined , yet 1 can never be of this Religion ^ and fince he
was not iatisfied with my bare telling him fo, 1 will now
give him-forae Reafons for it, and particularly fhcw him,what
it is I diflike in MoHnfienr de Meaux the late Bifhop of Condom
' his Expolition of the Dodrine of the Church about the Ob-
jedof worlhip. Invocation of Saints, and worlhip of Ima-
ges, and take the flourilhes of his Introdudion into the
bargain. And I chufe thefe Heads, becaufe thefe are the
matters , wherein he principally appeals to the Bifliop of
Condom^ and about which only he has offered any thing like
an argument in his anfwer to my Reply ^ And I am a? glad to
take any opportunity of ufeful Difcourfe, as our Author
feeras cautious not to give any. And that neither he nor the
Bifhop may have any occafion of Q_iarrel, I (hall obferve the
Diredions the Bifhop has given to thofe,who think fit to an-
fwer to his Treatife.
He tells us \ To urge any thing folid again ft this Treatife (the
CondomV Ex- Expolition ) and which may come home to the point ft mttft be pro-
"vedthat the Churches Faith is not here faithfully expounded^
and that by which the fame Church has obliged herfelf to
receive \ or elfe it muft be jhewn.^ that this Explication leaves nil
the ObjeBions in their full force, and all the difputes untouched j or
in fine it mnft be precijely Jhewn, in what this JDoSirine fuhverts the
foundations of Faith. As for the firfi: of thefe, it is done al-
ready to my hand in the DoStrines and Prances,of the Chstrch of
Rome
(tz )
Rome truly reprefented , in anfwer to the Papifi mifreprefented
And reprefented. And he muft be as bold a man, who will at-
tempt to mend that Author, as he who attempts to confute
him. The other two I will have in my eye in examining, as
far as lam now concerned, Mmnfteur dcMeaux late Bilhop of
Condom his Expofition of the Dodlrine of the Church in
matters of Controverlle.
SECT. I.
Tht Deftgn of this Trcatife.
WEre it poffible to reconcile the Differences between
us and the Church of Rome, only by a fair Repre-
fentation of matters in Controverfie between us j I (hould
think it an admirable Defign .• and, this being all the Author
profeifes to intend, I cannot but highly commend his good
Meaning in it i whether he has Ihewnfo much Skill andjudg-
ment, in undertaking a Defign in its own nature impradticable,
I lhall leave to the Reader to judge, vvhenhe has fairly heard
both fides. Had I known no more of the matter, but that
the Reformation was begun by men brought up in the Commu-
nion of the Church of Rome^ and intimately acquainted with
the Dotlrines and Pradlices of that Church j that fomc of
tliefe Corruptions, both before and fince,l;ave been complained
of by men of that Communion ^ that the Council of Trent,
which was convened upon this occafion,condemns many Dodt-
lines of the Reformers, as contrary to the Catholick Faith,
and guilty ofHerefie^ that both before and after this Conn-
cil, there have been many Volumes written, and many fine Dif-
putes between Popifh and Proteflant Divines, who have been
men of as great Learning and true llnderlLanding in thefe mat-
ters, as any the Age has bred, who did all this while believe,
that there was a real and fubftantial Difference between them .•
1 fay, when 1 confider thefe things , I (hould not venture for
the reputation both of Papifts and Proteftants, efpecially of
the Council of Trent, to fay,That the Difpute has been only a'-
bout Words •, that Papifts and Proteftants,eventhemoft Learn-
ed men among them,have raiftaken each others Propofitions,
E 2 and
(28)
and that the only way to reconcile this Difference,islbto flate
the matter in difpute , that Papifts and Proteliants may un-
derftand each other. I doubt not but fierce men on both lides
may have made this difference much wider than it is; but yet
fuch a difference there is, as no Reprcfenting can cure, as I be-
live will appear by confidering Particulars,
SECT. 11.
I
'TI:>ofe of the ^formed ^Itpon achiott^lcdge , that
the Cathohck Church embraces all the Fundamental
Jrticks of the Qmflwi ^Itgion.
THat the Church'of Rome does profefs to believe all
the Principal and Fundamental Articles of Faith, as the
Bifhop affirms, I readily grant ; but yet fiie may hold Fun-
daraental Errors, and deltroy that Faith Ihe profefles, by o.
ther Dodtrines deltrudliveof the true Catholick. Faith, That
this is poflible, he cannot deny, for men may believe incoii-
fiftent Propofitions; and the Deiigu of his Book is fo toex-
plicate the peculiar Dodtrines of the Church of Rome, as to
reconcile them with the Fundamental Articles of Faith,
which the Protellant Explication ofPopifh Dodtrines con-
tradidls and overthrows;, which had been a very needlefs Un-
dertaking, were it jmpoffible for men, who believe all the
Fundamental Articles of the Chriflian Faith , to believe any
thing contrary to it. He might then have fpared his pains
in vindicating and explaining particular Dodtrines ; for it had
been evidence enough , that fuch Dodtrines and Pradtices do
not overthrow any Fundamental Article of Faith,becaufe they
are owned by that Church, which profeifes to. believe all
Fundamental Articles.
And therefore 1 cannot well guefs, what advantage he pro-
mifed himfelf from this. We may fafely grant, that the
Church of Rome believes all Fundamental Articles, and yet
charge her with fueh Dodtrines and Pradtices, as deilroy and
tear up Foundations,
He oblerves indeed from M. Daille , that we ougiit not to
charge men with believing fuch Confequences, as they them-
fclves
b-V
f 19 )
(elves do formally rejed i nor do we ciiarge any fuch thing
upon the Church of Home: but M.DMe neverJ faid, that
we may not charge mens Dodrines and Pradices with fuch
Confequenees, as they, who teach thefe Dodrines, difownj
for M. DaiRe himfelf, in the place quoted by the iiilhop, char-
ges the Opinion of the Lutherans, and of the Church of Rome^
about the manner of ChrilFs Prefence in the Sacrament, with
inferring the dcftrnUten of the Humanity of fefm Chrifi: and
therefore the Bifhop concludes coo much, when he infers j Jt
is then a certain Maxim efiablijlied amongfi them , that they mtifi
not in thefe cafes look^ upon the Confequenees, which may he drawn 4-
from a Duhlrine^ but purely upon what he propofes and acknowled-
ges, who teaches it. But the ufc M. Daille makes of it, is only
this. That when fuch ill Confequenees, as mens Dodrines
are juftly chargeable with , have no ill influence upon Wor-
Ihip, or as he fpeaks, no poyfon in them if they difown fuch
Confequenees, this ought not to break Chriftian Communion.
And therefore, though no man ought to be received into-the
Communion of the Church, who denies the Humanity of Je-
fus Chrift^yec the National Synod at Charenton admits Luthe-
rans to the Holy Table •, becaufe whatever miglit be infer-
red from i heir Dodrine, yet they exprelly owned the Huma-
nity of Chrift •, and this Dodrinal Confequence was a meer
Speculative Error, which made no change at all in Ads of
VVorfliipi but when the Confequenees are not raeerly fpecu-
lative, but pradical, and do not fo much concern, what other
men believe, and think, as what we our felves are to do, as it
is in the Worfhip of Saints and Images, and the Holl, &c. to
fay,thatwe muft have no regard to. Confequenees,if the Church
difowns them, is to fay, that we muft not confider the nature
and tendency of ourAdions, nor what they are in God's ac-
count, but only what the Church thinks of them: and there-
fore though we will not charge the Church of Rome with
believing any Confequenees,which (he difowns j yet if her Do-
drines and Pradices corrupt the Chriftian Faith and Wor-
(hip, it is fit to charge her with fuch Corruptions^ and if
the Cltarge be juft, though (he difown it,it wili}uftifieour Se-
paration from her Comnaunioa.
( Jo >
SECT. III.
^llgious Worp?ip is terminated In God alone.
He acconitt tire Biihop gives of that merior Moration^
4- I ^ alone, is very Sound and Orthodox j
that it con/ijfs frincipally in believing he is the Creator and Lord of
ail things, and in adhering to him with all the powers of our Soid,
by Faith, Hope, aad Charity , as to him alone , who can render us
happy by the communication of an infinite Good, which is himfelf.
But there are two things I except againfl; in this Se<rtion, aS
not fairly ftated : Firil, concerning the exterior marks of Ado-
ration. Secondly, concerning the terminating of Religious Worjhip.
As for the he tells ufc: This interior Adoration, which
rre render unto G od in Spirit and in Truth, has its exterior marks
of which the principal is Sacriice, which cannot be offered to any but
to God.: And with refped to the fecond,he tells us •, The fame
Church teaches us , that all Religious Worjhip ought to terminate in
God,as its necejjary End', and that if the Honour, which jhe ren-
ders to the Ble§ed V'irgin, and to the Saints , may in fome fence be
called Religious, it is for its necejfary relation to God.
The Bifliop very well knew , that this is the main Seat of
the Controverfie between us, and had he intended by his Ex-
pofition, to have put an end to our Difputes ■, he fhould have
taken a little more care about this Point *, for as he has now
ftated it, he has left the matter juft as he found it. We fay,
that all Religious Worjhip ought not only to terminate in God, as its
necefjary End,h\i.t. that God is the fole and immediate Objeft of
all Religious Wor.'hip, and that we muft worlhip none befides
See a late him,as our Saviour expounds the Law. Thou Jhalt worjhipthe
TraEief the Lord thy God, and him only jhalt thou ferve, Matth.4.. We have
ObjeEi of He- always dcniedany relativeWorlhip to be due to Creatures;for
Imeus War- j-q worlhip Creaturcs, is to make them Gods, and it is no ho-
^ nour to the Supreme God,to advance his own Creatures to di-
vine Honours,to make more,though inferior, Gods for God's
fake. We fay, all external Ads of Religious Worlhip, are pe-
culiar and appropriate to God, as well as Sacrifice ^ for fince
we muft worlhip none but God, whatever can be called Religi-
ous Worlhip muft be given to none befides him j and the Biihop
has •
fjr)
has not dealt plainly in this matter; he fays, that Sacrifice can
be offered to none but God, but he has not told us, what he
tlanhs of other external Ads of Worfhip, whether they may
be payd to fonie excellent Creatures, for lince Sacrifice is not
a natural but inftituted Worfhip; if nothing but Sacrifice is
peculiar to God, then all external natural Worlhip is common
to God and Creatures, and then in the Itate of nature, there
could be no external and viiible Difference, between the wor-
(hip of God and Creatures, nor had there been any under the
Gofpel neither, had notChrift inftituted his laft Supper,which
the Church of Rem has transformed into a Sacrifice of his
■ natural Flefh and Blood.
Thus when be fays,that all Religioui Worjhip ought to terminate
in Gody M its necejjary end^ this ieems to me an ambiguous Ex-
prcffion i IbrWonlip properly terminates in the Objed to
which it is given ^ and in this fence, If all Religious Worfhip
mufl terminate in Gcd, then all Religious Worfhip mull be
given to God , and to none elfe •, which is the true Catholick
Faith, that God is only tobeworlhipped. But then what be-
comes of that Religious Worfhip which is given to the Virgin
Mary , and Saints tn relation to God F Does not this Worfliip,
which is given to them , terminate in them, and not "in God ?
Are not they the immediate and proper Objeds of that "Wor-
fbip, which is given to them ? And does not the Objed termi-
naie the Worlhip ? Is God the Objed of that Worfhip,which
they give to the Saints and Bleffed Virgin ? Then they either
give that Inferior Degree ot Worfhip to God, which is pro-
per for Creatures,v>?hich is an affront to his Majefty and Great-
nefs; or they give that Worfhip to Creatures, which is pro-
per to God, which is Idolatry. Which plainly fhews, that
that Worfliip, which is given to Creatures, is terminated in
thofe creatures to which it is given ; and therefore if any de-
gree of Religious Worfhip be given to Creatures, ail Religi-
ens Worfhip does not terminate in God, as he faid it mull i
and if all Religious Worlhip mull terminate in God , then no
Religious Worflnp mult be given to Creatures, as he grants
it may, to the Virgin Mary and Saints.
Yes,you will fay, that W crfhip, which is given to the Saints
and Bleffed Virgin,terminates in God, bccaufeit is given them
upon account of their Relation to God , but this is t great
miilakei their Relation to God can only ferve for a Reafou,
why
' I '
f::
I r
- (5^^
why they are worlhipped; but cannot terminate that worlhip
on God which is given to themj becaufe not God , but
they themfelves are the Ob)edl,i and the ultimate Objed of
that Worfliip, which is given to them.
Though we fhouid grant, that God is honoured by that
Worfhip, which is given to fome excellent Creatures,who are
his Friends and Favourites, yet the Honour we do to God in
this, is of a very different nature from that worlhip, which wc
pay to Creatures j it does not conlift in this, that the worlhip
we give to Creatures is terminated on God, for it is termiiia-
feed upon thofcCreatures whom we worlhip i but the Honour
mull confift in the Reafon of our worlhip,that we worlhip them
for God's fake: It is an honour to God by Interpretation and
Coiirequence , as we intend it for God's Honour, or as God
is pleafed to think himfelf honoured by it j but it is no ad of
Worlhip to God, and therefore not terminated on him. The
Worlhip can go no further than its proper Objed, though
the Reafon of the Worlhip may For there is a great deal of
difference between an Objed,and a Medium of W orlhip^ a me-
dium of Worlhip, which is only a reprefentative Objed, re-
ceives our Worlhip,but does not terminate it,but convey it to
that Being, it reprelents-, bccaule it is worlhipped only in the
place and ftead of another, as it is in that Worlhip, which is
given to the Images of Chrift and the Saints i which fome Di-
vines of the Church of Rome tell us, is not terminated on the I-
mages, but on Chrift or the Saints reprefented by thofe Ima-
ges, but a proper objed of Worlhip, which receives worlhip
in its own proper perfon, for whatfoever reafon it is worlhip-
ped, it terminates the Worlhip \ the Worlldp, which is gi-
yen to it, goes not beyond its felf, though the Reafon of the
Wonhip may reach farther, and be thought to relied fome
Honour upon God, and to teftifie our Love and Reverence
for him by that Worlhip we pay to thofe, who are dear to
him. So that if we do give Religious Worlhip to the Virgin
Mnry and Saints, fuch Worlhip is terminated on them, and
then all Religious Worlhip is not terminated on God, as he
fays the Church of Rome teaches it mult be, which yet tea-
ches alfo the Worlhip of Saints and the Blefled Virgin. Me-
thinks he Ihould have taken care to have Hated this matter a
little plainer:For if he can not reconcile the Dodrine and Prad-
ice of the Church together, I fear his Expolition will rather
increafe than end for-f'"overlies,
%
(n)
Thus how doubtfully does he fpeak j If the Hoiour fe ren~
ders to the Blejfed F^irgin and to the Saints^ tnay^ in fome fe»fe^ he
called Religious^ it is for its necejfary Relation toGod. Why does
he not tell us plainly , whether this Honour the Church of
Rosne gives to Saints and the Virgin be Religious, or not, and
in what fenfe it may be called Religious Honour ? If he under-
take to expound the Catholick Faith, why docs he not do it ?
Why does he fpeak fo cautioufly ? As if he were afraid to own,
what the Faith of the Church is in this point? Which yet is a
very material one, and very neceffary to be truly ftattid. Thus
1 can underltand, how the Honour, which is given to Crea-
tures, may have Relation to God, niz.. becaufe we honour them
for.God's Sake,and upon account of their relation to him ^ but I
do not underftand how this relation to God,makes the Honour
of Creatures a Religious Honour. For though we honour Crea-
tures for God's Sake,yet the Honour we give to Creatures mull
be futable to their own Natures, and therefore not that Religi-
ous Honour,which is proper to God only: As when we honour
a man tor the fake of our Father, or our Prince, we do not give
him that Honour,which is proper to our Father,or our Prince,
though we honour him for their Sakes. And therefore if the
Church of Rome does give religious Honour to any Creatures,
it will not juftifie her , in giving religious Honour to Crea-
tures,that flie honours them for God s Sake for Creatures are
Creatures tlill, though never fo nearly related to God , and
therefore not capable of Religious Honours.
So that I do not fee, how this Explication, if it may be fo
called, takes off any Objedlion, that was ever made againlt the
Church of Rome, about the Objed of Religious Worlhip. For
if by all Religions IVorfjip being termin'atedon God. he means, that
no other Being muft be religioufly worlhipped but only,God j
then this is an invincible Objecftion againlt that Religiouf.
Worlhip, which the Church of Rome gives to the Blehed Vir-
gin, and to Saints and Angels. If he means by it, that Religions
Worlhip may be given to other Beings belides God, fo it be aU
terminated in God, then ail the other Objc<ftions againlt wor-
Ihipping any other Being belides God,are in full force ft ill, not-
withftanding his Explication: their Relation to God wid not
jultifie the Religious Worlhip of Creatures, and it is contrary
to all Senfeand Reafontu fay. That the Worihip, which is
given to Creatures, is terminated on God.
^ F SECT
C 34 )
SECT. IV.
Invocation of Saints,
THere are two gi'eat Objeiflions againfl: that Worfhip,
which the Church of Rofne gives to Saints departed, who
flow reign svith Chrift in Heaven, as the Council of Trent
teaches. i. That it is to give them that Religious Worfhijg
which is due only to God. i. That it makes them our Medi-
ators and Intercelfors in Heaven,which is an Honour peculiar
to Chrift. Now M. de Memx^ and after him, the Author of
theCharader, think to remove thefe Ohjcdtinns, only by cv-
plaining the Doftrirreof their Church about this mattery and
,I Hiall diftindly coulider, what they fay to each of thefe.
I. As for the firftThat in praying to Saints they do not
give them that worlhip, w hich is due only to God, they thinic
is evident frotn hence,ITatthe Council of Tret2i and the Cate-
■chilmvj^^ teaches them only,ro pray to Saints to pray for
y/)m-.-ThcBi{hop takes great pains to prove this to be the fenfe
of the Council, and therefore, that in rthat terms focver thofe
Prayers^rvhichwe addrrefs terSaints^ are touched^ the Intention of the
'Church , and of her taithfal, reduces them always to this L orni,
"Now I will not difputethis matter at prefeht , but refer my
Reader to the Anfvcer to a Papifi nnfreprefenttd.
But let us fuppole,that this is ailthe Church of intends,
ty it, that we ihould only pray to therSaintsto pray for us,
what advantage can they make of this? Yes, fays the Adver-
tiferaent before the Bifhop's Expolition,p. 1.2. lo pray to Saints
'■only to pray for hs^ is a 'kind of Prayer, which by its own nature, is
fo far from being refervedby an Independent Being to himfelf, it
can never he addrejj'ed to him : That is , we mult never pray to
'God to pray for uspand therefore fuch a Prayer is no part of
that Worfhip,which is due to God. And he adds, If this Form
of Prayer,prayfor Hs^dtminiflted the trMfl we have in God, it would
be no lefs condemnable to ufe it to the Living than to the Dead ■, ^nd
^St. Paul would not have faid fo -often , Brethren, p-ray for us :
the whole Scripture is full of Prayers of i his nature. Thus tlie Au-
e- fthor of the Charadter, tells us. in this, he does not at all nea.
3- leH coming to God, or rob him of bir honour, but direfting all his
Prayers
. >,
Trayers up to hiwy and making him the ultimate ObjeSl of all his Pe*
titions^ He only defires fometimes the jttfl on Earthy fometimes thoff
in Heathen to jcyn their Prayers to his , that Jo the number of
Petitioners being increafedy the Petition may find better acceptance
in the Jight of God: andthts is not to mak^ them Gods , 'but only
Petitioners to G od ; He having no loopes of obtaining any things but
of God alone.
This is the leaft that can pofllbly be made of that Worflup,
they give to Saints, which is not reconcileahle with theirpra-
dice neither y andif jt fliould appear,that this (as little as it is
thought to he) is to give that Worfnip to Creatures, which is
due coGod,they mull e'en rejed praying to Saints to pray for
them, as they now do trulfing in their aid and affiftances, and
power to keep them
Now I only ask, whether Prayer he not an Ad of Religion,
and a worlhip due to God ? if it he not, why do they pray to
God ? if it he, then they give the worfln'p of God to Saints,
when they pray to them. For it is not fo much, the matter of
our Prayer, as the nature of Prayer, which makes it an Ad
of Religion. We may pray to God for thofe things, which
men can give, w';?,. Food and Raiment, and yet thefe are as re-
ligious prayers as when we ask fuch things of God , as none
can give hut himfelf and by the famercafon, though we pray
to Saints only to do that for us, which a creature can do, that
is,only to pray to God for us, yet our very praying to them is
an Ad of religious worihip, which is due only to God.
The truth is,i am fo dull,that I cannot fee,what makes thefe
new Reformers of the Roman-Catholick Dodrine and Wor-
{hip,fo fhy of owning any other aid and apftanceyV^h'ich they ex-
ped from the Saints, hut only their pra> ers for them: for this
makes no alteration at all in the nature-of that worfliip, they
paytothem. Forfuppofe the Saints in Heaven (whono.v
reign with Chrill:. as the Council affirms) were intruited with
theGuardianffiipof men, and the care of Saints on Earth, as
Cardinal exprefly fays they are^might wcnotas law-
fully pray to them to imploy that power, God has committed beatit.
to them, for our good and happinefs, as to ufe their inteveft 1. i.e.20.&
with God for ns by their prayers? Does one exalt you more a- c. i8.
hove the condiiionof creatures than the other? ^lay we not
hcg our Friends on Earth,to relieve our wants and nec€ffiries,fis
well as to pray for us? And if begging the pray ers of cur Friends
F 2 on
( 56 ) ■
on Earth will jnflifie our praying to the Saints in Heaven, to
pray for us •, our asking an Alms on Earth, will equally juftifie
our begging the aid andaflilhance, as well as prayers, of the
Saints in Heaven ^ and then we are juft where we were. And
if ever there were any good Arguments againft praying to
Saints, they are all good flill, though they pray to Saints only
to pray for them; which'is my only Lufinefs at pielent, to /hew
(according to the Bi/hop's defire) that hu Explication leaves all
the OhjeBions in fall force, andall ike Dtfputes untouched.
So that fetting aiide the matter of our prayers, or what it is
weask, which makes no alteration in this cafe, the inquiry is,
Whether when we pray to Saints, w e do not give that wor-
/hip to them, whicii is peculiar and appropriate to God ?
Now the ( hurch of i^wMC,isro far irom thinking fuch pray-
ersto be the peculiar worfl'iip due to God, that /he thinks it as
innocent to pray to the Saiius in Heaven to pray for us, as it is
to defire the prayers of our Chriltian Brethren on Earth. The
Bi/hop fays, 'i be Church in teaching w,that it is profitable to pray to
faints, teaches us to pray to them in the fame fpirit of Charity, and
according to the fame order of fraternal Society, vrhich moves us to
demand ajfi(lance of lur Brethren living on Earth. The Charadter
to the lame purpofe makes our defntng fometimes the Saints on
Earth, fometimes thofe in Heaven, tojoyn their prayers with ours, to
be Actions of the very fame nature, and equally lawful. This
is the true Pinch of the Cor trover fie , and here it is wepait
with the Church of Rome •, that we think, there is fome difFe-
rence between /peaking to our Chi iftian Brethren on Earth,
whom we fee, and converfe with, and praying to the Saints in
Heaven, with all the external exprefiions of religious worfnip
and adoration : The firft is to converfe with them as men; the
fecond is fuch a manner of Addrels,as is proper only for a God.
To pray to Saints is fomewhat more than to defire our Chri-
ftian Friends to pray for us; it is fupplicuer eos tnvocare, as
the Council of Trent fpeaks,to invoke them,orcallon them,in
the manner of Supplicants •, fo that this muft be acknowledged
a wor/hipof the Saints •, and then it mull be either a civil or re-
ligious wor/hip •, and which of thefe two it is, mull: be known
by the manner of paying it. And therefore when all thecir-
cumftances of worlhip are religious, we mull acknowledge the
wor/hip to be religious too : Such as praying to them in rcligi-
ousPlaces,in Churches and Chappels,and at confccrated Altars,
with
with bended knees, and hands and eyes lifted up, in a veij dc-
JluffiSi vaut manner, when they fee no body to fpeak to, or to receive
of til their Addreiles, unlefs it be the image of the Saint they wor-
Oft i; ihip^ Thus fome Nations worffiip their Gods, but no People
ever paid their civil refpe(fts to each other in this manner,
^ast' But as I obferved in my Reply ( p. 66.) There is one infallible
ffitoib ^ifiinSlion between civil and religions worflnp^ between the worjhip of
" Ihtti Ccd and men: That the worjhip of the invijible Inhabitants of the o-
d ther World has always been accounted religions worjhip. Civil re-
Prula;. fpecls are confined to this World^ as all natural and civil Relations^
tiquirri which are the foundation of civil refpebls, arc ^ but we have no in-
'£ iiac terconrfe with the other Wor Id, but what is religions. And therefore
)Goil,' as the different kinds and degrees of civil honour, are diftinguijhedby
gfiKipr the Sight of the Objeft, to which they are paid, though the external
Ctliii;: ufls and cxprejfions are the fame as when men bow the body,and are
)r05,2; uncovered, yon know what kind of heniur it is by feeing,who is pie-
■snt : fint, whether their Father, their Friend, or their Prince, or fome o-
ilcitfii: ther FJonour able Per fen : So the mofl certain mark^of diftinflicn be-
llwiit I civil and religious worjhip is this, that the one relates to this
World, the other to the invifible Inhabitants of the next. In this
lalf Paragraph the Protefter fiiy s ( p.3 5.) We have aConfe^uence
^ and Compari fon, and both fo excellent in their kjnds, that if any bet-
. ttr connexion can be found in them,then between the Monument and.
IjI j. the May-pole, it muji be by one, who has found one trick^more in Lo-
risnr Arillotle knew. Sometimes indeed AriBotle^Lo-
foKCD not do fuch feits,as one would expedt^ but a little na-
rural Logick, called common fenfe,vvould have Aiewed himjhe-
ijjjjij,', connexion. Fori think, there is fome fence in faying, that as
the different degreed of civil honour, though moll of the ex-
sfflci'S fi^ns of honour be the fame, fuch as kneeling, bowing
- f. the body,uncovering the head, may yet bediifinguifhed by the-
f prefence of the Obj :(ff, to which it is paid y whether it be our
J Father, or our Prince: So though the external ligns of civil and
'""''j religious honour, are in many inffances the lame, yet civil and
'"[j., religious worlhip may be vilibly diflirguifhed, by the objed to>
which it is given : For civil worOiip can belong only to the In-
habitants of this World y but whatever worlhip is given to the
invifible Inhabitants of the other World,is religions.
' Now if this be fo, then to pray to Saints,now they are rer
'^'vi moved out of this World intoan invisible Hate, is to giverelF-
"ii worfhip to theray, whicli makes a vail differcrxe between
praying;
0
t}8)
"praying to the Saints in Heaven to pray foriis, and fpeaklng
to our feilow-Chriflians on Earth to pray for us.
The Protefler is willing to grant, or at leaft fuppofe, ^at the
honour or worlhip,which is given to the invilibleinhabitantsof
the other World,is religious worfhip-, but ftill he fays, it re-
tnaiOS to be proved, thMall religious refftSland honour is foadi.
vme honour^as tOfnakea God of the things to which it is paid^ at leajl
confiruBively : This 1 think,is no hard matter to do j but I (hall
firit coniider his Arguments againft it, and all that he fays,
That if it be true,it proves too nruch^and mil bring my fdf in
/t^iir^with them, in giving-religious worlhip to creatures,and fo
making Gods of them, at leaft conftrudtively. He inftances in
that Cnftom of bowing to the Altar^ or Communion Table^ as he
calls it, and bowing at tise name of Jtfus ^ but this fhall 1^ confi-
dcrcd, when I come to the worlhip of Imhges. His other in-
fiances concern that religious refpeEf which we allow due to facred
places and things^and a religious decency to the bodys of Saints and
Martyrs \ but what is this to a religious worlhip. Therefpeft
we (hew tofuch things and places, is no more than a civil re-
fpeift, which confifts in a decent urage,iit feparating them from
vile and common purpofcs-, and it is called a religious refpeft,
not from the nature of the rerpe<ft, but from the reafon, why
we give k^viz. out of reverence to God,to whofe worlhip they
are leparated. Tims that love and honour we pay to a living
Saint, though it rife no higher than the expreflions of a civil
refpeft, may befaid to be religious, when weloveand honour
'them for Gc^'s fake but this is an external denomination from
Goi
Si
C-odclB
nrea^'
lioniiBat
jalcviii
sWorH
..ipstl
llllB!
the Caufe and Motive, not from the nature of the Aft, and
therefore cannot make Gods of them,l>ecaure it is not religious
worfhip^bntto give proper religious worlhip to any Being,is to
give it that wor(hip,which is proper only to Gad,which is the
only way to make any Being a God, which is not a God.
Now if this be a true notion, that all worlhip, which is given
to the invifible Inhabitants of the other World,is religious
worlhip,! will ealily prove,that we muft worlhip no other in-
vifiblc Being , but God alone, and therefore cannot pray to
Saints in Heaven, without giving the worlhip of God tothem.
And my reafon is this, Becaufe God challenges all religions
worlhip to himfelf"^ as our Saviour tells us, Thou jhaltworpip
the Lord thy God^ and him only pah thou fer ve^Matrh 4. It feems
■to me a very necdlcfs difpntc, what is the peculiar aud incom-
iTiunicable
:;:k!01
11,k
-•J
■::1S
I ^ ^ 19 ^
K. ' municable Worfhip, which muli be given to none but the Sit-
ippofe,:premc God, when God has appropriated al) Religious Wor-
'^eintlhip to himfelf,whatevera*n; ot religious Worihip God requires
lllitfc us to pay to himfelf, inuft be given to none eUe j and therefore
Wistft if all Worlhip paid to invifible Beings, be in its own Nature
religious Worlhip, wemuft worlhip no Inviiible Being, but
todojvonly God. For if all Woi-jhip of Inviiible Beings be religious,
illtltatiit^and God challenges all religious Worlhip to himfelf, then we
mull worfhip no Inviiible Being but only God ^ for to worlhip
;ocri^auy other Inviiible Being, is to give religious Worlhip to that,
, Htjv which is not God.
But the Proteller thinks I ought to have allowed for the
tliisi];, different Kwds and Degrees of Religious as well as Civil Honour. 1"^"
s, [jjySiichI fuppofe as they call their or Dalta.^ Supreme or
Subordinate, Abfolute or Relative, Tcrminative or Tranllent
ajifr Worlhip-, but tiierej^no place for theie different Degrees and
u IX-Ihllindions of religious Worlhip, if we mull vvorlnip noo-
.[jjjpJUhei Inviiible Being, but only God i for if there be but one
|j.'^ Obieift of religious Worlhip, there is no need to diftinguilh ,
this Worlhip into dilferent Kinds and Degrees, as Civil Wor-
, Ihip is, which has very numerous and very different Objects, if
. wc muff give no Worlhip to any inviiible Being belldes God, it
, is ridiculous todilpute, what Degree ot Woriiiip we may law-
■P''": fully give them, when we mull give them none,
mm- y^hdicis3goodx'\rgument, thatthercareno different Kinds
of Religious Wormip^ one which is Supreme and Soveraign,
and due to the one Supreme God other Inferior and Suhordi-
f tk.l Degrees of Worlhip , which may be paid to thofe Excel-
ISMB jgpj- spirits, which are very dear to God, and the Miuiffers of
his Providence i bccaufe there are no external and vifible Signs,
4*"' todiffinguifn hetweenfuch different Degrees of religious VVor-
piip, Civil Worlhip is confined to the Inhabitants of this
wlijcliiSf World, and is thereby diff inguiihed from religious Woribip j
Idjisrc fo the Different Degrees of Civil Honour, though the External
inooK Signs and Expveilions afic are tire fame, are diflinguilhed by
«r the vilible Prefence of the Object to .vvhijchrit,is,paidi for wlren
Jod KB a man bows or uncovers his head, we know what kind of Ho-
iaH® nour itis, by conlidering the Relation, or the Qiiaiity, ofth^
ijhiie- Perfon, tow.homit is paid, whetherhebe a^Father, aPrince, or
q. lii a wife and good man. But if there .were more Invi tible Beings.
■aiidr; tha'noneto worlhip, thaqgh there might,be .different Degrees
flliCu of
■li:
! r I j:
■J il.: i:E
C 40 )
of Internal Honour and Worlhip paid to them, according to
the different Apprehenfions men had of their feveral Degrees
of Perfection ^ 7et the External Signs of Worfhip rauft be the
fame in all. And thus .there would be no vilible diftinCtion be-
tweenthe Worlhipofthe Supreme God, and created Spirits,
and Glorlfyed Souls of dead men i and therefore if it be necef-
fary to dilHnguifh between the Worfhip of God and Crea-
tures, wemuli worfhip no Invifible Being, but only the Su-
preme God.
The Protefler propofes fome ways,whereby the diferm hinds
35- and degrees of Religions Worfhif may be difiingnifhed j as by the in.
tentionofthe Giver \ but this is not a Vilible DiftinClion: For
mens intentions are private to themfelves, and there is no
difference in the Vilible ACts of Worfhip,to make fuch a dikin-
Ction,or by fome f^ifible Reprejentation ^ that is by Images: This 1
grant, would make asvifiblea DiitinCtion between the Wor-
fhipof God, aird Chrift, and the Virgin Mary^ as the prcfencc
of the perfon diftinguifhes the Kinds and Degrees of Civil Ho-
nour ■, for when we fee, whofe Image they worfhip, we niay
certainly tell what Being they direCt their Worfhip to; or
the fault of this is, that it is forbid by the Law of God; of,
which more in the next SeClion; or by Determination tf other Cir-
mmfiances., but what thefe are, I cannot tell, and therefore can
fay nothing to it.
The Church of Rome indeed does appropriate the Sacrifice of
tbeMafsto God,as his peculiar Worfhip, which muftnotbegi-
ven to any other Being; and if this be fo, then indeed we can
certainly tell, when we fee a Prielt offering the Sacrifice of
the Mafs, that he offers it to the Supreme God; but there are a
greatmany other ACts of Worfliip, which we owe to God, be-
lides the Sacrifice of the Mafs, and in every ACt of Worfhip God
ought to be vifibly diflinguiflied from Creatures; and yet if
all theother External ACls of Worfhip be common to God and
Creatures, vviiere is thediftinClion ? And yet the Sacrifice of
the Mafs can be offered only by the Priell, fo that the whole
Layity cannot perform any one Adlof Worfhip to God, which
is peculiar to him,and therefore can make no Vifible Diltindtion
in their Worfhip between God and Creatures.
, , And yet the very Sacrifice of the Mafs is not fo appropria-
ted to God in the Church of Rome, but that it is offered to
God in Honour of the Saints. This the Bifhop of Condom
(P-7-)
, (4« )
C p. 7.) endeavours to cxcufe by faying i This Ho/tour rfhkh
we render them (the Saints ) in Sacrificin^y conjifls in naming them
in the Prayers ire ojfer ftp to God^ as his Faithful Servants y and
Hn rendring him thanh^ for the yiElories they have gained^ and in
humbly hefeeching him^that he would vouchfafe to favour us by their
Jntercejfion.
Now it is very true, according to the Council o( Trent, the
Prieft offers the Sacrifice only to God, but they do fome-
what more than name the Saints in their Prayers,for they offer
the Sacrifice in Honour to the Saints, as well as to God, which
the Bifhop calls to Honour the Memory of the Saints: Now if Sa- P-
crificebeanAdofHonourand Worlhjp to God, it founds ve-
ry odly to worlhip or honour God for the Honour of his difcowfe con-
Saints, which feems to make tiod only the Medium of Wor- cmUng ido-
Ihip to the Saints , who are the terminative objed of it j and latryt^. 216,
that the Saints are concerned in this Sacrifice appears from
this , That by this Sacrifice they unplore the Intercejfwn of the
Saints , that thofe whofe Memories we celebrate on Earth, would
vouchfafe to intercede for usinHeaven. The Bifhop tranflates
imflorat by Demand, for what reafon Icannot tell; and makes
this imploring or Bejeeching to refer to God, not to the Saints,
whofe Patronage, Patrocihia, and Interceffion they pray, they
would vouchfafe them.contrary to the plain Senfe of the Coun-
cil, and 1 think to common Sence too; For I do not well un-
derftand offering Sacrifice to God , that he may procure for
us the Interceffion of the Saints ^ for ifhe canbeperfwadedto
favour us fo far , as to intercede with the Saints to be our In-
terceffors, he may as well grant our Requefls without their
Interceffion ^ and yet the Bifhop was very fenfible,that if
we offer up our Prayers to the Saints in the Sacrifice of the
Mafs, itdoesinevitably intitle them tothe WorfhipofthatSa-
crifice, which, they fay, muft be offered only toGod. Heal-
leadges indeed St. Authority, who underftood nothing
of this-Myftery of the Sacrifice of the Mafs, and how far he g'"
was from thinking of any thing of this Nature, is evident to a- c. 27.
ny man, who confiilts the place.
But the Church of Rome ( as the Bifhop obferves p. 8.)
has been charged by fome of the Reformation, not only with
giving the Worfhip of God to Creatures, when they pray to
the Saints, but with attributing the Divine Perfcdions to them,
G fuch
/
fuchas a certain kind of immenftty and Knowledge of the Secrete
of hearts ^ for'if they be not prefent in all places , where they
are worlhipped , how can they hear the Prayers , which are
made to them at fuch diftant places at the fame time? if they
do not know our thoughts, how can they underltand thofe men-
tal Prayers, which areoffered to them without words, only in
our fecret thoughts and Delires? for even fuch Prayers are
exprefly allowed by the Council, voce vel mente.
Now to this heanfwers very well, that though they be-
lieve the Saints do by one means or other know the Prayers,
which are made to them, either by the Miniftry and Commnnka-
tion of Angels^ or by a particular Revelation from Cod^or in his
Divine EJfence.,in which all trtith is com^rifed^ yet never any Cat ho-
Ikkjyet thought^ thtSaints knew onr Necejfities by their own Power^
no nor the defires which move us to addrefs our fecret Prayers to them.
And to fay a Creature may have a Knowledge of theje things^bya
light communicated to them by God , is not to elevate a Creature
above his Condition. T his I grant and therefore do acknow-
ledge, that they do not attribute the divine perfedions of
Omnifcience orOmniprefenceto the Saints , either in thought
or word, but yet adions have as natural a fignification as
words i and if we give them fuch a worfhip, as naturally fig-
nifies Omnifcience and Omniprefence , our worfhip attributes
the incommunicable perfedions of God to them. For it is
unnatural andabfurd to worfhip a Being, who is not prefent to
receive our worfhip i tofpeak to a Being, who does not, and
cannot hear us ^ andfinceOod has made us reafbnable Crea-
tures, to underftand what we do,and why , he interprets our
adions, as well as words and thoughts, according to their natu-
ral fignification. And herein the natural evil of creature-
worfhip contifls , That every ad of religious worfiiip does
naturally involve in it a Confeflion of forae excellency and per-
fedion, which is above a created nature, and thereby (what-
ever the worihipper thinks or intends) does attribute the in-
communicable Glory of God to creatures.
If the Saints are not prefent in ail places to hear thofe
prayers which are made to them , and if they cannot hear in
Heaven, what we fay to them on Earth , by their own power,,
then prayer is a worfhip, which is not due to their nature,
even in a glorified date. For no being can have a right to
Qiir
(4? )
our prayers, who cannot hear them , and though we fhould
grant, that God reveals our prayers to them, yet to know by
Revelation is not to hear.In this cafe all that can bereafonable
for Bs to do, is only fecretly to defire, that the Saints would
pray for us, which God can reveal to them, if he pleafes, as
well as our prayers ^ but it can never be reafonable to pray
to thofe, who cannot hear us.
igji fc; And if prayer cannot be due to a created nature in its moft
exalted ftate, becaufe no creature can be prefent in all places
to hear our prayers , then if it be a proper worlhip for crea-
turcs, it mull be fo by a pofitive Inftitution of God; but
then they mull Ihew an exprefs command for it, and when
they can do that, we will difpute the reafon of the thing no
longer.
And this is a manifeft reafon, why we fliould worlhip no o-
ther inviiible Being beiiaes God,becaufe no other invifible Be •
ing is capable of our worlhip. Gcd alono fills all places,and
therefore may be worlhipped, though we do not fee him ,
for ■ he is prefent every where to hear our prayers ; but we
cannot know, that any Being, of a limited prefence , is pre-
fent wich us , unlefs wc fee it, and it is unnatural to pray to
any Being, who is not prefent to hear us.
: And though the Church of Rome does notdiredlly and po-
fitively attribute any divine perfedions to Saints, yet man-
kind are.£b naturally prone to afcribe a kind of Divinity to
immortal and inviiible Spirits, that this is a fufficient reafon,
why God fnould not allow the worlhip of any inviiible Spirits.
For after all that can be faid to the contrary , it is a mighty
temptation to men, atleall to make inferior Deities of ihofe,
to whom they conftantly pay divine honours.
And though they do not attribute to Saints a natural power
to know our thoughts, and to hear our prayers, and to anfwer
them i yet if this lupernatural gid and power , whereby they'
doit, beasconftanf, and ad as certainly as naturvdoes, it is
as great acd adorable a perfedion, as if it were natural: for
lince all creat ed Excellencies are the gift of God, w hat migh-
tydilFerenre is there between a natural andibpernataral per-
ftdion, or gift, if that wiiich is faparnatural, be as certais and
laiting , and that which they can conftantly ufe-, as tliat
which is natural. As to take their pwn inftance: Were the
G 2 gift
(44)
gift of Prophefie, which God beftowedon feme in former A-
ges, as conftant and certain, as natural knowledge j that they
eouldufe this gift, whenever they pleafed, and as conftant-
ly foretel things to come, as they could realbn and difcourfe;
what difference would there be In this cafe between a natural
and fupernatural knowledge of future things: truly no more
but this; That a natural knowledge is a petfedion , wiiich
God did originally beftow upon our nature : liipernatural
knowledge is an addlt onal perfedion, but yet upon this fup-
pofition, as infeparably annexed to our natures as natural
knowledge,and always as ready for ute as that ^ walchi think,
would make fucn a Prophet as truly venerable, as if Prophelie
were natural to him.
Thus it is in this prefent cafe. If th: Saints know our pray-
ers, by what means foever they do it, it mult be as conitant
and lafting a gift, as if it were natural that is, they muft as
certainly know when, and what we pray for, every time we
pray , as if they were prefent to hear us. For if they do not
always know our prayers, we can never know, when to pray,
and can never have any fecurity of their IntercelHon f.^r us \
many thoufand AveMarics may be every day loft, and turn to
no account, and if they do conftantly know this by a fuperna-
tural gift, it is as glorious a perfedion,as if this knowledge
were natural. Mankind do not fo critically diftinguKh be-
tween natural and fupernatural gifts, in whomfoever theft
perfedions are, they are divine, and futh creatures have a
fupernatural kind of Divinity annexed to their natures, they
are made Gods,though not Gods by nature, which is as much
as any people believe of their inferiorDeitics, who believe but
one Supreme and Sovereign God, who is a God by nature.
And yet the Author of the Charader of a Papifi refrefen-
ted , gives fome inftances, which would perfwade us, that the
Saints have a natural knowledge of our prayers. Thus he
tells us, TW. Abraham hea, d the petitiom of Dives, who was yet
at a greater diflatice,even in Hell, and told him like wife his man
Tier of living, while as yet on Earth, (p ^.) Now not to ask,how
he comes fo exadly to know, where Hell is, and that it is at
a greater diilance from Heaven, than the Earth is: If there
beany force in this Argument, it muft prove, that the Saints
have a natural knowledge of our prayers, though at fo great
U 5 )
?''' a diftance from us, as Heaven is: That they fee, and hear
us, Abraham did Vhes, though we cannot fee and hear
them, as Dives did Abraham ; which might have fatisfiedhira,
lince he thinks fit to reafon from Parables, that whatfoever
diftance there is between Heaven and Hell, there is a greater
communication between them , than between Heaven and
Earth. However our Saviour cannot here fpeak of any fu-
pernatural gift , whereby Abraham faw and heard Dives in
Hell i unlefs we will fay , that Diw did by a fupernatural
iSK; giftalfo, fee and hear in Heaven i and therefore if
this prove any thing, it proves, that Saints know and hear
uPMp our prayers by their own natural powers.
Thus he adds, That the very Devils hear thofe defperate
vpretches ^ who call on them-^ and why then jhoitld he donht^ that
:S[d Saints want this priiiledge in fome manner granted to finfal men
fc"' and wickgd fpirits. But though he call this a Priviledge, I fup-
eriti. pofe, he means a natural one, unlefs he thinits, that the De-
fc::: vils hear witches by a fu pernatural revelation , as the Saints in
Mtr Heaven hear the prayers of the Saints onEarth : But I always
ilkiii thought,that Devils had been a little nearer bad men, than the
,301® Saints in Heaven are to us on Earth ^ for tliey are confined to
lijaiiK; this Lower Region, and therefore are often fo near, as to fee
lih'it and hear bad men, though they are invillble themfelves: And
liigE: this is one reafon, wiy God will not allow us to worikip any
fes invifible Spirits, becanfe though we fiiould intend only to wor-
itorsfj: ftiip good Spirits, and glorified Saints, yet bad Spirits , who
initesp are near and prefent, as having their refidence in the Air, as
the Devil is called the Prince of the Power of the Air, do af-
jIxIct; fume this worflrip to themfelves, and both corrupt the wor-
10® fhip , andabufe their Votaries, with lying Wonders. Thus
J,p. they did in the times of Paganiim,and whether they have more
reverence for the Chriftian Saints, than they had for the Pagan
jjjj Deities, in aCfuming their names and worlhip, let others con-
' fAj,, But to return to the Bifhop. He having aftiired us,that the
rojsl) Church of J^ome does npt afcribe any divine perfedfions to the
j^jj5 Saints ( of which the Reader may judge by what 1 have al
0 ready difcourled ) he thus concludes./r is therefore trne^that by Pag. 9.
cjj. examining what are our imerionr Sentiments concerning the Saints^ it
r will be found we do not raife them above the condition of creatures^
and
( )
and from thence TX>e ought to judge of what nature that exterior ho-
nour is,which vte render them •, exterior F'eneration being efiahlijlKd
to teflifie the interior Sentiments of the mind: That is, we mult
conclude, they do not give the worlhip of God to them, be-
caufe they do not believe them to be Gods. Now this, I con-
fefs, would be true, were the external Signs of honour wholly
..arbitrary, and at our own choice ^ for then they could lignifie
no more , than what we intend to lignifie by thera , and we
ought not to be charged with intending to lignifie more, than
what we profefs to intend but when either the Ad of worlhip
naturally lignifies divine perfedions, as prayer to an invifible
Being does, or God has referved any Ads of worlhip to him-
fclf, as he has done all religious worlhip, that is, ail worlhip
paid to invifible Beings , as I have already Ihewn j in thefe
cafes v^e may be guilty of giving divine honours to creatures,
though in words and intention, we afcribe no divine perfefti-
ons to them.
So that I cannot fee, but that, after all the fine colours, and
foft interpretations, which the Billiop puts upon this pradice
of the Church of Rome , in praying to Saints , the charge a-
gainlt them of giving the peculiar worlhip of God to crea-
tures, is as (Irong and forcible as ever.
Secondly, let us now confider, whether our praying to the
Saints to pray and intercede for us, be not injfurio.is to the
Merits and Mediation of Chrill. Now there are two things
the Biftiop urges to prove, that the Mediation of Saints is not
Pag. 6. injurious to the Mediation of Chrilt. i. That if the qmlity of
Mediator, which the Scriptures gives to Jefus Chrifi, received any
prejudice from the Interceffion made to theSaints, who reign with
God, it would receive no lefs from the interceffion] made to the Faitk-
Namli prop- ful who live with us. For this he alledgesthe^.Authority of the
tepM Sublidiis ad Parochos, which tells US, That if it were not law-
nonlicea^^ Faints, becaufe we have one Patron or
^od unura Mediator Jefus Chrifi, the Jpoflle would not fo earnefily have
patronum hn-de/ired the prayers of the Brethren, who were then living, to God for
beinus Jcfum him. Tor the glory and dignity of Chrifi,as Mediator, is not lefs di-
Chrill;um,nun- hy the prayers 0/ the living , than by the imercefion of
ftolus.ut fe Deo tanto ftudio fratrnm virenpum precibus adjuvari vcllet; neq; eiim trinus
vivorum preccs, quatn eorum, qui in Coelis funt, fandorum deprecatio, Chrifti Mediatoris
gloriain& dignitatem imminucrent. Catech. Rom. part. 3. T<>. de cultu vener.fancl.
This
(47 )
fW'b This is the leafl: that can be made of it, that the Mediation
H'rt- and Intercehion of the Saints for us in Heaven,is no more than
iS) one Chriftians praying for another on Earthy and I fear this is
bt!i!3 not reconcileable with the pradlice of the Church of Rome in
"liii,; this matter. For can this (if it be no more)be thought a fufii-
lOMir? cienL foundation, for all that pompous vvorlhip of the Virgin
'cotii;: Mury , and other powerful Saints? Is this a goodreafonto
ered Temples and Altars, confecrated not only to their me-
&BP, mory, but to their honour^ to fet up their Images in holy pla-
.ISoii; CCS, and pay our humble adorations before them ^ becaufe they
rtojjB pray for us in Heaven, jmb as Chriitian Brethren pray for
rorfcift one another on Earth ?
ii, ;ii,. And therefore I mull needs fay,the Biiliop has not truly ex-
eifS'j. pounded the Dodrine of the Church of Rome in this Point,
stotif- which makes the Saints to bs our Jl<fediators in Heaven-^ not in-
jivijv deed Mediators of Redemption, which Ihe acknowledges none
to be but Ghrilt, who has purchafed us with his own bloody
but Mediators of Intercellion, who have fo much interell,and
jutijjl favour,in the Court of Heaven, as powerfully to recommend
thofe to God, who put themfelves under their Patronage,
[ojij,, This I confefs makes a great difFei'ence between the Mediation
of Chrifl, and of the Saints, and yet leaves a great dillance
between the prayers of Saints in Heaven for us, and the mutual
' ; IntercelTions of Chriftians for each other on Earth, and the
' . Church of never taught, that they were of the fame na-
ture^for chough the Catechifm endeavours to prove, that the
17; Mediation and Intercelfion of the Saints in Heaven for us, is
f ^ not injurious to the mediation ofChriftj becaufe the prayers
'of Chriftians for each other on Earth, are very reconcileable
® J with the honour of Chrift's intercelfion; yet it never teaches,
that there is no difference between the prayers of Saints in
lontTi pjeaven , and Chriftians on Earth-, and 1 thmk v/e ought to
diftinguifh between the Dodrine and the Arguments of the
Church- What fhe declares to be her Dodrine we muft own
""r to be fo •, but 1 think we muft not grant every thing to be her
Dodrine, which ought to be fuppoled to make her Arguments
,i;» good i becaufe there is no neceffity of granting, that all her
sxrci/ Arguments muft be good.
This argument indeed, that the intercelfion of the Saints in
Hcaven is no more injurious to the Mediation of Chrift , than
nUi.y-; the
N
(48) .
the prayers and interccfTions of the Saints on Earth foreacli
other , cannotbe good without fuppoling, that the Intercefli-
onsofthe Saints in Heaven are of the very fame nature, with
the prayers of Chriftians for each other on Earth •, and the Bi-
(hop takes the advantage to veprefent this as the Dodrineof
the Church, that f^e teaches us to fray to Saints in the fame fpirit
of Charily and according to the fame order of fraternal focietj^
trhich mores us to demand ajfifiance of our Brethren Iking upon
Earth. But this! think is not reconcileable with the exprefs
words of tiie Council of , which founds the invocation
of Saints upon their vrith Chrifi ^ which makes a vaft
difference between their intereft and authority in the Court of
Heaven, and the bumble fupplications of Chriftians on Earth.
And 1 think//je fpirit of Charity., and the order of fraternalfocie-
ty,does not require us fuppliciter imocare, to pray to our fellow
Chriftians on Earth as humble Supplicants to pray for us, as the
Council teaches us toaddrcfs our lelves tothe Saints in Heaven.
Chriftians indeed on Earth, and Saints inHeaven(fince the Bi-
fhop has limited all their aid and afliftance to their prayers j
can do no more than pray for us ^ and are thus both of themdi-
ftinguilbcd from Chrift, who is our Mediator of redemption,
who has bought us with his blood: But then we ought to
confider , that there is a vaft difference in prayers, and pray-
crs may prevail upon fuch different Reafons , as may quite al-
ter the nature of the IntercelTion. For is there no difference
between the power and intereft of a favourite, to obtain what
he defires of his Prince, and the Petition of an ordinary Sub-
jed? A Prince may grant the Petition of a Subjedfor himfclf,or
of one Subjed for another, where there is reafon and equity in
the cafe, without any more powerful intercelTion ^ but ads of
graceand favour muff: be difpenfed by the interceflions of fa-
vourites; and yet it is all by way of prayer and Petition to
the Prince •, but though it is all but Petition and recjueft , yet
thofe, who have any requeft to make to their Prince, place
more confidence in the intereft and power of one favourite,
than in the joynt Petitions of many ordinary Subjeds.
Thus it is here ; Chriftians on Earth pray for each other as
common Supplicants , and«the benefit they exped from fuch
prayers and Interceffions, is only from the prevalency of Faith
and Charity, which infpire fuch prayers,and make them effica-
cioiis.
( 49 )
dous. God has commanded us to pray for one another, and has
promifed to hear our united, fervent, and importunate pray-
ers, for the merits of our common Saviour Jefus Chrift: But
thole,who pray to Saints in Heaven,pray to them as Favourites
and Mediators, who prevail not meerly by the force and effi-
cacy of Prayer , but by their perfonal Merits and Intereffs
with God •, and this makes them jull fuch Mediators as Chrift
is, who by their power and intereft can recommend us and our
prayers toGod's acceptance. No you'll fay,Chrift purchafedus
with his blood , and mediates in the vertue of his Sacrifice,
which makes his Mediation ot a different nature from the Me-
diation of Saints, who mediate only by their intereft with God,
upon account of their perfonal Merits. But this altei s not the
cafe ; for the general notion of a Mediator, is one who has
power and intereft with God, effedtually to recommend us to
his favour-, and whether he mediates with,or without a Sacri-
fice , if his Mediation be powerful andefficacious,heis atrue
and proper Mediator ] and to fet up fuch other'Mediators be-
fides Chrift,muft be injurious to his Mediation, for then Chrift
is not our only Mediator; and after all the Apologies that can
be made for it,it argues fome Diftn-ift,either of (thrift's power,
or good Will to help us, when we fly to other Patrons and
Advocates.
2.And therefore A/on/ieurde Meaux'has another Referve^ for
in the fecond place he tells us from the Council of TVm, Thac
to invocatc Saims^accordm^ to the fenfe of thisCotmcil^is to have re-
courfe to their Prayers^ for obtaining benefits from Godth ongh je-
fns Chrifi \ fo that in reality we do not obtain thofe benefits^ which
we receive by the intercejfion of the Saints , otherwife than through
J efts Chrifi^ and in his Name • feeing thefe Saints themfelves pray
in no other ma^ ner than through Jefus Chrifi^ and are not heard but
in his name. .After which we cannot imagine., that any o e jlsould ac-
cafe us offorf.king 'fefis Chrifi ^when we befeech his Members^ who
arealfo ours., his Childrin^ who are our Brethren.,and his Saints^who
are our firji-fruits , to pray with us, and for us, to our common
APaJier, in the name of our common Mediator.
As for for faking yfus Chrifi, this we do not charge them
with -, tho whoever confiders, how much more frequent ad-
dreifes are made in the Church of Pome to the Virgin Mary, -
and Ibme other powerful Saints, than to Chrift hirafelf, will
H be
I
h
>
( 5® )
be tempted to think,that it looks very like forfakii^himbut
we only fay, that they robChrift of the glory of being our only
Mediator and Advocate, by having recourfe to the prayers,and
interceffions of fo many Saints.
But how can the Intercelllon of Saints be injurious to the Me-
diatioh of Chrift,when they themfelves intercede in the Name
and Mediation ofChrift j which neceifarily referves to Chrill
the glory of his Mediation entire, lince the Saints themfelves
are not heard hut in his name ?
Now rightly to underftand this, we mull conlider the nature
of Chrift's Mediation, which is to offer up all thofe prayers to
God in Heaven,which we make to God in his name on Earth.He
lleb. 4.14- is our Mediator in Heaven, our High Priefi^ivhois pajfed into the
Heb 7- id. i6. • xeho is made not after the law of a Carnal Command-
Heb- 9- 2.4. „i^nt^ hut after the power of an endlefs life who is made higher than
the Heavens , who is not entred in the holy place made with hands^
which are the figures of the true^ hut into Heaven it felf now to appear
in the prefence of Cod for us. So that as the high Priefl under
the Law entred once a year i sto the Holy Place , which was
a type and figure of Heaven, to make expiation and intercelli-
ons for the people; fo the office of Chrill, as our high Priell
and Mediator, is to afcend into Heaven with his own blood,
and there to appear in the prefence of God fer ns. His media-
tory office is confined to Heaven j there he prefents our pray-
ers to God,in vertue of his own blood ; and this is as pecu-
liar and appropriated to him, as it was to the high.-Prieft un-
derthe Law,to offer the blood of the Sacrifice, and make at-
tpnement, and interceffion in the Holy of Holies.
So that to prefent our Prayers to God in Heaven is the pe-
culiar office of Chrill, who is our great High Prieff, and only
Mediator in the immediate prefence of God in Heaven ^ and to
apply our felves to any or her Mediators in Heaven,to prefent
our Prayers to God, in whatmainer, or upon what pretence
foever it be,is injurious to the Mediation of Chrill, whole pro-
per Office it is to prefent our prayers to God in Heaven. And
that pretence that the Saints pray for us only in the name and
Mediation of Chrill,is no apology in this cafe j for in what name
foever they pray, they offer up our prayers to God immedi-
ately in Heaven, which is the office of our great High Prieft,
for there is 'and mull be but one Mediator in Heaven.
And
X
And if we confidcr, what is meant by praying to God ia
the Name and Mediation of Chrift,we fiial) fee reafon to think,
that this is very improperly attributed to the Saints in Heaven.
For when we pray to God in the name of Chrift, though we ad-
drefs our prayers immediately to God, yet God does not re-
ceive theta, as coming immediately'from us, but as prefcnted
by the hands of our Mediator j which is the true meaning ot
praying to God in the name of Chrifl-, that we offer our Pray-
ers coGod, notdiredly from our felves, for then we fhould
have no need of a Mediator, but by his hands, whofe office it is
to preferit them to God, to appear in the Prefence of God for
us, which is thevcfovcczllGd fomng to God hy him. Heb. 7.zi
Now this is very agreeable to the Rate and condition of
Chriftians on Earth, who are at a great diftance from theim-
mediate Throne and Prefence of God, to offer iheir prayers
by the hands of a Mediator, who appears in the prefence of
God for them .j and the reafon, why we want a Mediator to
appear for us, is becaufe we are not yet admitted into God's
immediate Prefence our felves. But could every ovdinary
Priefl, or Jew, have been admitted into the Holy of Holies, as
the high Priefl: was, they might as well have offered their
prayers and facrifices there immediately to God, without the
M iniflry and Mediation of the high Priefl j and thofe who are
in Heaven in the immediate prefence of God, if they offer up
any prayers to God for themfelves or others, they offer them
immediately and diredlly to Godj beeaufethey offer them to
God in his immediate Prefence , which is the true notion of
Chrifl's Mediation, that he appears in the prefence of God for
us: And therefore whatever ufe there may be of the Name of
Chrifl in Heaven, Saints in Heaven, who live intheimraedi-
ate Prefence of God, have no need of a Mediator to offer their
prayers to God, as Saints on Earth have, becaufe they are ad-
mitted to the immediate vifion of God themfelves. To offer up
our Prayers to God,in the Name and Mediation of Chrifl, fup-
pofes, that we are at a diflance from God, and not admitted
into his Prefence to fpeak for our felves; but thofe prayers,
which are offered to God in his immediate Prefence, need no'
Mediator to prefent them. And yet to fay, that the Saints in
Heaven offer their Prayers to God in the Name and Medi-
ation of Chrifl, is to fay, that when they arc admitted to the
H 2 immediate
' ; '«■ k
v ■ .a
■a
Pag. 4.
( 5'i T " "
immediate Prefence of God themiclves, they ftill need aMedi-
ator ^ that the prayers they offer to God,in his immediate pre-
fence,they do not offer immediately to him,but by the hands of
a Mediator*, which ifitbe Sence,lam futc,is no good Divinity,
as neither agreeing with the Types of the Law, nor with the
Gofj7el account ofChriff's Mediation. And therefore if gldri-
fed Saints appear for us in the prefence of God in Heaven,
they are as much our Mediators asChrirt: is ^ for this is the
inoll elfential charaTer of his Mediation, that be appears in the
prefence of God for us. The only ohjedion I can fore-fee a-
gainft this, is, that fome of the ancient Fathers, though they
did not pray to Saints to pray for them, yet were indinedto
believe, that Saints departed did pray for the Church on Earth,
efpecially for their particular Friends, which they left behind
them, and therefore to be fure did not think this any injury to
the Mediation ofChrift:. But then we mud confider, that
as they fpoke doubtfully ofthis matter, fo thofe very Fathers
did not believe, that Saints departed were received up incothe
highed Heaven, into the immediate Prefence and Throne of
God j though they thought them in a very happy date, yet <
not perfect,rill the refurredion \ and therefore they prayed for
Saints departed , as well as believed, that Saints departed
prayed for them. Now any Mediation and interceljion on this
fide Heaven,is very confident with the Mediation of Chrid in
Heaven ^ but to intercede in Heaven is his peculiar office,
which no other Creature cm (hare in, fince his Refurrcdion
and Afcenfion. This, I think, is fufficient to prove, that
Mmfieur de Meaux his Expofition cannot reconcile praying to
Saints to pray for hs^ either with the peculiar Worfhip of (}od„
or with the glory and dignity of our great and only Mediator
and uidfocate J ejus Chrifl.
The Charader of a Papiji Reprefented.
p,. Of addrejfhng more Supplications to the Firgin Mary than
to Chrift.
Monfeur de A^eaux takes no notice of that peculiar kind of
Worfhip, which is paid in tlie Chureh of Rome to the Virgin
Mary ^ as being fenfible how hard it is to reconcile this
with his bare Or,« pro nMs\ but the lleprefenter , who pre-
tends
l,v
, ends to follow the Bifhops Pattern, but wants his Judgment
"'r^'r'ind Caution to manage it,undertakes to apologize for this toO", ^
^^and it is worth the while to conltder what he (ays.
wtru The Papift Mif-rcprefented is laid to belkie the ytrpn Marf
much more foxverful in Heaven than Chrifi^ and that jUcan
■ 'C ommand him to do^ ttrhat'Jhe thinks good, and for this reafon he ho-
'^^^■jottrs her much more than he does her Son , or Cod the Fathtr, for
®3:»7e frayer he fays to Ged , faying ten to the Holy hlrgin. Let US
?'"'then conlider how much of Mifreprefentation there is in this j
'^•csmd i (hall begin with the laft firif, becaufe mens Adions are
beft Interpreters of their Thoughts and Belief.
tEQE] The Papift for one yrayer he fays to God, fays ten to the Virgin
-sicMary; Is this raif-reprefenred ? Let him but tell over his
-Lsrieads, and fee how many .Ave Maries and Fater nailers he will
:j:rr:rnd upon a ftring , which are exadly ten for one- Tin's he
cai!c,;x>nfelles, and thhrks it as innocent to recite the Angelical Salu-
^foiation now , as it vvas for the Angel Gab iel and Elizabeth to
iBptaio i:. But did the Angel ufe it as a Prayer to the Virgin Ma-
I'mi'f • ft ^-'il thou that are highly favoured^ the Lend is rrith Thee^
iSLrdeffedart thsu amongfi iVomen, when fpoken to the Virgin,who
then prefent to near it, a friendly Salutation, or a Prayer?
[5(]^-vVas it delivering a Meiragc,or an act of Devotion? Or is this
jt:he Ave Mdri^rnow in ufe in the Church of Eome ? As I remem-
j,{;^3cr, there are t ao or three little words, Or a pro ?wbisy2(\dc<\ to
jjigji^.t,which make it a Prayer, not the Argcikal Salutation : And
,^fve do not read,that the Angel faid, Holy Mary, Mother of Cod f'tttemplati
.fH.-Wi.. ^ ^ I ' t I d t I ^ Arte n*» /."/
r-:. ■'^fftty for us finncrs^ nxnp and in the hour of death.
['.jJ Indeed were it lawful to pray to the VirginMary, 1 fhould Marv^a
/Crt'.ahave lefs co fay againft the frequent repetition of this prayer i 24- ' "
Y^but yet a man might enquire, why the prayer to the Virgin
Mary^ is repeated fo much oftner tnan the prayer to God y is
Dot this to honour her msich mpre than he dees her Son^ or God tfse
Father ? For isnot Prayer arrad of Honourand Worfhip? And
do we not then honour that Being moft, to whom wc pray of-
ilffji^teneft ? No, fays the Reprefenter, for he does not at any time
fay even fo much as one Prayer to her, hrtt if hat is dirtdtd more
^^pirrcipady to God. Surely there rauft be fome Myftery in this.
^ For do they not fay a great many Prayers, fVnmediately di-
* "I reded to the Virgin Mary.^ and not at all direded to God ?
Is not their Ave Maria fuch a Prayer', and do they principaBy.
% vn
Ibid. p."5-
(ia)
:pray to God in lliofe Prayers, which are immediately direile^
to the Virgin M^ry ? When they piay to the Virgin (.
■ '■ • - " J- AI. •,
pray for rhem^ is this prayer principally direded to God
ty I What when the Virgin is only named ? And the matter ofl
lijels! f
the Prayer is fuch, that it cannot be direded to God Ahaiglv.
ty, unlcfs they think it proper to pray to God to pray for
them ? Ves, thefe Prayers to the Virgin zxc offered up an
thankfHl Memorial of Chriffj Incarnation^ and an acknovcledgmtK
oftheBlelfedneJsofjefHs the ffmt of her Womb, The meaDiiigof
w hich tan oe no more than this,That w hen they pray toMary t[)(
Mother of Jefus, it is a tacite acknowledgment,that Jefus was
■born of her, and chat the Son rauft be a very Glorious Prince
when the Mother is fo highly exalted upon account of her
Relation to him, as to have fo many devout Prayers and
■Hymns offered up to her. Bat does this prove, that the
Prayers, which are inimeJiately direded to the Virgin
are principally direBed to Chrift, becaufe Mary was his Mother?
which is the vrhole My fiery of the bufincfs. Suppofe Chrill
ihould think hirafelf honoured by thofe Prayers, which are
offered to his Mother, yet is there no difference between pray-
ing to Chrill, and that Honour vvedohimin praying to his
Mother? A late Author indeed tells us, that thePewmiiw,
Tphtch we give to Mary, redounds to Jefus: All Honour given tt
the Mother J ending to the Glory of the Son •, for as he commimmts
with her in Fiejh and Blood •, fo alfo doth he partake with her in htr
. Qualities and PerfeBions,^and therefore he is alfo a fharer in tlm
^Homage and Obfervancefhat is made to her. This is a new fort
of Confubftantiacion, and Communication of Properties y but
yet how much foever we honour Jefus, when we pray to Ah-
ry, yet we do not pray to Jefus, when we pray to Mary) and
•therefore thefe Prayers arc principally and immediately dire-
ded to Mary^ not to God or Chrift ^ and therefore to offer tea
Prayers to Mary for one to God, looks very like honouring Ma-
- ry much more than her Son.^ or Cod the Father.
Well, but fhe is the Mother of God ^ andBleffed amongBlFo--
men \ but how does her being Chrift's Mother entitle her to J
greater fhare in our Prayers and Devotions than Chrift hitn-
lelf? It is indead a great Honour to her to be the Mother of
Jefus, but does this entitle her to that Worfhip and Homage,
which is due to her Son ? She is the happieft Mother among
Women,
|ral»«
plaiiiitei
Ijiiisliini
?jite an'
(jjacc
Jiiritk
tirtlff I
ijiinaiK
alk
Pi/ti
w,
iflv.rs, I
dcnhi
Blfc
T. do.li
ulo:
Diiit
I'tidai
;b
:ri.y
ante
ailjM
a,aiil
zfk
itwta
nrGo?
nsik
!i"v'iier
tdiatd;; ^55^
iVirjiiJVomen, but does this advance her above Angels and Arch-
^tofe;^ngels ? For ray part I fee no reafon to think, that her bea-
'iMtkfing Chrill in her Worab, which was a fingular Favour con-
^toGoferred on her, but has nothing of Merit in it, fhouId advance
) God tier above the moll Eminent Apofties and Martyrs, who with
' arc(:.indaunted Courage and unwearied Induftry propagated the
»d«i«ir-3ofpel throughout the Wofld, and were the great Miniiters
A T^t-jf his Kingdom ; I am fure our Saviour does not feera to at-
icfftjiLvibute any fuch mighty Vertue to the Maternity of Mary^
vhen ^ certain Woman faid unto him , Blejfud is the Wo/nb^
^%f^hat b^irethee^ and the Paps which tho't hafi fuckedheanfvvered, 11.27.
![)Oj;;- rw rather Blefjed are they, who hear the Word of God and k^ep it. \
leroo: another place, when forac'told him , behold thy Mother '^"4
]je,\yifytidthy Brethren jiand without defiring to fpeak with thee, he an-
[fj^fwered and faid unto him, that told him, who is my Mother? And
Imuipbo are my Brethren ? and he fir etched forth his hand towards his
fj J ..Dtfciples, fnyin^ , behold my Mother and my Bre-
^m bren, for whofoever Jhall do the Will of my Father, which is in
^^^^^..fleaven, the fame is my Mother, and Sifier, and Brother. Which
iijijj^ofefers his meanelt Difciples before the Mother of his Flelh,
^jSonlidered only as his Mother ■, which he would not
^.^iavc done, had the bare Maternity of advanced her a-
,„Jove all other Creatures.
' Well, but fie is mofi a^'ceptahle to God in her Ititerceffion for
"j^^fis. Did the Angel tell them this too , as well as that Ihe is
^.''■'^3'e fed among Women? Wnence then do they learn it? Is ic.'
jfSnly becanfe Ihe is a Mother? Have all Mothers then fuch a.-
™ J^Tiatural Authority over their Sons, even when they areSove-
fflffeprgjgn princes? Cannot the Eternal Son of God chuTe an
W®:'Earthly Mxher, but he muft admit her into the Throne with
®%im, and govern his Kingdom, if not by her Commands,,
iciorcttygj- j^y. jrnportunities and Requefts ? This is thought a
liiebgrerit weaknefs in Earthly Princes, and ufually proves fatal to
their Government; and yet it is much more tolerable in Earth
ip^fthzn in Heaven. What has the Mother of his Flelh to do to in-
.Tectiti^ermedle in the affairs of his Spiritual Kingdom, which (he is,
to t^'not capable of managing? She iiad no Authority in the Church,
c liic.twhile (he was on Earth, which methinks her Maternity might
lipandf'give her as much Right to, as to be Q.ieen Regent of Heaven.
:MotI» When ChriR was a Child he lived in Subjedion to Mary and
1' Jofephy
Jr
- 'J ^ ^ ;
"Luke 1. 48,
49-
John 2. 3,4.
(5^5
Joftpb, though he began early to give them a Specimen of a
Superiour Power he had, and futh a work to do, as difcharged
him from Subjedion to Earthly Parents. When he was ta
twelve years old, he told his Moclier,fcow was n, that ye fougk
we, wifi ye not that I n.nfi be ahom my Fathers bufnejs s' When
his Mother at the Marriage in Cam oiGaliiee acquainted him,
that their Wine was fpent, and infinuated her defire, that he
fhiould help thctii, he rebukes her for it, Woman what hate I
to do with thee ? my hi.nr is not yet come. She was not to diredt
him, what to do in fuch matters •, and can we think then, that
now lie is advanced to the Right Hand of God, he will fulFer
her to intermedie in theadminiHration of his Kingdom.
But our Aurhor ie/Ve^et if damnable to thinkthe F'irgin Mary
more powerfal in Heaven ibr.n Chrijb.^ or that fi.e can in any thing
command him. It is well tl e Jmpera Redemptori., commandiheEe-
dtemtr, is at laft difow: :d by them , though it may be feme
may think it a little too much to call it damnable , becaufe
whatever Papills believe now, there was a time, when this
Wusufedin the Milfa.'s of the Roman Churchy and will hefay,
that it was damnable thc.^ to ufethat Hy mn {
I believe no Papift everthought the Virgin Mary to be Ora-
nipotent. much lefs, that Ilie can do more than Chrift can, or'
can command him by a dircill and Superior Authority ^ r.cr
did any man, that I know of,ever charge them w ith this: and
, if it be only in this fenfe, that he denies the Virgin to be more
powerful in Heaven than Chrift, it is nothing to tlie purpofe •,
for it is poflible for a Subjeft to be more powerful than his
Prince, though he cannot command him, and can do nothing
but by his Princes favour;, but if he have fo much the afcendant
of his Prince, that he can deny him nothing , that he does
whatever he will have him, and fuch things as no other confi-
deration fhould incline him to do, but the defire of fuch a pow-
erful Favourite, this man is really more powerful than the
Prince, becaufe he has the diredlion and Government of the
Princes Power: He has the Prince himfelf in his Power, and
therefore is more powerful than he. And if this be the cafe
of the Blefled Virgin , that (he has the Difpofal of Chrift's
Grace and Mercy, though not by a direft Authority , yet by
her Intereft in her Son, if he never denies, that which Ihe asks,
but grants that at her Interceflion, which he would not grant
without
(57
without it j if the Papifts believe this, they believe her to
be more Powerful than Chrift, and they have then good rea-
fon, as they do, to put up more frequent Prayers to her, than
to God or Chrift himfelf. And whether they do not believe
this, and that at this very day, let any one judge, from thele
paflages in the Contemplations of the Life and Glory of the
Holy Mary, which is lately publKhed in Englifh, Permifju
Superioram. There p. 7. he tells us, that God hath by a Pag. 7.
Solemn Covenant pronounced Mary to be the Treafury of
" Wifdom, Grace, and Sanftity under Jefus. So that what-
" ever Gifts are beftowed upon us by Jefus,we receive them by
the Mediation of Mary: No one being gracious to Jefus,
who is not devoted to Mary^ nor hath any one been fpeci-
"ally confident of the Patronage of Mary^ who hath not
through her received a fpecial Bleffing from Jefus. Whence
' it is one great mark of the Predeftination of the Eled,tobe
" Angularly Devoted to Mary^ fince (he hath a full Power, as
"a Mother, to obtain of Jefus, whatever he can ask of (iod
" the Father, and is comprehended within the Sphere of man's
" Predeftination to Glory, Redemption from Sin, and Regene-
*■'' ration by Grace. Neither hath any one petitioned Mary^vtho
" was refufed by Jefus, nor trufted in Mary^ and was abandon-
ed by Jefus.
"A little after he diredls the Devotes of the Virgin, topag. 9,
have *a , firm and unfhaken confidence in her Patronage, a-
"midft the greateftofour inward Conflifts with Senfuality,
"and outward Tribulations from the adverfe Gafualities of
"this Life-, through a ftrong Judgment of her eminent Pow-
"er, within the Empire of Jefus, grounded upon the finguiar
" Prerogative of her Divine Maternity for by vertue there-
" of no State of man can be fo unhappy, through the malice
" of Satan, the heats of our Paflions, or the Enormity of Sin,
"which exceeds her Love towards the Difciples of Jefus, or
" the efficacy of her Mediation for us unto Jefus : So that
though the condition of fome great Sinners may be fo de-
"plorable, that all the limited Excellency, Merits and Power
' "of all the Saints and Angels,-cannot effeclually bend the
"Merciesof Jefus to relieve them, yet fuch is the accepta-
* " blenefs
(5!!)
** ceptablenefs ofthe Mother of Jefus to Jefus,that whoever is
" under the Verge of her Protedion^may confide in her Inter-
" ceflions to Jefus. He denying no Favour to her, whereby
the Wonders of man's Py^clfination and Redemption
through Jefus, may l)e magjtified and promoted. So that
the Blell'ed Virgin is more Powerful than all the Saints and
Angels in Heaven j (he has all the Power of Chrift, all his
Grace and Mercy in.her hands, and can difpenfe it to fuch
Sinners, whom Ghrift would not pity and relieve without
lier, and therefore is a more powerfirl Patronels of Sinners,
than Chrift himfelf is'. And therefore he might well add in
the next place, that all thefe Bkffjngs flow from Jefus to ell
through Mary, and may therefore jufily refer thern all to her as to
the mofl efle^ualjnfirunient ^ Channel^ and Conveyance of all.
Now if this he true Reprefenting, it is no Mif-reprelentation to
fay, that a Papift believes the Y'wgm Mary to be much more
Powerful in Heaven than Chrift ^ not that the has. any Power
of her own, but that (he can more powerfully and efeB:ually
bend the Mercies of Jefus to relieve Sinners.^ than the mercies of
Jefus can bend themfelves without her.
C T.
/
( 7} )
SECT. V.
IMAGES.
Th at theWorlhlp of Images, as it was pradifcd by
the Heathens, is Idolatry, Monlleur de Memx and
the Reprefcnter fuppofe; and therefore their Bulinefs is,
to give fuch an account of the VVorlliip of Images, as pra-
difed in the Church of Eo/ne\ as to diftinguilh themfelves
from Heathen Idolaters. To this purpofe the Bifhop tells
us. The Council of Trent forbids tu ejcprefly to believe any Di- Pgg.
vinity or Virtue in them., for which they ought to be reverenced.^ to
demand any favour of them, or to put any trufi in them j and
ordains., That all the Honour which ts given to them., fiould be
referred to the Saints themfelves which are reprefented by them.
That the Honour we render Images., is grounded upon their ex~
citing in us the remembrance of thofe they reprefent. That by
humbling our felves before the Image of Chrifi crucified, we Jhow
what is our fubmiffion to our Saviour, So that to fpeak.^ precifely.,
and according to the Ecclefiaftical Stile, when we honour the Image
of an Apoflle or Martyr, our intention is not fo much to honour
the Image, as to honour the Apoflle or Martyr in the prefence of
the Image. Thus the Poniiflcal tells us, and the Council of Trent
exprejfes the fame thing, when it fays. The Honour we render to
Images, has fuch a reference to thofe they reprefent, that by the
means of thofe Images which we ktfs, and before which we kneel,
we adore Jefus Chrtfl, and honour the Saints, whofe Types they
are. To the fame purpofe the Reprefenter fpeaks, and al-
molt in the fame words. So that the Sum of their Apology
is this. That they do not believe Images to have any Divi-
nicy in them, or to be Gods, and therefore do not pray
to, nor put their truft in the Image, nor fo much honour
the Image in thofe external Exprelfions of Reverence they
pay to it, by kilfmg it, and kneeling before it, as Chriif,
or the Saint whom the Image reprefentsj and the ufefulnefs
' of Images to excite in us the remembrance of thofe vyhom
I we
( 74 )
we love and honour, is a jufliSable Rcafon of that Honour
we pay to them.
This is a Matter of very great confequence, and dcferves
to be carefully ftated •, and therefore I /hall ftridly examine,
Whether this Expofition will juftify the wor/hipof Images,
and fufficiently diftinguilh the Worflhp of the Ch.o(Rome,
from that WorHup which the Heathens gave to their Images.
Monfieur de Mimx pretends, by his Expofition of the
Doftrines of the Church of Rome, to cut off Objeftions and
Difputes; that is, fo to Hate the Matter, that there may be
no place for thofe Objedions which Protefcants commonly
urge againft wor/liipping Images. But I do not fee, that he
has made any E/Tay of this Nature in the Point of Image-
Wor/hip, but has left both all the Difputes among them-
felves, and with Protcftants, untouched.
The Objsdions which Proteftants urge againft the Wor-
/hip of Images, as taught and pradifed in the Church of
Rome, are principally thefe four.
1. That it is exprefly forbid by the fecond Commandment,,
without any limitation or exception.
2. That the Heathens are in Scripture charged with Ido-
latry in the Wor/hip of Images.
3. That it is a violation of the Divine Majefty, crimen
Uf£ Majefiatis, to reprefent God by a material and fenilefs-
•Image or Pidure.
4. That a vifible Objed of Wor/hip, though confidered
only as a Reprefentation, is exprefly contrary to the Law of
Mofes, and efpecially to thelpiritual Nature of the Chrifti-
an Wor/hip.
Now I do not fee, how the Bifliop's Expofition takes off
any of thefe Objedions, which after all that he hath faid^
are in full force ftill, as I /hall particularly /hew.
I. Then he tells us, That the Council of Trent forbids us
exfrejly to believe any Divinity or Virtue in Images, for which
they ought to be reverenced. We grant, the Council does
forbid this •, and he knows that we never charge them with
it; though there are fome pradices of the Church of Rome,
which look very lufpicioully that way: but then we fay,
the fecond Commandment forbids the wor/hip of all Images,
without
f 75 )
without auy fuchlimitation; for there is not any one word
in the Commandment to limit the Prohibition of worfliip-
ping Images,to fuch Images, as are believ'd to have any Divi-
nity in them. The words of the Commandment are as general
as can be, Thou jlialt mt make to thy felf any Graven Image^ nor
the likenefs of any thing that is in Heaven ahove^or in the Earth be-
neath^ or in the Water under the Earth ^ thou fait not bow down
to them^ por worjhip them. The Commandment takes no notice
of any Divinity which is fiippofed to be in thefe Images, but
only of the Reprefentation made by them, that they are the
Likenefs or Reprefentation of things in Heaven, or things on
Earth, or things under the Earth ^ and therefore the whole
Difpute between Papiils and 'Proteftants about the fenfe of
the fecond Commandment, and the Itriil notion of an Idol,
is left untouch'd by this Expofition.
The Roman Dodors indeed tell us, that the Heathens wor-
fhipped their Images as Gods, and did afcribe Divinity to
them ; upon which account Monfieur de Meaux tells us. All pag. p.
thefe words of the Council are like fo many Char oilers to difiinguijh
us from Idolaters; feeing we are fo far from believing with them
anyJDivinity annexed to the Images.^ that we do not attribute to
them any Virtue., but that of exciting in us the remembrance of theDif-
thofe they reprefent. But he knew very well, that Protellants coufe f idola-
deny, that the Heathens took their Images for Gods any try, f.466, &c.
more than Papiflsdo •, their Philofophers defpifed the charge,
and made the fame Apologies for themfelves, which the Di-
vines of the Church of Rome now do ^ and we may fuppofe,
that common Heathens had much fuch Appreheniions about
them, as common Papifts have : Thofe who had any fenfe
could not believe them to be Gods ■, and thole who have none,
may believe any thing : but there is no great regard to be had
to fuch Mens Faith, whatever their Religion be,who are void
of common Senfe. However this Difpute, whether the Hea-
thens did believe their Images to be Gods,or to have anymore
Divinity in them, than Papifts attribute to their Images, is
a Difpute flill, and Monfieur de Meaux has not faid one word
to prevent it; and therefore the Condemnation of the Hea-
thens for worlhipping Images is ftill a good Objeftion againfl:
the worfhip of Images in the Church of Romej till he prove
I 2 as
II-"i
[ r> V \ 1
I ilTT.
1 Iff
1' b?
I Kingr 18.27
Ppntif. in Be-
red. nov. cru-
cis.
i 7^ ) y
as well as aflert this difference between theni.
But indeed, tho I readily grant that the Church of Rami
does not believe that there is any Divinity in their Images,
and that the Heathens did believe that Confecration brought
down the Gods, whom they vvorfhipped by fuch Reprefen-
tations, and tied them by fome invifible Charms to their
Image, that they- might be always prefent there to"receive
their WorJhip > yet this makes no material difference intheif
Notion of Images.
The reafon why the Heathens thought it neceffaryby
fome Magical Arts to fallen their Gods, or fome Divine
Powers to their Images, was not to incorporate them with
their images, but to fecure a Divine Prefence there, to hear
their Prayers, and receive their Sacrifices, without which all
^ their Devotions paid to an.Image were loll ^ which was very
neceflary, efpecially in the VVorfhip of their Inferior Dx.-
raons, whom they did hot believe to be prefent in all places-
As Elijah mocked the Priefls of Baal^ and faid^ Cry aiotid -^ for
he is a God -■ either he is talking^ or he is pirfuing^ or he is in a
Journy^ or peradventure he /leepeth^ ■ and muji be awaked. But
now, thole who believe tliat God is every where prefent to
fee and hear what wc do ^ and that the Saints, who are
not prefent in their Images, yet do certainly know (by
what means foeveritbe) what Prayers and Homages are
offered to them at their Images, need not call down any Di-
vine Powers conllantly to attend their Images, but only to
procure their acceptance of thofe Devotions, which arc paid
to them at tbeir^mages. And this is the difierence between
the Confecration of Heathen and Popifh Images: The firll
is to procure the Prefence of their Qods im their Images •,
the other to obtain the Favour of Chrift, and the Saints, to
accept thofe Prayers and Oblations, and other Ads of De-
votion which are offered to them at their Images-, as to
give but one Inllance of it in a Prayer ufed at the Confecra^
tion of the Crofs. Sanblificetar lignum ifiad in nomine Td-\ - tris
& Fi-\ //V, & Spirittu - SanSi^ & heneditdio illius ligni in quo
membra fanSia falvatoris faf^enfa fant, fit in ijio ligno ^ ut 0-
r antes iticlinantefq-, fe propter Deum ante if am crucem inveniant
Corporis &. Anima [anuatem. Let this Wood be fanB-tfied in the
name
( 77 )
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghofl ; (tnd^
let the Blejfing of that Wood, on which the holy Members of our
Saviour hung, be on this Wood •, that thofe, who pray and bow them-
felves before this Crofs^ may obtain Health) both of Body and Soul,
This peculiar Virtue which Confecration bellows on Images
to obtain the Favour of Chrilt and his Saints, to thofe who
pi'ay and worfhip before them, is all that the Heathens in-
tended in calling down their Gods 'to attend their Images
to hear and receive their Prayers and Sacrifices. They did
not believe their Images to be Gods, but Silver, or Gold,
Wood, or Brafs, or Stone, according to the Materials they
were made of, as the Church of Rome does •, but they thought
their Gods were prefent to hear the Prayers they made be-
fore their Images •, as the Church of alfo believes, that
Chrift and his Saints have a peculiar regard to thofe Prayers
which are made before their Images, as is evideatfrom their
forms of confecrating Images to luch an ufe. The Heathens
did not put their trull in an Image of Wood and Stone, but
in that God, who was reprelented by that Image, and was
there prefent to help them. And thus, tho the Church of
Rome does not demand any Favour of Imagis, nor put anyTruJl
in them, yet file expeds the Relief and Acceptance of Chrift
and the Saints for that Worlhip Ihe pays to their Images j
and I would defire any Man to (how me the difference be-
tween thefe t'wo, efpecially when we confider how much
greater Vcrtue is attributed to feme Images of theBIefled
Virgin in the Church of Rome, than there is toothers-, as
to the Image of the Lady of Loretto, 8cc. which fan fignify
nothing lefs, than that the Virgin is more pleafed with, and
will more gracioudy accept our Worlliip before fuch an
Image,than any other ; or elfe me-thinks the Devotoes of the
Vfirgin Ihould not go fo many Miles in Pilgrimage to the La-
dyof Loretto, as they often do, if they believed the Images
of the Virgin which they had at home to be of equal Power :
which is as much trufting in Images, and attributing a Divine
Virtue to them, as ever the Heathens were guilty of For
me-thinks thofe who ftridly adhere to the Letter of Scripture
to prove that the Heathens believed their Images to be
Gods, and did put their Truft in them, becaufe the Scrip-
ture
mi
(78)
ture exprefly fays fo, (hould conflder alfo, that the Scrip-
"•ture exprefly tells us, the Idols of the Heathens are Silver
and Goldj the Workjsf Mens hands ; they have Aloaths^ hut they
Pfalm 135. '1 have ^hey^ bat they fee not •, they have Ears,
15,17. hilt they hear not, neither u there any Breath in their Months:
and therefore we have as much reafon to conclude, that the
Heathens did not put their Trufl: in the material Images,
which they knew to be no better than ftupid fenfelefs matter,
which could not of themfel;es hear or help them, as to
confefs, that in forae fenfe they made Gods of them. For
if the- Heathens did not believe them to be ,dead fenfelefs
images, which could neither fpeak, nor fee, nor hear, but
that they were really animated by invilible Spirits; they
were not fuch dull and fottilh Idolaters, as the Pfalmill re-
prefents them; and if they did (as the Pfalmill takes
it for granted they themfelves acknowledged ) than it is cer-
tain they could not believe the material Images to be Gods,
nor the Objefts of their Hope and Trull, and therefore
■might ( as fome of their Phi'.ofophers in elFeift did ) as fafe-
ly renounce believing any Divinity or fertnein their Images,
for which they ought to be reverenced, or demanding any Favour
of them, or putting any Truf in them, as the Council of Test
does. So that their not believing any Divinity in their
Images, does neither excufe them from the Breach of the
fecond Commandment, nor fufficiently dillinguifh the Church
of Romc'^s worfliipping Images, from that Worllflp which the
Heathens gave them; at leall the Bilhop has faid nothing to
anfwer on prevent thefe Objeftions againll Image-worlhip,
which he pretends to be the defign of his Expolition.
.2. As a fuller Explication of the Dodrine of the Church
about Image-worlliip, Monlieur de Meaux adds, that the
Council of Trent ordains. That all the Honour which is given to
them (Images) jhould be referred to the Saints themfelves, which
are reprefented by them : Or, as the Council exprelTes it. The
Honour we render to Images has fuch a reference to thofe they re-
prefent, (ad Prototypa quae illse reprefentant, to the Prototypes
which they reprefent) that by the means of thofe Images (per Ima-
gines, by thofe Images') we kifs, and before which we kneel, we
adore Jefus Chrifi, and honour the Saints, whofe Types they are.
Quorum
( 79 )
Quorum illse fimilitudinem gemnt \ Whefe Itkenefs they are,
er whom they reprefenr.
Hitherto we have no Expofitidh at all of the Dc(;i:rine"of
the Church about Image-Wo'rfhip, but only a bare relation
what the Council fays, that Images mull be worlhipped only
upon account of their Reprefentation •, add that theA¥or-
fiiip which is given to the Image, is referred to thb Proto-
type: This all Roifij^Cathdlieksrag'fee'in BWyedthere is
an endlefs Dilpute among them j about the NaturO ' and 'De-
greeof thisWorlhip, and it will be necellary to take a fhort
\ ievv of it.
They are all agreed, that at leail the external Afls'of A-
deration are to be paid to Images, fnch as Kifiing,.Kneeling,
Bowing, Proftration, Incenfe ; this Durandits, and Holcot^
and Piciis Mirandula allowed; they all agreed, that the
Worfliip which was given to Images, is upon account of
Reprefentation,or as Chrill and his Saints are reprefented by
them, and worlhipped in that Worlhip, which is given to
their Images •, but then there was a threefold difference be-
tween them. " '
I. That fome would not allow this Worlhip in a proper
fenfe to be given to the Images, but improperly and abufively;
becaufe at the prefence of the Image, which excites in us
the remembrance'of the Objedf, we worlhip the Objed re-
prefented by it, Chrill; or his Saints, as if they were adual-
ly prefent •, this was the Opinion of DnrandHs^ Holcot, and
Ticits Mirandula, who could hardiy efcape the cenfure of
Herefy for it •, and that which excufed them, as Vafqaez,
fays, was. That they agreed with the Catholick Church in xoij.c.
performing all eX'ternal Ads of Adoration to Images, and
that they differed only in manner of fpeaking from the
reft.
12, Thomas Aqainoi, and his Followers,'and feveral great
Divines fince the Council of Trent, teach. That the fame
Worlhip is to be given to the Image, which is due to the
Prototype •, and therefore as Chrift muft be worlhipped..
Latria, or a fupream Worlhip, fo muft the Image of
Chrift, becaufe the Image is wOrlliipped only on account of
its Reprefentation, and therefore muft be- worlhipped with
the
( 8o )
the fame Worflhp with the thing reprefented : and the rao-
tion of the Mind to an Image, as an Image, is the fame with
the motion to the Thing reprefented. Which feems the
moft rcafonable Account •, for if I worfliip Chrift by his
Image, I mult give that Worfhip to the Image which 1 in-
tend for Chrift, becaufe in that cafe the Image is in ChrUt's
place and Head to me.
3. The third Opinion is. That though we rnufl; worlhip
Images, yet we mult not give the Worlhip of Latria to
them, no not to the Image of Chrift himfeif, but an infe-
rior degree of Worlhip. ITis fome Divines aHerted on the
Authority of the Council of Nice^ which exprcQy deter- -
mined, that is not to be given to Images. But this is
the moft abfurd Opinion of all ^ for if we muft worlhip
Images only upon the account of their Reprefentaticn, we
muft give that Worlhip fo them, which is due to the thing
reprefented by them and if we give any other Worlhip
to them, we muft worlliip them for their own fakes. And
what is that Worlhip which is due to them as feparated
from the Prototype ? What Worlhip is due to carved and
polilhed Brafs and Stone ? Whoever deliresto fee thefe three
dilferent Opinions, with the proper Reafons of them, ex- ^
plained more at large, may confult Dr. Stiliingfleet\ learned
Defence of his Difcourfe of Idolatry, Part 2. Chap. i. fag.
575, &c. Now the Council of 7rf«f only determines, that
the Honour we give to Images, muft be referred to the Pro-
totypes, that we muft adore Chrift and his Saints in that
Worlhip which we give to their Images: which feems to
countenance the fecond Opinion, That the Worlhip of La-
tria is to be given to the Image of Chrift, bccaufe that is the ,
Worlhip which we muft give to Chrift : But then the Coun-
cil refers to the fecond Council of Nice ^ which determines
the quite contrary 5 and 1 dare not undertake to reconcile
the Council with it felf, fincc the Fathers of that Council
would not plainly decide this Controverfy among their
Divines.
Let us then try, if we can difcover, what Monlleur de
MeoHx thinks of this Matter ^ what Worlhip that is which
he allows to be given to Images.
NoWj
(■ 8< )
Now, as far as I can guefs, he is of Durxndus his Opinion,
That all External Ads of Adoration are to be performed
before the Image, but that the Image is not to be properly
worfhipped, but only Chrift in the prefence of his Image,
as reprefenting his Perfon to us, and exciting in us the re-
membrance of him. Thus he tells us, That whUe the Image
of Chrifi crnafed^ being frefent before our Eyes^ caafes fo p-e-
cioHS a remembrance in our Sonliy we are moved to tejiify by fome
exterionr fignsy how far our gratitude bears hs j and by ham-
bling our felves before the ImagCy we fhow what is our fabmif-
fion to oar Saviour. So that he allows of humbling our felves
before the Image^ that is, of paying the External Ads of
Worlhip before it. Well! but is this to worlhip the I-
mage ? For that he tells us, re fpeak. properly, and according to
the Ecclefiaftical Stile, ( 1 fuppofe he means a new Modern
Stile, for the old Ecclefiaftical Stile did foraewhat differ)
when we honour the Image of an ylpo^le or Martyr, our Inten-
tion is not fo much to honour the Image, as to honour the Apofile
or Martyr in the prefence of the Image: that is, this is not pro-
perly, butimproperly andabufively caWcdthQWorMpov Ho-
nour of the Image : but Chrift, or his Saints, are properly
worfhipped before, or in prefence of their Images, as re-
prefenting them to us •, which was exadly the Opinion of '
Durandus,
This certainly is theleaftjthat can be made of theWor-
Ihip of Images •, and yet as far removed as this Opinion
fecms to be from the Opinion of St. Thomas, who affirms^
that the Worffiip of Latria is to be given to fhe Image of
Chrift •, I take them to be the very fame, though very diffe-
rently expreffed. The right ftating of this,will mightily tend
to clear this perplexed Controverfy ^ and therefore I ftiall
do it with all the plainnefs 1 can.
I. Then I obferve, that to pay the external Ads of Ado-
ration to, or before, or in prefence of a reprelentative Ob-
jed as reprefenting, fignify the very fame thing •, it is all
one kind of Worffiip, becaufe the formal Reafon is the fame
in all; and that is, the Reprefentation. When I bow to
the Image of Chrift, I bow to it as reprefenting Chrift to
me, who is the ultimate Objcd of my Worffiip; when I
K bow
( )
bow before, or in the prefence of the Image, I do the fame
thing, tho I give it a new Name •, I bow before it, as repre-
fenting Chrift to ir.e, as if he himfelf were there perfonal-
]y prefcnt in the Image. When I bow to the Image, I do
not bow to the Wood or Stone, but to Chrift as reprefen-
ted in the Image : when I bow to Chrift before the Image,
I do the fame thing, I bow to Chrift as reprefentcd in the
Image which ftands before me. For fuppofe Chrift were
there prefent inftead of the Image, would it make any dilfe-
rence in my Worfhip, to fay, That I bow to Chrift, or be-
fore him, or in his prefence, when they all fignify, that I
direft my Worlhip to him as perfonally prefent ^ no more
difierence is there in bowing to,or before,or in the prefence
of the Image, when I direct my Worftip to Chrift as re-
V. prelented by the Image. There may indeed be a great dif-
ference between bowing to my Prince, and in the prefence
of my Prince, when thefe Exprclfions fignify different Ob-
jefts : for I may bow to another Man in the f re fence of my
Prince, and in that Aft I do not bow to my Prince •, but
when to, and before, and in prefence, do not diftinguifh the
Objefts, the Aft is the fame : If the prefence of the Image
were an accidental thing, and had no relation to that Wor-
fhip which we pay to Chrift or the Saints, where fuch Ima-
ges are prefent, there would be a great difference between
bowing to, zr\d in prefence of the Image*, but if thefe Ima-
ges be on purpofe fet up in Confecratcd Places,and are them-
felves confecrated for that ufe, to reprefent Chrift and the
Saints to us *, whether we fay we bow to them, or before
them, we do the fame thing, and with the fame intention,
to worfhip Chrift and his Saints as reprefented by them. So
that if we own, as theBilhop does, that the Honour done
before the Image, goes to the Prototype, to Chrift, or the
Saints reprefented by fuch Images, we need not difpute
about the manner of expreffing it *, he may take his own
way of fpeaking, that he honours Chrift in the prefence of
his Image, fo be honours Chrift as* reprefentcd by the I-
mage *, and therefore, in Scripture, to fall down before and
to the Image, and to worlhip the Image, are all equivalent
Expreffions.
There
( «5 )
There is indeed a vaft dilFerence between bowing to, or
before an image, which reprefents God, or Chrift, or fome
Divine Being to us, as the Obj:d of our Worihip •, and
bowing towards a Place, or worfhipping God towards a
Place, as the Jews worlhipped towards the Temple, and in
the I'eraple towards the Mercy-Seat *, the one was abfolutely
forbid by thejewilh Law, the other allowed and praitifed
by the dcvoutell: Worfliippers of'God : which argues, that
there is fome difference between them ; and it is not hard to
fay, wherein the diifcrence conlifts, that one is a reprefen-
tative Objed, the other only a Circumflance of Worihip.
To bow to, or before an Image, is to worihip the Image,
or God or Chrift by the Image, which makes the Image as
reprefenting the Prototy^oe, the Objed of our Worihip ;
but which way foever we look or bow, towards the Eaft,
or towards the Weft, God alone is the immediat Objed of
our Worihip, the Place only the Circumftance of Worihip •,
whenever, we bow to Gcd, we niuft bow towards fome
Place or other : but the Place does not reprefent God to us
as an Image does, and therefore is no Objed of Worihip-:
which Ihows what little reafon the Proteftor had to compare
bowing to the Altar, and kneeling to the Sacrament^ as he calls
it, with bowing to an Image. There is no Man of the
Churc h of England, that I know of, who bows to the Al-
tar ^ I am fure the Church no where teaches any fuch Pra-
dice. She only recommends to her Children bowing of the
Body to God, when they come in and go out of his Houfe •,
and though the Communion Table, or Altar, is generally fo
fcituated at the Eaft end of the Church, as to be oppolite to
the entrance of it *, for which reafon fome have called it, Sril-
bowing towards the Altar ■, yet our Church teaches us to f
have no regard at all to it. And Arch-Bilhop Laud, in his '
Speech mthQ Star-Cha/nber, declares, Thzt if thrre were no
Tabic flan ding, he would worflnp God when he came iftto hts Confennces be-
Houfe : So that there is no need to find any Hole, as the Pro- twepY Romifh
tcftor fpeaks, to get out at with the Altar ^ for that was never
in yet, as far as this Controverfy is concerned •, and T;here-'
fore I am likfe to make nobreach for him to[fsllovo at with his
Image. Nor does any Man f^eel to the Sacrament, but only
K 2 receive
iu
(84")
receive the Sacrament kneeling and if he cannot dillin-
guilh between an A& of Worihipto the Sacrament, and a
devout Pofture of receiving it ^ yet the meanelt Son of the
Church of England can. Why does he not as well fay, that
when we kneel at Prayers, we worfhip the Common-Prayer
Book which lies before us, and out of which we read, as
that we worlhip the Bread, when we receive and eat it with
devout Paffions upon our Knees.
But to retnrn to the Expolition.
2. 1 obferve, that there is a great difference between a
memorative Sign, and the Reprefentation of an Image:
both of them indeed excite in us the remembrance of feme-
thing, but in fuch different manners, as quite alter the na-
ture of them. It is neceffary to take notice of this, becaufe
I find Monfieur de Meaux^ and after him the Reprefenter,
very much to equivocate in this Matter : it is a very inno-
cent thing to worfliip God or Chrift, when any natural or
inflituted Sign brings them to our minds, even in the pre-
fence of fuch a Sign : As if a Man upon viewing the Hea-
vens, and the Earth, and the Creatures that are in it, fhould
raife his Soul to God, and adore the great Creator of the
World \ or upon the accidental fight of a natural Crofs,
fhould call to mind the Love of his Lord, who died for him,
and bow his Soul to him in the moll fubmiifive Adorations ^
becaufe, I fay, this is very innocent, the Bifhop would per-
fwade his Readers, that this is the only ufe they make of
Images, to excite in us the remembrance of thofe they reprefent ^
and mightily wonders at the little jafiice of thojcy who treat
with the term of Idolatry., that religious Sentiment., which moves
them to uncover their Heads, or bow them before the Image of the
Crofs, in remembrance of him who was crucified for the Love of
us. And that it is fufKcient to diftinguifh them from the
Heathen Idolaters, That they declare, that they wiH not mak^
ufe of Images, but to raife the mind towards Heaven,to the end
that they may there honour Jefus Chrifi or his Saints, and in the
Saints God himfelf who is the Author of all SanSiity and Grace.
Now it is certain, an Image will call to our remembrance
the Perfon it reprefhnts, as the prefence of the Perfon him-
felf will make us remember him •, but this vaftly differs from
( 85 )
a meer mernorative Sign. For the ufe of Images in the
Church of Rome^ is not primarily for Remembrance, but for
Worfhip, as the Council of Trmx. cxprelly teaches. That
the Images of Chrifi^ and the P^irgin the Mother of God^ and
other Samts^ are efpecially to be had and kept in ChnrcheS) and due
Honour and f^eneration to he given to them beaufe the Honour
given to them^ is referred to the Prototypes^ which they reprefent;
fa that by the Images^ which we kifs^ and before which we uncover
our Heads^ and prcflrate our felves, we adore Chrif}, and vent'-
rate the Saints-, whofe likenefs they bear. Thefe are the words
of the Council, and it would be a very odd Comment upon
fuch a Text to fay, that Images ferve only for Remem-
brance.
A meer Sign, which only calls Chrifl: to our Minds, can de-
ferve no Honour or Worlhip •, but a reprefenting Sign,which
puts us in mind of Chrilt by reprefenting his Perfon to us,
as if he were prefcnt, whether it raifes our hearts to him
in Heaven or not, yet according to the Council of Trent., it
mull: dired our VVorlhip to him, as reprefented in his Image.
When Mep go to Church to worfhip Chrifl, or the Virgin
Mary, before their Images, it may be prefumed they think
of them before they fee their Images, and therefore do not
go to be put in remembrance of them by their Images, but
to worfhip them before the Images, in that Worfhip which
they give to the Images. And therefore when the Bifhop
fpeaks fo often of the Virtue of Images, to excite in us the
remembrance of the Perfons they reprefent, to reconcile him
with himfelf, and with the Council of Trent, which he pre-
tends to own, we muft not underflard him as if Images were
of no ufe but to be helps to memory, and are honoured for
no other reafon, (which is no reafon at alU as the unwary
Reader will be apt to miftake him •, but that thefe vifiblc
Images reprefent to us the invifible Objeds of our Worfhip,
and give us fuch a fenfe of their Power and Prefence,as makes
us fall down and worfhip them before thofe Reprefentations,
which we honour for their fakes *, that is, tho they ferve for
remembrance, yet not as meer memorative Signs, but as me-
morative or reprefentative Objeds of Worfhip.
3. I
i'uy
3. I obfcrve, that it is the very fame thing whether we
fay, that we worfnip Chrifl: as r..i. ieferitcd by the Image, or
worfliip the Image as reprefentiug Chi ift, for they both fig^
iiify that Chrill is wci lliippecl in and by his Image, that the
Honour and Worfliipis given to the Image, and referr'dto
the Prototype. If Chrift be worfhipped as reprefentcd by
theTmage, then the Worflup which is intended for Chrift is
given to the Image in his Name, and as his Reprcfentative ^
if the Image be worfliipped as reprefer.ting Chithen the
Woffhip which is given to the Image, is not for it felf, but
for Chrift", whom it reprefcnts j which differ juft: as much as
a Viceroy's being honoured for the King, or the King's being
honoured in his Viceroy. And therefore I wonder, that a-
ny Man of Underftanding and Judgment, as Monfieiir ale
Meat'x certainly is, fticiOd think there is any great matter in
faying. When ree honour the Image of an alpoflle or Adartyr^ our
Intention is not fo much to honour the Image^ as to honour the Jfo-
file or Martyr in the prefence of the Image \ that is, in and by
the Im,age, as I have fhowed that Phrafe ftgnifies, when it
is referred to a Reprefentative Objeft: for it is the very
fame thing to fay, we honour the Image as reprefenting the
Martyr, or we honour the Martyr as reprefented by the
Image.
Having prem'ifed thefe things, let us now compare the
Opinion of Monfi'eur de Meaux^ with the Opinion of St. Tho-
mas At^uinas about the Worftiip of Images \ and tho the firft
is thought by fome Men to fay a great deal too little, and the
other a great deal too much •, yet it will appear, that their
Opinions in this matter are the very fame.
They both agree. That Chrift; and his Saints are repre-
fcnted by their Images;, they both agree, that Chrift and
his Saints are worlhippcd in their Images, as reprefented by
them •, they both agree, that no other Worlhip is to be paid
to, or before, or in prefence of the Image, but only that
Worlhip which is due to the Prototype^ to Chrift: or his Saints
reprefentcd by fuch Images: Hence Thomas afierts, that the
Image is to he worfliipped with that Worfhip which is due
to the Prototype ^ the Image of Chrift: with Latria^ becaufe
that is due to Chrift; and the Images of the Saints with
Dulia^
( 87 )
becaufe that degree of Worniip is proper to them •,
and the Bifhop teaches. That -when they honour the Image of an
■jifoflle or Martyr^ their Intention is net fo much to honour the
Imagc^ Ai to honour the Afojile or Martyr in prefence of the Image:
that i :, they perform no other Aft of Worlhip in the pre-
fence of the Images, but that which is proper to the Apoltle
and Martyr •, and therefore they both agree, that there is
but one motion of the Mind to the Image, and to the Proto-
type reprefented by if, that i ', as the Bifhop fpeaks, they
hare but one Intention, and that is to honour the Apoille or
Martyr in the prefence of the Image : and yet after all, they
ieem vallly to differ-, for Thorn u fays,that they give the Wor-
fliip of the Prototype to its Imagethat is, that they wor-
fliip the Image of Chrift with Latria^ which is the Worfhip
due to Chrilt -, but the Bifhop will not own, that they pro'
perly give any Worfhip at all to Images, but only worfhip
Chrilt, or the Saints in the prefence of the Images ^ Chrift
indeed with Latria. and the Saints with Dulia^ but their
Images properly with neither: and yet this difference is
only in words, as Fafquez. confeffes concerning Biirandus and
Holcot^ whom Mr. de Mcaux follows, that they agreed with the
Catholick^ Churchy in performing all external Alls of Adoration
to Images^ and that they differed only in manner of fpeaking from
the refi.
For, as I have already fhew'd, to worfhip the Image, or
before, and in the prefence of the Image, when it lignifies
a Reprefentative Obje(n:, is the fame thing ■, and there is no
difference between worfhipping the Image as reprefenting
Chrift, and worfhipping Chrift as reprefented by the Image j
and yet this is all tfre difference bctw^sa Mr. de Meaux and
Thomas Aquinas: Tho I think Thomas fpeaks moft properly
for if Chrift be worfftipped in his Image, we mull give the
Worfhip to the Image, which we intended for Chrift, be-
caufe Chrift is worffiipped in that (Worfhip we give to his
Image ^ and therefore he cannot be worffiipped by his Image,
if his Image be not worlhipped of which more pre£ntly-
Duranduf indeed, whofe Opinion Mr. de Meaux feems to
follow, did in words oppofe the Do(n:rine of Thomas^ that
the Worfhip of the Prototype ought not to be given to an
Image,
'.^Te
"s I#
\
'S
( 88 )
Image, hecatife the Image and the Prototype were two difiinU
things ; and therefore what belonged to the Exemplar conld not he
attributed to an Image, however confidered as at? Image •, andfo
the Worjhip due to the Exemplar could not be given to the Image:
but yet he plainly grants all that Thomas intended b-y it ■, that
the Irmge may be faid to be worjlnpped with the fame H^orflup
with the thing rcprefented becaufe at the prefence of the Image^
we worjloip the Ubjcti reprefented by it, as tf he were aSluaily
prefent.
But 1 have a better reafon than this to believe that they
were both of a Mind, tho they expreiled themfelves very
differently;, and that is, bccaufe thdr Arguments, whereby
they confirm their feveral Opinions are the fame, and then
it is not likely that their Opinions fhould much diifer.
Durand. in Durandus proves, That the hoiagg} are not to be worjhipped,
Sent.but only improperly and abufively^ becaufe at their prefencem
2. call to mind thofe ObjeHs reprefented by them, which are worjhip-
ped before the Images, as if they were prefent, by fuch Argu-
ments as thefe : that VVorfliip properly belongs only to that
Being in whom the caufe of Worfbip is, and that only to his
Perfon, hpon account of his adorable Perfedions, which are
the caufe of that Worlhip •, and therefore Z'<?fr;^,or Supream ■
Worfhip can be due only to God, upon account of his Deity.
But that which is no Subjed capable of Holinefs and Vcrtue,
cannot in it felf be the term of Adoration •, and therefore
proper Worfhip can never be due to the Image of Chriil, or
to his Crofs •, for tho Chrift be reprefented by his Image,
there is a real difference in the thing, and in the conception
between the Image and the thing reprefented •, and therefore,
properly fpeaking, the fame Worfhip is never due to the
image, that is to the Objed reprefented by it.
Thomas Acjuinas on the other fide proves, that the Image
mufi; be worfhipped with that Worfhip which is due to the
Prototype, or the thing reprefented by it, by much the fame
Arguments.
I, That no irrational Creature is capable of Worflnp, but with
a refpett to a rational Being, which anfwers to Durandus his
reafon, that Worfliip properly belongs only to that Being, in
whom the caufe of Worflup is •, and that which is no Subjed
capable
( 8? )
capable of Holihefs and Vcitue ( as no inanimate, or irrati-
onal Creature is, and therefore no Image ) cannot in it felf
be the term of Adoration. From which it appears that
the" mult agree, that no proper Worfl ip can be given to
Images, l. Bec^ttfe Images are to he worjhippecl apoa account
of their Reprefentation therefore they are to h: worjhippea with
the fame Worjhip of the thing reprefented. 3. Becaufe the mo-
tion of the Mikd totoards an Image^ ai an Image^is the fame wiih
the motion towards the thing reprefented. So that Thomas plain-
ly allows, that the Image is not to be worlhipped at all up-
on its own account,but only as it reprefents i and to worlhip
the Image OS it reprefents, is the very fame ad with wor-
Ihipping the Objed as reprefented by the Image j becaufe
the motion of the Mind towards an Image, as an Image, that ^
is, as it reprefents, is the fame with the motion towards the
thing reprefented : That to worlhip an Image as reprefen-
ting Chrifl:, is the fame thing with worlhipping Chrift as
reprefented by the Image •, and therefore the fame Wor-
fhip which is due to Chrifl:, mufl; be given to his Image, as
reprefenting hira 3 or to him as reprefented by the Image. So
that according to Thom.is his reafoning, there is no difference
between his giving the Worlhip of Chrift. to his Image, as
reprefenting him, and Durandus his worlhipping Chrift be-
fore his Intage, as reprefented by it, as if he were adually
prefent. Thomas could not have quarrelled with Durandus^
becaufe he owns it is the fame thing, tho Dnrandas quarrels
with Thomas.
* And therefore Vaftyuez..^ Who feems to underftand the vafquez Difp.
Dodrineof Tloomas as well as any Man, acknowledges that icd. c. u
Darandm and Holtot differed ohly in manner Pffpeaking.frorq
the reft •, and freely declares bis own Opinion to be, that
an Image cannot be laipfally toorfbippcd any other way than as in
and by that the Exertiplar is made the term and next mat trial Ob- 108. c. 3.
jeU of jidor at ion : aUd he gives this Realbn for it, becaufe na
inanimate thing is of it f!f capable ofWotJhip ^ but an Image can-
fidcredas an Image.., but ■adthoset the-Exemplar., is an inanimatk T- 9'
thing. This-htheDo&rine of Thoinas According to Fafyrtezi
which allows no more Worlhip to an Image, conlidcred in
it felf, then Durandus docs, and yet he fays, tfpat it may be
L delivered
( )
D^}. lop. c. 1. delivered ahflmely^ that Images are to he worjltippeel with Latria,
if by that be meant the fame Worjlsipj which is given to the Ex-
Bcllarm. de emplar; And tberefoie Bellarmine tells US, That to give the
CHlUi Imjg. I.2.. Worfnp of Latvia to the Image of Chrift^ as reprefenting Chrifi^
is to worjhip the Image bat improperly^ and per accidens ^ and
this recontiles Thomas and Durandusy who grants that the
Image may be faid to be worfhipped improperly and abu-
lively, as in prefence of the Image, the Objed is worfhipped
reprcfented by it, as if it were adually prefent.
As for Darandas his Argument againll Thomas his Dodrine,
that the Wcrfhip of the Prototype is to be given to the
Image, That there is a real difference in the things and in the con-
ception between the Image and the thing reprefented •, and there-
tag. 5. ferej properly fpeaklngy the far-^e Worfhip is never due to the
Image, that is to the ObjeU reprefented by it. I think, if any
Worfhip of Images were jaltiliable, this Argument were ea-
ly anfwered. For tho there be a great difference indeed in
the nature of things, between the Image and the Objed, be-
tween Chrift fuppofe, and his Image which reprefents hini i
yet in this cafe there is none in the Conception for an Image
when it receives our Worfhip in the place and Head of the
Prototype, does not reprefent according to the ufual nature
of an Image by its likenefs and fimilitude •, for fo both in
the thing and in the conception the Image differs from the
Objed it reprefents •, but it reprefents as a Proxy and Sub-
flitute, who in the eye of the Law, is the fame Perfon with
him, whom he reprefents. Thus Thomas mull underfland
the Rcprefentation of an Image, when he fays, that it is
the fame motion of the Mind to the Image, and the exem-
plar reprcfented by it •, that is, that the Image is fuppofed
to fupply the place of Chriff, and reprefent him prefent to
us *, and therefore we worfhip the Image as Chrift's Repre-
fentative with that Worfhip we would give to him were he
adually prefent; this is not indeed the natural ufe of Ima-
ges, nor is it natural to worfhip them, but this is the true
Greg. de. Va- Interpretation of Thomas his Dodrine; and therefore Grego-
lent, de Idolol. yIus de Falentia cxprefly tells us,, that the Image is worjhipped in
Ghrifs fiead: And Cardinal Cajetan fays. That Chrifi htm-
reafen of the. Worfhip of the Image j and his being in
the
C 9« )
the ImAge is the condition by which the reafon of the Worjhip doth
excite Men to worJJtip and terminate it: that is, Chrifl: is in his
Image, as a King is in his Viceroy, or any Man in his legal
Proxy ; This is what Suarez. meant by the ejfe reale^znA effe re- Suarez
prefentativum of the Prototype; that tho the Image does not Sett, 4.
contain Chrill in the firlt fenfe in his own proper Peribn,yet
it does in the fecond fenfe as his legal Proxy,and Reprelenta-
tive. And this Durandus himfelf mult acknowledg, if there
be any fenfe in his words. That at the prefence of the Image,,
Tve n>or(}}ip the Objeli reprefented by it,, as if he were aUuaily
prefent. For why flsould he in the prefence of the Image,
worfhip Chrift reprefented by it, as if he were actally pre-
fent, unlcfs he account the Image the Subftitvite and Repre-
lentative of Chrift, as if he were aftiially prefent •, and
this, I think, reconciles that appearance of difference be-
tween Thomas and Burandtts, occafioned by a Mifapprehen-
Hon of Thomas his Doftrine. Durandiu owns the Worfhip
of Chrift in the prefence of the Image, as he is reprefented
in the Image, as if he were actually prefent, which is ,
Mr. de Meattx his Opinion alio in this matter; but he will
not allow this, but only in an improper and abnfve fenfe, to
be the Worfhip of the Image, becaufe the Image is not
Chrift, but both in the thing and in the conception is diftin-
guifhed from him •, and therefore to worfhip the Image of
Chrift, would be to worfhip Wood or Stone, with the Wor-
fhip of Chrift: Whereas confiders the Image not as
to its external matter or form, upon which account he de-
nies any Worfhip to be given to it, but as the Proxy and
Reprefentative of Chrift ; and thus it is Chrift reprefented
in the Image, and not the material Image, which is wor-
fhipped •, which is the very fame with Dnrandns his way
of worfliipping Chrift as reprefented in the Image, in
the prefence of the material Image; that is, he worfhips
before the material Image, but worfhips only the Perfon of
Chrift, as reprefented by the Image.
But this will be better underftood by confidcring the na-
ture and capacity of a legal Proxy or Reprefentative. Sup-
pofe A were to all intents and purpofes a legal Proxy for
B, to do, and to receive whatever B might do and receive
L 2 in .
( 9^ >
irj'his o-yvn Perfoxiin this cafe A is not confld^red as Ay in
his. o;,Yfa.p£^"i/3nal Qap<7ciLy, but A is/?, as his Proxy and
Rppxx-l^^^t^ive. , ^4p°ife now that C oy^es a Sum of Mony, ,
or a ccftain Homage to F, and pays it to as i?'s Proxy •,
tiiaXis, nota^kcisyi,; biit'S. \\ lien C worihips ^ asre-
p.reibiuin^tI^,)^i;foa\Qli'' ^le.i^. prppjcrly fiiid not to wor-
{iig-AybaZ'^ '^bpc^ i^f worihips as :W,biit as A is
iA Ins ^lepf-efpat^woCaj^city. ^ ^4o'.w if you will fiippofe
totethn iiria^e> to be Chrii, t,his explains in svhat
fenfe Thomas worfliips the Image for Chrift, not as the Image
is Wood or Stone, but as it is the Reprefentative of ChrilPs
Perfon. Now iuppofe D fiiould.fcruple paying the Wor-
flilpof BtcA^ becaufe A is a diftiiKit Perfon from-5, and
lias no right to the fame Worfiup •, and therefore fliould on-
ly worllup i?vin tbe prelence of Ay as reprefenting him;
would not ^1 the World lee, that D and C meant and did
the farce thing, worlhipped A as the Reprefentative of
tho D is pleafed to phrafe it othervyife, and more improper-
ly than C does; for the perfpnal Capacity of A is not con-
fidered at aJU when it is worfliipped for B, but only his
Reprefentative Capacity; and this is the only difference be-
tween Thomas and Durandas. Thomas worfliips the Image
iaChrilt's place and flcad, as reprefenting Chrilt, without
confidering its. natural Capacity as an Image of Wood or
Stone •, as C worihips A a^ B's Proxy, without confidering
-^'s perfonal Capacity: but DuraniiHs wprfliips C.hrilt as re-
prefented by the Image ( which is the fame with the Image
reprefenting Chriil) in the prelence pf the Image confi-
dered in its natural Capacity; as. D worfliips B as repre-
fented by Ay in the prefpnce of Ay confKfered in his perfo-
naL Capacity ; that is, heworfhips reprefentative A in the
prefence of perfonal Ay which is, the fame thing that C
does, but is a more uncouth and abfurd way of ^leaking.
Thus to proceed, WhenC worihips A as Bh Proxy, in
his name and Head, does he worfliip A or B ? he worihips
A Indeed, but confidered as B •, and theyefore the Worlhip
given to A in the narne of By is not the Worlhip of Ay but
of B ; And will any-Man fay that A and B are two Objedts
of Worflflp? when-in,thisfoiifp,,v4is i?, and is confidered
only
i£!f3^
Oil
( 95 )
only 33 that is, 35 5's Proxy ^ and therefore confl-
dered as in his own perfonal Capacity,: is not worihip-
ped at all, neither abfolntdy nor relatively, per fe^ nor per
nxcidefis but if^ be worlhipped only as i?, to fay, that yi
i5 vvonTiipped relatively, or per accidcns^ is to fay that i?,
v;ho-is^vvorllfipped in, ^4, is worlhtppedboth abfolutely and
relatiyefy, properly and improperly, per fe and per accidem
which "are fbme ot the Obje:tbns which Cath^ram arid
others ufe agaiiid Thfmxc.
Much at the fame rate others compare Thomu his Do-
(flrine of worlhipping the Image with the Worfldp of the
Prototype, as reprcfented by it, with worfliipping a Sign,
and the Thing figni.icd •, or worlliipping the King and his
Robes, which are very remote from the Bulinefs, and per-
plex and confound a Dodrine, which is yery eafy to be un-
derllood, and eafily refcued from thole Scholaltick Abfur-
dities which are charged on it, if that were its only fanlt.
For the true Reprefentation of it, is by confidering the Na-
ture of a Proxy, and legal Reprefentative, which ads in
another's, name and dead.
Having thus conlidered what is the Notion of Image-
Worfliip, according to Thomai^zv\^ Duratidit!^ and Monfieur
de Meauxy that it is a worihipping the Image in the name
and dead of the Prototype, as its Proxy and Reprefenta-
tive, wor/hipping the image :as reprefenting Ghrid, ^sTho-
tncu, fpeaks, ■ or worihipping Chrift before his Image as re-
preiented by it, as Durandui and M. de Memx fpeak. We
have, no.vv fome,Foundation to buiJd on-, and I think they
have no reafpn to compiain that I hav^e dated it in this man-
ner, which grants them .all they can, deiire,or ask for, viz.
That they do not worihip. Images, as an Image iignifies a
Figure of Wood or Stone but they worfliip the Image as
repreienting Chrid •, or if they like that better., Chrid as
riCprefented in his.Image That vehcnihey honour the linage of
an ^pojile or Martyrthey, do not fo much intend ta honour the.
Irnage^ ae the Jpofile or Martyr in the prefence. of the linage^
Letos.then condder whether this will julfiry them •, and. if
tlii's will nor, I doubt their Caufe is defperatp. Anddn otden
to this, I fliail do thcfc three things.
1. Show
.■ <rwBr-
( 94 )
1. Show you, that this is the only intelligible Notion of
worlhipping God, or Chrift, or the Saints ^7 Imtgcs-,
that Images are a kind of legal Proxies and Reprefentatives,
to receive our Worlhip in the name and Head of Chrllt, or
the Saints.
2. That this is the Scripture Notion of Image-Worfhip ^
and that in this fenfe it is the Scripture condemns the wor-
Ihip of Images, as pradifed by the Heathens.
3. I lhall fhow, wherein the Evil of worlhipping Images
according to this Notion confifts.
I. That this is the only intelligible Notion of worlhip-
ping God, or Ghrift,or the Saints, by Images-, that Images
are a kind of legal Proxies and Reprefentatives to receive
our Worlhip in the name and Read of the Prototype, or the
Being reprefentcd by them.
The Reafon cf worlhipping Images, is to do Honour to
fome Divine Being reprefented bythefe Images : for the
true cccafion of Image-Worlhip, is thatfondnefs Men have
for a vifible Objedt of Worlhip j and becaufe they cannot
fee the Gods they worlhip, therefore they fet up Images, as
vifible and reprelentative Deities, to receive their Worlhip
in the name and Read of their Gods. Now if we grant,
that-Men intend to worlhip their Gods, in that Worlhip
they pay to, or before their Images, we muR grant that
thefe Images are iuRead of vilible Gods to them, or fup-
ply the place of their Gods, and receive Worlhip in their
Names.
For to worlhip God, or any Divine Being, by an Image,
can fignify neither more nor lefs, than to worlhip God, or
ChriR, or the Saints, in that Worlhip which we give to
their Images: for God cannot be worlhipped in an Image
any otherwife, than as the Worlhip which is given to the
Image is his Worlhip, and given in his Name : for B can
be worlhipped in only as A is Reprefentative, and
is worlhipped in his name and Read. To worlhip any Be-
ing, is to worlhip his Perfon ^ and therefore we muR either
worlhip him in his own natural Perfon, or in his Reprefen-
tative, who is his legal Perfon.
As
( 95 )
As to fiiew you this particularly.
If any Men were ever fofottilh as to believe their Images
themfelves, that is, the vifible Figures of Wood, or Stone,
or Brafs, to be Gods, and to worlhip them as Gods, fuch
Men canned be faid to worlhip God by an Image, but to
worlhip an Image-God -j for the Image it felf is their God,
and the Worlhip terminates on the Image as God. They
may be faid to worlhip falfe Gods, Gods, in a ftrid and
proper fenfe, of Wood and Stone •, but to worlhip God
by an Image, and to worlhip the Image it felf for a God,
are very diftinct things : and if the Scripture forbids the
Worlhip of God by an Image, it will not juftify Image-
Worlhip, to fay, that fome Heathens were fuch Sots, as to
believe their Images themfelves to be Gods j for Men who
are not fuch Sots, may Worlhip their Gods by Im.ages, as
all thofe Heathens did, who acknowledged their Images to
be only Symbols and Reprefentations of their Gods^ and
therefore not to be Gods themfelves •, for the fame thing
cannot be a Symbol and Reprefentation of it felf; which is
as good fenfe as to fay, that a Sign, and the thing fignihed
by it, is the fame.
To give a proper, though inferiour degree of worlliipto
Imiage. themfelves, is not to-worfltip God or Chrill by his
Image, becaufe in this cafe, the Worlhip they give to the
Image of Chrilf, is not fuch a Worlhip as is proper for
Chrill, and is terminated not on Chrill, bat on his Image.
No Worllhp is proper to be given to Chrill, but the Wor-
l})ipof or fupream and foveraign Worlhip : but the
Roman Dodors, who embrace this Opinion, deny with the
fecond Council of Nice, that Latvia may be given to Ima-
ges, and in general rejed the Dodrineof Thomas, that the
Image is to be worlhipped with the Worlliip due to the Pro-
totype : And how then can Chi ill be worlhipped in his I-
mage, if no Worlliip is given to the Image, which is fit for
Chrill to receive ? when the Image has no Worlhip given it,
but fuch as is proper to its felf, confidered as Chrift's Image,
will they call this the Worlhip of Chrill ? efpecially fince
t his Worlhip which is given to the Image, is terminated on
t he Image as its own proper and peculiar Worlhip, as Ca-
tharinw
C 96-)
iharhm and BeHarwine^ and all of this way acknowlcdg;
who rejed Thomm his Dodrine of worfliipping the Image,
with the worihipoi the Prototype repreiented by it, be-
caufethis is notpro^>erly the Worlhip of the Image, but of
the Prototype •, and therefore that the Image may be fure
to be vvorlhi peo, ihey giveit an inferior degree of Wor-
fltip, which terminates on itfelf. Now how Chrilt fhould
be worihipped in that Worlhip which terminates on his
Image •, that is, how that WorAiip which ends in the Image,
and goes no farther, ihould pals through the Image, and end
in Chrilt, as it mull do, if Chrilt be worlliipped in the
Image, is pall my underllanding, as all Contradidions
are.
But they refer the Worlhip of the Image to the Pro-
totype. But it is worth enquiring how they do it ^ Do
they intend the Worlhip they give to the Image for Chrilt ?
that is. Do they intend to worlhip Chrilt in that Worlhip
they give to his Image ? No ; they can't do that, becaufe
they give only an inferior degree of Worlhip to the Image,
which is not worthy of Chrilt •, not a Worlhip proper for
•him, but only for his Image : but they worlhip the Image
for the fake of Chriil •, and this they take to be an Honour
to Chriil to worlhip his Image: but this is not to worlhip
Chriil in or by his Image; for in this way Chrilt is not wor-
fliipped in that Wor-fliipwe give to his Image, but it is to
worlliip tlie Image for Chrilt's fake, which is, by interpre-
ration, an Honour to Chrilt •, as any rcfped we Ihow to the
Image of the King, argues our Elteem and Honour for our
'King, whole Image it is: but thefe two differ as much as to
honour Chrilt in our Adions, and to worftip him, as to do
ifomething which i?,-, by interpretation, ah Honour to Chrilt,
and to makeoiur immediate Addrelfe, to oher up our Pray-
ers and Tltankfgiviugs to him. Every thing we do for the
Honour of Chrilt, is not prefently an Ad of Worlhip;
and therefore chougli we fliould grant,that we honour Chrilt
in the Worlhip of his Image, it does not follow, that there-
fore we worfliip hitp in worlhipping his Image, when we
give no Worfoip at all to him, but only to his Image ^ which
plainly hiows, that in this way they do not wonhip Chrilt
by
( 97 )
by his Image, but only worlhip the Image for Chrill's fake.
Which is a plain Argument to me, that though this Way
has very great and learned Advocates, yet it cannot be the
meaning of the Council of Trent, l^caufe it is not recon-
cileable with the Pradticc of the Church of Rome •, which
prays every day to Ghrift, and the blelTed Virgin, to Saints
and Martyrs, before their Images, in fiKh terms as are pro-
per only to be ufed to themfelves •, which befides the other
Faults of it, is horrid Non-fenfe, if they do not intend to
worfliip Chrift and the Saints in their Images.
Much lefs do thofe worlhip the Prototypes in their Ima-
gcs, who only ufe Images as helps to Memory, and to ex-
cite devout Affedions in them, that at the fight of the Image
they may offer up more fervent Prayers to God or Chrift:
for though this pradtice may and has a great many other
Faults in it, yet this is neither in the intention of the -Wor-
fiiipper, to worlhip the Image, nor the Exemplar by the
Image. Monfieur by fome Expreffions he ufes,
would perfwade his Readers, that this is all the Church of
Rome intends in the ufe of Images *, and yet he owns the
Dodlrine of the Council of Trent, That the Hononr of the
Image ii referred to the Prototype, hecanfe by the Images which
we ^fs, and before which we uncover our Heads, and frefirate
our Jelves^ we adore Chriff, and worfoip the Saints, whofe Likt''-
nefs they bear. Which plainly (ignifies, that we worlhip Chrilt
and the Saiiits in the worlhip of their Images •, and there-
fore though Images may be helps to Memory alfo, yet they
mull: be honoured and worlhipped, that Chrift and his Saints
may be worlhipped in them, and by them •, which is a very
dilftrent thing from being bare Signs to help our Memoric*
and quicken our Devotions. There is no need of Confe-
cration for this End ; and the Church takes no notice of this
ufe of them in her Forms of Confecration. Thefe are all
the Pretences I have met with for the ufe of Images in Reli-
gious Worlhip : and it is evident from what I have faid,
that there is no other fenfe, wherein God or Chrift can be
faid to be worlhipped by an Image, but only as the Image
receives the Worlhip due to Chrift in his Name and Stead,as
if it were his legal Proxy and Reprefentative ♦, which, as I
M have
( 9^ 1
have fhewed, is the true Interpretation, both of the
flrine of DurandM^ and Monfieur de Meatix^ and Tioomas in
this Matter.
2dly. I am now to ftiow,that it is in this Notion the Scrip-
tore forbids the worfliip of Images, as the Reprefentatives
of God, or any Divine Being, to receive our Worfbip in
God's Name and Stead. It is true indeed, the id Comniand-
ment, which forbids the worfhip of Images,takes no notice of
the DiftiiKftions of the Schools, in what Notion an Image is
worlhipped, or what kind and degree of Worlhip is given to
itv but the words are fo large and general,, as to exclude
all ufe of Images in Religious Worlhip. The Worlhip
which is exprefly forbidden in the Commandment to be gi^
ven to Images, is only the External Ads of Worlhip, fuch
as to bow down to them •, which is the very leaft that can
be done, if Men make any ufe of Images in Religious Wor-
fliip : The Images which, are forbidden to be worlhipped,
are all forts of Images whatever •, The Ukenefs of any Thing
which ii in Heaven above^ or in the Earth beneath^ or in the IVa-
ur under the Earth. And how extravagant Ibever Mens
Fancies are, they cannot well,form any Image, but mull be
like to. feme of thefe things, either in whole or in part.
But the Commandment takes -no notice of Mens diderent
Opinions about Images, whether they look upon them as
Gods, or Reprefentatives of God, or helps to Memory and.
Devotion : for lince the defign of the Commandment is to
forbid the ufe of Images in Religicus Worlhip, it was dan-
gerous to leave any room for Diiliniftions; which is to make
every Man judg, what is an Innocent,, and what is a. llnfiil
ufe. of Images •, which would utterly evacuate the Law: for
Men of Wit can find out fome Apology or other for the
grofleft: Superftitions.
As for inllance;
I find a notable Criticifm in the Advertifement to Mon-
licur de Meaux. his Expolition, (p.. 14. j That the Images for-
hidden in the fecond Commandmentare thofe which are forbid-
den to be made., ru wed aa to be wor[bipp.ed.. The Confequence
of which is, That the Worlhip of fuch Images as may be
lHyvfully made, is not forbidden in this Law j and then in-
deed
( 9? )
deed there is room enough for the Worlhip of Images: un-
lefs he will fay, That it is unlawful to make the Images of
any thing in Heaven or Earth, or under the Earth ^ but
then they can have no Images to worfhip. TertnlUan indeed,
and fome others, condemned the very Arts of Painting and
Carving Images, as forbid in the lecond Commandment:
and it is certainly unlawful to make any Image in order to
worfhip it. Butldefireto know of this Author, whether
it be lawful to make an Image or Pifture of the Sun, and
Moon, and Planets •, of Birds and Bcafts, of Men and Wo-
men, which are the Likeiefs of Things in Heaven, and
Things on Earth ? If it be, then the making of thofe Ima-
ges is not forbid in the fecond Commandment, and then the
worfhip of them is not forbid neither. But he fays He
means fuch Images at are made to reprefeat God., and thofe
which are made to JJtoro him prefent., and which are worjhipped
with the fame intention as fu/l of hit Divinity. But is this the
Work of the Carver, or the Painter, to make a God ? Can
the Pencil, or the Knife, put Divinity into a Pitlure or
Image ? This is the work of him that Confecrates, and him
that Worfhips.
^i fingit Sacros auro vel rnarmore valtus
Non facit ille DeoSy qurcolit, ille fjcit.
He had forgot the Brazen Serpent which Hezekiahhrokt,
the making of which, I fuppofe, was not forbid in the fe-
cond Command, but it leems the worfhip of it was. But
to return :
Though the fecond Commandment forbids the worfliip of
all forts of Images, and every ait and degree of Worlhip,
without leaving room for any Exceptions or Diftindions ^
yet we may learn from Scripture, what was the currant No-
tionof Image-Worfhip atthattime, viz.. That they wor-
Hiipped their Images, not for Gods, but for Symbols and
Reprefentations of their Gods ^ that is, they fet them up as
vifible Objeds of Worfhip, to receive their Worfhip in the
name and Read of their Gods: They did not worlhip the
Images themfelves, but their Gods in and by their Images.
M 2 Indeed,
No rth w e«to ifi
Unlvsra^ty
Library
De Nacura de-
«irujn,l. 1.C.27.
Mx. Tyrius,
differc. 38.
See Dr. Stil-
lingrieet'i De-
fence of theDif-
coiofe of IdoU-
try,-^..^66,&c.
f>io Chryf.
Orac. 12.
St. Aug. in
Pial. 113.
Arnob. 1. 6.
( 100 )
Indeed, this is the only Notion of Image-Worlhip that
any Men ever had, till Chriftians began to worlhip Images,
and then were forced to defend it, and to diftinguifli away
the Idolatry of it.
This is the Account the Heathens gave of their Worfhip
of Imag<;s^ That they did not believe them to be Gods, bnt
only worflupped their Gods in their Images. Thus Ctcero
afcribes the making Images of their Gods in humane Shape,
to their SuperHition, Vt effcm fmuUcra.^ cjux venerantes decs
ipfos fe adtre crtdcrent^ that they might have Images to make
their Addrefles to, as if the Gods themfelves were prefent.
And Aiaximm Tyrim gives a large Account of their Images
to the fame pur[x>fe. That they are all but fo many Pictures
and Reprefentations of the Deity, to bring us to the con-
ception of him j and it matters not what the Image be, fo
it bring God to our Thoughts, and dired our Worlhip to
him; 6eov els zvcbiAw 'igvo |Uovov. CeLfm and Julian deny
that they thought their linages to be Gods 3 and fo did the
Heathens in Jrneibm., Jbhanafm, and St. Aufiin., as thofe
Fathers acknowledg. And Julian teWsxi&y That a lover of
God loves the Reprefentations of the Gods 3 and beholding
their Images, doth fecretly fear and reverence them, which
although invifible themfelves, do behold him. And Dio
Chryfoftonty in his Olympick Oration, gives this Account
why Men are fo fond of Images, which they know cannot
Gxprefs the invifible and inexprelEble Nature of God, Be-
c^ufe Mankind doth not love to rvorjh^ God at a diftanccy hut to
tome neof and feel himy and roith ajjurance Sacrifice to hinty and
Crown him. Nay, thofe very Heathens who believed that
fome invifible Spirits after Confecration were, not incorpo-
rnted with their Images (which it does not appear to me,
that any of tihem thought) but prefent in them 3. did not
therefore worfiJip the material Figure, but through the vili-
bie Image, worftiipped thofe invifible Spirits which were
hid in it. AZo« hoc vifthile cjoloy fed numen quod illic invifithi-
lifer habitat. j^nd iW^fox^ Armbint. fays, That they for-'
med the Images^ of their God?, f^kmia fuhftitutioney that is,
to fetthem in the place of God, to be a vicarious Objedtof
Worlhip, to receive their Worlhip in the name of their
Gcds3
{ 101 )
Gcds; and that Gcd receives their VVotfliip by Images, per
quedam fidei commijfa^ by way of Trult ^ as if they were
At»r intrufted to receive their Wcrlhip for God in his head.
Hence St.ylufiin tells ns, that no Image of God ought to be
worlhipped, but only Chrift, who is what he is ^ and he not
■Ihiii;- to be worlhipped infieadofGod^ but together with himj
which ihows plainly what Notion the Father had of proper Aug. Ep. up,
Image-worlhip-, that it is to worHiip the Image infteadofo u.
srsi,.- Gcd: and therefore tho Chrift be fuch an Image of God as
mult be woilldpptd, yet he mull not be worlhipped as an
Image *, that is, not in the Itead, but together with God.
And St. Hierotn on Rom. i, gives the fame notion of Image-
worlhip, Qupmodo invifibilis Dens per fmnlacrnm vifihile colere-
toii that it is to worlhip theinvifible God by a viiible Image;
and therefore falling down before their Images is called by
uirncbim.^ Deorum ante or a proflrati.^ prollrating themfelves Arn. I. i.
before the Face of their Gods ^ which is aptly exprehed by
ijfjij, Cafar, ante fimulacra projcBi vibloriam a Diis expofcerent, Cxfar de Belli
falling down before their Images, they begged Victory of C"'. 1-2.
jt; j, their Gods. And in thofe days before they were acquainted
with School-Diltindions, to pray to their Gods before their
L jj Images, and fixing thqir Eyes on them, was thought to be
^ Image-worlhipthus St. ^afiin exprelfes it by adorat vel'
^1,'^ or at mtiicns fimidacrmi, adoring, or praying, looking upon an
Image : and fo does Ovid.^ Summijfoq-.^ genhn vakm in imagine Ovid.I.Faft.4..
■ Dtvafixit, with bended Knees he fixes his Eye upon the Image
of the Goddefs: and indeed all the Arguments of the anr
^ y cient Fathers againlt the Worlhip of Images are levelled a-
'"t gainlt this Notion of it, that they worlliipped their Gods by
' Images, not that they thought their Images to be Gods. This
then being the received Notion of Image-worlhip among the-
Heathens, in which they all agreed, as far as we have any
i®' account of their Opinions, and being the only intelligible
P' account that can, be given of the Worfliip of Images, we.
have reafon to believe, that the fecond Commandment,.
^ which forbids the Worlhip of Images, had.a principal regard.
to it; but I have other Arguments from the.Scripture it
iT felf to confirm this Opinion.
of* r. The
& .
Exod. 52. I.
Sse Dr. Scil-
( <o» )
I. The firfl is from the firfl: Example of Image-woriTiip
among the Jfraelites after the giving this Law; that is, the
Worfhip of the Golden Calf, which ^aron made while
Aifofes was in the Mount: That this Calf was intended on-
ly as a Symbolical Reprefentation of the God of Ifrael.^ and
that they worlhipped the Lord Jehovah in the Worfhip of
this Calf, is fo evident from the whole Story, fhatlconfefs
I do not think that Man fit to be difputed with, who de-
nies it •, for he muft either want Underftanding, or Honefh',
to be convinced of the plainefl matter, which he has no
mind to believe. The occafion of their making this Calf,
was the abfence of Mofes., who was a kind of a living Ora-
cle, and Divine Prefence with them. They faid to Aaron^
'L'p, make us Gods.^ which Jhall go before m -• for as for this Mo-
fes, the Man who brought us up out of the Land of Egypt, we
wot not what is become of him •' So that they wanted not a new
God, but only a Divine Prefence with them, fince Mofes.^
who ufed to acquaint them with the Will of God, and go-
vern them by a Divine Spirit, was fo long abfent, that they
thought him loflwhen the Calf was made, they faid., Thefe
be thy Godsy O Jfraely which brought Thee out of the Land of
Egypt: Which they could not pofTibly underftand of the
Calf, which was but then made. For tho we fhould think
them fo filly, as to believe it to be a God, it was impolTibk
they fhould think that the Calf brought them out of Egyfty
before it felf was made : Nor could they think any Egyp-
tian Gods delivered them out of Egypt to the ruine andde-
fblationof their own Country-, efpecially, fince they cer-
ta'nly knew, that it was only the Lord Jehovah., who brought
them out of Egypt by the hand of Mofesand therefore
aiaron built an ^Itar before /f, and proclaimed a Feafl to the
Lord., or to Jehovah., as the word is: which makes it very
plain to any unprejudiced Man, that they intended to wor-
fhip the Lord Jehovah in the Worfhip of the Golden Calf,
which they made for a fymbolical Reprefentation and Prefence
of God-, which no doubt was very agreeable to the notion
lingtl. Defence Egyptians had of their Images, from whom they leann d
4 Difc. of Ida-thh way of Worflnip ; and 1 need not tell any Man how
Litrjyp.-jy-jy&c difpleafing this was to God.
2. Ano-
Mo; )
2. Another Argument of this, is, That Images are called
Gods in Scripture > 7/^.44. 10. M'^ho hath fajhloned a Cody or if^.
'"•m molten a Craven Ima^e^ whkh is prof table for nothing. He
maketh a G od and werjhtppeth it ^ he maktth it a Graven J mage ^
and falleth down thereto, *The refidue thereof he malleth a
Gody even his Graven Imageand worfnppeth it.^ and prayeth
unto it, and faith. Deliver me, for thou art my God. I need not
ife' multiply places for the proof of this •, for this isown'd by all
the Advocates of the Church of Rome, and.re'ied on as the
^31*? great fupport of their Caufe. From hence they fay, it is
Wit; plain in what fenfe God forbids the Worlhip of Images, viz.
when Men worlhip their Images for Gods, astheTextailerts
iur, the Heathens did. But tho the Church of Rome worlhips
fin Images, yet Ihe does not worlhip them for Gods, but only
ffnv: worlliip God, or Chrift,. or the Saints in and by their Iraa-
wfc ges. This is the reafon of their great Zeal to make the
firft and fecond Commandment but one : becaufe the firft
Commandment forbidding the Worlhip of all falfe Gods, If
that which we call the fecond Commandment, which for-
bids the Worlhip of Images, be reckoned only as part of the
firft, then they think it plain in what fenfe the Worlhip of
Images is forbid viz. only as the Worlliip of falfe Gods •,
and therelore thole cannot be charged .with the breach of
this Commandment, who do not believe their Images to bo
Gods.
Now belldes what I have already faid, to prove that the
Heathens did not believe the Images themfelves to be Gods,
which is fo fottilh a Conceit, as no Man of common Senfe
can be guilty of ^ I have feveral Arguments to prove, that-
the Sctipture docs not underftand it in this fenle.
1. The firft is. That the Golden Calf is called Gods of
Gold, Exod. ^2. ^i. and yet it is evident, they did not believe
the Calf to be a God, but only a Symbol and Reprefenta-
tion of the Lord Jehovah, whom they worlhipped in the.
Calf.
2. The very name of an Image, which fignifies a Like-
nefsand Reprefentation of fome other Being, is irreconcikr
able with fuch a Belief, that the Image it felf is a God •,. that
the Image is that very God, , whom it is made toreprefcnt *,
which i
■' 'i
s r
:x
( to4 >
which (Ignihes, that the likenefs of God, is that very God
whofe likenefs it is: Efpecialiyi, when the Scripture, which
calls fuch Images Gods, calls them alfo the Images of their
Gods.
Which is proof enough, that tho the Scripture calls Itna-
ges Gods, it does not underftand it in that fenfe, that they
believe their material Images to be Gods: for it is a contra-
didtion to fay, that the Image of Bad^ is both their God
and his Image at the fame time; for the Image is not
the thing it reprefents.
3. The Arguments urged in Scripture againft Images,
plainly prove, that they were not made to be Gods, but on-
ly Reprefentations of God. One Argument is, becaule they
faw no fimilitude of God when he fpoke to them in Honh
out of the midfl of the Fire: another, that they can nsake no
Dcut. 4. 15. likenefs of Him. To whom then will ye liken God^ or what
likenefs will ye compare to Him ? To whom then will ye Uk^n
Me^ or jhall I he equal^ faith the Holy One ? T has St. Vanl ar-
gues with the Philofophers at Athens 3 For as much then m
we aretheOff-fpringof Gody we ought not to thinks the Godhesd
to he like to Gold, and Silver^and Stone graven hy Art^ and Ma'di
Device. Now what do all thefe Arguments llgnify againft
making a God ? for if they can make a God, what matter is
it who their God be like, fo he be a God ? It is a good Ar-
gument againft making any Image and Reprefentation of
God, that it is impoffible to make anything like him; but
it is fenough for a God to be like it felf.
In what fenfe then, you'l fay, does the Scripture call Ima-
ges Gods ? there is but one polfib'e fenfe, that I know of,
and that is, that they are vicarious and fubftitutcd Gods;
that they are fet up in God's place, to reprefent bis Perfon,
and to receive our Worfliip in his name and dead, and fo
are Gods by Office, tho not by Nature. They are virbie
Reprefentations of the Invifible God, they bear "his Name
and receive his Worffiip ; as the'GoIden Calf was called Je-
hovah., and the Worffiip of the Calf was called a Feaft un-
to the Lord ; And this is fome reafon for their being called
Gods i as the Proxy and Subftitute adts in the name of the
;Perfon he reprefents: Which proves that this is the Scrip-
ture
Ifa,4o.i8,27.
AAs 17, 29.
,y
^ A-
»:
( loS )
ture notion of Image-worfhip, that the Image is worfeipped in
God's name and ftead. And to this purpofe I obferve. That
tho' or an Idol, fignifies a falfe god ; yet it Ilgniftcs
. fuch a falle god as is only the image and figure of another
god; for fo fignifies and a likenefsor fimi-
litude. Thus TertuUian tells us, eorum imagines Idola , itna-
ginum confecratio Idolatria^ That their Images are Idols, and the
Confecration of them is Idolatry. Thus the Author of the
Book of Wifdom attributes the original of Idolatry, to Fathers Wifdomc.ix.
making images for their children who U'ere dead, and appointing fc- v-IS-
lemnities to be kept before them as if they were gods; and thus- by
degrees Princes pajjed thefe things into Laws, and made men to
■worpip graven Images j and'thus either out of affeBion or flattery
the worship of Idols began. Which Ihews what he means by Idols,
Images confecratcd for the worlhip of God. And therefore he
diftinguilhes the worlhip of Idols, from the worlhip of the Ele-
ments and heavenly bodies, when this was done without an c. 13. v. 6.
Image: And therefore no God is in Scripture called an Idol but
with refped to its Image. Thus Idols and Molten Gods are ^
join'd together, as expounding each othen And the Pfalmift pfjim.
tells us, Jhe Idols of the Heathens are Silver andGoldy the work
of mens hands. So that an Idol is a falle God, as it fignifies a
material Image made to reprefent Ibme God, as a vifibleobjed
of worlhip, to receive the worlhip of that God whole name
it bears, in his place and ftead.
To the fame purpofe the Scripture charges thefe Image-wor-
Ihippers with changing the Glory of God into the likencfs and
fimilitilde of thole creatures whereby they reprefented him.
Thclfraelites made the Image of a Golden Calf, as the fym-
bolical reprefentation and prefcnce of the Lord Jehovah i and
the Pfalmift tells us, that by fo doing, they changed their glory
(^i.e. the Lord fehovah., who was the glory of Ijrael) into the
fimilitude of an Ox which eateth grafs. Which neceflfarily fup-
pofes, that they intended to reprefent the Lord Jehovah in the
Image of the Calf \ not that they thought their God to be like
the Calf, but as they made a vicarious and vifible God of it,
and worlhipped it in the name of the Lord Jehovah. .Thus St.
P<?«/defcribes the Idolatry of the Heatheps, That they changed
the glory of the incorruptible Godf jnto an image made like to cor-
' N» ruptibli
T'
It i
( io6 )
ruptihte matty and four-footed beafts, and creeping things. But of
this more prefenrly ; this is fufficient to (how, what the Scrip-
ture notion of Image-worfliip is, and in what fenfe it con-
demns it.
idly. Let us now confider wherein the evil of this Image-
worfhip confifts, which will greatly contribute to the right un-
derftanding of this whole difpute. Now the account of it in
general is very Ihort and plain, That the evil of Image-worlhip,
when we worfliip the true God by an Image, does not fo much
confift in the kinds, or degrees, or objedl of worfhip, as in
repreftntation ; and if this prove the true account of it, as I
believe it will appear to be to all confidering men, before I have
done, it will quite alter the ftate of this controverfie, and put
M. de Meaux, and the Reprefenter, to find out fome new Expofi-
tions and Reprefentations of their Image worfhip.
I. That the evil of Image worfhip when men worfhip the
true God by an Image, does not principally confift in the kinds,
or degrees, or objed of worfhip. Such men indeed are faid in
Scripture to worfliip Images, and Idols, and Molten Gods, and
that their Idols are filver and gold, wood and ftonej for when
they worfhip God by an Image, they muft worfhip the Image,
or elfe they cannot worfhip God in it, tho' they worfhip the
Image not for it felf, but for the Prototype, as the Council of
Trent determines, which is more properly worfhipping God or
Chrift in or before his Image, as M. de Meaux expounds it, than
worfhipping the Image; and they are faid to worfhip images
rather with refped to the manner than to the objed of worfhip,
as you fhall hear more prefently. The Church of Rome indeed,
as her dodrine and pradice is expounded by her moft famed
Divines, may juftly be charged with worfhipping Images in the
grofleft fenfe; as that fignifies giving Religious worfhip to the
material image of wood and ftone \ which is ftridly to worfhip
ftocks and ftones as Gods. This charge may be eafily made
good againft all thofe who teach that the Image is to be pro-
perly worfhipped, and that either a relative latria^ or fome
proper inferior worfhip is to be terminated on the Image as its
material objed ; and yet moft of the RomanDoCtors attribute
one or t'other to the Image, as diftind from that worfhip they
give to the Prototvpe; and difpute very learnedly, that this is
the
( To y )
the Doctrine both of the fecond Council of ITtce, ^nd of the
Council of Trent, That a proper worfhip muft be given to the
Image, diftind from that worfliip which is given to theProto-
type j but they cannot yet agree, whether it be a relative im-
' proper analogical latria, which muft be given to the Image of
Chrift, or only eluliai or an inferiour degree of Religious wor-
' (hip. ;
This has hitherto been the chief feat of the Controverfy be-
tween Vrotefianrs and Papifis about Image-worfiiip ; and M. de
Meaux (eems very fenfible, That attributing a proper worfhip
to Images, fo as to terminate it on them, gives too jnft occafion
for the charge of Idolatry, and puts them to hard fhifts to vin-
dicate themfelves from it; and therefore he owns no worfhip
due to the Image for it felf, but only as it reprefents theProto-
type, which therefore is not fb properly the worfhip of the
Image, as of the Prototype by the Image; and here I perfedly
agree with him. That the true notion of Image-worfhip is not
to worfhip the Image at all, confidered in it felf, as a material
figure of wood and flone, but only to worfhip God or Chrifl
in the Image. And therefore I lhall fet afide this difpute, in
what fenfe, or how far a Papi/l may be charged with worfhip-
ping the material Image, which has occafioned eternal wrang-
lings, and yet does not properly belong to the controverfy of
Image-worfhip. To worfhip a material Image, is to give the
• worfhip of God to creatures, to wood and ftone; but Image-
worfhip is initsftrid notion, not giving Divine worfhip to Ima-
ges, but worfhipping God in and by the Image which repre-
fents him, which in Scripture is called worfhipping Images:
And therefore tho' we fhould grant, that M. de Meaux his ex-
pofition avoids the firft charge of giving Religious worfhip to
wood and ftone, becaufe he denies that they properly worfhip
the Image, but only the Prototype in the Image; yet the
whole guilt of Image worfhip, as that fignifies the worfhip of
God by Images, not the worfhip of the material Image, is
chargeable upon him ftill, that is, the worfhip of the Prototype
by the Image, which is all that is forbid in the fecond Com-
mandment.
This, it may be, will be thought a giving uptheCaufe, to
grant, that the Church of Kowe may worfhip God or Chrift
1^ 1 by
( loS- )
hy Images, and yet not be chargeable with worfliipping the
Images themfelvesjor the material figures of Wood or Stone;and
therefore it will be neceflaiy to fhew, that the true Notion of
Idolatry or Image-worfhip is not giving Religious worfhip to the
Images themfelves, but worfliipping God by Images, and what
the difference between thefe Two is.
1. And the firft thing I (hall obferve to this purpofe, is the
difference between the Firft and Second Gommandment which
all Prote(iants own and defend againft the Church of Rom,
which makes the Second Commancknent only a Branch and
Appendix of the Firft. Now the Firft Commandment forbids
all falfe objeds of worfhip, the worfhip of all creatures and fidi-
tious Deities, and therefore the worfhip of all Beings befides
God, whether rational, animate or inanimate, is a breach of
the Firft Commandment, and muftbe reduced to itand con-
fequently the Second Commandment which forbids the worfhip
of Images, cannot forbid them as falfeObjeds, (forallfuch
are forbid in the firft Commandment) but as a falfe and cor-
rupt way of worfhip •, and therefore Image-worfhip as it is for-
bid in the Second Commandment, cannot fignifie worfhipping
the Image it felf, as diftinguifhed from the Prototype, for that
would make it a falfe objed of worfhip againft the firft Com-
mandment, but only a falfe and fuperftitious way of reprefent-
ting and worfliipping God by an Image-
i.ly. And therefore I obferve, that an Image does not alter the
objcdof worfhip, which yet it muft neceffarily do, if it were
Effential to the Notion of Image worfhip to worfhip the Image
it felf, which would make the Image a new objed of worfhip.
Now it is plain, that men who do not difpute themfelves into
endlefs fubtiltiesand.diftindions, intend no more in the worfhip
of Images, than to worfhip that God whofe Image it is, and
therefore the objed of worfhip is the fame with or without an
Image. They who worfhip the True God with, an Image, and
they who worfhip him without an Image, worfhip the fame God
though in a different manner; and befides what judgment men
make of their own adions, and. what they intend to do, the
Scripture it felf acknowledges this. When the Ifraelites made a
gcAdenCaif,Jaroft proclaims a Feaft to the Lord Jehovah, which
groves that they intended.to worfhip the fame God ftill in the
^ golden
(lop 3
golden Calf, which they did before without it. Thus the Two
Calves which let up, were made in imitation of the
golden Calf, and for Symbolical reprefentations of the God of
Ifrael, who was worfliipped by them ; For it is plain that Jero-
hoam did not intend to change their God, but only to prevent
their going up to JerufaUm to worfliip God there ; and there^
fore he tells them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerufalem, l>e- i
hold thyGodifOKrae], which brought thee up out of the Land of
<ty£gypt •, that is,the Lord Jehovah. Now we may obferve, that
Godhimfelf, though he was grievoufly offended with the Sin of
feroboam, yet he makes a great difference between the Sin of ,
Jeroboam and the Sin of Ahab, who introduced the worfhip of 31,
Baal a falfe God, whereas Jerobcayn retained the worfhip of the
true God, though he worfhipped him in a falfe and Idolatrous
manner. If the Calves of Danznd Bethel had been falfe Gods,
as Bad was,the Sin had been equally provoking \ but the worlhip
of the Calves did not change their God, as the worlhip of Baal
did ; and therefore Elijah diffinguilhes the Ifraelites into the
worfllippersof God and of Baal. How long halt ye between Two ,
Opinions ? if the Lord be God follow him; but ;^Baal,r^ew follow him^ 21.
and yet moft of thofe who are faid to be worfhippers of God,
did worlhip God at the Calves of Dan and Bethel, which was
theeliablifhed Religion of the Kingdom. And thus Jehu^tha'
he departed not from the Sin of Jeroboam, the golden Calves ^
in Dan and Bethel, yet he calls his Zeal in deftroying'B«<«/ out ig.
of Ifrael, his Zeal for the Lord Jehovah.
Now if the worlhip of an Image do not change the objeftof
our worlhip, neither in the intention of the worlhipper, nor in
the account of Scripture, as I have now proved it evidently
follows, that the Image is not worfhipped as an objedl, but asa
Medium of worfhip ■, it receives no worfhip for it felf, but only
for God Whom it reprcfents. And that which is fb ofFenfive to
God in it, is not that they fet up any Rival and Oppofife gods
againft him, but that they worfhip him in a reproachful and
difhonourable manner, which makes him abhor and rejed the
worfhip; and becaufe he will not receive this worfhip himfelf, he
calls it worfhipping Idols and graven Images, and molten gods,
that is, vicarious and reprefentative gods,which though they re-
seive the worfhip in God's Name, yet are an infinite reproach
to «
( IIO )
i''':
ri : ifiif'
r'v ^
. r;.:
ill-"''',
-r
■ >:;
is;.
r
to his Majefty by that vile and contemptible RepTefentationtliey
make him. This is the ftridt Notion of Idolatry, not the giving
the worlhip of God to Creatures , which is the Breach of the
Fir ft Conamandment in making new Gods, but the worlhip of
God by an linage, which makes fuch Images Gods by Repre-
fentation, but not the objeds, but only the Medlur,i of worlhip \
and therefore though we Ihould grant M. de Meaux that he
does not worfhip Images, but only Chrift and the Saints in or
before their Images, this does not excufe him from Idolatry,
which does not fignifie worlhipping an Image in a ftriit fence;
but only worfliipping God in an Image, which terminates all the
worfhip not on the Imagebut on God.
1.1). Let us now confider wherein the Evil of this Idolatry or
Image-worihip does confift ; and that Ifaid was in Reprefenta-
tion; which I fliall briefly explain in thefeparticulars, i. That
it is an infinite reproach to the Divine Nature and Perfeifl;ions,to
3fa. 40. 18, be reprefented by an Image; To ivhom ivill ye UkenGod} Or
>9, ©'c. ipLat likenefs wiUye compare to him ? The workman melteth a gra-
njcn Image , and the Goldfmith fpreadeth it over with Goldy and
cafieth Stiver Chains. He that ts fo impoverijhed that he hath no
Oblation , chufeth a Tree that will not ret: he fecketh unto him a
cimmng Workman to prepare a graven Image that Jit all not be
moved. Have ye not known ? Have je not heard ? Hath it net
. been told you from the beginning ? Have ye not under flood from the
Foundations of the EarthIt is he that fitteth upon the Circle of the
Earthy and the Inhabitants thereof are as Grajhoppers ; that firetch
cheth out the Heavens as a Curtain, and fpreadeth them out as «
Tent to dwell in. How incongruous and abfurd is it, to make a
Pidlure or Image of that God who is invifible? to reprefenta
pure Mind by Matter, dull fenflefs Matter ! to give the fhape
and figure ofaManjor fbme viler Creature, to that God who
bas none ! To make an Image for the Maker of the World) and
to bring that Infinite Being to the fcantlings and dimenfions of a
Man, who fills Heaven and Earth with his prefence ! If it be
the Glory of God to be what he is, a pure, infinite, eternal, in-
vifible Mind ! it is a contradidion and difhonour to him to be
reprefented by a material vifible Image like to fome of bis own
-Creatures, but inferior to the meaneft living Creatures, be-
fiaufe without Life and Senfe f Thus St. ?aul argues,17.19-
- ' ' For-
'11 -rr
Forafniuch then as we are the off-faring of God^ we ought not to'
think that the Godhead is like unto Gold or Silier^ or Stone gra-
mans device. If we think God to be like to liich
Images, we know nothing of him; and if we make fuch Images
Ijjijj'j! as we know are not like to God, nay a reproach to his Nature
- Perfections, we wilfully affront him. And tho Chrift
it'as: converfed in this World in human Nature, which is reprefen-
' table by an Image, y et an Image is not a proper Reprefentation
• ^ of Chrift, as the objeCl of Worlhip, becaufe it cannot repre-
fent the Divine Nature, which is theReafcn and Foundation of
Worlhip. And as for Saints, they ought not to be worlhipped
at all, and therefore not worlhipped by Images: And indeed,
that very Law which forbids the worlhip of Images without
any Exception, and yet upon fuch Reafons as are peculiar to
the infinite Nature of God, are a plain Argument tome, that
no Being which is reprefentable by human Art, is an ObjeCl of
Worlhip.
»MRa -Jo fet yp ay Image in the place of God, has a great ap..
ffs::; pearance and fufpicion of worlhipping a material and vifible '
God, of giving Divine Honours to Gold and Silver, and the
jitkii work of mens hands; for tho men pretend to Worlhip God in
the Image, yet how does the Image come to be worlhipped
ari! 5« for God ? What likenefs ? What Relation is there between them ?
tuifff How eafily mayjmen flip into the worlhip of Images themfelves,
fiilt and forfake God,or never mind him,for the fake of a fine Picture,.
or fome beautiful or wonder-working Image ? for tho there is a
ijeisf great deal of difference between worlhipping God by an Im-
jjiitr' age, and worlhipping the Image it felf, yet to all appearance
'f! loiS they are fo like one another,, and there is lb eafie a paffage from
toffiJ one to the other, that Gods difpleafure againft this Sin is ex-
loiiitli' preffed in Scripture by Jealoufie ^ a Paflion which expreffes both
/(ijfJi Sufpicion and Caution^ while they profefs to Worlhip God by
Ijjcicti; their Images, they do not change their God, but yet their wor-
; fhipping a vifible Image , looks very like it, and is an eafie In-
troduClion to it; Thus in the lecond Commandment, the Rea-
jjfdjifi fon with which God inforces his Prohibition againft worlhipping
Images is,Fcr I the Lord thy Goddam a fealous God. Thus Plal./S.
(jfaiS 5^* provoked him to anger with their high placet, and mo-
vedhim to jealoujie with their graven Imagei.h.nd- therefore he ex-
preffes
( 112 )
preflfes himfclf with fome Paflion and Concernment In this mat-
ter. I ant the Lordy that is my Name , and my Glorf will I not
give to another, neithei my Tratfe to Graven Images, Ifa. 41.8.
The Church is called Gods Spoufe, and the worfliip of falfe
gods is called Whoredorti and Adultery, going after other gods;
and the worfliip of the true God by Images, tho it be not
Whoredom, yet it is fuch a hind of fpiritual Wantonnefs and
Incontinency, as excites his Jealoufie.
Efpecially when we confider, that the Worfliip of Images
does naturally expofe us to the Cheats and Impoftures of wicked
Spirits; for this reafon I oblerved before, God forbids the VVor-
fliip of any other Invifible Being but himlelf; for if men were
allowed to Worfliip inferior Spirits, bad Spirits who inhabit
thele lower Regions, would foon have the greateft fliare of their
Worfliip; and thus it is with Images, which are fuch an offence
and diflionour to God, that we cannot expeft that he will ever
' fliow himlelf prefent in them, or guard them from the poffeffion
of evil Spirits. It is evident that in the Heathen World, evilSpi-
rits pofleffed their Images, and abufed Mankind with their l^ng
Wonders, and lying Oracles \ and I have fome reafon to believe,
that if any Miracles are wrought ftill at Images, they are not
by good Spirits, becaule Images are an Abomination to God ;
and therefore, Kom. i. St. Vaulattributes the general corruption
of mens lives and manners to the Worfliip of Images; thfj
changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like
to corruptible man^ and to birds and fourfooted beafisy and creeping
things^ wherefore God gave them up to uncleannefs for this cauje
God gave them up to vile affellions— and even as they did not like
to retain God in their knowledge God gave them over to a reprobate
mind to do thefe things which are not convenient. The meaning of
which is, That God gave them over to the delufions of wicked
Spirits, who lurked in their Images, and firft corrupted their Re-
ligion,and then their Lives by impure and barbarous Rites of
Worfliip.
4. If there were no other hurt in Image-worihip, yet it de-
bales human Nature to fall down before a fenflefs Image: As it
is a difhonour to God to be worftiipped by an Image, tho the
Worfliip be intended for himfelf, and not for the Image,becaufe
it makes fo mean and vile a Reprefentationof him; fo it is a re-
c 11? )
proachto a man, who is a reafonable Creature, and made after
the Image of God, to fall down before Stocks and Stones, with
all external Submifllons and Adorations, tho he intends not to
worfhip the material Image, but God by it j becaufe the vifible
Objedl before which we pay our VVorlhip is fo much below the
honour and dignity of human Nature , it is a reproach to the
underftanding of a man to think that a material Image is ade-
cent Reprcfentation of God, and a fit medium of Worfhip ; -
and he muO: have a mean and beggarly Spirit, who can be con-
tented to bow down before it; Thus Arncbius aggravates the
madnefs of this: Supplicate tremebundum facftitari abs te rei: Arnob. i. C.
To fall down treinhl:n»t and to fuppJicate that which then thy felf
h.ijl made. And a greater Arnobins tellstjs, Tloey that make
them, are like unto them, fo is every one who putteth their trufi in
them. Pfal. 155. i3
5/y. The VVorlhip of God by Images is contrary not only to
the Laiv of Mofes,hwt to the reafon of Mankindjit gratifies indeed
a flelhly and fenfual Mind to have a vifible Objedt of Worfhip,
butGo(^ is the only natural ObjcvTl: of Worfhip j and reafon tells
us, that God is invifible ; and Reafon will tell us, that it is con-,
trary to the Nature of an invifible Being, to be worfhipped un-
der a vifible Reprefentation; it is not only a Reproach to the
Divine Nature, but an abfiird and unreafonable Worfhip/ For
what confidering man can think it reafonable to worfhip a vifible
Image inltead of an invifible God ? Reafon can never juftifie
a worfhip fo contradidiory to the Divine Nature, and therefore
Reafon can never teach men to Worfhip an Image. For what
is it they intend by worfhipping Images ? Have they a mind
to fee the God they VA'orfhip? But how unreafonable is this,
when they know he is Invifible, and would not be a God if he
could be feen ? And how abfurd is it to Reprefent him by an
Image, when they know they can make no Image like him?
No worfhip can be natural, which contradidis the .nature of
that Being whom we Worfhip; and if it be not natural, it muft
be infrituted Worfhip; and then, tho it were forbid by no Law,
it mull be commanded byfome Law to make it leafbnable, at
leaft if it be pofTible that a Law could make that an adl of
Honour and Worfhip, which is a Difhonour to the Divine Per-
fedions.
O 6lu It
( «i4 )
6ly. It is more efpeciairy contrary to the nature of the Chri-
ftian worfliip, which teaches ns to form a more fpiritual Idea
of God,and to worfliip him in Spirit and in Truth ; in oppofition
not only to all fenfible Reprelentations, but to all fymbolical
■Prefences. There are two things principally, for which Images
are intended, to be vifible Reprefentations, and a vifible Pre-
fence of the Deity. The firft of thefc is fo great a Reproach to
the Divine Nature f that it was forbid by the Law of Mofes,
which was at belt a left perfeft Difpenfation, as being accom-
modated to the carnal State of that People; but as to the fecond,
God himfelf gratified them in it, for he dwelt among them in
the Tabernacle, and afterwards in the Temple oiJerufaUm,
where he placed the Symbols of his Prefence. But now when
the Woman of Samaria asked our Saviour about the place of
Worfliip,whether it was the Temple at Jerufahm, or Samaria:
, He anfwers, "The hour cometb when ye fliall neither in this moun-
tain, nor yet at Jerufalem worjhip the Father. But the true wor-
pifpers pall worpip the Father in Spirit and in Truth, for the
Father feeketh fuch to ivorpip him. God is a Spirit, and they that
worpiip him, mufi worpip him in Spirit and in Truth, Where
Chrift oppofes worfliipping in Spirit and in Truth, to worfliip-
ping in the Temple, not as a Temple fignifies a place feparated
for Religious Worfliip, which is a neceflfarf Circumftance of
Worfliip in all Religions; but as it fignifies a Symbolical Pre-
fence, a Figure of Gods Refidence and Dwelling among them,
in which fenfe the Primitive Chriftians denied that they had
any Temples. For God dwelling in human Nature, is the only
Divine Prefence under the Gofpel, of which the Temple was but
a Type and Figure. Now if the fpiritual Worfliip of the Go-
fpel does fb withdraw us from fenfe, as not to admit of a Sym-
bolical Prefence, much left certainly does it admit of Images,
to reprefent God prefent to us, which is fo grofs and carnal, that
God forbad it under the Legal Difpenfation. We muff conilder
God as an infinite Mind, prefent in all places to hear our Pray-
crs, and receive our Worfhip, and muft raife our hearts to
Heaven, whither Chrift who is the only vifible Prefence of God is
afcended, and not feek for him in carved Wood or Stone, era
curious pieceof Painting,
•jlj, But
( lis)
jthJy. Butfmce M.de Meaux, and the Reprefentcr think rt
^lifficient to juftifie the worfliip of Images, that they, are of
great ufe to reprefent the objedof our worfhip to us, and to
affed us with fuitable paffions; it will be needful briefly to con-
fider this matter. For I confefs I cannot fee how a material
and vifible Image ftiould form a true Idea in us of an invifible
Spirit • it ts apt to corrupt mens notions of God and Religion,
and to abate our juft reverence, by reprefenting the objed of
our worfhip under fo contemptible an appearance. An Image
cannot tell us what God is j if we are otherwife inftruded in
the nature of God, we know that an image is not like him, but
a reproach to the Divine perfedions; if we are not better in-
ftruded, we (hall think our God like his image, which will
make us very underffanding Chriftians.
But the Reprelenter has drawn this Atgument out at large,
and therefore we muft confider what he faysof it. That Pi-
dures and Images ferve to, i. Trefewe in his mind the memory
of the things reprefented by them, as people are wont to preferve
the memory of their deceafed Friends by keeping their Fiblures. But
I befeech you, the memory of what docs a Pidurc preferve ?
Of nothing that I know of, but the external lineaments and
features of the face or body j and therefore the Images and
Pidures of God and the Holy Trinity ( which yet are allow-
cd in the Church of Rome) cannot ferve this end, unlefs they
will fay, that God has an external fliape as Man has. And
fuppofe we had the exad Pidures of Cbrifl and the Virgin
Mary, the Apofties and other Saints and Martyrs, this might
gratify our curiofity, but of what ufe is it in the Chriftian Reli-
gion ? To remember Chrift, is not to remember his face, which
we never faw, but to remember his Dodrine and his Life •, to
call to mind his great Love in dying for us ; to remember him
not as a Man, but as ^ God incarnate, as our Mediator and
Advocate, as our Lord and Judge; and therefore the Gofpcls
which contain the Hiftory of his Life, are a much better Pi-
dure of Chrift, than any drawn by the moft curious Pencil;
and 1 doubt, the Chriftian Religion will not gain much by taking
the Gofpels out of peoples hands, und giving them a Pidure
to gaze on,'
9 ^
( )
Yesjfaies our Author, x. He it taught to ufe them hy cafllng
his eye upon the PiBures or Images, and thence to raife his heart to
the Prototypes, and there to imploy it in Meditation, Love, Lbankp-
giving. Imitation, &C. as the objeB requires. But he is a very
forry Chriftian, who never thinks of Chrift, but when he fees
his Pidture. And how can the frght of a Pidlure raKe our
hearts to the Love of Chrift ? The fight indeed of a lovely
Pidture may excite a fenfible pafiion, but not a Divine love;
The fight of his Pidlure can only pur us in mind, that there was
fnch a perfon as Chrift in the world ^ but if we would affect
our hearts with his love and praife, we muft not gaze on his
Face, which is all that a Pidture can (how us, if it could do
that", but meditate on what he has done and fuffered for us,
which may be done better without a Pidture, than with it. If
they want fomething to put them in mind, that there is fuch a
perfon as Chrift, which is all that his Pidlure can do, the name
of Chrift written upon the Church-Walls would be more
innocent, and altogether as effedtual to this end.
But Pidlures are very inftrudtive, as that of a Deaths-head,
and OldTtme painted with his P'ore-lock, Hour glafs, and Sythe:
and do inform the mind at one glance, of what in reading requires
a chapter, and fometimes a Volume : Which is fo far from being
true, that a Pidlure informs a Man of nothing, but what he
was informed of before. The Pidlure of a Crucifix may put
a man in Mind of what he has heard or read" of Chrifts dying
upon theCrofs; but if he know nothing of the Hiftory of
Chrifts Sufferings, the barefeeing a Crucifix can teach him
nothing. Children may be taught by Pidlures, which make a
more ftrong imprefiion on their fancies than Words; but a
Pidlure cannot teach; andat beftthis is but a very childifli way
of learning.
3. But devout Pidlures are of great ufe in Prayer, the fight
of which cures diftradlions, and recalls his wandering thoughts
to the right objeB, and as certainly brings fome good things ihtohis
mind, as an immodeflPiBure difiurbs his heart with naughtineft.
But can men read their Prayers, as well as learn the Articles of
their Creed, in a Pidlitrc too? For even good thoughts are a
diftradlion in Prayers, when they call us off from attending to
what we ask of God; and U. is to be feared then> that Pictures
them-
( 1^7 J
themfelves may diftract us, nnlefs we are fare they will fug-
geft no thoughts to us at fuch a time, but what are in our
Prayers j the Church of Rome indeed teaching her Children
fuch Prayers as they do not underftand, and therefore cannot
imploy their thoughts, may make Pictures very neceffary to
entertain them ; but ifourthoughtsand our words ought to go
together, as it muft be if the Devotion of Prayers confifts in
praying devoutly, an Image whicltcannot fpeak, and a Prayer
which is notunderftood,are like to make Men equally devout j
ihould Men when they look upon a Crucifix, run over in their
Minds all the Hiftory of our Saviours Sufferings! fhould the
fight of our Saviour hanging on the Crofs affed us with fome
fofc and tender Paflions at the remembrance of him ! (which it
iscertain the daily and familiar ufe offuch Pidures cannot do)
yet what is this to Prayer ? Such fenfible Paflions as the fight
of a Pidure can raile in us, are of little or no account in Re-
Jigion; trite devout Affedions muft fpring from an inward
Vital which the Pidure cannot give to thofe who want it,
and is of no ufe to thofe who have it.
Thus I havejas briefly as the5ubjed would permit,examined •
the Dodrine of Praying to Saints, and Worfhipping Images
according to the Expofition of the Bifhopof Condom, to whom
our Author appeals in thefe Points, and this 1 hope will fatisfie
him, what we think both of the Bifhops Authority and hisExr
pofition, and how little we like Popery in its beft drefs. And now
it is time to return to our Protefter.
And 1 hope by this time he fees that there is fomething more
needful to clear the Matters in Controverfie between us, than ..
barely M. de Meaun his Authority ; and therefore he refblving '
not to look beyond the Exfojition deli'vered by this Rrelate, 1 might Papift* ft*'
here very fairly take my leave of him ; but 1 cannot do this, tho*
he be a perfed Stranger to me^ without difmiffing him civilly ■
with a Complement or two more.
I. Then as to the invocation of Saints:, he obferves that
I deny the Bifhop has limited it only to their Prayers,
which I own is a miftake ; and this is fuch, a Complement
as muft never be expeded from a Dodor of the infallible
Church, for he had occafion enough for it, had he had a Heart
CO do it) bult 1 hope L have abundantly tpade ainends for this s
now V
C U8 ;
;P- 28.
now by a fair and particular Examination of the Blfhops Exfvv
fition as to that Point; and indeed M. Meaux himfelf gave
the occafion for this, by not owning it in its d ae place, when he
expounded the Decree of the Council, which teaches them to
fiy to the aid and affiftance of the Saints as well as to their
Prayers, but fhuffling it into the middle of a fencence at fame
diftance, where no Man would exped it : When Expofitors
dodge at this rate, they may thank themfclves if they are mi-
ftaken.
i.dly and iMy, He takes SantSiiary again in the Bifliops Au-
thority to juftifie his renouncing the Po^es ferfonal Infallibility^
and the depofing DoHrine, as no Articles of Faith : But tho' the
.Bifhop indeed do wave fame things, as he (ays, which are difpuied
of in the Schools, as no Articles of Faith, yet he does not fay
what they are, much lefs name the Popes perfcnal Infallibility,
and the depofing power; and one Would think he could not mean
the depofing power, which is determined by General Councils,
and therefore muft be an Article of Faith. The Truth is, the
Bifhop has here plaid a very cunning Game, and men may
.make what they pleafe of his words, as their intereft or inch-
nation leads themj if Protefiants objedt the Doftrine of the
Popes infallibility and Depofing power, he can eafily tell them
that thefe are School-difputes, and not Articles of Faith ; if the
Pope or Roman Doftors quarrel at it, he has then faid nothing
in difparagemenc of the Popes infallibility and Depofing power,
but has taught that Fundamental Principle on which thefe Do-
, ^ . ^trines depend, as in Truth he has, when he makes the Primacy
'Expofitioth p» of pefjr, the Cement of Unity, and gives this Primacy to the
>Bilhops (rf" Rome , as Succejfors of the Prince of the Apofiles, to
whom for this eaufe we owe that Obedience and Subm^fjion which
the holy Cotincils and Fathers ha-ve always taught the Faithful;
though they have not (aid one word till of late of any fuch obe-
dience and fubmiffion due to them ; efpecially when we confi-
der what he means by the Primacy of the Pope, that he is a
Head efiablifiied by God to conduSt bis whole Flock in hu paths ^
Whidi gives him a Supremacy over Bifliops and Secular Princes;
..and how naturally this infers infalhbilicy, and a power of de-
pofing Heretical Princes, every one fees, and we have reafbnto
believe ^ Bhfljop expound^ his Do^ine to this Orthodox
• - - - -
<• 11^ )
Scncc in his Letters to the Pope, from the Popes Teftimonial,
that his Letters jhewed his fubmijfton ■and rejfth} to tbej^pofiolick
See.
As for the Popes perfonal infallibility, onr Author in his Re-
flections (p 8.) denies it to be an Article of Faith, becaufc it is not
fofits-vely determined by any General Council\ in my reply (P.47J
I to d him this is no proof, that it is not an Article of Faith, be-
caufethe infallibility of the Church it felf, which they all grant
to be an Article of Faith, was never poflavely determined by
any General Council; and therefore (brae Dodtrines may be-
Articles of Faith, which never were determined by any Gene-
ral Council*, and I added, that if the Church be infallible, the^
Pope muft, if he be the Head of the Church ; for infallibiUty
C'ght in reafcn to accompany the greatefi and mofl abfolute Tower •
but our Author thought fit to let fall this difpute, and to re-
folve all into the Bifliop of Condoms Authority.
His Propofal which follows, I have already anfwered without
afmile, but I cannot forbear fmiling once more to hear him com-
plain of difputing ^ which he fays belongs not to the Reprefenter^
who being to refrejent and not to difpute, is not concerned with thofe
tedious Arguments,. The Cafe is this; In the Charafter of a
Papift Reprefented, he had denied the depofing Power to be an
Article of Faith j the Anfwerer proved it was an Article of Faith,,
becaufe it was decrcd by General Councils; to this,III his Refle-
ftions he anfwers, that every thing-approved in General Coun-
cils, is-not an Article Of Faith, but only Dodrinal Points, and
thofe decreed with an Anathema ; and therefore the Depofing
Power not being declared as a dodlrinal point, and the decrees
relating only to Difcipline and Government, and not being de-
creed neither with an Anathema, it does not appear to be-an Ar-
tide of Faith; In Anfwerto this, in my Reply (p. 4^. ) I pro-
pofed three Enquiries, i. Whether nothing be an Article of Faith.,
but what is decreed with an Anathema f Whether the depcfing -\
Decree be a doBrinal Point, or only matter of Difcipline and Govern-
ment ? 3. What Authority general Councils have in decretismorum,
or fuch matters as concern Difcipline and Government ? This is the
difputing he complains of, and I confels he has fbme reafon for
it; for Arguments that cannot be anfwered, how fliort foever
they are, are very tedious*, but how I could anfwer his argument
with-
P.
( 120 )
•without dirpiutng, or how he comes to be anconcerned to defi?^
diis own arguments, I cannot tell j but tho difpunng is not his
Province, yet in civility he vjill go cut of his •way wttb Wf, and in
Civility I will keep him company. „ ir ■ ■ ^ ^ ■ r
■ 1. HeconfefiTes, I trove at large that aU defmucns of Faith
declared in General Councils are not concluded -with Anathenvds, and
in this he wiHingly agrees with me. But this does not at all prove,
that whatfoever is declared in fuch a Council without an Anathema,
is an Article of Faith ; and therefore nothing agamji us defcrving
any farther anlwer. And thus he has very prettiiy altered the
-ftate ot thequeftion he faidthe Depofing dodlrine tho appro-
Ared by General Councils, was no.t an Article of Faith, becaufe
mot decreed with an Anathema : now if this argurnent be good,
I then nothing muft be accounted an Article of Faith, but what
is decreed wxihsin-Anathema •• In oppofition to which 1 proved
that feveral Dodrines which they themfelves account Articles
■ of Faith, have been decreed by general Councils without Ana-
- thema's-, and he grants that I have proved this, and if I have, I
. am fure his argument is loft, for then the depofing Dodrine
' may be an Article of Faith, tho it be not confirmed with an
Anathema: and now inftead of proving, that no Dodrine is an
Article of Faith which is not decreed with an Anathema, he
. complains that I have not proved that every Dodrine which is
decreed without an Anathema, is an Article of Faith, which is
• nothing at all to the purpofe: We knew not where to find the
Articles of the Rcmtjli Faith, but in the 'decrees of their Coun-
oils, and finding the Popes power to depofe heretical Princes
there, we took it for an Article of their Faith; no, fays the Re-
fleder, that is a miftake, it is no Article of Faith, becaufe it is
not decreed with an Anathema ; we examine the matter, and
find itotherwife, that Articles of Faith are decreed without Ana-
tbema*s: yes, fays the Prorefter , this maybe, but you muft
. prove ftil] that every Dodrine which is decreed without an Ana-
ihema is an Article of Faith *, which is a very eafie matter to do
after this; for if being decreed with, or without an Anathema,
. make no diftindion as to this matter, then the Decree it feif in
dodrinal Points muft make an Article of Faith; if fome Do-
drines which are acknowledged to be Articles of the Romifi
. Faith are decreed without Anathema's, then it is no argument
againft
( 121 )
agalnftany Do(flrine, being an Article of Faith, tbac it has no
Anathema annexed to it; fo that our Author is wonderful un-
certain what to call an Article of Faith; if we call the decrees
of their Councils Articles of their Faith, No, fays he, every De-
cree is not an Article of Faith, but only what is decreed with
zn Anathema if we confute this diftinftion, and prove that
Articles of Faith arc decreed \N\tho\M Anathema*then he can
diftinguifli no further ; but requires us to prove, that every
Dodlrine decreed without an Anathema is an Article of Faith,
that is?, that the decree of their Church makes an Article of
their Faith : And if that don't, I would defire to know of him,
what does. And had I not reafon then to fay, that it is wonder-
ful hard to know what their Faith h, when he himfelf cannot
tell what it is that makes an Article of Faith, and their rhoft
Learned Divines fo much differ about this matter; fome al-
lowing that to be an Article of Faith, which others rejed.
%ly. The fecond enquiry was, Whether the Depofing decree
be a Dodtrinal point, or only matter of Difcipline and Govern-
ment; and in an anfwer to this I told him, That a Decree what
Jkall be done , includes a virtual Definition ofi that DoBrine on
which that Decree is founded. To this he oppofes what I fay
under the next head, Usat in the Council of the Apcfiles at 'jetu-
lalem , there was a Decree of Manners., yet it contained no Defini-
tion of DoBrine. Not exprefly indeed, but virtually it does, as I
faid before. My bufinefs there, was to vindicate the Authority
of Councils in thofe Decrees which relate to Manners, as not
lefs Obligatory than the Decrees of Faith; and I obferved that
the only Apoftolical Council we have an account of in Scripture,
viz. the Council at Jerufalem, ABs ly. was of this nature;
for the only Decrees made in it, were to ahfiain from Meats
offered to Idols , and from Blood, and from things Strangled^
and from Fornication ; and I obferved, theymight as well ob-
jeft here, (to invalidate this Decree) as they do againft the
Depofing Decree, that there is no point of Doftrine determi-
ncd in it. And -how does this contradict what I before af-
ferted ? That a Decree what flmll be done., includes a "Jtrtual
Definition of that DuBrine on which that Decree is founded,
£ut however he (aies. This Decree of what was to be done, did
not include a virtual Definition of that DoBrine on which the De-
P cree
( 122 7
me -was founded; for ^ it had , then the Dotdr 'me of ahfainin^
from Blood and Strangled meats} had been an Article of Faith.
But what does he think of abfaining from Fornication, and fnm
Mca's otfered to Idols, which arc contained in the fame Decree ?
is not that a neceffary Doctrine, and virtually contained in that
I:)ecree ? I never faid. That every Decree of Manners muft
be immediately founded on an Article of Faith: but 1 faid ,
every Decree of Manners is founded on fome Doctrine,
(whether it be in a ftrict fenfe an Article of Faith, or not)
and includes a virtual Definition of that Doctrine. The De-
cree to abftain from Fornication includes this Doctrine , that
Fornication is unlawful under the Gofpel; and the Decree
for Gentile Converts to abftain from meats offered to Idols, fup-
poles the fame; and the Decree to abftain from Blood, and from
things Strangled, includes this doctrinal Definition, That it was
unlawful for Gentile Chriftians at that time to ale their Chrifti-
an Liberty in thofe matters, to the offence and fcandal of belie-
ving ferns. The matter in fhnrt is this; Every Decree which
commands the doing any thing, muft contain a virtual Defini-
tion that fuch a thing may be lawfully done; and every De-
cree which forbids the doing any thing, does withal define, that
fuch a thing is either ablblutely unlawful in it (elf, or highly
inexpedient, and therefore unlawful in fuch Circumftances to
be done: this is as neceffary as it is to command nothing but
what is lawful, and to forbid nothing but what is either un-
lawful,or highly inexpedient. And therefore,when the Church of
Rome Decrees the depofing Heretical Princes, or the favourers
of Hereticks; She virtually defines, that it is lawful to depofe
Princes,which is a doctrinal Definition, and may in a large lenfe
be called an Article of Faith, as that fignifies all Doctrinal points
propofed to us to be believed, as I obferved in my Reply (p y o )
5- The third Enquiry was, Whether the Authority of the
Church be not as facred in decrees of Manners, as in Articles of
Faith ? for the proof of which, I urged the Council at Jerufa-
Jem, and fhew'd, Fhat rules of Difcipline andGouernment todireSl
the lives and manners of men, is the only proper fubjeSl of Ecckfia-
Jtical Authority,}?, yy. And here where he fhould have taken no-
tice of the Council of ferujakm, he fays nothing of it, but on-
ly. fays, {p. gz.) that I urge out of Canus and Eellarmine, that
General
-
123 ;
General Councils cannot err C'venin fuch decrees, when they relate to
thinj^s neceJJtry to fal'vation, and jvhich concern the whole Church,
udnd when I have proofed the Dcpofing Decree to he of this nature,and
efl^emed as fuch by their Church, I may then deferve a farther con-
f deration. What their Church will efteem, if he may be the
Expounder of jt, is nothing to the purpofe, for we argue not
from their private efieemingf but from their publick Definitions,
and if a Genera! Decree for the government of the whole
Church, concern the whole Church, and if to command a fin
concerns mens falvation, then the Depofing decree does; for if
it be unlawful todepofe Heretical Princes, it is more than a fin-
gle fin to do it: and if they will grant, that General Councils
cannot command a fin, then they mull: grant, that it is lawful
to depofe Heretical Princes : and I agree with him, that this
doesdeferve a farther Confideration, and lhall be glad to hear
his thoughts of it.
This Author in his Refledlions (p. lo. ) proves that Popes
themfelves own, that the depofing power is no Article of Faith, in
letting fo many open and pofitive ajferters of the no-depofng power,
pafs without any cenfure of herefie. This in my Reply {p. yy. ) I
attribute fa want of power. For Princes will not he depofed
now, nor fuferthojeto he cenfuredwho deny the depofng Power. This
in his Proreftation (p. he fays, Is /poke like an Oracle, but
he expeBsfome better argument than my hare ajjitrance of what the
Pope would do if he had power.' And I thought I had given him
a better argument than'my bare word for it, 'vizs. the experience
-of former Ages, what Popes did when they had power: for tho
the infallible Chair may dilfemble a little, when circumftances
■of affairs require it, yet fure it is not given to change.
What follows about the woifh p of Saints and Images, I fup-
pofe has been fufficiently anfwered already, but I cannot butob-
lerveavery pleafant argument he has againft what I affert, That
no intention can alter the nature of aPlions, which are determined
by a di'vine or human Law. V\ hereby I prove, that if they do
fuch things, as in the account of the Divine Law are idolatrous.-
their intention not to commit Idolatry will not excufe them :
This he fays (^. 5^6. ) a Quaker might as reafonahly make ufe of
for thejufiifying his yeas and his nay's, and his other points of d^a-
kerifm. For if he fhouldfay, No intention can alter the nature of
ahlions, which are determined by a divine or human law j but Swear
Pi no
( 124 t ■
not at all, neither beye called Ma^en^ and let your comtnunicathn
beyea,yea, nay, nay, are aBions or things determined by the divine
law, therefore the intention of doing no evil in them, cannot excufe
the doing otherwife than is there determined, from the guilt of fin. But
willour Protefter (ay, that the Divine Law does forbid all fwear-
ing ? then I grant that the Quakers are in the right, and no in-
tentioir will juftifiefwearing ; but St. fames mult be expounded
fo as to reconcile his words with other paflages in Scripture,
which allow of fwearing •, and could he fhow us where bowing,
andkifTing, and kneeling, and praying before an Image is in any
fence allow'd in Scripture, then we would grant aKb, that the
diredionof the intention would juftifie fuch a ufcof thefe adti-
ens,as the Scripture allows : but what is abfolutely forbid to be-
done, no intention can excufe, which is our prefent cafe here..
He concludes all with two or three Requefts, which muft be
briefly confider'd.
I. That he (the Replier), will ufe his inter efl withVroteflants,
to hold to what he faies they do, and charge uf with nothing but what
we ex-prcfiy profefi to Believe and PraBice, Now I can alTure him
there is no need of ufing my .intereft withProteftants to do this,
for I hope they are naturally inclined to be honeft: but there
are fo many k/s among them , that poflibly fome Proteftants
may miftake one us for another. They. practice indeed gene-
rally much alike, but they believe differently, and they reprc-
(ent differently, and they expound the Dodtrine .of their Coun-
cilsdifferentlyjandl hope Proteffants may without any offence
fay how and wherein they differ, and I think we cannot be juftly
charged with mifreprefenting, while we relate matter of Fact
truly, what their practice is, and what their different (entiments
and opinions are about thefe matters.
1. That they ( Proteftants) pick not up the abufes of fome,
the vices, and cruelties of others, the odd opinions of particular
jAuthors, and hold thefe forth for the DoBrines and PraBicesof our
Church', and that in charging any praBifes, they charge no more
than are concerned. Now this is very reafonable, if he fpeaks
^ of fuch abufes as are not allowed and countenanced by the
Church; and of (iich cruelties as are not pra(ftifed, encouraged,
commended by the Governours of the Church, and juftified
by the Decrees and Canons of Popes and Councils j or of fuch
odd:
C 125
edi opnkns of particular Authors, as fteal into the world with-
out publick authority, and are cenfiired as foon as they are
"known j but as far as the Church gives any countenance and
authority to fuch abufes, cruelties, odd cpinions, I fee no reafon
why Proteftants may not complain of thefe things, and charge
the Church of RcmeWwh them, and not like that Church ever
the better, which fuffers fuch abufes, and applauds fuch cm-
cities, as ?api(ls themfelvesjWho have not put off all humanity,
cannot but abhor,
3. That as often as they tell, "what they think of cur DoBrines
and Fractifes, they would, likewife at the fame time inform their
hearers, that thofe thcug^hts are, as the Replier faies. Opinions,
Interpretations, and Confequences of their otvu cencerning our Dc-
Brine, and net our avowed DoBrine. But this is a very needlefs
caution, as I obferved before; for our people do not think,
that the Papifis themfelves believe all that ill of their own Do-
(ffftncs and Pracffifes which we charge them with ; and I can-
not eafily fee, how our difputing againfl: the Doftrines and
Praftifes of the Church of Rome, and anfwering the Argu-
ments whereby they juftify themfelves, fhould betray people
into fuch a miftake ; for it is no natural proof, that two men
are of the fame mind, becaufe theydifpute againft one ano-
ther.
Thus much for the Protefter. And to conclude the whole, I
lhall give" my Readers a fhort view of the whole progrefs of
this difpute, that they may fee what fliuffling Adver-faries we
have to deal with.
When the Book entituled', A Papif Mijreprefehied and Repre>-
fented, Was expofed to publick view, and mightily applauded
by thofe of the Roman Communion,and indiifbrioufly difperfed,
and earneftly recommended to the perufal of Frotefiants, a
very learned and charitable hand undertook to make a true
reprefentation of the Doiffrines and Pradifes of the Church of
Rome, which he performed with fuch full'and plain evidence,
that the Mifreprefenter hath nof fo much as attempted to charge
him with any one falfe Citation, nor to fliow in any one partis-
cular, that he has mifreprefented their Dodlrines and Practifes.
But infteadof this, in his Reflections on theAnfwer (if theRel-
fleeter
( 12S )
;flecrer and Mifrcpiefent^r be the fame perfon, as he owns
bimfelf to be ) he makes frefti complaints of Proteflants mifre-
prefenting Papifis; which if it had been true, is no confutation
of that repreientation which the Anfwercr had made of Popery:
The qnehion then was, V\ hether the Church of Rome believes
and praiflifes, as the Anfwercr faies (he does, and prwes by
unqaehionable authorities that (he does. But this was too
plainly proved, to be aqueftion any longer, and therefore he
rather chofe to debate that general qneition about the Rules of
Reprefenting, and how we muft know what is the Faith of
the Church of Rome, and whether theBiftiop of Co77domh Ex-
pofition have rtot a fufficient authority given to it by the Pope
and Cardinals, and Bifhopsof France, and what the authority
of private Doctors is, and the likei but has not in anyone
particular (hown wherein the Anfwerer has mifreprefented
them, that the authorities he alledges are not good, that he
has put any forced and unnatural fenfe upon the words of their
Council, orCatechifm, or Doctors, or that their Church has
by any publick acts contradicted what he charges to be her
.Doctrine or Practife. This he has not done, and therefore we
havereafon to believe this he could not do, and this is reafon
enough to conclude , that the Anfwer contains a true Re-
prefentation of the Dodlrines and Pradifes of the Church of
Rome.
I did not think fuch Refleiftions as thefe worth the notice of
the Learned Anfwerer, and therefore undertook to reply to
them my felf, and particularly examined every thing he had
laid i in return to this, he publiflies another Anlwer, which he
culls Papifis Protejiingagainfi Protejlnnt Po^ery^ and I thought it
would come to bare^me^/w^atlaft, for his Reafon and Argu-
ment run very low before ; this 1 have now confidered, and I
think Iiave not fuffered anything to efcape without an anfwer;
hut that the Reader may .the better underftand what a formi-
dable tklverfary this is, 1 ftiall briefly compare the Reply with
iiis Anfwer, and then leave him to judge of the ingenuity and
Jhonefly of the Protefter.
In anfwer to Msfrefli complaint of Miffepreleming, in my
JRepIy I confidered what it isro Mifreprefent, viz,. To charge
them
f
( 127 )
■ tliem with fiich Dodrines and Pradifes as the Church of Rome'
difownsj and proved from his own Charaderof a Papi'i Mifre-
sdeoii, prefentedjthat we are no Mifreprerenters;for what he makes us
charge them with believing and doing,in the CharaBer of a Vafifl
Mijrefrefented, that he owns and defends in the of a
'fes: Papifi^ Refrefented; and the only ditFerence in moft Cafes be-
tween thefe two Characters is this, That in the Character of a
MIllsL Papfi Mifreprefented he puts in all the ill things which Protefiants
isiltfc fay of their Faith and Worfhip, and in the Character of a Pa-
ihtix ■pift Eeprefented he faies all the good things he can of it; but
oittits this I told him does not belong to Reprefentation,bat Difpute,-
litte and therefore whatever guilt we charge their Docflrines and
notini- Pradlifes with, this is not to mifreprefent, while we charge
I iffl:! them with nothing but what is their Faith and Pradlife ; to Re-
tgoeii; prefent in this fenfe, is only to report matter of faQ; and he-
iCTO who reports truly, cannot mifreprefent. If we charge them
teiiQt with any guilt, which they think they are not chargeable with,
arggji this becomes matter of difpute; and it is not enough to con-
hkJij-; fute fuch a charge, to tell the World, that they do not believe
j^ltiiji<5 fo ill of their own Dodlrines and Pradiles as we Protefiants do.
aiffian ^ examined the Thirty feven particulars of \\\^Cba-
ItixC? trader, and carefully diftinguilhed between matters of repre-
fentation and difpute ; and all this he grants, and yet in^ his
Anfwer falls a protefling againft Pc?^<rrj', as if w^had
made a new Religion for them ; whereas we only tell them
what the faults of their Religion is; and this he calls Protefiant
1J jj Popery, That is, the judgement of Protefiants concerning Po-
Ill'fc protefis againft, which is a much eafier way
.f than to confute it.
And now inftead of defending his own Characters, wherein
he had charged us with mifreprefenting Papifts, and which I
^ had proved, and he in elfedt granted to be no mtfreprefen-
ration; he feeks about to find out (ome new Protefiant Mifre-
prefenters, and fills up feveral Pages with Citations out of the-
ivlanual of John Archbifhop of York, Mr. Sutcltff, and others.
Novv in the firft place he ought to havefhown, that thedi-
ftintflion between matters of reprefentation and difpute, by
which I anfwcr'd his own Characters, will not juftiiy thele-*
' Mifre.-
( 128 )
Mifreprefenters alfo, as moft certainly it will, and a Hundred
more if he can find them; but he faies not one word of this,
but only cites their words, and calls it mifreprefenting. But
befides this, he has ufed very foul play tomakeMifrseprelenters
of them •, The Archbifliop only tranfcribes out of Popifli Au-
thors, and cites his authorities; the Protefter fets all down as
the Archbifhops words, without letting his Reader know that
Tapifis teach theft things, and that the Archbifhop only repeats
them after them. But befides concealing the Popifii authorities
to which they refer, he has taken another courfe with Mr. Sut-
cliff', has fet down only half ftntences, and concealed both the
authorities and the reafons he alledges for what he faies, which
is in a ftrict and proper ftnft to mifreprefent. All that he
anfwers to that diftinction between reprefenting and difpufmg,
which he allows to be good, is this, That the common people
do not diftinguifli theft matters, but look upon all to be equal-
ly the Faith of Papfis •, That is, if they hear any man call the
worfhip of Images Idolatry, they do as verily think that Papifis
believe Idolatry lawful (as he faies in his Character) as that they
worlhipImages,r'lfum teneatts! and thus much for Reprefenting.
The next difpute is about the rule of Reprefenting. In
his Introduction to A Papiff Mifreprefented, &c. he appeals to
the Council oi "Trent, and Catechifm ad Parcchos \ this the An-
Dodrines and fwerer likes.Well, but tells him, i. That he ffows no anthmtj
Pradifei of he bath to interpret that Rule in his own fenfe, againfi the Doctrine
the Church of f^any others as z,ealciis for their Church as himfelf, as he does
truly rc- Popes Perfonallnfallibility, and the Depojing,Power, which
prefented,p.6.
are no Articles of Faith, though other zealous Papijls'
fay they are, and asks what authority he has to declare the
Bulla pii quar-the Council ef Trent, when the Pope has expreffy forbidden
ti fuper coa-all Prelates to da it, and referved it tothe ApofioUcal See. The
firm. Concil. Anfwerer tells him, cKt, in the feveral particulars,
Trid. eff'ential part of the character of n Papiff fince tloe Council
, of Trent, which is, that he doth not only believe the Doctrine
there defined, to be true, but to be neceffary to' Salvation.
3. Tbat he never fets down what it is, which makes any Do-
Hrine to become a DoBrine of their Church. 4. That he makes ufe
of the Authority of particular Divines, as delivering the fenff of
r 129)
their Church , "when there are fo many of greater Authority a-
gainf them : whereas, if we proceed hy his own rule, the greater
number is to carry it. Thefe were all very material Objedl-
ons, and did de'erve to be confidered; but as for the three laft,
he takes no notice of them in his Reflecfbions, and fays very lit-
tie to the firft.
The Anfwerer had asked , How the Council of Trent comes -
to be the Rule and Meajure of Doctrine to any here (in England)
where it was nenjer receiajed? (p. 4..) To this he Anfwers in his
Reflsi^lons, (p. yO That the Council of Ticnt is receuved here,
and all the Catholick World, as to all its Definitions of Faith.
But I told him in my Reply, (/). 51.) that the meaning of that
(l^ueftion was not. Whether it was owned by private Catholicks,
but by what gublick Act of Church or State it had been receded in
England, as it had been in other Catholick Countries', and this he
favs nothing to, and therefore might as well have let it alone at
ftrft.
1 reinforced the Bull of Pope Tins /i^th, againft any private
mans interpreting the Council according to his own private
Senfe j (hewed the Reafon and Policy of it, and what a pre-
fumprion it is for a private man,-when their Divines differ in
their Opinions about any Dodlrine, to call one Opinion Po-
pery Repreiented, and the other Popery M.fteprelented, as our
Author has done in the Articles of the Popes perfonal In-
fallibility, and the Depcfing Power, as if Bellarmin and
Siiariz. mull: not pais for good Catholicks, but for MiE
reprelenters , becaufc they do not believe in thefe Points,
as our Reprefenter does ? And this he takes no further no-
tice of.
But to prove that he has not intei'preted the Council accor-
ding to his own private Senfe, he appeals to the Bifhop of Con-
doms Expofition, which is approved by the Pope himfelf, and Refled. 0.7^
therefore has the Authority of the See Apofiolick. To this, I an-
fwered, that Bellarmin's Controverfies had as great an Attefta- Reply, p. 44,
tion from Pope Sixtus y. as the Bifhop of Condom's from this
prefent Pope; to which he gives no Anfwer; and I obferved
from Caniis, that the Popes private Approbation is not the Au-
thority of the See Apoftolick, but only his Judgment, ex Cathe-
dra ; and to this he gives no Anfwer, but Shuffles a little about
CI a
J
( 13°, )
^'apilb Prot. a p^ivnte^ frialicicns^ and inccvfiderate Judgment, Which I have
P" ^5- now anfwcced , and makes a new Flourifh about t^.e feveral
Tranflations, and great Approbation which has been given
to this Expofition, which I have again (aid (bmething to, tho
I need not have faid any thing, had I before (een the Preface
to the Anfwer to the Bifhop of Condom^ and I giiefs our Au-
thor will never mention it more, and then what becomes of his
Charaders?
Relied, p. 8. denied the Tone's Terfonal Infallibility to he an Article ofFaith^
becaufe not po/iti'vely determined by any General Council. In anfwer
to which I told him, that other Roman Divines did believe it an
Reply, p. 47, Article of Faith. That the Churches Infallibility was not deter-
mined by any General Council, no more than the Popes Infal-
libility, and yet was owned by them as an Article of Faith;
that if there be any Infallibility in the Church, the Pope as the
Supreme Paftor, has the faireft pretence to it. For Infallibili-
ty ought in reafon to accompany the greateft and moft abfolute
Power; and this he has pafled overfilently.
Next comes the Depojlng Tower, which has as evidently been
declared in General Councils, as Tranfubftantiation; and how
Refl. p. 8, 9. comes this to be no Article of Faith? To this he anfwers,
that it wants an Anathema, and that it is not decreed as
a Dodtrinal point, but as a matter of Difcipline and Govern-
ment.
Repp.49,(^e, This! examined at large in my Reply, and he is much con-
cerned at it, that I put him out of his Reprelenting humour
by difputing; but he thought himfelf bound in Civility to
fay fomething to it, and truly he has been wonderfully
Civil, as appears from what I have already faid in Anfwer to
him.
The Anfwerer in his Introduction had proved the Depofing
Doctrine on him, from two fayings of his own. That the orders
of the fupreme Tafior are to be obeyed whether infallible or not, and
that Popes have owrid the Depofng DoBrine, and aBed accordiug
to it: and others are bound to obey their Orders, and confc-
Rcfl. IX i5,i6_ quently to act when Popes (hall require it, according to the
Depofing Doctrine: To this he anfwers in his Reflections, that
he only made a comparifon between Civil and Ecclefiaftical
Power, and therefore it is as unjuft from hence to infer, That all
6it
( '31 )
the Orders of tlie Pope mufi beobey'd, as it would be to fay,
that Subjects muft obey their Princes in every thing they com-
mand, whether it be good or bad : and this I told him in my Re-
ply, livould acknoTvkd^ to be a good anfwer, if he-wouldgrant the Rei»Iy, p <5
DepofingDoBrine to be a (in: But this I fuppofehe was unwilling
to do, and therefore we hear no moreof this matter.
In the next place in his Refleftions he finds ^reat fault with
the Anfwerers way of proceeding, which I reduced to Four
Heads, i. That the Anfwerer infome Points c-wns the DoBrine^^^^''^-
( which he has Reprefeuted to be the Faith of a Komzn-Catholick)
to be the eBablifbed Belief of the Church of England. This I pro-
ved not to be true, by a particular Examination of thofe inftan-
ces he gave. 1. He charges the Anfwerer -with appealing from
the definitions of their Councils, and fenfe of their Church, to feme
exprejftons found in old Mafs-Books, Rituals, &c. This I Ihowed
alio, that the Anfwerer has not done.
3. rhathe appeals from the Declarations of their Councils, and
fenfe of their Church, to fome external aBion, as in cafe of refpeB
jhewn to Images and Saints, upon which from our external adoration
you are willing to conclude us guilty of Idolatry, Whereas he
thinks we muft not judg of theje aBions without refpeB to the in-
tention of the Church who commands them, and of the perfon who
does them. 4. That he appeals from their Councils and fenfe of
their Church, to the fentiments of their private Authors. Thefe
Objections I anfwered at large in my Reply, but he has "returned
not one word to any of them, excepting the third, and how he
has anfwered that, you have already heard.
This is the new way of anfwering Books a-la-mode of Rome •
but the greateft Wits can do no more than theCaufe will bear'
tho a little prudence would teach m^o fay nothing in fuch a
Caufe as will admit of no better a defence.
P. 6It
P .5/.
/."r-
FINIS.
ERRATA.
PAge 2.1. -^z.forfeem, r. been. p. 4 1. 24. for Bulgradiis, r. Bujgradus. p.
16. 1. 92. dele to. p. 27- I. 27. for fine v. fierce- p. 35 I. li^. for keep, r.
help 1. ^t^.forpou, r.them. p. 100.1. 17. for ZrufAui r. yfuy.Wi. p. i o. 1,
13./or zly, r. 3(7. The Pages miftakcn from $8. to 73.
i li
zqs "
tl
SERMON
PREACHED
At St. Margarets JVeflmin^er,
May 2p. I 6 8
Before the Honourable
llonfe of Commons.
By WILLIAM SHERLOCK, D.D.
Mafter of the Temple,
And Chaplain in Ordinary to His Ma;efty.
LONDON:
Printed for f.Amery at the Peacock in Fleetflreet\
and A, Swa//e, at the Vnicorn at the Weft-end
of St. Pauls Church-yard. 1685-.
I
10 Eccles. 17.
art thoH^ 0 Land^ vnhen thj
Kjng is the Son of JS(j)bies.
WBen the Lord tHrned again the i26m.i,2-
capti'vity of Xion^ we toere
lih^ them that dream. Then
was our mouth filed with laughter.^ and our
tongue TPith finging : then faid they among
the heathen J The Lord hath done great things
for them. Which the Pialmift fpoke of the
deliverance of the Jews from the Babylo-
fitfli Captivity ; but is very eafily and na-
turally applied to the Occafion of this pre-
fent v^Icmnity, For I hope we have not i
fo foon forgot with what furprizing Joy we
beheld our baniHied Prince return again to
bis Throne, who brought back with him
our Laws, our Liberties, and oiii Religion ;
that is,brought England into England again,
which was baniihcd with its Prince, with-
• 7
out changing its Place and Climate. And
though that beloved and admired Prince,
B who
)
2
A SERMON Preached before
who gave the firfl: luftre and giory to this
day, now fleeps with his Fathers, and has
onely left us the memory of his Princely
Vermes to adorn the Records of Time,
and the Succeflion of Englifh Kings, yet
this day ought not to be forgot, which re- j
ftored to us not onely a Mortal Prince,
whom we could not expefl: fliould Jive for
ever, but the Royal Family, wbicb we I
hope and pray may be Immortal. Thoiigh '
the Great C HA K LE S be dead, the King
lives fiill in his Royal Brother, who was^
the Rightful Heir of his Crown, and the
Partner of all his Joys and Sorrows, who
was banifhed with him, and who returned
with him, and augmented the brightnefs oF
this da^^ by his united Beams ^ a Prince who
equals the greateft Examples of former '
Kings, and , as we have reafon to hope,
will leave a greater to thofe who fol-^
low. '
It was not the Throngs and Crowds oF
People, which met their returning Prince,
nor thofe k)ud and joyful Acclamatibhs
wherewith they welcomed him tb his
Country and Throne i rr was not the ex-
ternal
the Honmrable Houfe of Commons, ^
ternal Pomp and Splendour of the Show,
though as magnificent as Art and Nature
could make it} nay, it was not meetly the
tranfporting fight of a Prince, who was
now endeared by long Abfence , and by
the Oppreflions and Injuries of Ufurpcrs,
who after ten thoufand Indignities return-
ed with all the Expreflions of a Princely
Goodnefs and Indemnity : " I fay, though
thefe were all very afFeding Circumftan-
ces, and added much to raife and heigh-
ten a prefent Paflion, yet they were not
the true Glory of this day , which confi-
fted in reftoring the Englifli Monarchy in
the Royal Line: for this we blefs God,
and for the continuance of this we pray
this day r and if we believe King Solomon,
there is great reafon for both ', '£or it is as
great a Blefling as any Nation can enjoy :
Bkjfed art thoHy 0 Land, when thy King is
the Son of Nobles.
The words are fo plain, that I cannot
think of any plainer to exprefs thdir fence
by j and therefore not to loofe time in a
needleis Explication, there are three things
pbfervable in cbem.: ' u That Kingly'Go-
B 2 vernmenc
vernment is a great Blefiing fpt it cannot
be a Bleftlng to have our King the Son of
Nobles, if it be not a Bieffing to have a
King, a.r' That the noble Defcent and
Extraftion of a King is a great Blefling to a
Nation, as my Text exprefly (ays, Bluffed ,
art thouy O Land, Stc. An<l the natural in-
fercnce from this is, - 5. That an^ Heredita-
ry Monarchy is a great Blelling t for we
are fecure, that our Kings/ are the Sons of
Nobles, when the Son inherits the Fathers
Grown. - -
I. That Kingly Government is a great
Bleffing. As for that Difpute, Whether
Kingly Government be by Di'vim Right, if
by Di'vim Right we'mean-a pofitive Law
and Inftitution of God, that all Nations (half
be governed by Kings, I find no fuch thing
in Scripture, which is the onely Revelation
of the Divine Will ; but if by Divine
Right, we mean onely fuch an intimation of
the Will of God, as we can learn from the
appearances of Nature and Providence, I
dare boldly affirm, that Kingly govern-
ment is by Divine Right j that is^ is rnoft
. ' agreeable
tbt Homwahk Houfi Commons. ^
agriecabk coaJltko^t notices we have of the
Will of Godrfrom the origUial frame and
confiication of. Nature , ^nd from the di-
i^nfatTons of Providence j which though
it be not foffkicnt to condemn all other*
Governments as unlawful, yet it advances
Monarchy above all other. Fprnis of Go-
vernment, when it appears, that God him-
fHf has at lea ft given, the preference to
it. Tr;fi;'no7oP J fR'
The Hiftory of the Creation is a plain
proof of this ^ for God made but one
Mao, towhom bcigai^i the Dominion and
Emjwe of'the World , who was the na-
tural Lord as .well as Father of all his Po-
fterity 5 which is as good an argument for
the, natural inftitution bf Monarchy ,* as ^
Cods creating but one Maab arid one Wo-
man is againft Divorce, whicK yet is our
Saviours Argument, 10 Mark^y\ 8, p. '
- Thas it was at the new peopling of the
World a fter the Eloud V- God left but one
Independent Head. of a b F^ily,
who had a Paternal and Regal Authority
over hb Sons and their Tofterity t So that
Mankbd were bora iihder>.'iii Monas^ehical:
Govern-
• 6
A SERMON Preached before
Government, wrhich tfeer^fdre is the firfl:
and the moft naturalGavcrnment',mftituted
- by God by the very Laws of our Creation j
for when God made but one Man, who
by the Law of Nature has a i ight to Go-
vera his own Children , (who then were
all Mankind} he made him a natural Mo-
narch.
o' Wfe.have ^o Hiliorib of thofe Times to
•acquaint us how the Government defcen-
ded; buf we have afi the reafon in the
world td believe,that as Adam and Noah go-
Yerntl>byta Paternal Right,' fo when Man-
kind iiicreafed, and grew too. numerous toil
■dwell'together, they were formed inld di-
ftin61 Kingdoms, under the Government of
• the,Heads and Princes of their feveral Fa-
milies *, for in: thofe days they knew no o-
tiier right of Government but what v/as
Natural and Paternal.
. I urge this onely to prove that Monar-
chy isthe Original form of Government in-
ftituted. by God -himfelf; ^lioc that every
Monarch muft have the fame right to Go-
ye.rdment w\mh\Ada^i and Noabihsid for
then thereino/.>Prinacri4n thevwbnld can^
. -m^voD make
\
the HdrfoUrable^Houfe of Commons.
1>
maxe good his Title to the Crdwh: But
O .
thefe are very difl:in£i: queftions, what is
that form of Government which God ap-
pointed ? and by what right a particular
Prince can challenge this Authority ? In
the firft Ages of the World, while the LL-
neal defcent of Eamilies was known, there
could be nadifpute about the Succeflion,;
but when the numbers of menincreafedij
and Families were divided and fub-divided,
and intermixt with, each other, when thefe
Iktle Independent Princes invaded their
Neighbours, and enlarged, their Dominions,
by force and power, the right of Govern-
ment altered,but the Form of Goveriiment
was the fame ftilh And / though- a Prince
now governs hot by a Paternal Right as
Adam and Noah did, but by the EIe5:ion of
the People, or by the Right of Gonqueft,
or by a Succeffion from ancient Kings., wlio>
have been longpofleft of the Thronef the
Monarchy is the fame, though the claim to
Soveraign Power, varies. Gods original
' inftitution of Mcfifafchy in a< Paternal Go--^
vernment Juftifies the Form, whatever di-
fpute there may be'about the Right of Sue-
ceflion,. Andi
^ i .
8
A SERM ON treached l^fifre
And tbcretoTC we find, when this origi-
nal Title of Paternal Authority failed either
by forc^ and ufiirpation, dr for,.want of
knowing rhe true Heir, yet Monardiy coa-
tinued, and all the World was governed by
Kings, and knew no other Government,
till Greece and Rome fet the example, who
changed tht Regal Power into Ariftocra-
cies and Gommon-wealtbs.
And to fatisfie us, that God ftill apjwo-
ved of Kingly Government, even after the
difiinflion made between Paternal atid Re-
gal Autbdrity,'we may obferve, that by a
pofitive inftitution Gc^ erefi'ed a Monar-
chy, but never fet up a Common-wealth.
The Jcwifli Government was properly a
Theocracy, God-was their King in a more
peculiar manner than he was the King of
other Nations: he dwelt among them in
the Tabernacle or Temple, gave them a
body of Laws, appointed Officers under
him to adminifter the Affairs of his King-
dom, and in all emergent difficulties«gave
immediate Orders and Dire<^ions what to
do ^ but yet he appointed a fingle perfon
to be his Vice-roy, and invefted him with
the
the Honourable Honfe of Commons. p
the Soveraign Power. Thus Mofes
he lived v\'as King of Jefjnnin^ and after
homjopjua^ and the Judges liiccecded him,
whom God raifcd up in an extraordinary
manner, as occafion required, to fight ihctr
Battels, and to rcfcue them out of the bands
of their Enemies 5 and wiien there was
no extraordinary Judge, the High Prieft
was their ordinary^ Ruler, who governed
with a Soveraign Authorit)'". And when
in time they grew weary of this, , and af-
fe^ied the extcrnaf pomp and fplendor of
a Court ^ and a vifrhle Soveraign Pi ince
like their Neighbour-Natrons; though God
was angry with them for reje<5iing his
Government, yet he hhnfelf ehofe them a
Kbg i and after d'W, invefled Da'vid
with the Regal Power, and gntailed it on
his Family. All this was done by the im-
mediate order and appointment of God,
which cannot be (aid of any other form
of GovernmetiU Ariflocracies and iTe-
mocracieg were a defefHon from Regal
Power occafionccl by the ill government
of Princes, or by t'he giddinefs and licenti-
ous buiiaour ^ the People, who are fbrid
C of
A SERMON Preached before
of Liberty, Power, and Innovations: But
though God by his Providence permitted
fiich changes ot Government, he never by
a vifible Authority and Diredion formed
and modelled a .Commonwealth as he did
the Jewiili Monarchy.
But whatever be determined as to the
original of Monarchy, that which I am at
prefent concerned for are the advantaj^es
of it, That it is the mofi; happy Govern-
ment we can live under.
Suppofing our Prince to be Wife
and Vertuous, there can be no competi'
tion between the Government of one
and of many. Soveraign Power in one
hand lies more ready for Adlion , becaufe
it has but one Will, and needs not num-
ber .votes, nor wait the Confent of diffe-
rent Inclinations and • Interefts , which
many times lets (lip the proper feafons
of A<rtion, and defeats the beft De-
figns.
A vSoveraign Prince may'have what Ad-
vice he pleafes, and follow what he likes
befl without delay : he may have a mul-
titude of Counfellours without- d:9^ger of
Fafti-
the Honeurahle Houfe of Commons, 11
Faftion, while he judges for himfelf. But
in popular Governments, where there is
no one Soveraign VVill and Rcafon , but
all have equal Authority, how unequal
foever their Skill and their Honefty be,
when Power is thus parcelled out into
leveral hands, it is ufually divided againft
it felf too, and grows weak by intcftine
Fadi^ions.
Though there is great fafety in a mill-
titude of Counfellours, when there is one
Commanding and Soveraign Will, yet
there is no great likelihood of Agreement
between a multitude of petty Soveraigns,
where every man has an equal Power,
and every man judges'his own Reafon the'
beft, or at leaft as good as his Neigh-
hours. This is juR as if the lame Body
fhould be animated by feveral Souls, which
have all of them diftiiiR' Wills and Appe-
tites, and do not always confent in the fame
thing.
There is not a greater plague to hii-
mane Societies than State-Fa&ions, and iti
is hardly poflible that a popular Govern-
mcnt fhould be freed from them. The
G 2 ambi-
S E R M O N Freached before
ambition of fome, the ;ealoufies and emu-
lations of others, private quarrels, or pri-
vate interefis , perfidioufnefs and treache-
ry, or an afTe^lion of popularity , fome or
all of which are the natural and almo'ft
necellary cfFe6i:s of a popular Govern-
ment, are the very feeds of Fa6i:ion and
Sedition, and though the major vote dc-
termines all , yet the quarrel does not
end there, ofpecially if the prevailing
Gounfels want fiiccefs. The people muft
be made Judges ot what the Senators do,
and the Nation is prefently divided into as
n>any Parties and Fa^i^ions as the Senate is.
The Roman Commonwealth it felf^ though
the mofi: flourilhing that ive read of in any
Story , has too many examples of this,
witnefs and Coefar andTm-
pey» Th^re is feldom any Peace and Or-
der long preferved in fuch Governments,
but when fome one or a few great men
have got the Afcendant, and by their In-
tereft and Authority give Laws to all the
reft'; that is," Where there is a kind of Re-
gal Power under the name and appea-
ranee of a Common wealth.
As
ths Honourable Houfe of Commons.
'3
As for the Publick Good, I cannot but
think it more iecure in one hand than in
many. A Sovcraign Prince is the Father
of Ills Country, and can reafonably have
no diftin^l: interefl: from the Publick : for
his Kingdom his Inheritance , and his
Glory and Power confifts in the happy
and flourifliing State of his People. When
his Kingdom is well governed, his Sub;e£i"s
plcafed and eafic, this makes him beloved
at home, and feared abroad. The Glory
is intirely his own, as the Shame and Dif-
J '
honour of a Milgovernment is ; which
are very powerful Pallions in great Minds,
but lofe their eftefl: in Popular Govern-
raents, where the Glory and the Shame is
divided among fo many, that it is defpifcd
by all.
We may expe<fl- a more impartial admi-
niftration of Juhice from a Sovetaign
Prince, who is equally concerned in all his
Subjefis, than when the Power is divi-
ded among a great n>any, who have their
feveraL Eriendsyi.Relations , and Depen-
dants to frrvq. arid \vIiofe' Fortune doe?
not
! ^
f
r
1
t 'S
j
14
. S E R M O N Vnached before
not Tec them pbove the Temptations of
Bribery and Injiiftice. There is more ap-
parent tdangcr of Opprefl'on, when there
are fo many to raife their Fortunes by the
Government, who have private Intercfts
and Defignes, and muft be paid well for
their publick Service. Whereas no Prince
ought'^to think himfelf poor, while his
Subjeds are rich \ and nothing can rea-
fonably tempt an Hereditary Monarch to
drain his Siibjedls to fill his own Exclie-
<]ucr, Vbut their-^FaSious. or Sparing Hii-
inour j thch indeed it concerns a Prince
to get and te) keep Money by him, when
he finds fo much Occafion for it , and
lees, it fo hard to come bv. But this is
the' fault of the Subje6l, not of the Prince:
for were Siibjeds dutiful and obedient,
quiet and peaceable, and ready at all times
to grant Supplies, as the fupport of the Go-
vernment needed, without difficulty or
difhonourable Terms,he muft be a firange
Prince, who would opprefs his Subjecis,
when he knows he may have what he can
rcafonably defife, without oppreflionj
when
the Honourable Houfe of Commons. l
when his Sub)e6^s pockets are as open, and
a more increafing Exchequer than his
own.
But the moft fatal Cheat in Popular
Governments, is the namcoof Liberty,
though the Power be as abfolute and dif-
potical, as can beexercifed by any Prince \
and the onely pretence of Liberty is this,
that they are Slaves to their Equals, and
enflave one another by turns. But I fliall
fay nothing to this, fince our late dear-
bought Experience has taught us the diffe-
rence between the new-rmodelled :Go-
vernment of our fellow-Subjeci's, and of a
natural Prince. * ^ '
So that though we can have no Mar-
thematical certainty 1 in thefe- cafes yet
all the fair appearances of Reafon^'give
the advantages for a happy Government
on the fide of Monarchy ^ the onely dan-
ger is, if our Prince fliould happen to
prove a Tyrant, and then he may do al-
moft as much mifchief as a Tyrannical .
Commonwealth: for it is probable, that
five hundred Tyrants would ndQ more
- V mifchief
16 /^SERMON Preached before
mifchief ttian one. But that wliich may
equally happen under all Forms of Go-
vcrnmenr, is an Argument againft none.
The Divine: Providence will reftifie fuch
,Mifcarfiages;^'as cannot be prevented by
any humane care~ And yet thisj which
is^the onely pblTibfe Obje£lion againn: Mo-
narchy, is in a great meafnre prevented by
the Noble Extraction, and the gencrcras
Education of Princes v which is the fecond
thing obfervable in my Text,
2. That the Noble i Deficcnt and Ex-
traCiion of a King, is a great Bldhng to a
Nation. Blefjed art thoH-, 0 Land^ when
thy King the'Son of Nobler. And there
are two: things,: wherein this Bkfledncfs
confifts,^ - .
1. That the Sons of Nobles are mfually
f better qualifiedi for gwverniment tlian
mean Pbrfotis.
2. - That Nobility of Birth gives Liafire
: - and' Authority to their Govern-
e--iwentl '?■
'''-:'Tr I. That
. ke
!
id(
00 f
ip
the Honour able Houfe of Commons, 17
^ 1. That the Sons of Nobles ( efpeci-
ally the Sons of Kings, not to meddle at
prefent with other Nobles) are ufually
better qualified for Government than
meaner Perfons: I fay ufually ,• for in Mo-
ral Caufes, and Free Agents there can be
no Rule without exception. Perfons no-
bly defcended may degenerate from the
Vertues of their Anceftors, and men of
mean Birth and Fortune may have great
and generous Minds, as if they had been
made for Rule and Empire : but ufually
the fortune of mens Birth and Education
fafhions their Minds, and fits them for a
peculiar flate of life , above or below
which they are out of their natural Sphere,
and cannot obferve a jufl Decorum in a(5t-
ing a Part, which does not properly be-
long to them.
There are fome Princely Vertues,which
D are
8 A Sermon breached before
iire neceflary to a Happy Government ^
which cannot be eafily learnt by mean
Perfons; A certain inbred Greatnefs and Ge-
nerofity of Mind,a Senfe of Honour with-
out Pride or Infolence, a Love of Juftice
without Cruelty or Revenge,a juft Efteem
for Riches without Coveroufnefs, a natu-
ral Care of the publick Good , andade-
light and plcafure in generons actions, a
fteadinefs of mind, which does not grow
giddy with, its own height ,* courage and
boldneis in danger , prudence in Council,
dexterity in Bufinefs,and a peculiar art and
skill in knowing , and governing men*
Theleare God-like difpofitions of Mind^
which (in that perfe^51:ion , which is necef-
fary to Govemment) feem to be original-
ly owing to Nature , though they may be
cultivated by the happy circumflances of a
Noble Birth and Education.
It
the Honourable Houje Commons. 19
It has been often obferved both of Men
and Beafts, That they beget their like,
not only as to their Kind and Species, but
as to their peculiar Qualities and natural
Vertues. A Child very often refembles
liis' Faxher as much in the natural endow-
ments and perfedtions of Mind, as in ex-
ternal fliape ; which is lb certainly true,
^what ever the Philofbphy of it be) That
upon this account, the Sons of Nobles have
the advantage of meaner Births. A great
and generous Prince begets Princes quali-
fied to fway the Scepter*, and born with ^
kind of naturalinftindt of Government.
And befides this,the glory of their Birth
does early- infpire - them with great
Thoughts, and they are trained ^ up be-
times in the Arts of Government. Thole
tiniverfal Courtfhips and Addrefles they
receive, teach them greatAels of Mind-,
■ - ^ i • mixt
A Sermon reached before
mix-t with affability, and a decent relped
to Inferiors ; for thofe who have been al-
ways accuftomed to be treated with Cere-
•mony and awful Regards, have a due
fenfe of Honour, but are not proud. For
Honour ieldom fwells mens minds, but
when it is new. A plentiful Fortune, to
,which they are born without their care i
and induftry,is the beft prefervative againfl '
Covetoufnefs, which-is an ignoble Vice,
and feldom poffeffes any Man, but him
who has known \vhat it is to want, and
what it is to get an.eftate.
, And thofe who (land almofl upon an e-
ven Level'with the Throne (as the Sons
of Kings do ) have fb eafie an afcent thi-
ther,That it does not turn their Heads with
an unufual height, which is the Common
Effect, that a great and fudden advance-
ment has upon mean men, that they forget
themfelyes !
I
J
J
the Honourable Houfe of Commons,
themfelves and their juft Refpedlsto Man-
kind, which makes them proud and info^
lent Tyrants'-^vIrea tJiey are .poUcjipr S(>
vereign Power which, fiipws iis,. what
a Happinels it is to live under the Govern-
ment of aPrince, who is >Jobly defccpd-
ed J for fuch Perfons, whatever otlier faults
they may havej have luch Royal Vertues,'
as qualify them for excellent Cover®
nours.
' 2. Nobility of Birth gives a Lufter apd
Authority to liich a Prince's Government*
Men do not love to fubmit to their E-
quals or Inferiors j when fiich afcend the
Throne, they are delpiled and envied,and
nothing but Force and Power can keep
them there. But a High-bornr Prince is
the Pride and the defire of a Nation ; he
inherits the Glory'of his Anceftors; and the
World .prefiiges greac.things of hip, who
■ • defcends
A Sermoifi fPnached before
delcends from a race oF Kings ; no man
thinks much to (iibmit to him, who was
born to govern, but thoie, who are impa-
tientof any Go-vernmerit, or ambitious of
Government themielves.We are contented
to yield to thofe, whole Glory we cannot
"^rival, for'Competition is only among e-
equals; and Imce the-Go'Vernment muft be
in fome hand, it is raoft reafonable to con-
fent in him, who by Birth and Fortune is
advanced above all; and that ifiuft make
any Government happy,which makes Sub-
jeets willing to obey ,• and nothing can fo
liniverfaliy dilpofepeople to a chearful O-
bedience as this.
3. And this fhows us tke advantages of
an Hereditary Monarchy^ For the Roy-
al Family is certainly the moft Noble ; a
King, who is the Son of Kings^ to be lure
is the Son of Nobles.-"-And k asthe/higheft
' ' and
the Honourable Houfe of Commons, 2> 3
and greateft Nobility of which Solomon
fpeaks J to be (lire, what he fays muft be
eminently true of the mod Noble Bloud.
A King's Son,erpecially if he delcend from
an Ancient race of Kings, has as much the
advantage of Inferiour Nobles , as they
have of the Gentry, or the Gentry of mea-
ner People. It is Royal Bloud, which in-
fpires a Princely Mind , which is more
Noble ftill the further it is removed from
its Original. ;
I cannot now difcourle to you concern-
ing the Right of Succe/Hon j it (eems mod
Natural for a Son to be Heir to his Father,
and therefore to fucceed to the Crown of
which he dyed poffefTed: for Power de-
fcends as well as an Edate,^ as the Govern-
ment of the Family was the Birth-right of
the Elded Son, as his Fathers Heir. But
however that be, if it be fb great aHappi-
ned.
^lli
1
If
I,
i ;■
2/|-
yl Sennon breached before
nefs to a Nation to liave a King the Son of
Cobles , there is no fuch way to iecure
this as by a SucceOTion of Kings of the fame, ,
Royal Stock arid Family; whole Glory
and Nobility increales with every Sue-
c^lTion; and gives a New Greatnefs and
Authority to its Government.
But to haften to a Gonclufion, the
proper ufe of this difcourfe confifts of two
parts. I. Toblefs God for the Mercy of
this Day. 2. To be Loyal to our
King.
t . Toblefs God for the Mercy of this
Pay. It would be too melancholy a
Thought at this time to refie<5l: on the fad
face of things in thefe Kingdoms, when
an Excellent Prince was murdered by his
'own Subjeds j the Natural Heir of the
Crown,and the whole Royal Family forced
into Baniftment; the Ancient and Loyal
Nobility
the Honourable Houfe of Commons. 15
Nobility and Gentry under Infiprifon-
ments and Sequeftrations j the Church of.
England robbed of its Bifbops and Clergy,
its Worfliip and Revenues, while fonne
mean and ignoble perfons trampled upon
Crowns and Mitres, enriched themielves
with the Spoils of Church and State, u-
harped the Royal Power,but governed like
Slaves. But this bleffed Day put an end
to all thefe Miferies and Confufions; God
by a wonderful Providence reilored to
us out King and Royal Family in Peace
and Triumph, without the noife and a-
larms of War, without drawing the
Sword, or fliedding EngliOi Blood.., He
was driven out by Vi(5torioLis Rebels, at
the expence of a vaft Treafure, and more
Blood ; but was invited home again by a
wearied and diftradled People, who now
felt the difference between the Govern*
St E mcnt
6^ 'A Sermon Treached
raent of mean Ufurpers, and of a natural
and High-born Prince.
And thus the Nation recovered its an-
cient Glory, and every Subject their Juft
Rights and which is more valuable than
all Civil Rights, the free Profe/fion and
Exercife of theirReligion,according to the
Dodtrine and Worfliip of the Apoftolick
Church of England , though fome polTt-
bly may tjiink it too late to glory in this
now j and it would be too late indeed,and
would lelTen the Glory of this day, were
the moft Holy Religion of the Church
of England in any danger. But next to
having our King of the Communion of
the Church of England , we can dehre no
more,than to have a King,who will defend
it 3 which I am fure the Trim'tthe Chriflwis
would have thought a great Bleffing ; and
therefore this is a joyful day ftill, which
brought
the Honourable Houje of Commom. 27
tti
u
brought back one Pnnce to* reftore the
Church of England^ and another to pj'oteiff
it; for far be it from me,and from all Loy-
al Subjects to diftriifl: thole folemn and re-
peated alTu.rances, which our King has gi-
Venus of this Matter. A Prince, whole
Mind is as Great and Noble as his Birth,
who abhors all mean,^Arts and Equivocal
Referves', and fcorris -either to-dillemblc
what he believes himfelf, or to Ipeak what
he does not think. ; -J , t :
2. As for Loyalty, were it decent to
conclude a difcourfo of Kingly Govern-
ment without an Exhortation to Loyalty
and Obedience, it might be very 'well fpa-
red at this time, in fuch a Prefonce, whole
Example preaches Loyalty to the whole
, ^ Nation. And therefore Ifhallnotrun o-
(iW
, yer all the Topicks of Obedience,but only -
urge fome few things, which are proper -
pi) t:
2,8 A Sermon reached before
mem
to this argumentjand to this prefent folem-
nitj. .
It is a great Happincfs to a Nation to
have a King, who is the Son of Nobles.
This Happinefs we at this day enjoy,
we live under the Government of a King,
who has Royal Bloud in his Veins, and
dileovers a Great and Princely Mind in all
his Ad ions, and this lecures us of as much
Happinels.as we can exped under any Go-
vernment; but it is not meerly the wife
ConduA of a Prince, but the governable
temper of Subjeds too, which is neceflary
to make a Nadon happy. No Govern*
ment neither of Cod nor men can make
thofe happy, who will not be governed.
Dilcontencs and Jealoufies, and Seditions
turn the Court tnto a Camp, and exchange
the Civil Covemmcnt for Military Force
and Power j and the.Jbeft Prince in drc
World
the Honpnrable Houfe of Commons, 29
World can i^ver govern to fo great ad- .
"Vantage,who !S forced to govern by the
Sword. Bijt when Subjects love and reve-
rencethek King,and always belie-ve well of
5 when they obey his Laws, ai^d com-
ply with all lealbnabie Intimations of his
will, that is, when they may be gover-
ned like^ Sub^ts, npt like .Slaves, then a
King has a fair occkfion to epcercife all the
Princely Vertnes and peadeful arts of Go-
Ternment, to make hjs Reign prolperous,
aodfusSub^dts happy.; i s i i"
I know no Prince in any age, ^nnder
whom an Obedient and Governa;ble Peo"
pie might have lived more happily,, than
out late Martyred Sovereign'^ and yet,
isdiat rarferies andeon^Tfions did a Pactions
a$kd TurbideiM: Zeal jqeate, ^which'eaitcled
M a^idokfiid'a :TragedyjaSieyec Snn
faw ? And when we,lerrifiiaalw thole dojies,
.s and
^ o A Sermon re ached before
and confider how little a Nation gains by
' Seditions and Rebellions ; unlels men love
Rebellion for Rebellions Sake, there can
be no gveat temptation in it though it were
no Sin. : v d v ; .
Nay we may obferve, that as an ungo,
vernable temper will dilfurb the beft and
Wileft Governmentsj.Xo Loyalty and O-
bedience is a powerful Obligation on Pn'n-
ces to rule well ,• for Princes mufl value
Obedience and Subjedion as they do their
Crowns. To this we owe the prefent Se-
curity and Prote(ffeon of the Church of
England; for if there were nothing elle to
be liked in itj yet a generous Prince can-
not but like and reward its Loyalty; and
it would leem very harfh for any Prince
to defire that Religion fhould be turned
out of the Church j which lecures'him in
a quiet poffeflion of his Throne.
And
the Honourable Houfe of Commons.
And*therefore to conclude, I would de«
fire you to obferve , that it is a Church of
En^land'Loyslty I perfwadeyou to : This
our King approves, con\mends,' relies on,
as a tried and experienced Loyalty, which
has fuffered with its Prince, but never yet
rebelled againft him ; a Loyalty upon
firm and fteady Principles, and without
relerve. And therefore to keep us true to
our Prince, we muft be true,to our Church
and to our Religion. It is no A6l of Loy-
alty to accommodate or' complement a.r
way our Religion and its "legal Securities.;
for if we change our Religion , we muft
change the Principles of our Loyalty too;,
and I am fure the King and the Crown
will gain nothing by that ; for there is no
fuch lafting and immoveable. Loyalty , as
that of the Church of England. I deny
not, but fome, who are Papifts, in fbme
T 1 'i Junctures
' J SeYMoH^Pyfiichcd before^ &c.
Jundures of AfTairs may and have been
very Loyal ; but I am fure tbe. Popifli
Religfort IS not j the Englifh man may be
Loyal, but ncfc the Papift; and yet there
can be no fecitrky of thofe mens Loyalty,
whofe Religion in arry cafe teaches them
to rebel.-
God grant the v;hole Nation may fob
lo\V the Example of this Hoiiourable $e-
nate, to be Lo)'al tO' their Prmce5 Zealous
> fot the Service of the Crown j and true to
the Religion of the Church of Bnghnd ^
4s dearer to thein than their LiVei^
76 God the Pathe^y God the Son^ and God the
pioly Ohoft^ thre^i ^erfons and one Sternal
. god'i^be Honour^ ^lory^ and Pow, im and
eW' Amen. ''
\ } I :.k . . .J
DISCOURSE
Cencerning the
Nature, %)nitj, and Communion
Cattiolitk
Wherein mod of the
CONTROVERSIES
Relating to the
CHURCH,
Are briefly and plainly Stated.
P A R T. I.
By WILLIAM S H EKLOC K, D.D.
Mafter of the Temple.
LONDON:
Printed for William Rogers at the Snn, over againft
Si. DnnJiansQh\sxch 'm Fleetjlreet. 1688.
• t • '-l . 4 1*^
V -.. ^-. . . / . "■ ■
A
; I rr n ft I T
■: ■•. /4 i,J J -. :■
1
i.
i
" u;f' ■ "1''^' J
<3
< i
; i
■i ;"v
■ ;
-iiV lO
■ ' udT'iD iloin
rf-ii.c'FIHVO/I ]■
' '■ _ Ofb 01
T If r
N !
i t '
0-
V
it. \
4lk-,
1?'.
i.bsito'A ylnkiq b'n£ qftaiid ' \
I ' . fi ■
•1 'T ;i A ^ ,
» •
j j
1 .a .a 6 0 J Ji a H ?. u v v a a v\\ ,;a \
• , , ^'s\^\tvA Oih 'io
' n " . » • . ^
• "A 0 dti-O A
01 ddioiID^
;jiu
n\-%
^7
DISCOURSE
Concerning the
'Nature^ ^nity^ and Communion
OF THE
Catl^pUcfc CJiunb.
The Introdudion.
IN the Preface to the Vindication of feme
Proteftant Principles of Church-Unity
and Catholick Communion^ from the
charge of Agreement with the Church
of Kome'i Ipremifed a Difconrfe about the Churchy
and intended to have difcharged that Obligationy
which has been very importunately demanded of
mcy long before this , and indeed had fnifhedy
what I now publijhy feveral months ago : I JhaU
Hot trvubk my Reader with tloe Keafons why I
B then
The Introdu6^:ion,
then laid it aftde j I hope The Prefervative a-
gainft Popery will fatisjle hinty that I ha've not
been idle in the mean time : but the true and only
reafon why I haz>e delayed to puhlijh this Fart,
which has been fo long jinipjedy was becaufe Tin-
tended to pnifh the whole before I publifhed ity
which would have given more general fatisfaSli-
on to my Readers : But I have not leifure for
that noWy and think^ it more advifable to publifj
a part than none at ally ejpecially fince what I
here Jmblijh .an entire Difcr^itfJ^e concerning the
Nature and ^*nity of the Catljottol^Churcis. ■.<.
It h fuffciently h^owUythat there is no Argument
of greater confequence in our Dijputes with'the
Church of Rome.,r/?^r« theZlnity and Authority of
theCatholich^Church.Nothing will ferve them but
to mah^ the Church of Rome the. Catholich^ Clmrchy
and then no body is a Member^^of the^Chprch Ca-
tholich^y who is not in Communion^with, the Church
of Rome; and fnce no body can he fav^ed but in
the Churchy all Heretich^ and-Schifmatich^y^.rpho
are hot in Communion with the Chj^rch Rqme,
muft be damnedyand there is a fad ^nd of us all.
Thus the Catholick^ Church is an Infallible
Teacher of Faith : for who dares fay, that, f he
Catholic\ Church can fapy or, erx in Futuf^meu-'
tals ? fince Chrifi himfeff has promifed that the
Gates
JK
The Introdu£i^lon.
Catef of Hellpjall not prei/ailagainfi his Church :
and therefore the Church o/"Rome, which is the
Catholich^ Church and Principle of CatholichfUni-
ty^ mufi be Infallible ; and no Chriftian ought to
dijpute any thing which flje has determined in
matters of Faith.
the Epjop oyRome is the Head of this Ca^
tholich^Churchj St. PeterV Succejfor, and Chrifl's
Vicar upon Earth, and therefore he is the Su-
preme Gouernour of the Church, from whom all
other Bijhops derive their Authority, and to whom
all Chrifiian Princes and Emperours themfelves
are fubjeSl in Ordine ad Spiritualia, which will
go a great way to a temporal Soveraignty, and
Univerfal Empire.
thefe pretences indeed have been fuficiently
baffled by Proteffant Divines., ever fines the be^
ginning of the Reformation ', but we have to deal
with men who have confden^e enough to be baffled
and not to own it, to fee all their Arguments con-
futed an hmdred times over, and to repeat them
again with a good grace fwrthoui replying to thofe
Anfwers which have been fo often given them-,
or fo much as taking notice that there ever had
been any Anfwer made to them.
But after all that is faid on one fide andt*other,
I am very fenfible there never will be an end of
B 2 thefe
The Introdudion.
thcfe WrangUngs^ without fetling the true Notiofr
of the Catholick Church; which, though a great
many good things have been faid about it, I thinly
was never thoroughly done yet; what my prefent
Performance is, I tmtfl leave other men to judge;
but if my Notion be right, I asn fure there is an
end of all the vain and arrogant Pretences of the
Church of KomQ'i as will appear to any indiffe^
rent Reader, who perufes this Difeonrfe with
Care and Judgment,
The foundation of all I have lard in an h"
quiry into the true Notion of the %)nity of the
Church Catholicl{^y which gives occaftonto Jiate
the true Notion of the Church, andmoji ofthofe
Contr over fie s which depend on it, I have here
only conjidered what is meant by the 'Unity of the
Catholicl{^ Church, as that ftgni^es the whole
Church of Chrifl both in Heaven and Earth, and
the whole- Church of Chriji on Earth, What re-
lates to the Nature and 'Unity of particular Chut'
ches,. their Government, 'Union, and Comhinath
ons into one Cat holt cl{^ Communion, muji be refers
ved'for a Second Part*.
errata.
Page y.line 3. for intent, r. extent. p.y,
1.J 3. for for, r. far. p. 32.1. ly. for univer-
fal, n univocal. '
5
Chap. I.
Concerning the %)mtj of the rthole Catho-^
lickjChurch in Heaven and Earth,
IT is acknowledged by all Chridians, that Chrid
has but One Church, which is his One Body :
but then we mud confider the intent of this
One Church. The Church on Earth indeed is
but One, but this One Church on Earth is not
the One Church and One Body of Chrid, but only a
very little part of it. Chrid has but One Church and
One Body in all, and therefore it mud comprehend the
whole Church from the beginning to the end of the
World, at lead from the fird planting of a Church by
Chrid and his Apodles till the lad Judgment, for they
all belong to this One Church, and this One Body of
Chrid ; fo that for the greated part of this One Church
is already tranflated into Heaven, and the Church on
Earth is but a very little part of the whole; for the
Church in Heaven, and the Church on Earth, are but
One Church, and One Body. Here we mud lay the
foundation, if we would rightly underdand, what
makes OneChurdi 5 for fince this Unity comprehends
the whole Church* we cannot argue meerly from the
Churches being One, to infer any other kind of Unity,
but what makes the whole, but what unites the whole
Church in. Heaven and Earth into One Body, for that
only
6 A Difcourfe concerning the Nature^ Dnity^
only is the true Unity of the Church, becaufe the whole
Church in Earth and Heaven is the One Church. And
therefore to jplace the Unity of the Church in any thing,
which can concern only one part of the Church, but
not the whole, as fupppfe, that part only which is on
Earth, not that which is in Heaven, is manifellly ab-
furd, becaufe it do^s not give ain af^ount, hqw the
whole Church IS One, and yet the Onenefs of the
Church properly relates to the whole, not to a part:
for a part be it never fo much One, can be but One
part, not.the One Church. Now hence we may learn,
wherein the Unity of the Church does not confifl, and
wherein it does.
I. Wherein the Unity of the Church does not confifl.
As I. The Unity of the Church does not confifl in its
being One organiz'ed Politick Body, under the govern-
ment of One vifible Head on Earth : for th6 a vifiUe
Heijd on Earth might make the Church on Earth One,
yet' it 'cannot unite the Church on Earth and the
Church in Heaven into One Body, unlefs this vifible
Head on Earth be the Head of the invifible Church in
Heaven too : for if the Unity of the Church confifls
in being united under One Head, that Head mufl
be the Head of the whol^ Church, orelfe tlie Church is
not united in the Head,if the Head^which is thcTtinciple
of Union, be not the Head of the t^'hole. Now I fuppofe,
, no Papifl will fay,' that the BifhSp of :R<7»7f is the He^
"of the invifible as well 'as pf the vifible Church, and
then th6 Chiirch is not one, by bPing united under the
BifhPp of Rome ; th6 there are fome things, whicii
would make one fufpefl, that the ChurPh of Rome did
believe the Pope to be the.Head or the invifible as
'well as of the vifible Chufch; for if bis Authority
be confined to the Church on Earth, one would won-
der.
andCommnnion of the Catholic\ChHrch,
der, whence he lliould pretend to canonize Saints
in Heaven, or to releafe Souls out of Purgatory, un-
lefs his being ChrilVs Vicar on Earth makes him his
Vicar in Heaven, and in Purgatory alfo; but this by the
way.
If they fay, that when they fpeak of theUnity of the
Church, they mean only the Unity of the Church on
Earth, and that the Pope is the vifible Head of this
Unity.
I anfwer, i. That they muft grant then, that they
fpeak very improperly ; for the Church ort Earth is not
that One Church, which is the One Body of Chrifl:,
and therefore theUflity of the thbrch does flbt confifl:
in the Headfliip of the Pope; but they ought only to
fay, that the Unity of the Church on Earth confifls in
its Union to the Pope. .
X. And therefore they rnuft quit'all th'err Arguments
for the PopeVHeacilliip, taken from the Churches being
bne, the One Body of ChriH \ for the Church on Earth
is not this One Body of Chrift, and therefore it does
not follow, that .bj^aufe Chrijb has but'one Body,
therefore the Church'oh Earth mUft; have one vifible
Head. / . . ,
" 3 . Nay .they muft confeft, that theformaPand e^n-
tial Unity of the Church on Earth does not confifl: in
its Union, |:0;^^he Pope. For the Church on Earth is
0ge with't'he Cliufcli in Heaven, they being both but
One'Chiirch, 'and 'therefore rrtuft haVe the fame efien-
tial Unity b''for'how they ftibuld be one by two forts of
Unjty, thai: is* be one without the fame formal Unity,
is very i^yfterious,, and near ai kin to a cont'radiftion.
AM,tl^.rsfdre=".fiaee*(hb Unity of th^ ChurcK'Hea-
Vqp'does not, confifl "in its Upioaftb the Pope , no
ihWe does the Unity of the Chhrfch on Earth, the
Unity
8 A Difcourfe cmurning the Natmej "Vftity^
Unity being the fame in both. And thus all their
Arguments from the Unity of the Church on Earth, to
prove an Univerfai Vifible Head of the Church, are
l©ft too.
ily. Nor does the Unity of the Church confift in
joyning together in the external and vifible Ads of
. Worlhip, or in maintaining mutual intercourfe and cor-
refpondcnce with each other; thefe are Duties which
refult from Church-Unity, when they are pradicablc^
(as I Ihall (hew more hereafter) but the Unity of the
Church cannot confift in them, for the Church in Hea-
ven and Earth are one without them ; and fo may di-
ft ant Churches on Earth be one Church without any
fucli vifible correfpondencc.
3^. Nor can the Unity of the Church confift in fuch
Articles of Faith as have not always been the Faith of
the Chriftian Church. For fince the whole Church in
all Ages is but One,it can have but One Faith, and that
cannot be the One Faith, which has not been the Faith
of the whole Church. Asd therefore it is ridiculous to
talk of fuch a Power in the Church of every Age, as to
make or declare new Articles of Faith, unlefs there be
Authority to make a new Church too in every Age;
but then how the Church ftiould change its Faith in eve-
ry Age, and yet continue one and the fame Church, &
worth inquiry. As far as any Church has altered the
Faith of the Apoftles and Primitive Chriftians, it is be-
come a new Church, andanewChurclvl think, is not
the feme with the old; the Unity ofthe prefent Chwch,
confidered as a Church, does not confift only in its U-
nity with it felf, but with the Church alfo of former
Ages; for unlefi it be one with the ApoftolickChurches,
it canpot be the One Church of Chrift: and there-
fore thd all the Chriftian World fhould at this Day
unite
/
and Communion of the Catholich^ Church. ^
unite in the Faith and WorHiip of the Council of Trent,
it would be as much divided from the One Church of
Chrift, as it differs from the Faith and Worfhip of the
Primitive Church.
I fliailonly obferve here by the way, what a contra-
didfionche Worlhip of Saints and the Virgin Mary\% to
the belief of One Church. For if the Church in Hea-
ven and in Earth be but One Church, then the mod
glorious Saints in Heaven, not excepting the blefled
Virgin herfelf, are but Members of the fame Body
with us, which makes it as abfurd to Worlhip them
in Heaven, as it is for one Member of the fame Body
on Earth to Worfliip another, for they are the fame
Body flill, and tho there is a great difference in honour
between the Members of the fame Body, yet that re-
lation that is between them will not admit of the Wor-
Ihip of any Member. For it is no Adf of Communion
in the fame Body, for one Member to Worlhip ano-
ther. To pay Divine Honours, to eredl Temples and
Altars to the greateft Saints, advances them above the
degree of Fellow-Members, and if they be not Fellow-
Members of the fame Body, then the Church in Heaven
and in Earth is not One Church. From whence we may
learn who they are whodivide the Unity of the Church,
they who command the Worlhip of Saints and the
Virgin, or thofe whorefufe it. We believe the Church
in Heaven and Earth to be the One Body of Chnfl,
and that the mod glorious Saints are but Members of
the fame Body with us, and therefore not the Objedfs
of our Worlhip, but of our Brotherly Love and Ho-
nour; but thole who Worfhip Saints dedroy the Unity
of Chrid's Body, by dividing the Church on Earth and
the Church in Heaven, for nothing is more contrary
to the fenfe of Mankind than to Worfliip thofe of our
C own
lo A Difcourfe concerning the Natnrey'Vnity^
own Communion. And therefore the natural Interprc-
tation of that Worrtiip they pay to Saints is, that they
are not Members of the fame Body with us, but areas
much above us, as the Objea: of our Worfliip is and
ought to be. •
zljf, This Notion of Church-Unity, that it muft in-
elude the whole Church, from the beginning of Chri-
flianity, to the end of the World, as well that part of it,
which is already tranfplanted into Heaven,as that which
ftill fojourns on Earth, which is all but one Body, may
dired us, wherein to place this Unity of the Church,,
which to be fure can confjfl in nothing, but what be-
longs to the whole Church : any Notion of Unity,
which does not explain, how the whole Church is but
One, mufl: be falfe, becaufe the Unity of the Church
properly belongs to the whole, and not to a part. Now
as this Unity refpefts the whole Church, it is impoffi-
ble, there lliould be any other Head of Unity, but
Chrift i any other medium of Unity, but theGofpel-,
Covenant, nor any other kind of Unity, but the Unity
of one. Spiritual Body, Communion, or Society: that
we are all united by the Gofpel-Covenantin One Body
to Chrift, the one and Onely Head of the Univerfal
Church.
I. The Unity of the Church mufl: confift in its U-
nion to fome one Head. This is acknowledged by all
Chriflians, and therefore I need not prove it; and it is
as evident, that.none can be the Head of the Univerfal
Church, but only Chrift, and that for this plain tea-
fon,becaure it is Union to Chrift alone,which makes the
Ghriftian Church.The Church is the Church of Chrift,
and therefore he alone is the Head of his own Church:
This, the Romanifts. themfelves grant, that Chrift
al.one.is the Head of his-Church, and that thcBiftiop
of.
and Communion of the CathoIich^Chnrch, 11
of Rome is only a vicarious Head, Chrift's Vicar on
Earth. But when wo fpeak of the Unity of the Uni-
verfai Church, part of which is tranflated to Heaven,
and part dill militant on Earth, it muft be united in
Chriif alone; for as he needs no Vicar in Heaven, where
he himfeit is immediately prelenr, fo there can be no
Vicar on Earth, as a common Head of Unity for the
Church on Earth and in Heaven; and therefore the
Unity of the whole Church cannot confill in its U-
nion to fuch a vicarious Head, as 1 obferved before ;
and then there can be no other Head of Unity but only
Chrift.
%. It is as evident alfo, that the only Medium or
Bond of this Union between Chrifl: and the Church,
is the Gofpel-Covenant: for that is the Foundation of
our relation to Chrifl:: He is our Head and Husband,
cur Lord and Saviour, we hisSubjefts, Difcifiles, Spoufe,
and Body, by Covenant. And therefore the Sacraments
of the New Covenant, Baptifm and the Lord's Supper,
are the Federal Rites of our Union to Chrifl: Baptifm
is our Regeneration, or New Birth, whereby we are in-
corporated into his Body; in the Lord's Supper we fpi-
ritually 'eat his Flelh and drink his Blood, which flgni-
lies and effefts as intimate an Union to him, as there is
of our Bodies and the Food we eat; and this proves,
that there can be no other Head of Unity, but only
Chrifl, becaufe the Gofpel Covenant unites us to none
elfe : 'which I take to be St. F^///'s meaning, when he
reproves the Corinthian Schifm : i Cer. ii, 13.
Now this I fay t that every one of you faith, I am if
Raul, and I if Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Chrifl.
Is Chri§i divided^ was faul crucified for you ? or were
ye baptized in the name of Paul ? ThaUis^ -that there is
no other Head, to whom we can be united but
C z ' only
12 A Difconrfe concerning the Nature^ TJuity,
only Chrifl:,who purchafed the Gofpel-Covenant by his
Death, and into whofe Name we are baptized; His
alone we are to whom we are united by Baptifm, we
are in Covenant with none elfe, and therefore belong
to him alone : if they might have owned any other
Head befides him, who died for them, and into whofe
Name they were baptized, if Chrifl; had made Peter
the vicarious Head ofUnity, as the Romanics pretend,
St. PauPs Argument, againft thefe Sidings and Faftions,
that one faid he was of Paul, another of Apollos, a third
of Ce/)has or Peter, had not been good, for at lead thofe
who were united to Peter were in the right: but
St. Paulknew no other Head of Unity, but only Chrift,
becaufe the Gofpel-Covenant, which is the only Me-
Jium and Bond of Union, unites us to no other Head,
and therefore thofe, who faid they were of Peter, or
belonged to him, as their Head and Center of Unity,
which is the cafe of the Church of Rome at this day,
were as great Schifmaticks, as thofe who faid they were
of Paul.
Now this Covenant extends to the whole Church,
and therefore unites the whole Church to Chrift. For
thofe who are tranflated into Heaven are dill united to
Chrid by the fame Covenant with the Church on
Earth. There are feveral Duties indeed of this Cove-
nant which the Saints in Heaven are exempted from,
becaufe their date and condition there is above them.
Their Faith and Hope is turned into Sight and Enjoy-
ment; their Spiritual Warfare is accomplilhed , for
there is no Devil, nor Flefti, nor World to tempt them;
the Mydical Supper of our Lord is celebrated by them
not in external Symbols and Figures, but in a more di*
vine manner , in the immediate prefence of the Lamb;
but thd the Duties of the Covenant change with their
and Communion of the Catholich^ Church.
ftate and condition of Jife, yet the Covenant is the
fameftill; by this Covenant it is, that they are in Hea-
ven, and ftill expe(ii the completion of their happineft
in the Refurredtion of their B-odies immortal and glo-
rious ; and by the fame Covenant it is, that we hope,
when our Warfare is accomplilhed alfo to get to Hea-
ven, and to rife together with them, at the Ibund of the
laft Trumpet: And therefore the whole Church in
Heaven and Earth is One, by being united to the fame
Head by the fame Covenant.
3. The Unity then of the Univerfal Church can
confift in nothing but this, that the whole Church,
both in Heaven and Earth, is united in One Body to
Chrift. For fince there is no other Head of Unity
for the Church, but Chrift, the formal reafon of this
Unity muft -confift in the Union of the whole Church
to Chrift, which makes the Univerfal Church the
One Body of Chrift, and this is the Unity of the
Church. Fori think it is no lefs than a demonftra-
tion, that the Unity of the Univerfal Church, which
is part in- Heaven, and part on^ Earth,- cannot be the
Unity of an organized Body, which muft confift in
a regular Subordination of different Ranks and De-
grees of men, as the Church on Earth does: For the
Church on Earth and in Heaven, which is the One
Church of Chrift , is no fuch one common governed
Society ; and therefore the Unity of the Church can-
not confift in the Unity of one External Govern-
ment.
But how then is the whole Church but one Body i
Truly I know no other way, but that they are all u-
nited to Chrift in the fame Covenant, and all who are
thus united to him, Chrift accounts his One Body.
Thus Chrift, as bearing his Church, is compared to a
Vine,.
13
li
(
y
14 A D/fcmrfe couccrmfiglhe NatHre, 'Vnity^
Vine, all vvliofe Branches, we know, are united only
in the Stock or lloor, I'^John i, and to an Olive-
Tree, ir Rom. 17. and to a Shecpfokl, which confiils
of fingle and individual Sheep , whidi are one Fold
only, hccaufe they are under one Shepherd, 10 John
16.
It is true indeed, the Church is called alfo the Body,
and the Spoufe of Chrift, but as that relates to the U-
niverfal Church, it does not fignifie an organical Body
( though that the Church on Earth is alfo by Chrift's
own inllitution, of which more hereafter) but it is fo
called for myftical reafons, which I (hall briefly explain
to yow,
1. Now I firfl; obferve, that the Relation between
Man and Wife is but an Emblem and Figure of that U-
nion which is between Chrifl; and his Church. Hence
the Apoflle exhorts Husbands to love their Wives even
as chrifl loved his Church; and tells us ofMarriage, It is
a great myflery, hut I [peak concerningChrifl and hit Church,
5 Ephef. xy. 31.
2. That to be the Body and the Spoufe of Chrifl,
flgnifies the fame thing. Hence the Apoflle argues.
That men ought to love their Wives as their own bodies,
28 V. For no man ever hated his own flejh, but nourijh-
€th and cherijheth it, even as the Lord the Church, 29.
For we are members of his body, of his flefh, and of his
hones, 30. So that the Wife is the Body, the very
Flelh of the Husband , and To is the Church of
Chrifl.
3. To underftand this matter, why the Church is
called the Body and Spoufe of Chrifl, we muft en-
cjuire why the ,Wife is called the Body of the Man,
Flefti of his Flelh, and Bone 'of his Bone; and 4die
reafon of that is, bfecaufe the Woman was formed out
of
and CommKnion of the Catholu\ Church. i 5
ef the Man. God at firfl formed Man with an entire
humane Body, of the Dull of the Earth, and out of
Man, while he flept, he formed the Woman; who
though a diftinft feparate Perfon , yet was part of
the Man, Flefli of his Flefli, and Bone of his Bone:
And this was a natural Marriage, for two were by
nature one Flefli; and this was the natural and fun-
damental reafon of the Matrimonial Union. For this
caufe jhaU a wan leaze his Father and Mother, and
cleave to his Wife , and they two fhall he one Flejh.
For though other Women are not made as Eve was,
no more than other Men are made as Adam was,
yet the Woman being originally of the Man, the
reafon holds as to the whole kind ; and in fubfequent
Marriages, a l<^al Ceremony and Contrad does,
what a natural Formation did at fisfl, tliat is, unites
t wo into one Flefh.
Thus the blefled Jefus, out of great pity and com-
paffion to fallen man, intending to marry us unto
himfelf, and thereby to recover us out of a flare of
fin and mifery, firfl marries our Nature to himfelf
by an hypoflatical Union, as Man was created firfl,
and then the Woman formed out of him. Chrifl
took a humane Body of the fubflance of a pure Vir-
gin, which fignifies that it was an Efpoufable Nature
which he took, and was a Pledge, and Earneft, and
Medium of our Marriage to him. For though we
cannot be married immediately to the Divinity, yet
to a God Incarnate we may. For Marriage requires,
that Husband and Wife be of the fame nature.
But this is not enough, that the Husband and Wife
partake of the fame Nature, but the Woman mufl
be formed out of the.Man ; which makes her Flefli
of. his FJefh, and Bone of his Bone. And thus ac-
cordingiy,.
/
r6 A Vifcourfe concerning the "Nature^ Unity^
cordingly the Church is formed out of the Body of
Chrift, and is in a myftical fenfe his very Fleih and
Bones, as St. Paul fpeaks. We are members of his bo-
dy^ of his flejh, and of his bones. For the Sufferings
of Chrift In the fl-eih, gave life and being to the
Church ; he purchaft to himfelf a Church by his own
Bloud, that is, he formed to himfelf a Church out of his
broken Body, as Adam's Body was broken , and a
Rib taken out of him to form tlae Woman. And
therefore as the Woman was made of the fame Flefh
with Adam, fo the Sufferings of Chrift in his humane
nature purchafed a Church not of Angels, but of Men,
of the fame nature with himfelf; as the Apoftle ob-
ferves, 1 Heb, i6. For 'verity Ise took not an him the
nature of Angels, but he took on him the Seed of Abra-
ham ; and therefore is not the Saviour of Angels, but
of men, is not married to the Angelical, but to the
humane nature.
And to make the Analogie ftill more compieat, as
the Woman was formed out of Adam's fide, fo was
the Church out of Chrift's fide; for when he was
pierced with the Souldiers Spear, there came out of
his fide both Water and Bloud, 19)011034. and the
Evangelift fets a peculiar remark upon it: He that
faro it bare record, and ive know that his record is true:
and he knoweth that he faith true, that ye might believe,
35" V. and this is efpecially obfervcd, and great weight
laid on it; 1 John 6. This is he that came by water
md bloud, even Jefus Chrijl; not by water only, but by
water and bloud. This fome think fignifies no more,
but that it was a demonftration that he was truly
ilead; in that his heart was wounded, where there is
a Capfula., called the Pericardium, which contains wa-
tcr, which being pierced, water came out together
hnd tommmion of"the Cathoiic\ Church.
wiih bloud; but the water and bloud came out
diftirift' though from the fame wound, which was
never known before, arid cannot be done again by
tlie.gfeatett Artift; and though this might be a
reafon wiiy 5t. John might take notice of it in his
Gofpel, where he gave an account of his death, yet
it does not feem a fuflicient reafon why he Ihould
lay fuch weight on it in his Epiftles; This is he who
cam hy water and hloud, not ly water only, hut hy
water and bloud; and therefore I doubt not but
the ancient Fathers were in the right, who tell us,
that the two Sacraments of the new Covenant flow-
e'd out of his fide, which are the formation of this
fpititual Spoufe his Church, die birth^ and'the nou-
riflimen't of it; Baptifm and the Lords Supper,
which came from his wounded bodyand have hbth
of them a peculiar refpeft to his De^th and Paition.
Thus we fee the Church hs^ called Chrift's Body
and Spbiife, for qyijicaj reaf9ns, ^becaufe it. is..form-
ed out of his broken Body, his Death, and Suffering
^virig life arid being to the Chprcb ;,-iand therefore
it is but one'Body, Becaufe all thofe who are re*
deeined by his Bloud, and united to him by Cove-
tiini, which is a kind of Marriage-Vow'and COn-
ate hislBody and Spoufe. i\qd therefore the
mts^of the new Covenant, Baptifoi, arid tjifc
tords oupper, do rib otherwifejunite u§ to each
^^ejr thari' they'.unite, us. all t9;;Chrill., -which
makes lis aU one Body ; or asihe.jApoftlu fpeaks,
with refpe£tr' tb th^' Lords Supper:T(>r ive hyU'^.
many, are one ^read_ anit one ^ I for wf ai^idH
fof takers of that me ^read, jWe ^11 partake of .tllF
famie' Body 'of'Chrih, which is therefore called the
D Commu
A Difconrfe concerning the Uature^nity^
Cowtnunion of his Body and Blond; and therefore we
all are bat one Body : fo that it is a vain thing to
inquire after any other Principle of Unity for the
whole Church, but the Union of all Chriftians to
Chrift, who are one Body by their Union to one
Head.
But it may be objefied againft this, tha.t this con-
fines the Church to the company of theEIeft, who
are the myftical Body of Chrift; that according to
this Notion, there can be no vifible Church upon
Earth ; for no man can tell who belongs to the my-
ftical Body of Chrift, which is made up'only of true
and fincere Chriftians, and no man can fee who'they
are, without feeing their hearts. Now this is a migh-
ty prejudice againft any Notion, if it deftroys the
vifibility of the Church,, which is fo;J)Jainly taught
in Scripture-, and'does, for ought 'we knfdw',' unchurch
the greateft Member of vifible Church-Members;
if the Church confift only of thofe who were eleft-
ed from all eternity, and are in tftne called by the
Grace of God to a ft ate of real Hdlinefs and Sah^i-
fication, and made the living Meteljer^ of thrift's
Body , I cannot pofiTibly fee how therfe caH be a fid-
ble Church on Earth ; for this iHternfl'Gface'^feh
makeiis a Church-Member is invisible,' artd tlfer^Ore
Church-Members are invifible too, aHd'fh^d^'I
the Church it felf muft be invifible, if all^tlie^MM*
bers of it are invifible; for invifible Members cIlifioT
make a vffible Society ; and to fay, that the Field in
which the Corn and the Tares grow together, is vi-
fible, will not make the Church vifible, unlefsthis
vifible Field, as vifible, be the Church? and then the
Tares as well as the Corn njuft be ChWch-Members r
for
and Communion of the Catholick^ Church. jp
for to fee where the Corn grows, if we cannot fee the
Corn, does not make the Corn vifible; and if the
Corn only be the Church, invifible Corn cannot
make a vifible Church. Which has made me often
Wonder that fome learned Prote{lants,and that of late
too, have fo much infilled on this Notion, which
gives manifefl: advantage to their Adverfaries; and
ftrves no end, that I know of, but what may better
be fervcd without it.
■ But the Union of the Church to ChriH, w4iich I
have now explained, is a vifible Union ; for we arc
united to Chrift by the Gofpel-Covcnant, and the
Covenant is vifible, the Sacraments of the Cove-
nant, Baptifm, and the Lords Supper, are vifible;
the profelfTonofFaith, and obedience to Chrift, made
by thefe vifible Sacraments, is vifible alfo; and there-
fore the Church, which is united to Chrift by a vifi-
ble Covenant, vifible Sacraments, and a vifible Pro-
feflion, is vifible alfo.
But you'll lay, can wicked men then be Members
of Chrift's myftical Body ? yes, no doubt but they
may in this World, if they can be in Covenant with
him.' "We are united by ,C9venant, and thofe who
are thus united, are Memliefs of his Body, and Chrift
has but oiie Body, which is his Church, and^myftical
Spoufe. And what abfurdity is there in laying, that
men may be in Covenant with Chrift, and not per-
form the conditions of the Covenant, nor obtain the
rewards of it ? This no man will deny, but that
bad men, who live in vifible Communion with the
Church, who ,are baptized in the name of Chrift, and
feaft at his Table, are vifibly in covenant with him;
for if the Sacraments of the Covenant do not prove
• ■ D z that
20 4 Difcourfe concernwg the N^t^y'VmtXy
that we are in covenant, no man can tell wl^eft^Cf
he be in covenant or not. Now all that are in cove-
nant with Chrift are his Body, and unleis we can find
t^voCovenanti'ahd two Bodies for Chriff, we muft
grant that good and bad men in this World, are in
the fame Covenant, and Members of the fame Bo-
dy. Our Saviour tells us, that there are fome bran-
dies in him which bear no fruit, but they are in
him for all that, thougii they lhall be taken away,
and feparated from him, isJohm. St../'(7«/dif-
fwades ihQ Corinthians from Fornication, by this Ar-
gument, that they are the Members of Chrift:
Know ye mt^ that your bodies are the members of
Chrijl ^ jhaU I then take the'members ofChriJi, and
make them members of a harlot ? God forbid^ i Cor. 6.
I y. Which fuppofes, that fuch a thing may be done,,
that the Members of Chrift may be made Members
of a Harlot; and that fuppofes, that verypbadmen
may be Members of Chrift's Body.
^ But are not ail the Members of Chrift myftically
united to him > and can there be fuch a myfticalU-
nion between Chrift and bad men > 1 anfwer, if by
myftical Union be meant, being united in the fame
Life and Spirit, it is plain, that bad men are not thus
myftically united to Chrift, for they are not living,
but dead Members of his Body, they are branches
that are in the Vine, but bear no fruit; and yet may
be Members of his myftical Body, which is fo called,
not upon account of any myftical Union, (which
fome men talk of,but no man could ever explain) but
for myftical reafons, as I have already Ihewed you.
Now if thofe myftical reafons, for which the Church
is called the Body of Chrift, include wicked Profeflbrs,
and ,
and Communion of the CathoUck^ Church,
and concealed Hypocrites, as well as truly good Men,
then I hope bad Men may be (aid to be the Members
of phrift's Myftical Body without fuch a Myftical
Union to him..
Now.i obferved before, the Myftical Reafon why
the Church is called'the Body of Chrift, Flefti of his
^^iefh, and Bone of his Bone, Is becaufe he purchas'd
the.Church with his own Blood ; the Church is
formed out of his broUen Body, as Eve was formed
out of the Body of Adam. And therefore if bad
Men,^ who are in Covenant with Chrift, are the pur-
chafe of his Blood, and hive a Covenaqt-rjght to the
expiation of it, and VIl the benefits procured by it,
then they are the Members of'his Myftical Body,
Flelh'of his Flefti, and Bone of his Bone. . And mer
thinks no'man ftiOuld deny, that thofe who are in Co-
yenant with Chrift, ftiould have a Covenant right
to the Expiation of his Death i ancf all tl]e Blef-
fings purchas'd by his Blood ; for otherwife we can-
not tell, what it is to be in Covenant, if it confer
no right to the Priviledges of it: and yet no man
has a right to the Purchafe of Chrift's Blood, but
thofe,.who are his Body; and therefore if bad
men -may. have fuch a "Covenant - right, as cer-
tainly they have, if they be in Covenant, then
they are by Covenant united to his Myftical
Body,
If you obje3:, that by this realbn all Mankind
are Chrift's myftical Body, for He died for all Men,
and therefore they are all the Purchafe of his Blood,
and confequently they are his Myftical Body, which
is formed out of his broken Body ; I anfwer, it - is
true indeed, that in fome^fenfe Chrift died for ail,
be-
m r
:.r i
a 2 A Difconrfe cdnceYning the T^atme^Dnity^
becaufe none are -excluded from the Benefits of his
Death, w ho unite themfelves to his Body by Faith
and Baptifm; but yet he diedifornone, fo as to give
them an immediate Right and Title to the Purchafe
of his Blood ; for his 'Purchafe is confined to his
Church, which is his Body ; He w the Saviour of
the Body ; He loved his Churchy and gave hirrfelf for
it. And thereiore his Church only is his Myftical
Body, Fielli of his Flefli, and'Bone of his Bone, and
the Sufferings jof his Natural Body extend no far-
ther than his Myffical Body: and therefore Ch.rift is
faid to have reconciled both (Jew and Gentile) to God
in one body by tf^e crojl, v. Ephef, 16.1 That is, he
has reconciled all,both Jews and Oentiles, who by
Faith and Baptifm are united in his one Myftical
Body, to God by his Sufferings on the Crofs. So
that we are not the Body of Chrift, and cannot
be faid to be the purchafe of his Blood, tilfwe are uni;
ted to him by Covenant. '' i-.
This we may learn from that Analogy there is be-
tween the Law and the Gofpel. The legal Sacrtfi-
ces, efpecially that great Sacrifice on the-Day of Ex-
piation, were typically of the Sacrifice of Chrift, and
the Carnal Jfrael was a Type of the Spiritual Jfrael,
or of the Chriftian Church, now,as the Virtue and
Expiation of Legal Sacrifices was applicable only to
the Carnal Ifrael, fo the Expiation of Chrifi's Death
extends only to the Spiritual Ifrael, the Chriftian
Church, which is Chrift's Myftical Body; which
one thing, if well confidered, would anfwer all the
Difficulties, and filence thofe fierce Difputes, about
'Univerfal RederryJtion. However this fhews, what
'.difference there is between bad Chriftians, and the
world
and Commmion of the Catholic^Church.
world ot Jnfidels; the fir ft are vifihlyi in Covenant
with Chrift, and are the Purchafeof his Blood, and
have a Covenant-right to the redemption of it} and'
therefore are Members of his Myftical, Body, fori
none elle liave any right to his Sacrifice ; the other!
have no intereft in hirft, nor relation ta himi . And:,
if we will not allow of this, I defire tq know, who-:
thofe Children of the Kingdom that at'the laft day f
fliall-be Ihut out. 'j, .
But is not oiif Myftical :l.Inion tq Chrift then an- '
Union of,Spirit^, a, ,pattjigipar^on:pfihjSi.lSature and!
Life, having: his Spirit d^ehing iti us, being ded- by^
the Spirit, and walking in, the.Spirit ^...-LaaCwer, •
this is our Spiritual Uf?ion. to Chrift, this is to livp
in him, to be quickqn'd by hirti,' bUt it is not our;
Myftical ^Upion,, as that fignifies fHch anoUnion, as
makes qs Men]bers. ofi his MyfticafBody;: forrthat:;
in a ftrid proper fence is only, a Covenant-relation ^
every. Member of Chrift's Myftical Body ought'to/
partake qf ^hisi |.ife ,and. Spirit , or elfe they ,are I
onely^^^ji^^a.ft^^ which (hall bo
:fl^Hri3a94fi&aJlfingyqrTjifthef(it:,Eternal Lifena
but rfuchrj dqaji)Menabersi are ;M$m iftili ,!■ tiin
t^ey^ai® >1 eithfrrjhyr Church iCenfucb-' in;
>j„pr(jby ;the Sentpng^ of Chrift in tlie.
'^fj^rjobd qb jii ' v-X ltd ;
^Inia Parddpation.of thqiikifc ahdiSphit of Chrift-'
is' noVour Myftical Union fp Chfift-,!} but the effeft ;
of. fit, j We cannot receive the influences of Life
and Grace from Chrift, till we are united to hini,i
and made the Members of his Body 5 for. his Spirit
©nely quickens and animates his own Body ? and?
we are,united to his Body by Covenant, andiJby .the/
Sacra-.
A DifcowrfecdneerHing the "Ndtnre-iDnitj^
Sacraments of it, which- dOnvey this' Divine Life
ahd Spirit to us ; and therefore Baptifm is our
Regeneration, or New BirtR, the beginnings of a
New Life', becaufe it incorporates' lis into Chrift-y
Myftical Body, which puts life under the influences
and communications-of hi^ Life and Spirit: as whfti
a- branch is engrafted into a ftock> it receives riou-
. rifhment and life from it. So that thfefe-divinC and
fupernatural influences are confequenc upon our Uni-
on to Chrift, and tho' all, Who ate udltedtoChriff,
have rhefelinflutnccs of Graces as the root naturally
communicates its fap and jUicCs to all its branches,
yet all do'not improve it, do not digeft it into prin-
ciples of life arid aftion, do not bring forth fruits'
worthy of it, like dead and withered branches, who'
cannot redeive thfe fap and- nourifhment, which
afcends fromf^ riiid root, and' \Vould quicken theih,
were nbt its eiltrance ftopt and hindred; but not*
withftanding this, they are members and branches
Rill, though dead and' fruitlefs : There is no ac-
count indeed had of them, Chrift knows them not,
and does not reckon them as his," and therefore the
Defcription and Charadlers of the Church in Scri-
pture are fuch as belong onely to- living Members, to^
thofe who are rcsewed and feiiftiffed, and quicken'd
by the Divine Spirit; but yet they do belong to'
Chrift's Myftical Body, thh' they atcf in' it^oflely,asa
dead Branch es in-the Viriel
But how can the Church on Earth j and the Church'
in Heaven be one Church arid one Body, the
Church on Earth has fuch corrupc arid rotten Mem-
bers in it ? for the Church in Heaven has none but li-
ving and-holy.Meiftbers. I arifwer, the fariie Cove-
nant
and Communion of the CathoUch^Church.
nant makes them the fame Church, and the fame
Body of Chrift, and that there are bad Men in
the Church on Earth, and none but Saints in Hea-
ven, does not prove, that they are two Churches,
but that they arc in two very different ftates. Of
right, none but fincere believers, and truly pious
men, ought to be Members of the Church on Earth,
as well as in Heaven ; but the government of the
Church, the receiving in, and calling out of the
Church, being intrufled with Men, who cannot fee
the Heart, or who are not careful in the Exercife of
Difcipline to preferve the Purity of the Church, fe-
cret Hypocrites may be received into the Church,and
thofe, who are openly Prophane may not be call
out of it ; but in the other World Chrift makes the
diftiniftion, and feparates the Chaff from the Wlieat,
and therefore the Church in Heaven can confift only
of good Men, becaufe bad Men can find no admit
fion there. And befides this, it is agreeable enough
to the ftate of the Church on Earth, and indeed
cannot well be otherwife, that good and bad Men
fhould be intermixt in it; becaufe it is a ftate of
Tryal and Difcipline, of Growth and Improvement:
Tho' bad Men, as that fignifies Hypocrites and Un-
believers, if they were known, ought not to be re-
ceived into the Church , yet if they be, by the In-
fluences of Grace, and the Inftruftions of the Word,
and the Prayers of the Church, and the Examples
and Converfations of good Men, and the prudent
Exercife of Difcipline, they may be reclaimed to Ver-
tue, and become living Members of Chrift's Body;
thofe who were dead before may recover a New Life
by being engrafted into this Heavenly Vine: nay in-
E deed
A Difcourfe concerning the Nature, %)nity,
deed tho all men are not equally wicked, yet no
Man has this Divine Life, but onely from Chrifl:,and
the communications of his Grace, which he cannot
receive from Chrift, till he be united to him; and
therefore the Apoftles required no other qualifica-
tion for Baptifm, but onely Faith ; the very worft
of Men, who believed in Chrift, and profefs'd obe-
dience to him, were received into the Church by
Baptifm, and put under the Influences of Grace,
without expe£ling till they had firft reformed their
Lives; which, befldes the Authority of the Apoftles,
feems to me much more agreeable to the Gofpel-
Difpenfation, than that Difcipline which was after-
wards ufed in the Church, when they did not imme-
diately baptize thofe, who profefs'd to believe in
Chrift, but kept them in the ftate of Catechumens
a great while , till they were inftrufted in the
Principles of Chriftian Faith, and had given proof of
a holy and vertuous life; which is to expeft, that
men ftiould become new creatures, before they are
born again, that they Ihould walk in the Spirit,
before they have received the Spirit in Baptifm, that
•they fliould bring forth Fruit, before they are im-
planted into this Spiritual Vine. Now if Men,
who have lived very wicked Lives, may be admit-
t,ed to Baptifm, upon their profeflion of Faith and
Repentance, that in this Laver of Regeneration they
may wafli away all their Sins, and become new crea-
tures, and receive the Spirit of Grace and Sanftifica-
tion to reform their Lives, this fliews, that the very
Conftitution of the Church on Earth is fuch ; that
there may be very bad Men in it, unlefs all, who
are baptized ftiould infallibly prove good Men; For
and Communion of the Catholic^ Church, ^ 7
bad Men, who profefs the Faith of Chrift, and Re-
pentance of their Sins , have a right to Baptifm,
where they mult receive Grace to mortifie and fub-
due their Lulls, and renew their Natures, and yet
if after Baptifm they refill the Grace and Spirit of
God, they will continue bad Men Rill, and this the
Minillers of the Church can never know, whether
they will or not. Nay the Gofpel-Covenant admits
the Children of Chrillian-Parents to Baptifm, and it
is impolTible to know, how thofe, who are baptized in
their Infancy,will prove,when they are Men: and yet
thefe are all Members of the Church, and the My-
ftical Body of Chrill, at lealt till they are cut off
by the Cenfures of the Church ; and there is no in-
convenience in this, if the Governours of the Church
were but fo drift in their Difcipline, as to prevent
all Publick Scandals: for fince the Church on Earth
is the School and Nurfery of Vertue, where bad Men
may be reformed, and become Saints, fince Chrift is
that Spiritual Vine, from whom alone we can receive
the communications of a Divine Life, it is very fit-
ting, that all believers fliould be received into the
Church, and incorporated into Chrid's Body, for it
cannot be known, whether they will prove good or
bad Men, fruitful or barren Branches, till they par-
take of the fap and fatnefs of the Root, till they re-
ceive fuch communications of Grace, as may re-
new them into a Divine Nature. And therefore to
fay, that none but real Saints are Members of the
Ghurch on Earth, is to make no difference between
a School of Tryal, Exercife , and Difcipline, and
the date of perfeft and conliimmate Souls; between
a date of Warfare, where the Viftory is doubtful,
E z and
jS ^ Difcourfe concerning the Nature^Zimty^
and the triumphant company of Conquerors ; be-
tween thofe , who run in a Race , and thofc, who
have won the Prize; for fuch a difference there is
between the ftate of the Church on Earth, and in
Heaven. We cannot run this Spiritual Race, un-
lefs we be in the Church, for there is no Prize, no
Crown, to run for out of it. And therefore thofe
who lofe, as well as thofe who win the Prize, muff be
in the Church, and Members of it: They are all in
the fame Covenant, that il they overcome, theylhall
receive the Grown : good men conquer in this
World, and triumph in Heaven; bad men are con-
quered, and they lofe their Crown, and this makes
the feparation and difference between the Church in
Heaven and Earth ; in Heaven there are none but
thofe, who have conquered ; on Earth all, who run
in the fame Race, and are engaged in the fame War-
fare, are mixt together in the fame Body and Society :
thofe who conquer, and thofe who are conquered, are
of the fame Company on Earth, but none but Con-
querors are crowned in Heaven.
Thus I have (hewed, wherein the Unity of the
Church confifts, that the whole Church both in Hea-
ven and Earth are united to Chrift in the fame Co-
venant, which makes it his One Myftical Body: and
it was neceflary to lay the foundation here; for with-
cut this it is impoffible to underffand, what the Unity
of the Church on Earth means, mofi of the miftakes
in this matter being plainly owing to that firft and
fundamental miftake about the true Notion of CathO'
lick Unity, as that includes the Unity of theUhiverfal
Church, part of which is tranflated to Heaven, and
|?art ffill militant on Earth,..
Thofe.
and Communion of the Catholicl^Chnrch.
Thofe who have been aware of this, that the
Church in Heaven and Earth is but one Church, have
hence concluded, that the Catholick Church is only
the number of the Eleft; that none but truly good
men, who are renewed and fanftified by the holy Spi-
rit, are Members of Chrift's myftical Body; which
makes the Church on Earth as invifible to us, as the
Church in Heaven. Others, when they talk of the
Unity of the Church, never think of the Church in
Heaven, and therefore advance fuch a Notion of
Church-unity, as excludes the Church in Heaven, as
if the Church on Earth were the whole Church of
Chrift; or that the Church in Heaven and Earth
were not one Church, or that the Notion of Church-
unity muft not relate to the whole Church, but only
to one part of it. Thus, as I obferved before, the Ro-
ntanifts do, who place the Unity of the Church in its
Union and Subjeftion to the Bifhop of iJcw?,which can
concern only that part of the Church which is on
Earth, for the Church in Heaven is not under his go-
vernment. Others confidering that the Unity of the
Church confiftsin the Union of all the parts and mem-
bers of it to Chrift, have no regard at all to the Unity
of the Church on Earth, as that alfo is one Body and
Communion; and therefore it will be time now to
apply this Notion of Church-unity to the Unity of
the Church on Earth,.
• \
m"
30
A DJfconrfe concerning the NatHre^Z^nity^
Chap. IL
Concerning the 'Unity of the Catholic^
Church on Earth,
IF the whole Church be one, to be fure every part
of it mull be one with the whole, and therefore
one with it felf, with that fame kind of Unity which
belongs to the whole. So that the Eflential Unity
of the Church on Earth, that which makes a Church
and makes it one, is that all true Churches are Mem-
bers of the One myftical Body of Chrift, as being all
united to him, as to their Head, by the fame Cove-
nant. So that whatever makes a Cburch a true
Church, makes it a Member of the One Catholick
Church, or of the One Body of Chrift. And here
comes in what the Apoftle makes eflential to this
One Body; One Lord, One Faith, One Baptifm, 4 Eph.
5. which ftgnifies what I faid before, being united to
Chrift in the fame Covenant. For Chrift is the One
Lord, to whom we are united ; the One Faith is the
condition of this Covenant, and the One Baptifm is
the faederal Rite of it, or the Sacrament of our Union
to Chrift. Where this is not, there is no Church ;
and where this is, there is but one Church ; how
many particular Churches, or diftinft: Communions
focver this Church is divided into : From whence it
as evident, that there never can be more than one
Church
and Commnnion of the Cathoric\ Church. 51
Church in the World ; for thofe Nominal Churches,
which have not the fame Lord, the fame Faith, the
fame Baptifm, are no Churches; and ail that have,
are but one: Which makes it a ridiculous Triumph
of the Church of Rome, as if we Proteftants did not
believe one Catholick Church, or could not tell where
to find it, when we profefs to believe but One ^
Church, and that all true Churches are Members of
this One Church.
For it is plain from this account, that tliough ail the
Churches in the World were tinited in one Ecclefia-
ftical Body, yet this external vifible Union is not
the thing which makes them the one Body of Chrill:
They are one Body by being all united to one my-
ftical Head, the Lord Jefus Chrift, not by an extcr-
nal and- vifible Union to each other; this external
Union is a Duty which all Chriftians and Chriftian
Churches are bound to obferve, as far as poflibly
they can ; but all true Chriftians and Chriftian Chur-
ches are the One Body of Chrift, whether they be
thus viftbly united or not. But for the better under*-
ftanding this matter, we muft confider,
I. The true Notion of the Catholick Church on
Earth.
II. What the Nature and Unity of a particular
Church is, and how every particular Church is a
part of that Univerfal Catholick Church, which,
is the Body of Chrift.
III. What that Unity and Communion is, which
all diftinft particular Churches ought to main-
tain with each other, and whence this Obligation,
refults.
I. The.
^52 ^ Difcourfe concerning the Nature^ TJnity^
I. The true Notion of the Catholick Church on
Earth. Now it is evident from what I have already
difcourfed, that the true Notion of a Church is the
catus Fideltim, or the company of the Faithful, of
thofe who profefs the true Faith of Chrifl, and are
united to him by Baptifm. There can be no other
Notion of the Univerfai Church in Heaven and Earth,
but the whole company and family of the Faithful,
who are united to Chrift by covenant, and are his
myftical Body in the fenfe above explained : And if
the Univerfai Church in Heaven and Earth be the
whole company of the Faithful, the Catholick Church
on Earth muft be the whole number of the Faithful
on Earth ; for we mull Bill retain the fame Notion
of a Church, where the whole confifts of univerfai
parts, for there every part has the fame nature with
the whole.
I know indeed of late the Clergy have in a great
mcafure monopolized the Name of the Church,
whereas in propriety of Speech, they do not belong
to the definition of a Church: They are Members of
the Church, as they are themfelves of the number of
the Faithful; and they are the Governours of the
Church , as they have received Authority from
Chrifl: theSupream Lord and Bifliop of the Church;
but they are no more the Church, than the King is
his Kingdom, or the Shepherd his Flock : and there»
fore St. Paul exprefly diftinguiflies the Church from
the Apoftles and Minifters of it; i Cor. I^. 28. God
hath Jet fame in the Church, firjl Apojlles, fecondarily
Prophets, thirdly Teachers, after that Miracles, then
Gifts of Healing, Helps, Governments, diverfities of
tongues. Thefe are placed in the Church, for the in-
flruftion,
and Communion of the Catholic\ Church. ^ ^
ftruClion, edification, and good government of it 5
and therefore are of a diftinft confideration from the
Church in which they are placed. Thus 4 Eph. 11,
II. He gave fome ApoJlleSy ar.d fame Prophets, and
fame Evangelifls, and fome Pajlors and Teachers, for the
perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Miniflry, for
the edifying of the Body of Chrijl; that is, the Church
of Chrift : which is therefore difiihguifhed from the
Paftors and Teachers of it Thus in direding his
Epiftles to fcveral Churches, he gives us the defini-
tion of a Church, i Cor. 1.2. Vnto the Church of
God which is at Corinth, to them that are fardlifed in
Chriji JefuSy called to le Saints, with all that in e-
very place call uponjhe Hame ofjefus Chrifl our Lord,
both theirs and ours : that is, the whole company of
the Faithful, i Ephef i. Paul an Apoflle of Jefus
Chrifl by the will of Gody to the Saints which are at
Ephefus, and to the Faithful in Chrijl Jefus : Which
is the true definition of a Church, i Col. 2. To the
Saints and faithful Brethren in Ghrijly which are at
Celof, .-^And i Phil. i. he exprefly difiinguiihes the
Saints "or Church, as that fignifies the company of
the Faithful from the Bifliops and Deacons : To all
the Saints in Chrijl Jefus, which are at Philippic with
the Bijhops and Deacons.
The Learned iMunoyh^s produ^ecf various
of Scripture for thl's.definition of the Church,
it is the com^hy oftheFaitlifuIand Has proved 13. voi'. 3.
by the Tellimony of the Fathers in all Ages, even
down to the Council of Trent it felf, that this was
fhe received Notion of the Church, till it \yas ai-
Canifius and ^ellarminei Canifus^^'^^sC\ln^kls
Vicar into the defimtion; that the Church is the
T vifible
A Difcaurfe concerning the Naturey Dnity^
vifible colIedJion of all baptized Believers, under one
Head, Chrift in Heaven, and his Vicar on Earth;
which makes the Church a Monarchy. Bellarmme
defines the Church to be a company of men united
together by the profeffion of the fame Chriftian
Faith, and the Communion of the fame Sacraments,
under the government of lawful Pallors, but chiefly
of the Bifhop of Rome, as the one Vicar of Chrift
on Earth; which makes the Church a kind of mix-
ed and tempered Monarchy; the government of
Bilhops, and the Pope as Suprearn Vicar: whereas
before thefe men, neither Pallors nor Bilhops, much
fefs the Pope of Rome, were ever put into the gene-
ral definition of a Church : for as for St. Cypriani
definition, I lhall account for it hereafter.
And indeed it Hands to realbn, that they Ihould
not, for Pallors and Bilhops are fet over the Church,
are Overfeers of the Flock, to inllrucl and govern
it, and therefore mull be dillinguilhed from the
Church which they govern: The Church is the my-
llical Body of Chrill, which is in fubjeftion to Chrift
the Head; but the Bilhops and Pallors of the Church,
confidered as fuch, reprefent the Head, and not the
Body; for they receive their Power and Authority
from Chrill, and aft in his place and Head: as he
tells them after his Refurreftion, As my Father hath
fent me, fo fend I you, xojohn xi. He that
receiveth you, receiveth me, and he that rtceiveth
me, receiveth him that fent me, i o 49. and
13 John ^o. And therefore as Chrill the Heacl is.di-
Ringuilh'd from his Body, fo are thofe alfo who aft
under the Head, and reprelent and exercife his Autho-
rky in the Church; as private Believers, they are the
Mem-
uni Communion of the Catholich^ Church.' 5^
Members of the Church; as Church-Governours,
they are the Vicars oi Chrift,
Now from hence I lhall obferve fome few things,
the ufe of which we lhall afterwards better under-
ftand.
As I. That Bilhops and Rafters are not the
Church, but the Governours of the Church: and
therefore the Promifes made to the Church, do not
belong to the Bilhops of the Church; as that the
gates of Hell fjall mt prevail againfi it t which cer-
tainly proves, that the Church lhall never totally fail,
but does not prove, that the Bilhops, or any Bilhop
of the Church, lhall be Infallible. For the Bilhops
are not the Church: there are diftinift Promifes to
the Church, and to the Pallors and Minifters of it,
and they ought to be kept diftinft; which will put an
end to a great many Controverfies between us and
the Church of Rome.
Thus if St. Paul in his Epiftle to timothy^ i Tim.
3.15. calls the Church the Pillar and Ground of Truth,
whatever that fignifies, it belongs to the Church, or
to the company of the Faithful, not mcerly to the
Pallors and Bilhops of it: and therefore the Infalli-
bility of the Pope or General Council can never be
proved from it, though the Pillar and Ground of Truth
Ihould fignifie Infallibility. ^
Thus whatever Authority Popes or General Coun-
cils may challenge in matters of Faith, yet if they
decree any thing contrary to the common Faith of
Chriftians, their Decrees are not the Faith of the
Church, but the Faith of Popes and General Coun-
oils, who are not the Church, though they are the
Governours of it: and yet under this venerabft
F z Name
• A Dffiourfe lovurning tlje
Name of the Catholick Church, every packt Con-
venticle challenges an indifputable Authority to its
Decrees.
1. Nay, as Blfliops arc not the Catholick Church,
fo neither are they the Reprefentatives of the Catho
lick Church; much iefs is any one Biftiop the whole
Catholick Cnurch virtual. The Office of a Bifliop
is not to rcprefcnt, but to govern the Church, and
therefore Biffiops are not the Churches Reprefenta-
tives by InRitution, no more than the King is the
Reprcfentative of his Kingdom: How then do they
come to be the Churches Reprefentatives? Did all
the ChriRians in the World, who are the Catholick
Church, ever intruR them with this Power? Did
they ever refign up their Faith into the hands of their
Biffiops ? This never was done, and yet no man has
a Reprefentative but by his own confent; and if it
could be done, Biffiops then muR fit in Council, not
only as Biffiops, but as Lay-Reprefentatives, if two
fuch different capacities are not inconfiRent; and yet
Biffiops have challenged this Authority only as Bi-
ffiops, an(i excluded the Laity, nay Presbyters them-
felves, from any Votes; and therefore fuch Councils
of Biffiops, who a£led only as Biffiops, could not be
the Reprefentatives of the Catholick Church. In
matters of Difcipline and Government, Biffiops ad
not as,Reprefentatives, but Governours of the Giurch,
by that Authority which they have received, not
from the People, but from ChriR ; and their Decrees
and ConRitutions about fuch matters, have a facred
and venerable Authority, when they do not contra-
did any divine Laws and Inftitutions. But Biffiops
have no Authority over the Faith of the Church;
nay
and Communion of the CatholUh^ Church.
nay the Church herfelf has no Authority to alter the
Faith, and therefore can give no fuch Authority to
her Biftiops 5 however, if fhe could, Ihe never did,
and therefore no Council of Bilhops can be the Church-
reprefentative in defining Articles of Faith. As Bi-
ftiops are the Supreme Pallors and Teachers of the
Church, they may declare, what the Faith is, and
agree what Dodrines fhall be taught in their Churches,
and confent to cenfure and excommunicate thofe,
who will not profefs to believe as they do ; but if
they make any Decrees contrary to the common
Faith of Chrifiians, no Chriftian is bound to believe
them, nor is ever the worfe for their Anathema's
and Excommunications; and it is a ridiculous thing
for them to call this the Faith of the Catholick Church,
which is only the Decrees and Definitions of fome
Bilhops in it; who are far enough from being the
Catholick Church. And this I think fufficiently
proves, that the mod general Council, that ever was,
may err, and yet the Catholick Church not err ; for
Bilhops are not the Catholick Church, nor fo much
as the Reprefentatives of it: and therefore could
it be. proved , that the Catholick Church could
not err, this would not prove the Infallibility of
a General Council, which is not the Church ; for
the Faith may dill be prcferved pure and uncor-
rupt among private Chridians, even when General
Councils err.
3^. I obferve farther, that the whole Catholick
Church on Earth is not one organized Body, for it is
only the whole company of the faithful, andnoEc-
clcfiadical Miniders or Padors belong to the defini-
tion of it; and yet unlets fome Oecumenical Pador
m '
'Ik
S8
A Difcourfe concerning the Nature^Z^nity^
be eflential to rihe Notion and Definition of the Ca-
thoiick Churcn , it cannot be one organized Body.
The Catholick Ghurch indeed is organized by parts,
that is, the whole Company of the Faithful are di-
ftributed into particular Bodies under the govern-
ment of particular Bilhops, which makes a particu-
lar Church, and is eflential to the definition of it,
of which more prefcntly ; but the Catholick Church
itfelf is the whole Company of the Faithful, who are
united in one Bodyio Chrifl only, who is the only
Head of his Chur<m. Now hence it evidently fol-
lows,
I. That no organized Church can be theCatholick
Church, nor the Bifljop of it an Oecumenical Pallor;
becaufe the Catholick Church is not organiz'd, but
every organized Church is a particular Church. Which
ihews how vain the Pretences of the Church of Rome
are to be the Catholick Ghurch, and of the Pope erf
Rome to be the Univerfal Bilhop.
1. It as evidently follows, that there neither is,
nor can be any vifible Tribunal of the Catholick
Church, which lhall be the Center of Catholick Com-
munion, and have Authority over all particular
Churches in Matters of Faith, and Worlhip, and Go-
vernment. For the Catholick Church being no orga-
nized Body, it has no Authority, and can ha^enoTri-
bunal.
I. It has no Authority. For the whole Company
of the Faithful, which is the true Notion of the Ca-
thoiick Church, are theMyftical Body of Chrift, and
in fubjeftion to him, as a Wife is fubjeft to her
Husband. The Catholick Church is made up of
particular and individual Ghriftians, who are all
imme-
)jif and Communion of the Catholich^ Church.
li'j immediately united to Chrift their Head , and are
made one in him ; and though Bifhops as the
Minifters of Chrift, have received Authority from him
jfelf to govern the Church, which they exercife in par-
ticular Churches, over which they are placed, yet
aij; as Members of the Catholick Church, they are not
jsaj confidered as BiOiops, but as private Chriflians: for it
is not their Authority in the Church, but their Union
to Chrift, which makes them Members of his Body,
uj;, and thus they are united to Chrift no otherwife then
all other private Chriftians are. Now if the Cathc-
lick Church be only a company of private and par-
ticular Chriftians, united immediately to Chrift, and
made one Body in him, the Catholick Church has no
more Authority , than particular Chriftians have,
V - which is none at all. The Catholick Church is uni-
ted to Chrift by a belief of his Gofpel, obedience to
V, his Laws, and a participation of his Spirit, which is a
ft ate of perfe(ft and abfolute fubjeffion to him, and
, ^ therefore can have no Authority to alter the Faith, to
make a new Creed, or a new Gofpel, which would-
be to h-ive power over Chrift, not to be fubjeft to
him. To be fure, unlefs we will grant this Authc-
rity to every particular Chriftian , the Catholick
Church qannot have it, which is only the whole
multitude of particular Chriftians, who are united
uiiiK ftngly to Chrift, and made One Body in him; and
therefore are not fucb a Body, as can rrteke a new
tW Faith', and new Laws, but are made One Body by
)D«5 embracirig the fame Faith, which they muft receive
0' from Chrift, but have no Authority to make ; be-
lijfi' caufe their receiving this Faith unites them into One
0' Body in Chrift, and they continue One'Body in
jlio' Chrift,.
t
A Difconrfe cortccrmng the Nalnre^ Dnity^
Chrift, no longer than they profefs this Faith, and
therefore never can have Authority to change it:
vtrhere a multitude of Men unite thcmfelves into
One Body or Civil Society, to form and model
their own Government, and to make Laws for them-
felves, there the whole Authority is in the Commu-
nity, and tliey may make and alter and repeal Laws
as they pleafe: but where a Society is formed by a
voluntary fubmiflion of Tingle and particular Perfons
to known and dated Laws, and no man can be of
this Society without fubmiffion to thefe Laws, nor
continue longer in it, than he does fubmit to them,
it is a contradiTlion to fay, that fuch a Body of Men
have any power over the Laws, becaufe it is only
their fubmiflion to fuch Laws, which make them
fuch a Society : The whole Society in this cafe have
no more Authority than a Tingle Man, for they are
not a Society for Government, but for Obedience
and Subjeftion.
Chrift indeed has placed an Authority in his Church
for the Inftru(ftion and Government of it, but an Au-
thority in the Church, and the Authority of the Church,
are two very different things. The firft fignifiesthe
Authority of Chrift, who is the Head; the fecond
fs the Authority of the Body, which is the Church,
the Head has Authority over his Church, and may
appoint what Minifters he pleafes to exercife this
Authority, but the Church has no Authority at all,
no more than the Body has, which is fubjed to the
Head.
This may be thought a very nice diftinftiort be-
tween the Authority in the Church, and ihe'^Autho-
rhy of the Church, but it is. as ufcful, as it is true.
for
and Commnnion of the CathoUc\ Church. 41
For tho the Authority of Chrift muft be much more
facred and venerable, than the Authority of the
Church,whatever Authority it were fuppofed to have,
yet the name of the Catholick Church is thought
much more venerable than the name of Bilhops, tiio
they are the Minifters of C'lriO: ; and therefore thofe,
who would impole upon the Faith of Cariftians,
talk of nothing lefs than the Authority of the Catho-
lick Church, which founds very big, and frights
people into a fubmiflion. While they pretend only
the Authority of Chrift's Minifters, private Chrifti-
ans make bold to examine their CommilTion, and
how far their Authority reaches, and whether they
do not prevaricate in the exerclfe of this Authority,
as it is poflible Minifters may do ; but the name of
the Catholick Church ftrikes all dead, for who dare
oppofe the Decrees of the Catholick Church ? which
is to condemn the whole Catholick Church of Error
or Herefie ; who dares feparate from the Catholick
Church ? which muft be an unpardonable Schifm.and
a ftate of Damnation; ftnce it is univerfally agreed,
that there is no falvation to be had out of the Catho-
lick Church ; and thus when a packt Conventicle of
Schifmaticks and Hereticks ufurp to thcmfelves the
name of the Catholick Church, they impofe upon
Chriftians under fo venerable a difguife, and enflave
them to their own Diftates; but now all thefe A-
mufements vanilli, when we remember, that the Ca-
tholick Church has no Authority ; that whatever the
Authority of Bilhops in or out of Council be, it is
not the Authority of the Church, but the Authority
of Chrift, and it is not his Authority neither, when
G they
I know
A V if cowfe concerning the Natwe, Z^nity,
they exceed their Commifllon, and teach fuch things
as he has given them no Authority to teach; and
therefore we may rejcd fuch a Council of Bilhops,
without condemning the Catholick Church, and re-
nounce their communion, without feparating from
the Catholick Church.
And this very confideration, that the Catholick
Church has no Authority, and therefore cannot inno-
vate in Matters of Faith, nor alter the Laws and In-
ftitutions of our Saviour, is little lefs than a demon-
ftration, that there is no Authority the Church nei-
ther to do it. For the Bilhops and Pallors of the
Church, as they are Chrift's Minifters, fo they arc
themfelves Members of the Catholick Church; now
as they are Members of the Catholick Church, they
mull receive nothing but what Chrill has taught; for
the Church is founded on the Faith of Chrift, and
has no Authority to alter it: Now is it imaginable,
that Bifliops as private Chriftians and Members of
the Catholick Church are obliged to believe nothing
but what Chrift has taught, and yet as Bilhops, or
Chrift's Minifters, have Authority to teach, what
Chrift has not taught ? that is, that as Bilhops they
have Authority to teach that, which as private Chri-
ftians, they themfelves muft not believe, if they will
continue Members of the Catholick Church: nay,
can we imagine, that Chrift has given Authority to
his Minifters to teach that, which the Catholick
Church muft not receive ? for if 'the Catholick
Church has no Authority, it muft no more receive
new Doftrines, than make them.
N,
and Communion of the CatholicI^ Church*
I know indeed, no body will pretend to an Autho-
rity of making new Articles of Faith, but only of
declaring what the Faith is; but this rs the very
fame thing, if this Authority of Declaring be fuch
as to oblige all people to believe fuch Declarations
without any Difpute or. Examination ; for then
they may make a new Faith under a pretence of
declaring the old ; as we fee the Council of Trent has
done, which has declared fuch Doftrines, as the
Chriftian Church was a ftranger to before: and there
is no difference, that I know of, between declaring
and making an Article of Faith, which was neither
declared, nor made before.
And therefore Chriftian Bifhops and Paftors have
no fuch Authority either to make or to declare Ar-
tides of Faith, as can oblige all Chriftians to believe
it meerly upon their Definitions and Declarations :
It is their Office to Preach the Gofpel, to convince
and perfwade gainfayers by Scripture and Reafon,
which obliges all Chriftians diligently and impar-
tially to attend to their Inftruftions, but yet
leaves every man at liberty to judge , whether
they Preach the Gofpel of Chrift, or their own In-
ventions.
tly. That the Catholick Church has no Authority,
is evident from this alfo, that it has no vifible Tribu-
-nal, wherein to cxerdfe this Authority. For the
Catholick Church is nothing elfe but the whole com-
pany or multitude of individual Chriftians, who are
all fingly united to Chrift, and made One Body in
him,'andconfidered as the Catholick Church are not
the One Body of Chrift, nor can be, under any o-
G z ther
43
U !
J r
i i
i!
"Tts
A Difcourfe concerning the NatHre^ZJnity,
ther notion. So that had the Catholick Church anjr
Authority, it could be exercifed only by the whole
multitude of Chriftians, for nothing elfe is the Ca-
tholick Church, and this is as impolfible, as it is for
the whole multitude of Chriftians to meet together
in one place.
But cannot the Catholick Church meet and a6t by
its Reprefentatives , as Kingdoms and Common*
wealths do ?
I anfwer; I have already proved, that all the Bi-
fliops of the Church, much lefs any one Bilhop, can- |
not reprefent the Catholick Churcli; for as Bifhops j
they are not the Church, but the Governours of it
under Chrift; and no man ever yet thought of any [
other Reprefentatives for the Church; and it is evi*
dent de fa^o^ that there arc no other Reprefentatives;
for the whole multitude of Chriftians never did make
choice of any fuch Reprefentatives, and no man can
be reprefented but by his own confent: and if there
could be any fuch Reprefentatives made by the una-
nimousv Vote of all the Chriftians in the World,
( which I think is morally impoffible ) yet then
the higheft and moft foveraign- Authority in the
Church would be derived from the People, which, I
fuppofe, i\\Q Church of Rome will not very well like.
Nay indeed it is abfolutely impoftible, that the Ca-- j
tholick Church fhould be reprefented ; for the Ca- j
tholick Church is the whole multitude of Chriftians,
confidered as the.whole company or multitude; now
a multitude as a multitude can never be reprefented i
by any thing but itfelf,. there can be no formal,. nor
virtual multitude, but the. whole entire number.
Tbt
and Communion of the Catholick^Church.
The Catholick Church fignifies all Chriftians, and
if you leave out any oi^the number, it is not all,
and therefore is not the Catholick Church. Now
if the Catholick Church have any Authority, it
mull have it as it is the Catholick Church, that is,
as it is the whole company of Chriftians; for par-
ticular Chriftians have no fuch Authority, as all
men grant; and therefore that which deftroys the
Catholick Church, muft deftroy its Authority too,
and any thing lefs than all, makes it ceafe to be
Catholick ; and therefore the Catholick Church can-
not be reprefented by a few of the whole number,
becaufe a few are not all, and therefore not the Ca-
tholick Church. It is a different cafe indeed, when
every particular man has an original right and fiiare
in the Power, and the whole power is not formal-
ly feated in the whole Body, for then it may by
common confent be contrafted into one or more
hands, by particular mens giving up their fhare in
the Government, as fome fancy that civil Societies
were firfl: formed ; but where the power is formal-
ly feated in the whole, and not in particular Mem-
bers, as the Authority of the Catholick Church muft
be, if it be the Authority of the Church confidered as
Catholick, there it is evident the Authority muft
continue in the whole, and can by no confent be put
into a few hands; and then it is impofTible that tlie
Catholick Church can have any Reprefentatives, nor
confequently any vifible Tribunal.
And yet that Difpute between the Church of Rome
and fome Proteftant Divines, whicR is^ managed
with fo much, warmth and zeal, about the per pe-
tuali
A Difconrfe cottcerning the 'Nature^ZJ/iityy
tual vifibility of the Church, iflues. in this contro-
verfie about a vifible Tiibunal of the Catholick
Church ; for nothing elfe will do the Proteftant
Caufe any hurt, or the Popifli Caufe any good.
We do fay, and we may lately fay, that there ai-
ways has been, and ever v\ ill be a Vifible Church;
for while there are any men , who vifibly profefs
Chriftianity, there will be a vifible Church: And
what then > what then ? Why then you muft hear
tlie Church ; then you muft fubmit to the Autho-
rity of the Church; then you muft believe as the
Church believes, and receive your Faith from the
Decrees and Definitions of the Church: But pray
whyfo ? Has every vifible Church this Authority?
No; but the Catholick Church has. Suppofe that;
but how lhall I fpeak with the Catholick Church,
which is difperfed over all the World, and is no-
thing elfe but the whole number of Chriflians all
the World over ? Now it feems impoffibie for me
to fpeak with all the Chriftians in the World, and
to know what their Belief is in all matters of con-
troverfie ; and though the Catholick Church is vi-
fible, and part of it is to be feen in England, and
part in Ho/land, and part in France^ &c, yet no
man can fee it all together, nbr fpeak with all the
Chriftians in the World together ; and therefore the'
the Catholick Church be vifible, it cannot deter-
mine any one contrbVerfie, unlefs there be fome
vifible Catholick Tribunal, from which we muft
receive tlie Faith of the whole Church : This the
Papifts afiert, and make the Clmrch tf Rome to be
that vifible Catholick Chtircb) or vifible Tribunal
of
and Communion of the Catholich^Chnrch.
of the Catholick Church, to which all Chriftians
are bound to fubmit. Now befides what I have al-
ready proved, that the Catholick Church neither
has, nor can have any fuch vifible Tribunal, fup'
pofe fuch a thing might be, yet this Difpute about
the vifibility of the Church , is nothing to the pur-
pofe: for though the Church be vifible, it docs not
hence follow , that the Catholick Church has fuch
a vifible Tribunal, to which all Chriftians muft
fubmit; and if the vifibility of the Church does
not prove one Supream Catholick Tribunal, what
do the Pa pills get by the Churches vifibility, or
what do the Protellants lofeby it?
The Church of Rome is a vifible Church, and (o
is the Church of England; and if meer vifibility give
this Authority to a Church, the Church of England
has as good Authority as the Church of Rome, becaufe
it is as vifible a Church.
4. In the next place f obferve, that the eflential
Unity of the Catholick Church is not an external
and vifible Union of an organized Body, becaufe the
Catholick Church it felf is not an organized Body.
There is and can be but one Catholick Church, be-
caufe the whole company of Chrifiians is this Ca-
tjiolick Church; but then the eflential Unity of the
Catholick Church does not con fill in an external
and vifible Union of all Chrifiians, which is the U-
nity of civil Societies, of Kingdoms, and Common-
wealths, and other inferiour Corporations, which
are united under one vifible Government, which
knits and tyes them together, as Nerves and Sinews
do the Members of the natural Body ; but though
therei
A Difcourfe concerning the "Natnre^ Dnity^
there be an external and vifible Union in and be-
tween particular Churches, of which more prefently,
yet rhe Unity of the Catholick Church confifts only
in the Union of all Chriftians to Chrift,which makes
them his one myflical Body.
This is a very material point in oppofition to the
Pretenfions of the Bifhop of RomCy who will needs
be tiie Suprcam and Oecumenical Paftor, and Head
of Unity to the Catholick Church ; and though the
Chriftian World never owned him fo, as has been
abundantly proved by learned men, efpecially by
the Learned Dr. Tfaac Barrow in his Treatife of the
Popes Supremacy, which is a fufficient confutation
of fuch a Claim, yet it will be of great ufe to Ihew
from the Nature of. the Catholick Church, and the
eflential Unity of it, that it cannot be fo; and there
are feveral confiderations, which will make this very
evident.
I. That there is no other Head for the whole Ca-
tholick Church on Earth to be united to, but only
Chrift : for the Catholick Church is the whole
company of Chriftians ; and to whom can the
whole company of Chriftians be united, but only
to Chrift ? For the whole Clergy, as well as Laiety,
are included in the Notion of the Catholick Church,
in the whole company of Chriftians; and therefore
unlefs you can find out a Bifhop who is not of the
number of Chriftians, (and fuch an one would be a
very monftrous Head for the Chriftian Church ) he
cannot be the Head, becaufe he is a Member of the
Catholick Church) and muft himfelf, with the reft
of
and Communion of the Catholich^ Church,
of Chriftians be united to the Head : Which I think
is a demonftration that no Bifhop can be the Head
of the Catholick Church, becaufe it is a contradi-
dion to be the Head and a Member of the fame
Body. A Bifhop is the Paflor and Governour of a
particular Church, and a Member of the Univ^erfai
Church; but to be the Head of the Univerfal Church,
of which he himfelf is a Member, is a contradifti-
on.
X. Nor can the eflential Unity of the Church
confifl in our Union to any other Head but Chrift,
becaufe it is our Union to Chrift alone, which makes
the Church; and that which makes the Church,
muft make it one; for what does not belong to
the eflence of a thing, cannot be the principle of
an eflential Unity. It is the Church of Chrift, be-
caufe it is united to him, and to him only, by Faith
and the Chriftian Sacraments; and therefore it is
the One Church of Chrift, becaufe the whole Church
is united to him, and to him only, as it muft be,
if no other Union can make a Church; and where
there is but one Head of Union, there can be but
One Body. No other Union can make a Church,
and therefore no other Union can be eflential to the
Unity of the Church.
. 3. And therefore though our Saviour had ap-
pointed an Univerfal Paftor, as the Bifhop of Rome
pretends to be, yet he could not have been the
Head of Unity to the Catholick Church; he had
in that cafe been the Supream Governour, whom all
Chriftians had been bound to obey, nay more than
that, Ik had been the Center of Church-Commu-
t H nion
A Difconrfe concerning the Nature, TJnity,
nion to all Chriftians; which is the external and
vifible Unity of the Church, when all Chriftians
live in the fame Communion, like one Houflbold and
Family. But there is a vaft difference between the
eflential Unity of the Church, and the external Ex-
ercife of it in a vifible Communion among Chri-
ftians ; between being one and living in Unity ; U-
nion to Chrift alone makes the Church one, but the
exercife of this Unity in a vifibli? Communion, is a
Duty which refults from our Unity, and muft be
exprefled in fuch ways as Chrift has prefcribed, of
which more anone ; and had Chrift appointed an
Univerfal Paftor, communion with, and fubjeftion
to, this Univerfal Paftor had been neceflary to the
external Unity of Church-communion, but yet had
not been that which makes the Church One, which
is one before and without it; the not diftinguifli-
ing of which, has occafioned great miftakes in this
matter, as will appear in the procefs of this Dif-
courfe.
4. I obferve farther, that there is a wide difference
between being a Siiipream Paftor, and a Vicarious
Head of the Church, a Title which is given to the
Bilhop of Rome, not without great injury to Chrift
our Head. Chrift , had he pleafed, might have
appointed a Supream Paftor for the Government
of his Church; but as he is Head of the Church,
he cannot have a Vicar, or Vicarious Head: for
though a Head ftgnifies a Supream Governour too
in Scripture phrafe, yet Chrift is not meerly a Head
of Government, but of Union; and though a go-
verning Head may have a Vicar or Lieutenant,, yet
and Communion of the Catholifh^ Church.
a Head of Union cannot, no more than a natural
Head can; for the Union between Chrift and his
Church, is as immediate, as between the Head and
the Members, between the Husband and the Wife,
which will admit of no intermediate Vicars.
The Church is called the Body and Spoufe of
Chrift, as I have already obferved, for myftical rea-
fons, becaufe it is formed out of his broken and cru- ,
cified Body, as Eve was out of the Body of Adam;
upon which account we are faid to be Flelh of his
Flefti, and Bone of his Bone; that is, the Church is
redeemed and purchafed by the Bloud of Chrift : and
thus he is the Head of that Body which he himfelf
has bought at the price of his Bloud. We are uni-
ted to Chrift by Faith in him, by being baptized in
his Name, by feeding on the Sacrament of his Body
and Bloud; the effeft of this Union is, that we re-
ceive from him the pardon of our fins, and the in-
lluences of his Grace and Spirit: Thus Chrift is our
Head, and thus none but Chrift can be the Head, not
fo much as the Vicarious Head of the Church, as I
think I need not prove. We are redeemed by no
other but Chrift , and therefore the Church is his
myftical Body only; we are united to no other by
Faith and Sacraments; our Union to no other per-
fon can entitle us to the pardon of fin, and the grace
of the holy Spirit, and therefore Chrift alone is the
Head of Union to his Church ; it is a Church, and
it is one Church, not by its Union to the Supream
Paftor on Earth, if there were fuch an one, but by
its Union to Chrift: for the Unity of the Church
conftft in its Union to its Head, and it is evident
H z that
A Difcour^ concerning the Nature^Vnity,
that the Church can have no other Head but Chrift;
and therefore can have no otlier principle or center of
Unity.
Now from hence it plainly follows, that no Chri*^
ftian can feparate from the Catholick Church (in
this fenfe of it, as it fignifies the whole company
and family of Chriftians, which is the true Notion
of the Catholick Church) while he continues a
Chriftian ; for that is a contradidlion, to be a Chri-
ftian, and not to belong to the whole number of
Chriftians ; that is, to be a Chriftian, and to be no
Chriftian: for if he be a Chriftian, he belongs to the
number of Chriftians, and then he is a Member of
the Catholick Church, and confequently not a Se-
paratift from it; Nothing can feparate us from the
Catholick Church, but what forfeits our Chriftiani-
ty, either a final Apoftacy, or fuch Herefies as are
equivalent to Apoftacy: Which Ihews how vainly
the Chitch of Rome charges us with Schifm and 5c-
paration from the Catholick Church, becaufe we
difown the Authority of the Pope, their pretended
Head of the Church, and rejeft a corrupt Commu-
nion, though we are Chriftians ftill, and we hope
of a much purer Communion than they are. Schifm
and Separation is a breach of the external and vifible
Communion of the Church, not of the eflcntial U-^
' nity of it; the Church is one Church ftill, what-
ever Breaches and Schifms there are in its external
Communion; for the Unity of the Catholick
Church confifts in the Union of the whole to Chrift,
which makes them one Body in him, not in the
external Communion of the feveral parts of it to
each
and Commtinion of the Catholtc\ Church. 5 3
each other. And therefore it is not a Separation from
one another, but only a Separation from Chrift,
which is a Separation from the Catholick Church.
But what the true Notion of Schifm is, I (hail difcourfe
more at large hereafter.
5*. I obferve further, that the Indefeftibility of the
Catholick Church does not depend upoi> the Inde-
feftibility of any organized Churches; for the Catho-
lick Church does not confift of organized Churches,
as organized, but is made up of particular Chriftians;
and therefore while the whole Race of Chriftians does
not fail in the World, the Catholick Church cannot
fail. There is no Promife, that I know of, to any
particular Church, that it lhall not fail, and all or-
ganized Churches are particular. Several of them
have totally failed, others have been very greatly
corrupted both in Faith, and Manners, and Worftiip,
but had thefe Failures and Corruptions been much
greater and more general than ever they have
been yet, while there are a number of good Chri-
ftians preferved in the World , though not united
in one vifible Body , the Catholick Church does
not fail 5 for fince the Catholick Church is not
an organized Church , nor made up of organized
Churches , as fuch, though all the particular or--
ganized Churches in the World were fo corrupt,
as not to deferve the Name of True Churches, if
there be a number of good Chriftians preferved
among them, though unknown, and concealed, as
it was in the time of Elm, the Catholick Church
is fafe, amidft all the corruptions of particular
Churches.
lam.
A Dtfconrfe concztning the 'Nature^Z^mty,
I am abundantly fatisfied, that there always has
been, fince the firft planting, of Chrilbianity in the
World, and I believe always will be to the end of the
World, a true vifible Church, but yet 1 do not think
the Indefedfibility of the Church neceflarily requires
a perpetual Vifibility ; that the Church muft needs
be owned to fail, if there ihould be no vifible orga-
nized Church, with whom we could hold commu-
nion. This indeed would mightily eclipfe , but not
extinguifli the Church; for it is certain the Catho-
lick Church fubfifts in fingle and individual Chri-
flians, who may lie concealed from publick notice,
and therefore it is not fufficient to prove, that the
Church has failed, though there were no vifible So-
ciety of Chriftians, but what were corrupted with
damnable Pradices and Errors.
It is very true, were there no vifible Society of
Chriftians, no Adminiftration of Baptifm, by which
Men are made Members of the Chriftian Church,
and this State ihould continue fo long, till the whole
Race of baptized Chriftians were loft in the World,
there would be too much reafon then to fay, that
the Church had failed too, for I cannot fee, how the
Church can fubfift without a number of baptized
Chriftians; but this never was the ftate of the
Church, and I believe never will be ; for Antichrift
himfelf fits in the Temple of God, wliich fuppofes,
that even in his reign there is a vifible .Society of
Chriftians. Now how corrupt and degenerate foevcr
the External State of the Vifible Church may be,
while there is a Society of baptized Chriftians, though
fo corrupt in their External Policy and Government,
Faith,
and Communion of the Catbolick^ Church.
Faith, and Worfliip, that it may admit of adifputc,.
whether they are a true Chriflian Church or not, yet
tho' the vifible (late of the Church rray be Antichri-
ftian, there may bean itwifible number of Chriftians
among them, who may preferve themfelves from the
Corruptions, Superftitions, Herefies, and Idolatries, of
the vifible Church, and in thefe men th^C^atholick
Church is preferved from a total failure.
Indeed this is the only difference between Prote-
ftant Divines in this Matter: they all agree, that the
Catholick Church lhall not fail, becaufe Chrift has
promifed it fliall not fail, that the gates of Hell (hall
not prevail againff; it; but fome doubt,'' whether there
lhall be always a true vifible organized Church in the
World. They agree, that there lhall be always a
vifible Society of Chrifiians in the World, who lhall
profefs the whole Chrifiian Faith, and adminifier the
true Chrifiian Sacraments, but they differ, whether
fuch a Church may be called a true Chrifiian Church,
if- together with the true Chrifiian Faith and Sacra-
ments, they fet up an Antichrifiian "Hierarchy, and
impdfe an, Antichrifiian Faith and Wordiip. Thofe,
who affirrh,' that luch a Church is a true Chrifiian
Church, do confequently reach, that the true Church
lhall be always vifible, tho' it may he corrupt, even.
to the degree of Antichrifiianifmthofe who affirm,
that fuch a corrupt Church is not a ftue Church, do
alfo confequently affirm,, that the true Church mays
be fometimes invifible, and confift only of fuch pri-
vate Chrifiians, as preferve themfelves from thofe
corruptions, which unchurch the vifible Church : I
may h^ve occafion' to confider this more hereafter,
all
A Difcourfe concerning the Nature) Dnity^
all that I obferve at prefent is, that this does not al-
ter the cafe, as to the indefeftibility of the Church;
for while there is a vifible Society profeffing the
Chriftian Faith, and adtfiiniftring the Chriftian Sa-
craments, the Catholick Church may fubfift in an
invifibleand unorganized number of Chriftians, who
profefs tht^rue Faith without fuch corrupt and An-
tichriftian iVlixtures. Were the Catholick Church
an organical Body, then indeed it muft be always
vifible, and the Church would fail, if ever it be-
came invifible; but if the Catholick Church be an un-
organized Body of Chriftians, who are united only in
Chrift, it is polTible, that it may be unknown and in-
vifible, as great numbers of private Chriftians may
be, and yet the Church not fail.
Now this (hews the weaknefs and fallacy of feveral
Arguments ufed by the Church of Rome. As x. That
the perpetual vifibility of the Roman Church proves
it to be that indefeftible Church, of which our Sa-
viour promifed, that the Gates of Hell Ihould not
prevail againft it. A Promife, which all men grant,
our Saviour made to the Catholick Church, not to
any particular Church, that is, to the whole com-
pany of Chriftians, that there ftiould never want a
fucceftion of true Believers in the World, not to any
particular organized Church, or Body, of Chriftians,
fuch as the Church of Rome is. And therefore the in-
defedibility of the Church cannot prove, that it
fliall be always vifible, and then the uninterrupted
vifibility of any Church cannot prove, that it is inde-
feftible; for if the indefeftible Church maybe fome-
times invifible, then that vifible Church may not
be
and Communion of the CathoUc\ Church,
be always indefeftiblc; when the indefeftible Church
is invifible, to be fure that Church, which at that
time is vifible, is not the indefeftible Church, and
thus I am fure it may be , whether it has been
or not,. but if it may be, the Argument is
naught. .. .
z. And fo is that Argument to prove^he Church
to be infallible, becaufe it is indefeftible. That it
cannot err, becaufe it never fhall fo grievoufly err
as to ceafe to be a Church. The indefeftibilty of
the Church, as you have already heard, does not ne-
ceflarily prove, that there lhall be any one vifibic,
organized Church, which lhall never fail; for the
Church does not fail, while there are any true Chri-
ftians in the World; it may be preferved in a num-
ber of fingle and concealed Chriflians, who are nei-
ther known to one another, nor much lefs to the
World. And therefore if indefeffibility proves infal-
libility, it proves only, that there fhall be fome pri-
vate infallible Chriflians, not that there is any vifible
infallible Church. For it can prove only thofe to be
infallible, who are indefeflible, and therefore fince it
does not neceflarily prove, that any vifible organized
Church fhall be indefeftible, it cannot prove any
fuch Church to be infallible neither. The infallibility
of private Chriflians the Church of Rome will not al-
low, and yet if indefeftibility prove infallibility, this
is all the infallibility which the indefeftibility of the
Church can prove, that there fhall always in the
greatefl degeneracy of the Church be a number of
private infallible Chriflians, who fhall continue in the
true Faith and Worfhip of Chrifl. When our Sa-
I viour
57
A Difcourfe concernitJg the NatttrCy Dnityy
viour fays, that the Gates of Hell ihall not prevail a-
gainft hisChurch,we may cor/ider it either asa Promife,
or a Prophecy,or both,that there always fliail be feme
found and orthodox Believers in the world,who in the
greateft degeneracy of the Church lhall be the Seeds
of a Reformation, and a new vifible refurreftion of
it; now Sfhope Chrift can make good fuch a Pro-
raifc (if weconfider it as a Promife) without bellow-
ing infallibility upon any Chriftians, for men may
be orthodox Chriftians without being infallible; and
if we confider it as a Prophecy, I hope Chrifl can
certainly foretcl things, which have no necellary
caufes, and then he can foretel, that there (hall never
want true Believers, the' it is pofTible, there might
be none ; that all Chriftians (hall not err, tho' they
are all fallible, and therefore may err; and then nei-
ther the Promife nor the Prophecy can prove the in-
fallibility of any Chriftians: and this is all that Prx)-
teftants can mean, when they fay, that the Catho-
lick Church cannot err in Fundamentals, not that
there is any vifible Society of Chriftians, which is in-
fallible in its definitions of fundamental Doftrines,
but that the Catholick Church or the whole number
of Chriftians lhall never err fundamentally, that is,
that there (hall always be fame true and orthodox
Believers in the Church.
3. Nor is it a good Argument to prove any Church
to be a new upftart Church, bccaufe after fome time
of concealment it realTumes its vifibility, and appears
openly in the World. The ftabbing (^eftion, as the
Church of Rome thinks, to the Reform^ Churches is.
Where was your Ghprch before Ijaher^ Tfaofe who
own
.andCommnnion of the CathoUch^Chttrch,
own the Church of Rome with all her Corruptiofls to
be a true Church, have a plain and eafie Anfwer to
this, That the Church was before wliere it
was afterwards; for they did not make a new Ghurcli,
but only reformed that part of the old, which con-
fented to fuch a reformation ; they profefs the fame
Faith ftill, have the fame Sacraments, and the fame
Chriftian Worlhip, but purged from thofe Innova-
tions and Corruptions, which had deformed the vi-
fible Communion of the Roman Church, which can
no more make a new Church, than *a man's walking
off the dirt makes a new Face. And I confefs, I
think, thofe who deny the vifible organized Church
of Rome to be a True Church, do not want a good
Anfwer neither. For during the degeneracy of that
Church, the Church might fubfift in thofe private
Chriftians, who preferved themfelves in a great mea-
fiire from the corruption of that Church, which might
more eafily be done before the Reformation than
fince; for many of their Doflfines and Pra^f ices were
not then fo peremptorily decreed by their Councils,
nor fo ftriftiy impofed upon the confeiences of men,
as the Council of Trent has fince done. And there are
Evidences enough, that there never wanted fome in
all Ages, who have condemned their Innovations, and
that profound Ignorance.wherein that Church brought
up honeft and devout men, was the true reafon, why
there were not more ; now all thefe men may be
reckoned the Seeds of the Reformation,, cut of which
a vifible Church would fpring, as foon as a new light
broke in upon the World. There was no failure of
the Church, tho' it was obfcured and concealed; we
I ^ may
A Difconrfe concermng the Nature^Z^nity^Scc,
may as well fay, that it is a new Sun, which rifes eve-
ry Morning, not that which fet at Night, asmakea
new Church of the vifible Refurreiftion of old and
primitive Chriflianity, the Profeffion of which was
never loft, tho the Profeftbrs of it were not fo vifible.
If the true Church be indefeiftible and never fails, it
can never be new again; and if the indefeftibility of
the Church may be preferved in fome private and
unknown Chriftians, the want of a vifible Society of
fuch pure and orthodox Chriftians cannot prove, that
the Church hasfailcd, and then when the old Chri-
ftian Church appears again with a new glory, it is ri-
diculous to call it new, only becaufe for fome years
it has been concealed.
Thus I have conftdercd the true Notion of the Ca-
tholick Church on Earth, which there isfo much talk
of in our Difputes with the Church of Rome ; and I
hope have made it appear, how little Service this
can do them.
FINIS.
Booh^ Vrintedfcr^andare to be Soldby\M, Rogers.
I p Wilkjns his Fifteen Sehnons. OBavo.
B'
Dr. fVallts of the Neceffity of Regeneration : In Two Sermons
to the Univerfity of Oxford. Quarto.
His Defence of the Royal Society and the Philofophical
Tranfadions ; particularly thofe d" July, 1670. In Anfwer to the Cavils
of Dr. William Holder. Quarto.
The NeceiTity, Dignity and Duty of Gofpel-MinHlers, dilcourled of
before the Univerfity of Cambridge. By Tho. Hodges,'&.D. Quarto.
The Peaceable Chriftian. A Sermon. Quarto. Price, 3 d.
•
A Treatife of Marriage, with a Defence of the 3 2d Afticle of the
Church of England, viz. Bifhofs, Priejis and Deacons are not commanded
hy God's Law, either to Vow the State of Single Life, or to Abftain from
Marriage, t^c. By Tho Hodges, B. D. Otlavs.
Hiftory of the Affairs of Europe in this prefent Age, but more parti-
cularly of the Republick of Venice: By Battifia Nani Cavalier, of
St. Mark. Pol.
Sterry's Freedom of the Will. Folio.
Light in the Way to Paradife, with other Occafionals. By Dudley
the 2d, late Lord North. OSlavo.
Molins of the Mufcles, with Sir Charles Scarborough's Syllabus Mufitf
lorum. OBavo.
A CoUedion of Letters of Gallantry. Twelves.
Leonards Reports, in Four Parts. The Second Edition. Folio.
The Compleat Clark j containing the beft Forms of all forts of Prefi-'
dents, for Conveyances and Alfurances; and other Inftruments now in
Ufe andPradice. Qjiarto.
Sir Sirrum Degges Parlbns Counlellor, with the Law of Tithes and Ti-
tlfing. In Two Books. The Fourth Edition. Ohlavo.
An Anfwer to the Bifhop of Condom (now of Medux) his Expofition of
the Catholick Faith, wherein the Dodrine of the Church of Bpme is
Detcded, and that of the Church of England Exprefled, from the Publick
Ads of both Churches. To wifich are added Refledions on his Pafto-
ral Letter.
. ,1
\
]
lately Fritted fof W. Rogers.
TH E Dodtrines and Pradioesof the Church of truly Repre-
fcnted ; in Antwer to a Book, intituled, A Pajtiil Mi/refrefinted, ant
I{rp-ejaitcd,9ct. ^artO. Tliird Edhioti.
An Aiifwer to a Dilcourfe,intttuIcd, proteftingagainSt Protefiant
Popciy i being a Vindication ot Papijls not Mtjrcprefinted by Protefiam;
And containing a particular Exaininacion of Monfieur de Meaux, late
Bifhop of Condom, his Expofition of the DoArine of the Churdi ofl{ame,
in the Articles of Invocation of Saints, iVorJhip of Images, occafioned by
that Difcourfc. Quatto. Second Edition.
An Anlwer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Differences, between
die Pgprcfenter and the Anjfiverer. Quatto.
A View of die wliole Controverfie, between tlie /^epre/cKferandthe
Anfit'erer ; with an Anfwer to the Rgprcfcnter's la(t Peply ; in which are
laid open foine of the Methods, by which Protcjlants are Mifieprtfinted
bv Papifis. Quarto.
The Dodtrine of the Trinity, and Tranfuhflantiation, compared as to
Scripture, Pgafin, and Tradition; in a new Dialogue between a Prote-
ftant and a Papili, the firft Part: Wherein an Anfwer is given to the late
Proofs of the Antiquity of Tranjithfiantiation, in the Books called, Confen'
fus Veterum, and Ntthes Tefiium, See. Quarto.
The Dodfrine of the Trinity, and Tranfuhftantiation, compared as to
Scripture, peafon, and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Proteflant
and a Papilf, the Second Part: Wherein the Dodtrine of the Trinity is
ihewed to be agreeable, to Scripture and ^afon, and Tratfubfiantiatim
repugnant to botli. Quarto.
An Anfwer to the Eighth Chapter of the l^pre/enter's Sectmd Part, in
thelirft Dialogue, between him and his Lay-Friend.
Of die Authority of Councils, and the Rule of Faith. By a Perfon of
Quality : With an Anfwer to the Eight Th^es, laid down for the Ttyal
oi the Englijh Bpferrngtim j in a Book that came lately from Oxford.
Sermons and Difcourfes, fbme of which never before Printed: The
Third Volume. By the Reverend Dr. of I'.
A Manual for a Chrifiian Souldier, Written by Erajmtts, and Tranf-
fated into Enghjh. Twelves.
A new and eafie Method to learn to by Book,.wherel^ one (who
hathagood V(»ce4Qd£sir,) ixuy widxrat otKr hd^, Jkam toA't^tnie
by
Books lately Trinte^for W. Rogers.
by Notes. Defign'd chiefly for, and applied to, the promoting of Pfal-
modj i and furnilhed with Variety of PfalmrTutKs in Parts, with Dire-
dflons for that kind of Singing.
A Book of Cyphers, or Letters Rcverft: being a Work very plcafant
and iifcfiil, as well for Gentlemen as all forts of Artiflcers, Engravers,
Painters, Carvers, Chacers, Embroiderers, Where you may find a
Cypher for any Name whatfoever, curioufly compoled ^er the neweft
Moide. By Jeremiah Marlote. Price Bound 5 s,
A Perfwafive to frequent Communion in the Sacrament of the Lord's
Suffer. By Dr. TilJotfon, Dean of Canterbury. In Ocflavo. Pricp 3 d.
A Dilcourle againft Tranfuhflantiatmi. In Oilavo. Price 3 d.
The State of the Church of T^gme when the Reformation began, as it
appears by the Advices given to Paul III. and Julius III. by Creatures
of theii" Own. With a Preface leading to the nuittcr of the Book. 40.
A Letter to a Friend, Reflecfling on Ibme Paflages in a Letter to the
D. of P. in Anfwer to the Arguing Part of his firft Letter to AE. G.
The HejleBers Defence of his Letter to a Friend, againft the Furious
Aflaults (rf Mr. IS. in his fecond Catholic Letter. In four Dialogues. 4®.
A Dilcourfe concerning the Nature of Idolatry : in hich the Biihop,
of Oxfords true and only Notion of Idolatry is Confidered and Confli--
ted. 4°.
The Protejlant Ilgfolvd: or, a Difcourfe, fhelting the ZJnreafonableneJl of
hfs Turning Roman Catholick/or Salvation. Second Edition. 4°,
A Sermon Preached at the Fimeral of the Reverend Beni. Calamy, D.D.
and late Minifter oi St. Lawrencefjury, Lend. 7th, 168L
A Vindication of fome Proteftant Principles, of Church-Unity and
Catholick-Conamunion, from the Charge of Agreement with the Church
ofRwwe. In Anfwer to a late Pamphlet, Intituled, An Agreement be-
ttveen the Church of England and theChurch ofKome,evincedfrom theCon-
sertationof fome of her Sons tvith their Brethren the Dijfenters. 2d Edition.
A Prefervative againft Pofery; being fome Plain Direcftions to Un-
learned Pretejlants, how to Difpute wi^ Pfmijh Priefts., The Firft Part.
The Fourth Edition.
The Second Part of the Prefervative againft Popery : (hewing how
contrary Popery is to the True Ends of the Chriftian Religion. Fitted
for the Inftrucftion of Unlearned Proteftants. Tlie Second Edition.
Thele Four laft by William Sherkak^ D. D. Mafter of the Temple,
• --^TCA-'.>y;>2:^-^''%'H»Z'''' ''-■>r" ■ v7'-> «»555---»9s^'^
—^ .f'• ■•?• - ■f^^ 1-4 i'.*'••■•'■'' r t - : "*'. ♦••*•'■«•♦.• «-*■■»—- - . ■ , ' '•
SSIF^HRF
s.v , 5.
Kiiv^.;;:'. 1
"'iftv-l.t/ 1 - .. ■ .
'TSI --•■= v.-^ivLnv'!'. \; \,_i-j-\7 i; : ^>r-^ " . •;
. . .-j-.tVs .76 7" Ln.^-'*
-Tl-.J'. I -Tt'
. , . )■ a
-fi t; 7 J
- ■•i
S- K.,-.: ,■.;/;( 7i.{ '.■
. ;•?' i / fc' J., y^i. , "■ w •
'fVi, -«-v.-*i.'
?^7v7{.rj vf'.J i"5 «-•»? 'V-'7. ' .Si
' • > ^ f '"'••' «4 »• .*. - t. V i T _•-, f •*... I..,'jr, » * • »
«, ■ V • ' * • •'*•««-.. * .»**** » • -. ♦ 4.41. f y\i • ' ' 7 'iiJ *Vf' •• •
.«. - T ' ' •
t- i-ii ■ ■•
-■: .n :; J
i .,:■ V .. .-7; 7j ;rs;.''i .;
^ - 7t
5-^
!?i .l.\- ^.".J-^"''^VVyCi't'jl,,K-' tC". .". ->• , '^1 '~
^7:?i?.wO'/d .•7iV*','V{; o,,.':. .71 ".a;/! orn:..?;-? r j-'.' '^ s:'; :,';^ t;?..-!'^,.
'■■f
7^,-.'I ..ft*
: r t-'i":-T :. -7 ,r;Ql ,'^" ,hn:77 ' * '
I' -.'^ ,..;7.ffi -•-> Viu.x ^*1 7-^7 ,-p#> Oi ..^ j- ^
£pji;l vo'3;?.^77 -77.7*V;i. cd-
.?•■ r.'^jCt .■*-.- '.;.'.j..;,l ..■^v;."rJ[vacr;i7J ix'';c:>';i3!iIni .?.i : .i
-dl dVKtf nt crh .■ :::> J* '
.-l" •y7 i;-r. i 7 {ktu hr;;^ s.;r:'t7. •. ) 7j
'swi J -y.\"\r\y
,0 ^",7 -!'7;.'!; .'■.■.v#h.'7::jY-;/I'-s'w"!5Ijn2£^7 sda r'j 7e.* ;yrmy2 A
. ■ V .y£yt ..cVUVt-y."7-: t67'rr^ ! i.f'.I j>. >.
- ,7- yyJJ it;yiD :ysyyz^/I inz'\^zy ':":'■ ^ A f ,
(L. ... ;'.i ydj'ii3312^ 3d: »nc;if:i7,s3|!
4'-J "t.'Mr J 7'i;.r-,5C A
n..;, ... i -^..i .:.-Ji-iy '-•v.'-" 7'. : -'-wJU i>! V.'>^ '"■■ ■V^JV ST I,
•-2 ' : V.5C--7 ftn--.gr. • ariiJivadla'
h-JZi.'i ;fy :''- doebnl:
ip^if ■"^^a•!R'7flTJ^ 'io-
; .idhl'ifi.iiT.'T jfii I
rh lo T.tAl
'^i
-CiO^
'!ji;;no3
■.%
k' .
. i'
i
y i J i L 1 i 3 1'.
nr \
\ .\. . ..
" ? <■ T' "
• i. 1 1 i J 4 V.'
i"
'. V. -i ^ 1 •• « -*■ *4
K
\ :,-'ll .
^ . ■" J
■s ' .JiSS
y-;
.-t'
o '
\ .
Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus,
A Vindication of both Tdarts of the Tdrefr-^
vative againU Toperj, &c,
GhH. Needham^ r. r.
Jfdy 4. 1688, inChriRo P. ac D.D.
Wilhelmo Archiepifc.
Cant^ Sacr. Domcft.
VI o ■ fe>
VINDICATION
O F
Both PARTS
OF THE
Prefervative
AGAINST
POPERY:
A N s'w E R
T O T H E
CAVILS
O F
L 'EJfIS SAEKAN, Jefuit.
By WILLIAM SH EKLOC K,T>.L>.
Mafter of the Temple.
LONDON:
Printed for William Rogers at the Sun, over againft
St. Dunjlans Church in Fleetjireet. 1688.
A /"A T.r ' :J
/.i vJ ,1 • i v-':i
-►iO
r%.
C
r S A <!
aiiT iQ
1
A. , V '.j , Jj Jc?. ^ '.i ^■? J. " •
i :
F
c "11 A OA
• T'lf.
O Jl-. .J' •/ . ^
t;
^ C?
A
V. ]
H fl W r; Yi f
J
il
1-^
3 H T O T - V ^ ! j.
J'■ !■■ V Oil
.■ ■ - .. • - - ■? O f!
I
i'
fvtl
m;
1/
fin
J .a /a ,"A 0 0 J A a H xl k i j'a i ' u -y
.■A<^vt\^T t)fh "^o itsiiftM
1 I s
■^ • ■ ...voavkoa . /_ J
finicsc tw.'^CUiol loin.tq;
I 8 at a»A»A\ ni ii»iO(P».«.'!ttA -■ .
I
h
h
tk
fR
IkI
ki
pi
TO THE
READER.
IMuH confefs, F. Lewis Sabran of the Society of Jefus,
as he writes himfelf, has all the good Qualities he-
longing to his Order, excepting that Learning, which
feme of his Order have formerly had, hut he is excufalle
for that, hecaufe of late, that has been the leaH of their
care ; hut what they want in Learning, they make up in
Confidence and Noije, which is a nearer conformity to the
temper andJpirit of thpir firH Founder
When I firH faw his Sheet which he wrote again H the
FirH Part of Prefervative, I read it over, and laid
it afide, as I thought it deferved; for Jeafily perceived,
that he could not, or would not underjland the plaineH
fenfe, and I fajo nothing he had ohjelied, which could im-
poje upon the moH unlearned Protejlant; and I had no
a " J • ' --■'a'- ''
fit to call him .to an afcomt, and Ihelie%e all imparfitpl
filen thought the Footman had the better of him> andy^t
the Jefuite had an honourable occafi.on to retreat, had his
Wit ferved him to take it; for no Man would have ex-
pelted that a Jefuite fhould have encountered a Footman;
but here his Courage out-ran his Wit, as it often happens
yo Knights Errant in their bold Adventures.
1 do intend as little as poffibly I can to concern my felf
in the Difpute between the Jefuite and the Footman; the
B
Footman
To the READER.
Footman is ahle to Defendhimfelf, and I den quake for
the Jefuite for fear he fiiould; but having a little lei-
fure at prefent^ I will fpare fome few hours to Vindicate
Prefervative/row this Jefuite'j for it willap-
pear^ that they are no better. As for thofe many good
words he has beflowed on me^ I take them for Complements
on courfe, and to be plain with him, they are all loH up-
on me, for when I have Reafon and Truth on my fide, I
am perfe^ly infenfible of all the Spor tings of Wit and Sa-
tyr, for there are no JeJls bite, but thofe that are true.
I do not intend to purfue this Jefuite in all his rambling
Excurftons^ but fhall keep clofe to my bufinefs., to Vtndi-
cate The Prefervative, and that in as few words as lean ;
and this will come into a very narrow compafs ; for he has
as little to fay, as ever man had, if you keep him out of
his Common-place Difputes; but if you fujfer him to draw
you into thofe beaten Roads, there is no end of him for be
has the Confidence of a Jefuite to repeat all the old baffled
Arguments without blufhing.
I confefs, I'am a little afhamed to meddle with fo tri-
fling an Adverfary, and know not how I fhall Anfwer it to
the Ingenious Gentlemen of the Temple, to whom he fo
often Appeals againli the Majler, for fpending my time fo
ill, unlefs his Charaller Jefuite will plead myexcufe,
which has been a formidable Name in former Ages: and
if this will do, I have a very honourable and a very eafie
Task of it, an Adverfary to encounter with the glorious
Charaller of a Jefuite, but without the Senfe of a Foot;
man.
X
VINDICATION
OF THE
FIRST TART
O F T H E
Prefervative.
$
TH E Charge againft me is very formidable, Anfwer co
• that I advance fuch Principles in the Prefer-
vative, as make void the ufe of Reafon, Faith^
Fathers, Councils^ Scripture, and Moral Honefly, if he
had faid lefs, he might fooner have been believed, or
might have proved it better, when fuch wild and ex-
travagant Accu fations confute themfelves ; but Jefuits
commonly fpoil all by over-doing. Let us examine
particulars.
Se-ct. I.
The Principles which are pretended to overthrow all ri^t
Vfe of Common Senfe Vindicated.
TH E firft inftance of this nature is, that I Charge ibid.
Catholicks with this great Crime, that they will not
allow the reading Heretical Booksy and prove my Chargey
B X be-
A Vindication of the FirH Part of
hcaufe God not only allows, hut requires it. The Para-
graph lie refers to is in />. 3. of the Prefervative, in
thefe words:
Men of weak judgments, and who are not skilled in the
Laws of Deputation, may eafly he impofed on by cunning
Sophifters, and fuch as lie in wait to deceive : the Church
of Rome is very fenfble of this, and therefore will not
fuffer her People to difpute their Religion, or to read He-
retical Books, nay not fo much as to look into the Bible it
/elf: but though we allow all this to our People, as that
which God not only allows but requires, &c. from hence
he charges me with faying, that God not only allows but
requires People to read Heretical Books, But the honeft
Footman plainly told him, what the meaning of Here-
tical Books Was, that I fpoke the Language of their
Church, which calls all Books Heretical which are not
of the Roman Ramp : and this is all that I meant by it,
as every honed Reader would fee. Does not he ufe the
very fame way of fpeaking himfelf in the fame Para-
graph, when he retorts this Grime upon us, that we
Anfwer p. 4. ufe all endeavours to hinder our Flocks from hearing Ca-
tholick Sermons, and reading Catholick Books, for are a-
ny Chriftians fo abfurd as to forbid People to hear Ga-
tholick Sermons, and to read Gatholick Books ? No
fure, not what they think Catholick : and why may
not T ufe Heretical, as well as he ufe Catholick in the
fenfe of the Church of Rome « by Heretical meaning
fuch Books as the Church of Rome calls Heretical, as by
Catholick he means fuch Books as the Ghurch of Rome
calls Catholick ; for they are both equally Heretical and
Catholick.
But he complains in the Prefervative Confidered,
p. 4. That he had asked three very material Queftions,
and the Footman had not vouchfafed an Anfwer to
them,
the Prefer'z/ati'veogiinH POPEKT.
them, and I believe the Footman was in the right, for
they deferved none. But let us hear them, This (fays
hty feemed tome extravagant, not to fay impious, and to
all thofe who have inherited from St. Paul that Faith to
which he exacts fo firm andunwaveringan adherency, that
if an Angel from Heaven fhould teach us any thing in op-
pofition to it, we ought not to mind him, or return him any
other Anfwer than Anathema. How can, faid I, this
pofitive certainty fland with an obligation of reading He-
retical Books which oppofe that Faith, to frame hy them^
and fettle a judgment. Biit now, if thefe Heretical Books
do not oppole that Faith, which was Preached by St,
Paul, I hdpe, there was no need of anfwerin^ this
Queftion ; and if the Catholick Books do, I would de-
fire him to Anfwer the Queftion; and if there be a Di-
fpute depending, which of them contradids St. PWs
Doftrine, I would defire him to tell me. How we
lhall know, which of thetn does it, without examining
them ? When we know thefe Books, which contradid
St Paul's Dodrine, we will rejed them with an Ana-
the-ma, and for that reafon we rejed the Council of
Trent, whofe Authority we think to be inferior to an
Angels, and that (hews, that we do not think rejed-
ing and yet reading fuch Books to make void common
Senfe ; for though we rejed the Council of Trent, yet
we read it, as they find to their coft.
His next Queftion ( or elfe I cannot make three of
them ) is. By what Text doth God deliver this Injunilion t
viz, of reading Heretical Books; which in his Senfe of
Heretical Books is a very fenfelefs Queftion ; for no
man pretends, that God commands us to read Books,
which we know to be Heretical; though a man who is
inquiring after Truth, muft read fuch Books, as the
feveral divided Seds of Chriftians may call Heretical.
But
4 A Vindication of the FhH Part of
But his killing Queftion is to come. I asked fur.
ther, How Jianding to the firfl Principles of Common Senfe,
a Church which declares all men hound to judge for them,
felves, could countenance Laws which exaH of 'Diffenters,
that they fland not to that their Judgment, hut comply
againjl it, and that cenlirain their liberty of judging hy
the dread of^ Excommunications, Sequefirations, ImprU
fmmenls^fstyi. whkh is to make it Death not to all againjl
afiriH P^uty qf Confcience, acknowledged hy the Perfecu-
tors tb he juch. ^
But what is this to reading Heretical Books ? Is
there any Law in the Church of England, thus to pu-
nifti men for reading Heretical Books ? There is we
know in the Church of Rome, where befides other He-
retical Books, to have and to read the Bible in the vul-
gar Tongue without Licenle, which is rarely granted,
and ought not to be at all, brings a man in danger of
the Inquifition, which one word fignifies more than
any man can tell, but he who has felt it, witnefs the
late account of the Inquifition of Coa,
Well, but to allow a liberty of Judging, and not to
fuffer men to Band to their Judgment, is contrary to
Common Senfe: It is fo, but who gives a liberty of
Judging, and forbids men to Band to their own Judg-
ment ? I am fure, the Church of England accounts any
man a Knave, who contradifts his own Judgment and
Confcience. There is no Inquifition for mens private
Opinions, no ranfacking Confciences in the Church of
England, as we know, where there is.
Yes! We conflrain this liberty of Judging hy the dread
of Excommunications, Sequefirations, Imprifonments, Ex-
clufion from the chiefejl Properties of free horn Suhjells,
even hy Hanging and Quprtering; which is to make it
Death not to all againjl a flrifl Duty of Confcience, ac-
the Trefervative againH P 0 P E KT.
knowledged hy the Perfecutors to he fuch. It is a blefl^d
time for thefe Jefuits, who like that no body fliould
be able to Perlecute but themfelves, to rail at Perfecu-
tion ; but let that pafs. It feems then it is contrary
to Common Senfe to allow a liberty of Judging, and to
deny a liberty of Praftice; for God, fuppole, to al-
low men to choofe their Religion, and to Damn them,
if they choofe wrong. That is to fay, a Natural liber-
ty of Judgment, and by the fame reafon, the Natural ii-
berty of Will, is inconfiftent with all Government in
Church and State: If this were fo, it would indeed
make Perfecution ( as he calls it) in a free-judging
Church very abfurd, but it is very rcconcileable to
Common Senfe, for a Church which denies this liber-
ty of Judging, to Perfecute too; and this juftifies the
I^rfecutions of the Church of Rome: Let Proteftants
here fee, if fuch Jefuits could rule the Roaft, v,'hat it
will coft them to part with their liberty of Judging;
they loofe their Argument againft Perfecution : for ah
Infallible Church which will not fufler men to Judge,
may with good Reafon Perfecute them, if they do :
that all men, who like Liberty of Confcience, are con-
cerned to oppofe Popery, which it feems is the only
Religion, that can make it reafonable to Perfecute,
nay, which makes it unreafonable not to Perfecute,
for it is as much againft Common Senfe for a Church,.
which denies a liberty of Judging to allow a liberty of
Confcience, as for a Church to deny Liberty of Con-
fcience, which allows a liberty of Judging. Thus far
the Ptefervative is fafe, and let his following Harangue
againft the liberty of Judging ftiift for it fclf, that is
not my bufinefs at prefent.
His next Quarrel is, that (Prefer, p. 4, y.) I ad-
vife Protcftants not to difpute with Papifts, till they ^
dif-
6 ^ Vindication of the FirU Part of
Anfrvi*, p. 4 InfallihiUty, I own the charge, and repeat it
again, that it is a ridiculous thing to difpute with Pa-
pifts, till they renounce Infallibility, as that is oppofed
to a liberty of Judging; for fothe whole Sentence runs;
Here then let our Froteflant fix his Foot, and not ftir an
inch, till they difown Infa/lihility, and confefi, that every
wan miijl Judge for himfelf in Matters of Religion, ac-
cording to the Proofs, that are offered to him. This the
Jefuit either defignedly concealed, or did not under-
(land, though it is the whole defign of that Difcourfe:
For the plain (late of the Cafe is this. The Church of
Rome pretends to be Infallible, and upon this pretence
ihe requires us to fubmit to her Authority, and to re-
ceive all the Do£l:rines Ihe teaches upon her bare Word,
without Examination; for we muft not Judge for our
felves, but learn from an Infallible Church: Now I
fay, it is a ridiculous thing for fuch men to pretend to
Difpute with us about Religion, when they will not
allow that we can judge what is true or falfe, for it is
to no purpofe to Difpute, unlefs we can Judge; and
therefore a Proteftant before he Difputes with them,
ought to exad this Confeflion from thern, that every
^ man muft Judge for himfeif, and ought not to be over-
ruled by the pretended Infallible Authority of the
Church againft his own Senfe and Realbn, and this is
to make them difown Infallibility, as far as that.isMat-
ter ofControverfie-between usand the Church of Rome,
to.difown Infallibility as chat is oppofed to a liberty of
Judging. If it be abfurd to Difpute with a man, who
denies :me a liberty of Judging* then J muft make
:him allow me this iliberty before I Difpute,. mdithen
he muft difown the over ruling Authority i of atrJnlal-
lihle (Judge, w.bi<^ is a contradi^ion^to fuch a Liber-
ty,:-.: ■
^ Rw
the Trefewative agaiuH P OPEKT.
By this time, I fuppofe, he fees to what little pur-
yiofe his Obje&ions are ; that to require fuch a difown-
ing of Infallibility, is tofay, 'Tis mpofihle to convince a
man that in Reafon, he ought to fuhmit his Judgment to
any other, though InfalliUe: No Sir! but 'tis to fa3^
that I cannot make ufe of my Reafon in any thing, till
I am delivered from theUfurping Authority of fuch an
Infallible Judge, who will not fuffer me to ufe my Rea-
fen, or to Judge for my felf : It does not make void the
ufe of Common Senfe and Reafon, when it Jhould lead us
to fuhmit to any juft Authority; bur to fubmit to fuch
an unjuft Authority, makes void the ufe of Common
Senfe and Reafon, becaufe he will not allow us to ufe
our Reafon. The Jews had no Reafon, as he pretends
to rejedb St. Difputation, till he had renounced
Infallibility, becaufe he never urged his own Infalhbi-
lity, as the fole Reafon of their Faith, and to debar
them from a liberty of Judging, as the Church of Rome
does 5 if he had, it had been as vain a thing for the
Jews to have Difputed with St. Paul, as it is for Pro-
teftants to Difpute with Papifts.
His next Exception is againft thofe Words, (Fref.p.6.)
What difference is there hetwxit mens ufing their private
Judgments to turn Papifts, or to turn Proteflants .<? To
this he anfwers. The fame as hetwixt two fick men, the
one whereof choofes to put himfelf in an able Dolors hands,
whom he knows to have an infallible Remedy, (which
none but Mountebanks ever had yet) whilH the other
choofes his own Simples, and makes his own Medicines.
The cafe is this ; I was giving a reafon, why Papids,
who have any modelly Ihould not difpute with Prcte-
Rants, becaufe it is an appeal to every mans private
judgment : if ever they make Converts, they muft be be-
holden to every man sprivate judgment for it, for I think
C men
J^J
il
8 A Vindication of the Fir^i Fart of
wen cannot change their opinions, without exercifng a
private judgment about it ; and I fuppofe when they
difpute with men to make them Papifls, they intend to
convert them by their own private judgments : now
what difference is there between mens ufing their private
judgments to turn Papijls or to turn Proteflants .<? one
indeed may he falfe, and the other true, hut private
judgmtent is private judgment fiill; and if it he fo great
a fault for men to ufe their private judgments, it is as
great a fault in a PapiPl, as it is in a Protejlant. So
that all that I fafd is, that there is no difference with
refpeft to mens ufing their private judgment, whe-
ther they ufe their private judgment to turn Papifls,
or to turn Proteflants, for both is but private judg-
menr; and to confute this, he tells us, that there is a
great difference between turning Papifl, and turning
Protellant, which T granted there was; but is nothing
to the prefent Argument. I fay, there is no difference
as to the principle or caufe of their change, when the
change of both is owing to private judgment, and he
learnedly proves, that the change itfelf is different, as
widely different, as Papifl a»d Proteflant differ. But
though the Footman had plainly told him this, the Je-
fuitehad not wit to underfland it, and therefore (Pre-
fervative Confid. p. 11.) adds, is there no difference then
betwixt one, who follows his fancy in chuffng his way, and
him ivho chufes a good guide,and follows him, hecaufe they
both chuff P do both equally rely on their fancy .<? I grant,
there is a difference between thefe two, as there is be-
tween a Proteflant and a Papifl; but when the difpute
is, whether they fliall follow their own reafon and
judgment, or give up themfelves to follow a Guide
witii a blind and impiicLte faith, and every man mufl
determine this by his own private judgment, which is
the Prefer'vati've againPl POPERY. y
the cafe I propofed, which way fo ever they determine
this queftion, whether to follow their own reafon, or
to follow a Guide, in this point, they both equally rely
on their own private reafon, and judgment, or as he
calls it, fancy.
In the next place he fays, 1 take the Catholkks part,H'»tr,9-
and thd faintly, yet fpeak vcell in fo clear a cauje. The
intention of thofe Dijputes is only to lead you to the in'
fallihk church, and fet you upon a Rock, and then it is
very natural to renounce your own judgment, when you
have an infallihle Guide. This I do alledge as the moft
plaufible pretence to Juflifie Papifls in difputing with
Proteflants, that the end of it is to lead us to an in- '
fallible Church. That our awn judgment muft bring Preprv. p. 5.
tu to the infallible Guide, but ivhen we have found him,
ive have no farther ufe for our own judgment.
I offered two Anfwers to this, neither of which he
durft meddle with, but nibbles ataPallage in each.
The I. he thus reprefents, they cannot with any fenfe
difpute with lu about the particular Articles of Faith,
becaufe the fenfe given of Scripture and Fathers takes its
Authority from the Church underjlanding it fo.
But my x'lnfwer was this; That if Difputes be only
to lead us to the infallible Church, then it puts an end
to all the particular Difputes of Religion between us and
the Church of R.ome: iVe may difpute on about an infaU
able Judge, hut they cannot with any fenfe difpute with
us about the particular Articles of Faith, fuch as Tran-
fubjlantiation, the Sacrifice of the Maf, &c. for thefe
are to be learnt only from the Churchy and cannot be pro-
ved by Scripture or Fathers without the Authority of the
Church. Which is a demonftration if Faith mufl be
refolved into the infallible Authority of the Churcii,
for then no Arguments are a fufficient foutidation for
C a Faith
lO A Vindication of the FirU Part of
Fauh without the Authority of the Church, or if they
be, there is no necedity of refolving our Faith into
Church Authority, becaufe we have a good foundation
for Faith without it.
Anfrvtr lo He anfwcrs, This is falfe. The fenfe (of Scripture)
Fuf. p. 4. axlhority from God. who fpoke that Word, though
we are certain, that we have the true fenfe of that Word,
hecaufe we receive it from the Church, which is protected
and guided in delivering us hoth the letter and fenfe, hy
the infa/lille Spirit of God, that is to abide with her for
ever, accordingtoChriJTspromife, John 14. 16.
This is a choice Paragraph. The Queftion between
us is, Whether they can by Scripture convince a man,
who does not yet believe the infallible Authority of
the Church, as we Proteilants do not, that their Do-
ftrines of Tranfubftantiation, the Sacrifice oftheMafs,
the Worfliip of Images, ^c. aretrueGofpel-Doftrines:
This I fay they cannot, if they be true to their own
Doftrine, that we cannot be certain, what the true
fenfe of Scripture is , without the infallible Autho*
rity of the Church of Rome. For a man cannot
be convinced by Scripture, till he be fure, what the
true fenfe of Scripture is, and if we cannot be fure
of this without relying on the Authority of the Church
in expounding Scripture, then a Proteffant, whodif-
owns fuch an Authority, can never be fure, what the
true fenfe of Scripture is, and therefore cannot be con-
vinced by Scripture-Proofs, which fhews how abfurd it
b for a Papift, who profefles to believe all this, to at-
tempt to perfwade a Proteftant who rejects the Au-
thority of their Church, of the truth of Popifli Do-
itrines from Scripture: either he thinks thefeDoftrines
fo plainly contained in Scripture, that a man, who re-
jeds the Authority of the Church, may be forced to
ackoow-
the Prefer'vati've againU P 0 P E KT, 11
acknowledge, that they are in Scripture, and then he
muft rejeft the neceflity of Church-Authority for the
underftanding of Scripture, which is to yield up a
very concerning point to Proteftanrs; or elfe he muft
confefs, that he does very fooiiflily or knavilliiy in ur-
ging Scripture-Proofs to a man, who rejefts the Au-
thority ot their Church, without which he knoWs
there are no Scripture-Proofs of any Authority.
But this, which was the true ftate of the Controver-
fie, the Jefuite takes no notice of ; all that he fays is
this: That the fenfe of Scripture takes its Authority
from God, that is, is ultimately refolved into God's
Authority, who intended fuch a fenfe in it, but as to
Catholicks, (for fuch he muft mean) their certainty
of the fenfe of Scripture is refolved immediately into
the Authority of the Church, which is guided in ex-
pounding Scripture by an infallible Spirit: Now is not
this the very fame, that I faid, that all Scripture-Proofs
muft be refolved into the Authority of the Church,
and are not good without it, as it is impoffible they
fliouid be, if we cannot certainly know, what the true
fenfe of Scripture is , but from the Expofition of
the Church. And yet if the Church of Rome be no-
more infallible in delivering the fenfe of Scripture, than*
in delivering the letter of it, there is no great encou-
ragement to rely on her infallibility : as is evident'
from the many Corruptions of their Vulgar Latine,
which one Pope correfted after another, and yet it is
not corredfed ft ill; that it was a little over-fight in this
Jefuite, (though poflibly he knew nothing of the mat-
ter) to make the Church equally infellible in deli-
vering the letter and the fenfe of Scripture.
But to do him right, he feems to offer at fomething
of fenfe in his difpute between John and WiliiamiVohieh'
h
12 A Vindication of the Fir§i Part of
is ike right way to a place. For, fa) s he, is John dif-
ailed frcm cchviticing William of his mijlake by reafons,
lecauje he hath with him a Guide who certainly knows
the way, and that he himjelf would certainly paf by tho/e
rea/ons, if his Guide ajjured him., that he applied them ill
and wrongly to that way. This has forretbing of ar-
gument in ir, and therefore fliall be confidered, and I
am glad to meet with any thing, that deferves to be
confidered.
The fum of his Argument (which I fliail reprefent
fairly for him, becaule he has not (hewn it to the belt
advantage) is this. That Roman-Catholicks have two
ways of finding out the fenfe of Scripture, either by
the ufe of Reafon, or by the Expofitions of an infallible
Guide; but that Reafon muft be fubordinate to the
Guide, and if Reafon diifates one fenfe of Scripture, and
the Church reaches another, Reafbn muftfubmit, and
a trueCatholick mufl embrace the fenfe of the Church,
though it be againft his Reafon ; but yet if ^Reafon,
and his Guide be both of a fide, and he can prove by
Reafon, that to be the true fenfe of Scripture, which
the Church gives of it, he may then wave the Autho-
rity of the Church, when he difputes with thofe, who
rejed fucli Authority, and argue from the reafons of
things, and the natural interpretation of Scripture it
felf. As John may convlncelVi/Jiam, who rejects the
infallibdity of, John's Gutde, which is the true way by
plain reafon, while his reafon, is not contradided by his
Guide: and if our Jefuite can make more of tbisAr-
gument himfelf, let him. I am fure he has fpoiled it
by repeating it in his Preferv. Confider. p. ii. John
is not difabled of convincing \yilliam of his miftake, be-
caufe he receives the reafons he ufes from an infallible
Quide. Wliarc he has fef M upon aitother bottom, and
a very
the Ffefer'vati've againU P 0 P E KT.
a very filly one for his purpofe : for if the force of his
Reafons be refolved into the Aurhoritv of an infallible
Guide, it is all lofl; to him, who difowns tlie infallibili-
ty of the Guide: or if he means, that is taught
fuch Reafons by an infallible Guide, as are able by
their own evidence to convince William without any
regard to the infallibility of the Guide, we defire no
more than to fee fuch Reafons, and to be left to judge
for our felves; but this ends in a Proteftant Refolution
of Faith, for every man to Judge for himfelf according
to the evidence of Reafon, which in it felf is neither
more nor lefs evident, for being propofed or learnt
from a fallible or infallible Guide. And yet by what
follows, he can mean no more, but that the Authority
of an infallible Judge muft over-rule every Man's pri-
vate Reafon ; for he appeals to the learned Gentlemen of
the Temple, hoping they will joyn with him maintaining
againft their Majter^ that all the Judges of the Land
may very reafonahly convince hy Law an impertinent
Party, though he fhould oppofe, that they may not do it^
lecaufe their interpretation of the Law is to deliver the
true fenfe of it. Which is glorious Nonfence, that all
the Judges of the Land can convince a man, who is
not convinced, but declares Rill, that they have not
given the true fenfe'of the Law. In all Civil Caufes
there muft be a final judgment, and every private
man rnuft fubmit to the decifion of Authority, whe-
ther his own reafon be fatisfied or not ; but it is not
fo in matters of Religion, in which no man at the pe-
ril of his Soul muft be over-ruled by any Authority,
till he be firft convinced. So that the Jefuite had faid
a good thing by chance, but for want of underltanding
it, had loft it again ; and any man may fee, that I
could as eafily have loft it, as he, had I a mind to it;
but
A Vindication of the FirSi Part of
but I will not part with it without an Anfwer, becaufe
it is the moft plaufible thing, that can be faid, and pot
fibiy other men may underftand it, who can't anfwer
it, though he don't.
His Argument then as firft propofed is this, That
they allow of Reafon in expounding Scripture, fo
long as they do not contradid the Senfe and Expofi-
tion of the Church; and therefore they may difpute
with Hereticks from Scripture , without concern-
ing the Authority of the Church in the difpute. Now
in anfwer to this, there are fome material Queftions to
be asked. As,
I. Whether they can difpute with Proteftants by
Scripture-Arguments without allowing them to judge
of the fenfe of Scripture by their own private Rea-
fon ? and whether this be agreeable to the Doftrine of
the Church of Rome, that every man may judge of the
fenfe of Scripture by his own private Reafon ?
Whether the Scripture be fo plain and perfpicu-
ous, efpecially in the Dodrines in difpute between us
and the Church of Rome, that every honeft impartial
Inquirer may find the true fenfe of them without an in-
fallible Interpreter ? if they be, I think, they never
ought to talk of the obfcurity of Scripture, nor the
neceflity of an infallible Judge more; if they be not,
and if they know, that they are not, then they know
before hand, that the evidence of Scripture alone is not
fufficient to convince a Proteftant, who rejeds an in-
fallible Judge , and then it is a fenflefs thing for
them to attempt the proof of fuch Dodrines by Scri-
pure. Good Catholicks are fatisfied w ith the Authori-
ty of the Church, and Hereticks who rejed fuch an in-
fallible Authority, cannot be confuted and convinced
by meer Scripture.
nptj
ih
the PrefervathveagainU P0 P ERT,
3. I ask again, Whether the evidence of Reafon in ex-
pounding Scripture be a fufficient Foundation for a Di-
vine Faith? if it be, then Proteftants, who difown an In-
fallible Judge, may have a true Divine Faith without the
Infallibility of the Church, and then we may be true Be-
lievers without being i?0wj<7«-Catholicks ; and I fliould be
glad to hear tliat out of the mouth of a Jefuite, for there
is good ufe to be made of fuch a confelfion: if Scripture
as expounded by Reafon without an Infallible Judge is not
a fufficient Foundation for a Divine Faith, then to what
end does their difputing with Proteftants from Scripture
fer ve, if this cannot make them true Believers.
4. I ask once more,Whether the beliefof the Scriptures
themfelves muft not be refolved into the Authority of the
Church ? whether any man can believe the Scriptures to
I be the Word of God without it ? if they cannot (and I
would be glad to hear the Jefuite fay they can) then I am
fure the Scripture is no proof of any thing without the
-Churches Authority, and it is an abfurd thing for thofe
who think fo to difpute from Scripture againft thofe who
deny the Authority of the Church.
From hence I think, it evidently appears, that the Au-
thority of the Scriptures, and the Authority of the Church,
are not two diftindt Arguments in the Church of Rome,
for then I grant, they might ufe either way of proof, and
difpute from Scripture agarnft' thofe, who deny the Au-
thority of the Ghurch; but if the Authority of the Scri-
pture as to us is refolved into the Authority of the Church,
then the Scripture alone is no Argument, but the Autho-
rity of the Church is all. Whercforedo you believe
the Scripture ? Becaufe the Church tells me it is the Word
of God; Wherefore do you believe this to be the fenfe of
Scripture ? Becaufe the Church fo expounds it: Is not
this the true Refohition of the Roman Faith ? Is this Mit
reprefenting too ? But-if it be the truth, does not every
D man
^5
I I
15 A Vindkatim of the FirH Part of
man fee, tliat as to Us the Scripture has no Authority, no
fenfe, but from the Church, and therefore can prove no-
thing feparated from the Authority of the Church.
If they allow of any Proofs from Scripture feparated
from the Authority of the Church, then whether they
will or no, they muft allow of the Protellant Refolution
of Faith is,- tbrefolve my Fiaith-into the Authority
of th&^riptufes, as expounded i vvith the befl reafon and
judgnient I have>-ift the careful, ufe of allfuch means, as
areneceflary for the undetflanding that Holy Book : now
if they will allow this to: be a good Refolution of Faith,
we will allow of all their Scripture-proofs, and give them
leave 'So'^' make 'US Converts to .the Church of Rome, by
'ScVipture, if they can: but if they do allow of this, then
we Proteftants are in a very good way already as to the
Riefolutioh of our Faithj and fo that Controverfte is at an
fend ? a'hd if'they will not allow this, thenithey confefs,
thati Sepipture-proofs of themfelves are not good, for if
they were, We might certainly refolve our Faith as Pro-
teftantsdo, immediately into the Authority of Scripture.
And thus much for 'john and William and the Infallible
Guide; if Johnh2LS any Reafons independent on the Autho-
♦Tity of his Guide," he may then try his skill upon William,
. who rejeffs his Guide, but if all his other Reafons are
refolved into the Authority of his Guide, and are no good
Reafons without it, then he may fpare his Reafons till he
' has made William fubmit to bis.- Guide- And this, is the
cafe between the Scripture and the Church, in the Church
of Rome .%the Scripture wholly depends-both for its Aut.ho-
~ rity and Interpretation on the Authority of the Church,
and therefore can fignifie nothing.and prove nothing, but
what the Church makes it fignifieflnd prove,f The Scri-
• ptures may be fuppofed to be the Word of God, and to
have fome fenfe antecedent to the Churches Authority,
but no roan can know this without jhe Church, and there-
' fore
the Trefeir'vati'Oe ^ 0 P^E R^. i 7
fore as to us botli. the Authority and Interpretation of the
Scripture depends upon the.Authority of tne Church, 'tind
is ho Argument,, to prdve any thing by iffelf/""
But I cannot pafs on without raking ncitite of a pleafant'
Anfwer the Jefukfi givds to a very fubftantiai Argument
of tlie Footway, To prove that at leaft fome Doffrines
of the Church of Rome by their own cdnfeffion, cannot be
proved by Scripture without the Authority of the Church,
he Ihews, that Vetrus de Alliaco, Scotiis, and Toajlal do
confefs, that Tranfubftantlation'i^ nor founded upon any
neceflary Scripture-proofs, but on the Authority of the
Church, for the Scripture might, and that very reafona-
ly too, be expounded to another fenfejiad not the Church
etermined oth'erwife. Now what does the Jefuite fay
to this J I. He prevericates Wkc z Jefuite in repeating
th^ Argument, Words of Scril)ture brought inptoof priftrvttivt
of J/aHfuhJldnfiationrngFt he taken in a different Jenfe from Confidercd,
that ivhich the Cdthqiick Church hath ever received and deli- ^
vexed; and that had not the Church ever taught that fenfe^
one might believe otherwife, for all the letter of Scripture:
For the Authors alledged by the Footman do not lay, as
the Jefuite makes them, that the Carholitk Church hath
lever received and delivered that fente of Tranfubftantiation,
which the Church.df Rome now teaches; but Tonflal ex-
prefly declares the_contrar j^ in the words fhcre cited, Thai
it was free for all men, till the Council of hztei'zn to follow
their own conjeli'ures as concerning fhe manner of the Prefence.
Which fuppofes, tliat this Doftrihe was never determined
by the Church till thd Council cft'Lateran, and therefore
nqt ever,received, and delivered, and Faught by the Cat ho-
Ijck Church) z. In a PiTi^nthefts he adds, how truly (this
i§ laid of the Gathqlick Divined,That they did affirih this)
'if belongs mf'to my prefent 'pufpofe: Vdry jruly laid,' it is -
"riot to his purpofe, but very mucW^gaitilt it: ' but if he
means, 'that he was nbt concerned ■t6 kndW,' whether
D 2. thefe
i8 A Vindication of the FirH Part,of
thefe paflages are truly cited from thefe Authors, it feems
he is not concerned to defend his Argument, for that is
very much concerned in it, it is a plain confefTion he had
nothing to fay, and therefore would not be concerned a-
bout it: and will our Learned Jefuite confefs,that he is fo
ignorant as not to know that this was faid by Petrus de
Alliaco, ScotuSy and Tonjlal .<? or will he fo eafily give up
fuch men as thefe, and let the ingenious Footman run away
with them and his Argument together.
3. He anfwers, let it he fo \ hut what follows here ^
hut the neceffity of an unerring Interpreter ^ What follows J
why it follows, that they cannot prove Tranfubftantiati-
on from Scripture without the Authority of the Churchy
and confequently that it is not Scripture but their Church
they rely on for the proof of their Doftrines, which is the
thing the Footman intended to prove by it,and has done it
effeaually : but how an unerring Interpreter follows from
hence, I cannot fee, unlefs it be to prove that to be in Scri-
pttire, which the moll: fcarching and inquifitive men can-
not find there: and this indeed is the true ufe of an uner-
ring Interpreter in the Church of Rome, to impofe upon
mens Faith to- believe that to be in Scripture, which no
man can fee there ; for what men can fee there, one
would think they might believe to be there, without an
unerring Interpreter, As for what he adds, that the Ar>
ans gave as natural a fenfe of i "john 5". 7, 8. as the Ca-
tholicks did, is to be anfwered at prefent only with abhor-
renceand deteftation. Rut to proceed.
In the next place, to Ihew them, how abfurd it is to di-
fpute even about an infallible Judge, I direft our Prote-
Pnfcniative, llant to ask them,iFhether the belief of an Infallible fudge
Part I. f. II. Pc refolved into every mans private judgment d Whe-
ther it he not necejfary to believe this with a Divine Faith }
And whether there can he any Divine Faith without an In-
fallible Judge > To this the Jefuite anfwers {Anf. p. 4)
there
the Trefervatwe againU POP EKT.
There can he no Divine Faith without a Divine Revelation,
nor a prudent one without a Moral Evidence in the Motives
of Credibility, on which may he pounded the evident ohliga-
tiott to accept it. This he calls a Moral Infallihility, and
Ihews by what fleps, it may faflen on God's Veracity, and
with a fuhmijjion not capable of any doubt, embrace the re-
vealed Truth. Now all this amounts to no more than
Proteftant certainty, void of all doubt, which the Church
of Rome would never yet allow to be a Divine and In-
fallible Faith. But what is this to my Queftion ? Which
was not, Whether a Divine Faith required a Divine Re-
velation, but whether there can be any Divine Faith with-
out an Infallible Judge ? which it feems, he durft not own,
nor fay one word to. And yet here lay the force of the
Argument, as I told him in the fame place, If we mufl be-
lieve the Infallibility of the Pope or Church of Rome, with
an infallible Faith, there is an end ofDifputing ; for no Rea-
fons or Arguments, not the Authority of the Scripture itfelf
(which I hope he means by his Divine Revelation) with-
out an infallible Judge, can beget an Infallible Faith, accord-
ing to the Roman Doliors. For this Reafon they charge the
Frotefiant Faith with uncertainty, and will not allow it to
be a Divine, but Humane Faith, though it is built upon the
firmejl Reafons, the beft Authority, and the mofi exprefs Scri-
pture, that can be had for any thing ; but becaufe we do not
pretend to rely upon the authority of a living infallible judgey
forfooth, our Faith is uncertain , humane , and fallitle.
This he knew to be true, and yet knew, that he could not
build the belief of an Infallible Judge upon the authority
of an Infallible Judge, unlefs he could find one Infallible
Judge to give teftimony to the Infallibility of another,and
a third to give teftimony to the fecond, and thus to dance
round in a circle of Infallibility, without finding any be-
ginning or end; and therefore he flips this pretence of an
Infallible Judge, and would found a Divine Faith upon re-
velation,.
A Vindication of the Fir^ Part of
velation, or prudential motives of credibiUty , wliicH iij- ^
deed is to quit Infallibility .and to take up withaProteftam
moral certainty, or moral infall/iility zs he calls it, that he
may retain the name at leaft, when the thing is loft.
Nay, he gives a fubftantial Reafon agamft an Infalli-
ble Faith of the Churches Infallibility. For if the hfaUi-
lility of the Church were more than Morally Evident^ it
were impofible, that any Herefie fhouldbe, the wifeft word,
that he has faid yet, but I ihall make him repent of fay-
ing it, before I have done ; for this is an evident demon-
ftrationagainft Infallibility. .
He fays, we can have no more a Mprad Evidence
for the Infallibility of the Church ^ and if this be true, and
our Faith be founded upon the Authority of the Church,
then we can have no more than a Moral Evidence for the
Truth of the Chriftian Religion, or arty Article of.it ;
for as I argued in that very place. Though .the Judge}e,
Infallible^ if I be not infallibly affured cf this, (if I have
only a Moral Evidence of his Infallibility )
arrive to Infallibility in any thing,, (or can never get hjgher
than a Moral Certainty ) for I can never be more c^rtfin,
that his Determinations are Infallible,. then 1that
himfelf is Infallible, and if I have but a mpral affurance of
this, I can be but morally affured of -the reft, for the Buila(
ing cannot be more firm than the Foundation is. ; and thui
tioere is qn end to all the Roman Pretences, to. InfatlibiUty.
Though he flipt this at ilrft Reading,. I hope he may judge
it worth Anfwering upon fecond Thoughts. r
But how he will get rid of his own Reafon, I cannot
guefs, if the Infallibility of the Church were more than Mo-
rally Evident, it were impojfible, that any HerefiesJhouldb'fl
by which he either means, that de fallo the Being ofHe;
refics in the World is a fenfible Argument, that there is
no Infallible afturance of the Infallibility of the Church;
for an Infallible Proof cannot be refifted, and then all the
World
tij^e Frefervati've against P 0 FM KT.
Wotid rauft believe the Churches Infallibility, and give up
themfel.ves to the Diretflions of the Church, and then
there could be no Herefics: or elfe his meaning is, that
fince there muft be Herefiesin the World, as the Apoflle
tells us, therefore God has given us no more than a Moral
Evidence of the Infallibility of the Church ; becaufe an
Iflf^llibl^ alTurance of this would have prevented all He-
refies, which Gpd^ it feeros, for very wife Reafons, did
not intend thus irreriftibly to prevent.
- Now rightly to underftand this Matter, I would defirc
tq know why they fay God has beftowed Infallibility on
the Church ? Wasit not to prevent Herefies .and Schifins ?
Is not this the Popifh Objection againfl; the Proteftant
Refolution. of Faith, that for want of an Infallible Guide
men, fall into Errors and Herefies, and divide and diflurb
. the Pea^ce x)f the Church with Schifms? Is not this the
great Reafon tliey urge for. the necelTity of an Infallible
Guide to prevent all Herefies and Schifms? and yet now
it.Teqms, there .muft be no more than a Moral Evidence
for the Infallibility of the Church, that there may be
Herefies : How often liave they been told by Proteftant
Divines, that if God intend an Infallible Judge to prevent
all Herefies, the Being of .an Infallible Judge ought to
be as evident and demonftrable, as that there is a Sun in
the Heavens , that all men might fee him , and believe
him: and now they tell us, This Infallible Judge muft
'notbe, thus Evident, t,ha,t men might,hot know him, that
there maybe roont for^er^fies.to creep into the World.
NoV methinks it is pre^^^y o^d, that there ftiould be an In-
fallible Judge to. keep Herefies out of the Churchi and
jtlwt the, Being, of this, Judge, fhould be no more than Mo-
rally. Evident,, that Herefies Tnajy creep,into the Church.
,I(; i^,ems the Rpmifli Refolution of Faith leaves as great
Scope for Herefies to come into the Church, as the Pro-
ieftants, does, and therefore from henceforward, all the
Argu-
2*2
Anfrver to
Prefer./*. $.
A Vindication of the FirH Part of
Arguments for Infallibility from the neceffity of keeping
Herefies out of the Church, are given up; and they tnuft
never more objeQ: againft the Proteftant Rule of Faith,
that by this means Herefies get into the Church. His
Argument, I confefs, concludes fully againfl any Infal-
lible Certainty of an Infallible Judge; and the reafon is
to the full as good againft an Infallible Judge, as againft
an Infallible way of knowing, that there is one, And
now fince I cannot be Infallibly aftured of this Infallible
Judge, I will trouble my head no further about him, and
therefore leave his Trefervative confidered, />. 13, ©f.
to any Footman that pleafes to anfwer if.
His next Objefl:ion is much of the fame nature. That
Proteftants cannot reafonably be difputed into Popery, as
that fignifies, refolving our Faith into the infallible Au-
thority of the Church to believe whatever the Church be-
lieves, and for no other reafon , but becaufe the Church
teaches it, and the reafon, whereby I proved ir, is,becaufe
no Arguments or Difputations can give me an infallible cer-
tainty of the infallibility of the Church. And this he has
juft now granted, that we cannot have an infallible cer-
tainty, but only a moral evidence for the infallibility of
the Church, and if there can be no more than a moral
evidence for this, then no Arguments can give us an in-
fallible certainty of it, becaufe this cannot be had. And
what has he to fay now ? a very Ihrewd Objeftion I af-
furc you, and it is this: We faw Dr. Sherlock juBnoto
pleading for the ]eMvs againH 5/. Paul, (that I have'ac-
counted for already) now he reafhns againH Chrifl our God,
hlejfed for ever more. His words prove that Chrifl, who
owned himfelf infallible, did imprudently to Preach or work
Miracles'', for fince they could not give an infallible certainty,
fan evident one he means by his whole Difcourfe) no pru*
dent Jew, nor Gentile, could be difputed by him into Faith*
Thofe who correfted his firft Paper for him, which
they
fhePrefer'z^attT/e agamji P 0 P ERT.
they have dorle in feveral places, as being fenfible the
Footman had great advantage of his loole wayofWri-
ting, have made fome Alterations here in the
Conjidered, p. 14. This Pofition proving^ that Chrifl our
Lord, who owned hmfelf infallible, did imprudently to
Preach or work Miracles , by which he exa fled a certain
firm Faith grounded upon his Infallibility in Teaching : for
fince his Preaching and Miracles did not give an evident in-
fallible certainty of his Infallibility, find fuch an evident
one Dr. Sherlock muji mean, for tl^e certainty we have of
a real Infallibility cannot be in reality fallible) no prudent
Jew or Gentile could be difputed by Chrifl into Faith. This
is exprefled with greater art and fubtilty than the firfl,
but however they palliate it, it is equally abfurd and
fenflefs. The Fallacy lies only in this, that by an infallt-
lie certainty., they will have me mean only a certain firm
faith, or an evident certainty, whereas I plainly mean
fuch an infallible certainty, as the Church of Rome oppo-
fes to the certain firm faith, and evident certainty of Pro-
teflants.
V The Papifts perpetually objeft againfl: Proteftants, that
their Faith is uncertain ; we aflert, that our Faith is not
uncertain ; that we have all the evident certainty, that
the thing is capable of: but this will not fatisfie them,
unlefs we can produce fome fuch infallible certainty, as
they pretend to have ; and by this Argument they per-
fwade men to forfake our Communion, and to go over to
the Church of Rome, that they may have the certainty
of Infallibility for their Faith: This I tell our Proteftants,
they cannot be difputed into, becaufe no Reafons or
Deputations can give them an infallible certainty of the
Infallibility of the Church, and yet unlefs they can be in-
fallibly alfured of that, they are no nearer to Infallibility
in the Church of Rome, than in the Church of England i
.now had our Jefuite read this, as he ought to have done
E before
24 A Vindication of the FirU Part of
before he anfwered it, had it been polTible for him had he
not been a Jefuite, to havefaid, that by infall'thk^ I meant
evident ^ for we Proteftants pretend to evident certainty,
and this we have, and Jews and Gentiles might have of
Chrid's Preaching and Miracles, and when I oppoled this
Infallible Certainty to Proteftant Certainty , furely J
meant as much more by it then Evident asPapiftsdo,
■ when notwithftanding all our Proteftant Evidence, they
charge us with the want of Infallibility. And yet for
ought I can perceive now, they are contented to let
Evident Certainty pafs for Infallible, and the Corredfor of
F. SahransSh^tx. has given us a notable reafon for it, for
which Proteftants are bound to thank him, for he has
made them all infallible. For the certainty we have of a
real Infallihility cannot he in reality fallihle. That is to
fay, wneo the Objedt is infallibly true, our Faith or
Aftent to it, cannot be fallible : and thus before they
can prove us Proteftants to be fallible Creatures any
more, they muft prove, that what we believe, viz. the '
Holy Scriptures, and the Apoftles Creed, are not infalli-
bly true. Though I thought the Infallibility of Faith had
not been owing to the Objeft of our Faith, but to the
Evidence of it.
myrnt of This the Footman plainly faw, and tlierefore minds him
Frif. p. 7. Qp j|-jg (Jid^rence between True Certainty and Infallihili-
ty. Doth Dr. Sherlock fay, that the Jews could not he di'
fputed into Faith, unlefs that Faith were infallible ? No, he
leaves that to he talked of hy you, who are the great Pre-
tenders to it. The* Jefuite is very angry at the Reverend
Licenfer for this. What do you own, that we only are to look
on the Faith even as preached hy ChriH, to he neceffarily in-
fallihle d Is it no part of your belief that you are any way
concerned in, that that certain Faith which Chriff exaHed
from the Jews, St, Paul/row each Chrifiian, muH of necef-
jity he infallible ? Fair and foftly I we believe, whatever
Chrift
the Frefervative againU FOFEKT. 25
Chrift and St. Paul taught to be infallibly true, but we
know, that a fallible Creature, as all private Chriftians at
lead are, cannot believe with an infallible Faith ; that is,
no man, who knows himfelf fallible, though he may be
very certain of what he believes, can fay he is infallible
in his Faith, unlefs there be a Divine Promife, that he
fliall never err ; for if he be not infallible, hecan be infal-
lible in nothing. Proteftants believe Chrift to be an in-
fallible Teacher, and the-Chriftian Faith to be infallibly
true, and this they believe with all the firmnefs and cer-
tainty of aftent; but this is not, what the Church of
Rome ufed to call Infallibility, though the Jefuite (if it be
not meer want of underftanding in him) feems to be
hammering out a new notion of Infallibility ; but it is but
a rude and imperfeft: Embryo yet, we lhallfee, what they
will make of it in time.
And here I find my felf obliged to look a little back-
wards, to fee how he ftates the Churches Infallibility, for
he mightily complains of Proteftant Mifreprefenrations Pnfirvit.
about it.
Our Guide then, he tells us, is the Catholick Church, either
diffufive in its whole extent, (that is, as it contains or fig-
nifies the whole number of Chriftiansall the World over)
or reprefentative in its Head and Bijhops, the Pope and a
General Council. The Church diffufive, or the whole
number of Ciiriftians on Earth, is rnoft certainly the true
notion of the Catholick Church on Earth; is that Church,
to which, molt of the Promifes made to The Church in
Scripture, are-made; but how x.b\sChurch diffufve fhould
be our Guide, wants to be explained : if the Church diffu-
five, or the whole number of Chriftians, is the Guide, who
is to be guided, unlefs the Guide is to be a Guide only to
himfelf: Flowever, I hope then every particular Chriftian
will be allowed a private judgment of his own; for the
Church difTufive will be a very ftrange Guide, if it cannot
Ex ufe
.^A Vindication of the Firji Tart of
ufe its own reafon and judgment; and how the whole
which confifts of all particular Chriftians, ihould judge
for itfelf, when no particular Chriftian muft judge, is
fomcwhat myfterious ; that is, that all Chriftians muH:
judge, and yet none muft judge. But I will not difpute
with him about this, but whenever he will colleft: the
Votes of the Church difFufivc, or of all the Chriftians
in the World, I promife to fubfcribe to their Deftni-
tions.
The Reprefentative Church, is the Head and Bijhops, the
Tope and a General Council. I thought, the Pope in Je-
fuits Divinity, had been the Church virtual, and a Gene-
ADifcourfe ral Coundl the Church reprefentative. But I have in a
late Difcourfe proved, that the Pope is not the Head of
•Unity oftbt the CathoUck Church, nor a Council of Biftiops the re-
Catholic^ prefentative of it, and he may try his skill upon it, when
Church. pleafes.
Now it feems, the Church difTufive has the keeping of
the general faith of Chriftians, firPi received from Chrift and
his Apoftles, andpreferved hy all Bijhops in their refpe^ive
Diocejfes, and in the minds and atlions of each faithful
Believer in the whole CathoUck Church. Strange! tUat
our Jefuitd (hould now at laft turn a meer Blackloift, or
Traditionary Divine. This general Faith of Chriftians
he compares to the comtnon Laws of the Land, tofticwF
luppofe his skill in the Law, and make the learned Gentk'
men of the Temple to pity or fcorn The Mailer's igno-
ranee: well let that be as it will, for I pretend to no skill
in Laws, but as for this general Faith of Chriftians, what-
ever it be like, I would gladly learn from the Church
difTufive, what it is ; for I matfcr nothing elfe, but the
General Faith of Chriftians ; but how to learn this, he has
not told us; it is preferved, lie fays, hy all Bijhops in
their refpetiive Diocejfes, and in the minds and atiions
of each faithful Believer in the whole CathoUck Church.
the Frefer'vati've againn F 0 P E KT.
Well then, muft we examine all Billiops and every parti-
cular Believer about this ? this is impoffible to be done :
will any one Biihop, or any one particular Believer,
( fince every Bifhop , and every particular Believer has
it) fuffice tcr tell us, what this general Faith of Chriftians
is? is this an infallible Conveyance of the Faith to de-
pend upon the Tradition of Bilhops and Chriflian People ?
is there no faithful and authentick Record of this Faith,
from whence we may learn, what Chrift and his A-
poftles delivered to the Church ? So one would think by
this Jefuit's account, who takes no notice of the Holy Scri-
ptures, as if the common Faith of Chriftians could not be
learnt from them, but from the tradition of the Church
difTufive.
Thus much for Common-Law, but the Church has her
Statute Laws too, and they are the Decifiotis or Canons of
General Councils, declaring and applying to particular In-
fiances the Common Law and Belief of the Church: but
how does the Pope and a General Council, or the Church
reprefentative, as he calls it, come to have the power of
declaring and applying the common Faith of Chriftians,
which is in the keeping of the Church difTufive, and
therefore one would think,could be declared by none elfe ?
do the Pope and a General Council infallibly know the
Sentiments and Opinions of all the Chriftian Bifliops and
People in the World ? This they muft do, or elfe they can-
not declare the common Faith of Chriftians, unlefs they
can infallibly declare, what they do not know: If their
Authority be only to declare the common Faith of Chri-
ftians, how fhall we know, that they declare nothing but
the common Faith of Chriftians? for if they do, their
Decrees are not valid, for they declare that which is
falfe.
This Jefuit has greatly intangled and perplexed the
Caufeby laying the whole ftrefs upon the declarative and
apply-
A Vindication of theFirH Part of
applying Tower. Had he faid, that the Pope and a Gene-
ral Council had Authority to declare what is the Chriftian
Faith, and though they declared that to be the true Faith,
which the Church diffufive never he^rd of before, yet after
their decifion, it mufl; be received asthecorftmon Faith of
Chriflians, though it had not been fo formerly, there had
been fome fenfe in this, though no truth: but when he
fays the Church can only declare what is, and always has
been the common Faith of Chriflians, if I can find by an-
cient Records, that what the Council declares to be the
common Faith of Chriflians now, was either not known
or condemned in former Ages; if I certainly know, that
fhe declares that to be the Faith, which at the very time
of the Council was fo far from being the common Faith
of Chriflians, that it was not the common Faith of the
Council, but was contradidfed by the wifefl and beftpart
of itthen [certainly know, that the Council has notde-
dared the common Faith of Chriflians, and therefore that
its Decrees are of no Authority.
Bat he proceeds. We hold, that this general Faith re-
ceived from the Apoflles,, and prefe^ved in all the Memhers
of the Catbolick Church ^ explained upon occafon by the
Church reprefentative, is infallihiy true, and this is all the
Infallilility the Cat hoik k Church pretends to. And there
is no Proteilant but will own this Infallibility. That
the Faith at firfl received from the Apoflles, the fame
Faith, yyhich was delivered by the Apoflles, preferved
in all the Members of the Catholick Church, and the fame
Faith explained upon cccafion by the Church reprefen-
tative, fo that it is evident after the explanation, that it
is the fame Faith flill; I fay, every Proteflant will ac-
knowledge, that this Faith is infallibly true; for we be-
lieve the Faith delivered by the Apoflles to be infallibly
true, and if it appears, that the fame Faith is flill taught
by the Church, whether in or out of Council it matters
not,
the Ftefer'vatti/e againH P 0 P EKT.
not, it muft be infallibly true fliii. But yet there is a
little dilference between us and the Jefuit; He believes,
and would have us believe, that the prefent Faith of the
Church of Rome^ viz. the Dodrine of the Council of
Trent, is that Faith, which was received from the Apoflles,
preferved in all the Members of (he Catholick Church.and only
explained upon occajion by the Council of Trent, which tons the
Church representative ; this we den) : this we know", this
we can, and often have proved to be falfe. And I befeech
you, what greater infallibility can any Church pretend
to, than to have the World receive all herDecrees/w irifal-
ally true .<?
But they do not pretend, that either the whole Church, or
any perfon, or perfons in it, are held to pojfefi any intrin-
fick Infallibility, which they own to be proper to God alone.
Thank 'em for nothing, they do not believe, that tiie
Church or Pope or Council are by nature infallible, for
all the World would laugh at them, if they did. IVe do
not fay, (as he adds) that tlsey cannot of themfelves deceive
us, but that God according to his Tromife direbling them by
his infallible Spirit, it cannot poffibly happen,, that they jhould
deceive us. The Modefly of ajeluit! who claims no
more Infallibility for the Pope and General Council, than
the Apoflles had, and wonders any man fhould grudge
them this, fince they do not pretend to an intrinfick In^
fallibility, not to be infallible by Nature, but only by
Grace. Thus he adds, that they do not pretend to new
Revelations and Lights, nor admit any new Article of Faith
though where a doubt arifes the Church hath infallibly power
to declare what hath been revealed by Chrifl to the ApollleSt
and preached by them, which perhaps fome part (fthe Church
might have had a lefi clear under (landing thereof; but this
is done, not by making any new Article of Faith, but more
tiearly delivering what was ever believed by the Apofiles,
and all Catholicks from their time to thisi That is to fay,
whik
^ Vindication of the FirH Part of
what ever the Church determines, though the Chriftian
Church in former ages knew nothing of it, yet it rauft
not be called a new Article of Faith, but a declaring what
had been revealed by Chrift to his Apoftles, and preached
by them,though the world had long fince forgot it: what-
ever the Church determines today, wemuft believe to
have been the Faith of the Apoftolick Age, though there
are no other evidences nor fymptomes of it, but becaufe
the Church which is infallible fays fo. And this is all the
Infallibility the Church pretends too ! a very fmall matter
to be denied her by Chriflians, it is only to believe what-
ever (he fays, without difputing or examining her Faith ;
nay to believe that to be the old Faith, which the moftau-
thentick Records of the Church prove to be new. 1 have
thus ftept out of my way, to fee what fine thing he had
to fay of the Churches Infallibility , which he promifed a
very favourable reprefentation of; but it is all the old cant
ftill,a little difguifed by forae ignorant blunders, or artifi-
cial Non-fenfe ; as for his proofs of this Infallibility, I am
not concerned with them at prefent, and after fo many dif-
courfes on that Argument they need no anfwer.
Another Argument whereby I proved, that no man
can be difputed into Popery, which denies us the ufe of
our own Reafon and Judgment in matters of Religion,
was this, Becaufe it is impofthle ly Reafon to prove, that
men muH not ufe their own Reafon and Judgment in matters of
Religion : For to difpute is to appeal to Reafon, and to di-
fpute againfl; the ufe of Reafon in Religion, is to appeal.
to Realon againft the ufe of Reafon: in Anfwer to this
he tells us, that men muH ufe their Reafon to come to this
knowledge, that Godhath revealed what they believe. Now
I would defire no more but this to prove that we mull
ufe our Reafon in matters of Religion : for no man at
this day can know what is revealed without it. I do af-
fert, ^nd le.t him difprpve me when he can, that fince God
has
^he Frefervative againU F 0 F EKT. ji
has given us reafon to judge of the truth or falfliood
of fuch things, as are knowable by the light of Nature,
and a (landing Rule of Fairh and Manners in the writings
of the Old and New Teftamcnt, for matters of Revela-
tion, we muft believe no Mans or Churches pretences to
Infallibility, who either teaches any Dodrine, which plain-
ly contradids the light of Reafon,or a (landing revelation;
and therefore we muft judge of mens pretences to the
Spirit, by the Dodrines they teach, and therefore muft
particularly judge of their Dodrines too: This is the fair
(late of the Controverfie between us, and here I leave it,
and let him take it up again, when he pleafes.
And here he returns back ro Conference hetvoeen afiur-
dy Protejiant and a new Convert, which belonged to the for-
mer head, the defign of which is to (hew the new Convert,
that by going over to the Church of Rom he has gained no
more Infallibility, than a Proteftant has,nay has loft fomc
degrees of certainty, which he might have had before :
for thus the Proteftant tells him : Tou rely on your own
reafon and judgment for the Infallihility of your Church, and
cenfeauently of all the Dodrines of it, and therefore your in-
fallible Faith is as much refolved into your ownfallille Judg-
ment, as the Protejiant Faith is : So that the difference he-
tween us is not, that your Faith is infallihle, and ours fal-
able, for they are both alike, call it what you will, fallible or
infallible—" We have more rational certainty than you have,
and you have no more infallible certainty than we. Tou think
you are reafonably ajfuredyour Church is infallible, and then
you take up your Religion upon trusl from your Church, with-
out, and many times againB Senfe and Reafon, according as
it happens. So that you have only a general affurance of the
Infallibity of your Church, and that no greater than Prate-
Jlants pretend to in other cafes, viz, the certainty of Reafon
and Argument, but have not fo much as a rational affurance
the truth of your particular Dodrines, t^t if you are mi-
F
A Vindication of the FirH Part of
fiaken about the hfallilility of your Church, you muH he
rrtiferahly m 'tftaken about every thing elfe, which you have no
other evidence for. , But now we are in general ajfured, that
the Scriptures are the Word of God, and in particular ajfu-
red, that the Faith which we profefs, is agreeable to Scri-
pture, or exprejly contained in it, and does not contraditl ei-
ther Senfe or Reafon, nor any other principle of Knowledge:
Jo that we have as much ajfurance of every Article cf our
Faith, as you have of the Infallibility of your Church, and
therefore at leaH h^ve double and triple the ajfurance that
you have.
I have repeated this at large, that the Reader might
fee whatthe difpute is, and indeed the very repetition of
it is a fujfiGient juftification, for it carries its own evi-
dence along with it. Now as to what T faid, that we are
in general affured, that the Scriptures are the Word of God.
To this he anfwers, The conclufion would be this, Catho-
licks are as certain of the fenfe of Scripture, as Protejiants
' are'that they have the letter. Now I believe any Reader
will be as much puzled to guefs, how this comes in, or
what relation it has to this difpute, as I am. I tell the
new Convert, that his old Proteftant Friend has as much
certainty of his Religion as he has; for tho' he flatters him-
felf with the conceit of an infBlhble Church, yet his be-
lief of the Churches Infallibility is founded only onRea-
fon and Argument, as the Proteftant Faith is, and there-
fore his Faith is no more infallible than the Proteftant Faith
is, and fo far they are equal. But then I add, that the I
Proteftant has at leaft as good afliirance, that the Scri-
ptures are the Word of God, as the Papifts can pretend :
to have, that the Church is infallible, and fo far they may
be allowed equal ftill, that the one thinks he has an infal-
lible Guide, the^other an infallible Rule of Faith : Now
how can the Jofuit^s conclufion come in- here ? Catholics
ureas fertain of the Senfe of Scripture^ as Protejiants
/ - — are^
thePrefervativeagainB PO PERT,
are, that they have the Letter. For the comparifon did
not lie between the Senfe and the Letter of Scripture,
but between that Evidence Papifts have of the Infallibili-
ty of their Church, and Proteftants have, that the Scri-
ptures are the Word of God; both which is not infallible,
but a rational Evidence, and therefore fo far equal: and
this he has nothing to fay to. In the Preferv. Confid. p.
29. he reprefents it other wife : This is the cafe; On one
fide there is fuppofed an infallille Interpreter of the Chri'
flians great Law-Book, f for thus Dr. Sherlock Jlates the
cafe) on the other are fame men (far the greater part un-
learned and weak) who adow not any Senfe to this Book,
which feems to them to contradid their Senfe or Reafon, or a-
ny other principle of their Knowledge. And I am asked,
VVhether I proceed more prudently in receiving the Senfe of
the Law from that Interpreter (which is adually fuppofed
infallible) or in proceeding by the fecond Method. Now
this is as wide of the mark as t'other ; I never fuppofe an
infallible Interpreter; never make any difpute, whether
I Ihould fubmit to an infallible Interpreter, or follow my
own Reafon ; which were indeed a rkliculos queftion,
fuppofing the Interpreter were aftually infallible; but
our only difpute was. Whether a man, who by the ap-
pearing evidence of Reafon, is perfwaded to believe an in-
fallible Judge, believes more infallibly than a Proteftant
does, who believes alfo upon the evidence of Reafon and
Argument ? This is the Qupftion he cannot anfwer, and
therefore would lofe, if he could.
But then I added, that Proteftants had much the ad-
vantage of Papifts, becaufe befides that general aftlirance
they had, that the Scriptures are the Word of God, and
the infallible Rule of Faith, they are in particular aftured,
that the Faith they profefs is agreeable to the Scripture,
or exprefly contained in it, and does not contradid either
Senfe or Reafon, nor any other Principle of Knowledge;
F z whereas
A Vindication of the FirU Tart of
whereas Papifts have no other evidence for the particular
Articles of their Faith, but the infallible Authority of
their Church, which is the laft refoluticn of their Faith,
and that many times in contradiSion to Senfe, and Rea-
' fon, and Scripture, as far as fallible men can judge of it:
So that we have as much ajfurance of every Article of our
Faith, as they have of the Infallihility of their Church: The
meaning of which is, that we have a rational alTurance of
every Article of our Faith in particular, as they think,
they have the aflurance of Reafon and Argument, that
their Church is infallible. To which he anfwers, If he
means, they have the fame proofs for this^ which Catholicks
have for the Infallihility of the Church-"" it is falfe. No,
Sir, 1 do not mean the fame, for I hope they are better,
but proofs of the fame kind, i. e, from Reafon and Ar-
gument, which are the only proofs they can pretend to,
for the Infallibility of their Church ; and therefore our
Ajfurance (for that I faid, not Proofs) is of the fame kind
too, a moral rational Aflurance, not infallible, for that
they have not for Infallibility itfelf, as our Anfwerer con-
fed above.
But the Argument he hints in his Anfwer, p. is fo
very new, and fo very pretty, that I cannot pals it: If he
means, they have the fame proofs for this, which Catholics
have for the Infallihility of the Church, that is, for the heing
of that Church which declares her felf Infallible (for a
Church erring in fuch a point, would ceafe to he the Church
of ChriH) then 'tis evidently falfe. The Argument is
this, that the Infallibility of a Church, which declares
herfelf infallible, is as evident as the being of that Church;
for if flie declares her felf infallible, and is not infallible,
fuch an Errour as this makes her ceafe to be the Church
of Chrift. So that the Church of Rome is either an in-
fallible Church, or no Church: Well, for Argument's
lake, we will fay Ihe is no Church, and try then, how he
can
the Trefervatwe againH P OP EKT» 35
can prove her Infallibility. But he has another bold
ftroke in what follows: That Chrijlians of this Age
have the fame eviJence of Her (he muft mean the Church
of Rome) heing the Church cfChriH, and of her teaching
Truths and confequently of her Infallihility, which fhe hath
of CbriH, VIZ. Prophefie, Miracles^ &c. What will no lefs
evidence ferve his turn ? is it full as evident, that the
Church of Rome is tlie Church of Chrifl, and fpeaks Truth,
and confequently is Infallible ( which it feems every one ~
that fpeaks truth muft by confequence be) as that there
was fuch a perfon as Chrift, the true Prophet and Mefli-
as ? I hope by Prophefies, he does not mean the Reve-
lations of St. John, nor by Miracles, the School of the
Eucharift.
His next exception is againft that Argument: If you
muH not ufe your Reafon and private Judgment, then you
muH not hy any Reafon he perfwaded to condemn the u/e of
Reafon ; for to condemn is an aPl of Judgment, which you
muH not ufe in matters of Religion: So that this is a point
which no man can difpute againH, and which no man can he
convinced of hy difputing, without the reproach of felf contra-
dillion. Here our Jeluit is as pkafant as his wit would
ferve him 5 the fum of his Anfwer is. That a man may
be convinced by Reafon, that he ought to choofe a Guide,
and not to truft his Reafon in all things. I readily grant
it, for this is to ufe our Reafon; but the inquiry is, Whe-
ther Reafon can convince any man, that he ought to fok
low this Guide in contradiftionto his own Senfe and Rea-
fon : whether becaufe Reafon will direft a fick man to
choofe a Phyfician, it will direft him alfo to fubmit to this
Phyfician when he certainly knows that he gives him
Poifon.
The next Principle, which overthrows the ufe of com-
mon Senfe and Reafon (for that is his charge againft me)-
is this, That we muB allow of no Reafon againH the Ant ho-
rity^
A Vvjdication of the FirU Part of
rity of plain and exprefs Scripture. This*he allows to be
a true Catholic Trinciple; and therefore I hope the Prin-
ciple does not overthrow common Senfe, unlefs Catholic
Principles may do it. But he does not like an inftance
' or two I give of it in the firft and fecond Command-
ments : I lay, fuch an exprefs Law is that, thou jhalt mr-
fl}ip the Lord thy God, and him only Jhalt thou ferve. No
reafon in the World can jujltfie the vcorjhip of any other Being,
good or bad Spirits iejides God, becauje there is an exprefs
Lam againH it, and no Reajon can take place againH a Law.
Anjw. to Pre- A rare conjequence (fays the Jefuit) to infer a Negative
firv. p. 6. from an Affirmative antecedent. But I thought. Him only
fhalt thou ferve, had fignified thou lhalt ferve none but
him ; and that I think excludes all other Beings from a-
ny lhare in our Worlhip. Now to take his own inftance,
were there fuch a Law, that a Subjeft ftiould love his King ^
onlyyMis would exclude Father or Wife,or any other Friends
or Relations from a fhare in our love. Here he begins to
diftinguilh between that worlhip they pay to Creatures,
and toGod , and alleadges St.Auflins Authority for it;
but if he have a mind to renew that Difpute about the
fenfeof the Primitive Fathers, as to Invocation of Saints,
he knows his man, and had beft keep to him, or at leaft
do him right, before he engages any farther. It had been
more to the purpofe, to have examined that explication I
gave of the firft Commandment, and how I proved, that
it is an exprefs Law againft the worlhip of any other Be-
ing, but the Supreme God , but what is moft to the pur-
pofe, isfeldom moft to his purpofe.
The next inftance I gave of this rule was the fecond
Commandment: Thou fhalt not make to thy felf any gra-
ven Image ; and there the Jefuite flops with an t^c. for he
durft not truft good Catholicks,who might read his paper,
though they will read nothing elfe, with the whole Com-
mandment, and this I affirmed, and affirm ftilJ, ufo ex-
( . prefs
the Prefers affve againU P 0 P EKT.
prefs a Law againfi Image-Worfhip, that noreafon mujl le
admitted for it. What (fays he) if you he told, that al-
though the Jews had perhaps a command of making no gra-
ven Image, &c. again why not -ssi^ not to worfhip if, we
do nut lay they were forbid to make any graven Image, •
but they were forbid to make them for worfhip ; and
therefore his following inftances of Bezaleel and Solomon,
who made no Images or likeneflescf things in Heaven or
Earth for wor(hip, ave nothing to the purpofe; he adds, yet
this being a pofitive Law, and not confirmed in the Gofpel,
doth not oblige us ; will this reafon be admitted § He an-
fwers for me, Ho ; but I anfwer yes, if it be true and he
dare ftand to it; but this is no reafon againfl: an exprefs
Law,, but an exception to the Law itfelf, as of no force. I
do affirm,that if the fecond Command ment be ftill in force,
it does fo exprefly condemn all Image-worffiip, that no
reafqns can juftifie Image-worfhipagainft fuchan exprefs
Law; but if it be a Law no longer, the cafe I confefs is
altered,and I defire to know,whether he will ftand to this ;
but he had heft advife with fome wifer men firft, who um ,
derftand the fenfe of the Church and of the Fathers , and
of their own Divines a little better about this matter. But ^
before they abrogate this Law , I would defire them to
■ make it a Commandment by it felf, and call it the fecond
Commandment, as we do, for fear of abrogating the firft
Commandment with it, of which they make it a part:
though the truth is, the Church of could fpare them
. both, and thank you too.
His parting blow is a very terrible one. I direft fro- Fnferv.Vnth
tejlants never to admit any Arguments meerly from the uje-1' 44) 4S«
fulnefs, conveniency,or pretended neceffity of any thing,to prove
:: that it is. As for injlance : A fupreme Oecumenical Bijhop
- and an Infallible Judge of Controverfies,are thought ahfolute-
ly necejfary to the TJnity of the Church, and certainty of
Faith, and confounding of Schifms and fIereJies,-""Nowif
/
A Vindication of the FirSi Part of
I thought all t\m were true (as Ihelieve not a word of it is)
I fhould only conclude, that it were great pity that there is not
an Vnt verfal Fajtor,and Infallible Judge Inflituted by Chrifl;
but if you would have me conclude fromthefe Premifes,Ergo,
there is an Vniverfal Pajior and infallible Judge , I mufl
beg your pardon for that; for thefe Arguments do not prove
that there is fuch a Judge, hut that there ought to he one,
and therefore I mufi conclude no more from them. This, he
fays, is not only to mifufe humane Reafon, hut to deny Wif-
dom and Reafon in God; Alphonfus the Royal Mathemati-
dan, was ever looked on as guilty of a horrid Blafphemy,for
having faid,he thought he could have ordered fome things bet-
terthan God did, at the firH Creation, 'tis one of as deep
a dye, to think God ought to have done, what we belive, that
he hath not done.
But do I any where fay, that God ought to havedone,^
what I believe he has not done ? do I any where fay, that
God ought by neceilary and infallible means to have pre-
vented Schifms and Herefies ? Dare our Author himfelf
fay this, who afligns this as the reafon, why the Infallibili'
ty <f the Church is no more than morally evident, becaufe o-
therwife it were impoffthle that any Herefie fbould he: which
at leaft fuppofes, that God did not intend to make it im-
poflible, that there fliould be Herefies and Schifms; and
therefore though weftiould grant it abfolutely neceflary
to prevent all Herefies and Schifms, that there Ihould be
an Oecumenical Paftcr and Infallible Judge; is this to
grant it neceflary, that there Ihould be one, or to fay^
that there ought to be one, unlefs I had faid alfo, that it
were abfolutely neceflary that all Herefies and Schifms
Ihould be prevented ? Is there no difference between
faying, that fuch a thing is abfolutely neceflary to fuch an
end, and to fay, that foch an end is abfolutely necefla-
ry.
But however, where do I fay, that Cod has not done
that,
life;:
the frefer'vati've againH PO P BKT.
that which I believe he ought to have dpne ? is k the
lame thing to fay, fuch a tli^g is not, and ftidi.a thing
is not prca'ed by fuch an Argument ? and y^tl this is the
utmpft that I fay, that the luppofed necelfity of an.iti-.
fallible Judge, does not prove, that there is fuch a Judge,
but only that there ought to be one, and I muft conclude
no more from it; and dpes this overthrow the ufe of
Rcafon, to conclude no more from an Argument, than
the Argument will prove ? whatever any man appro-;
hends neceflary, to be fure, he is mightily inclined to be-
lieve, but whoever will believe like a reafonable creature,
mult have good evidence for what he believes, and yet
that we believe it neceflary is no evidence, that it is ; not
that God will not do, what i? neceflary to be done, but
becaufe that may not be necefTary, which we vainly
,and prefumptuoufly imagine to be fo : which is the very
reafon I alTign for it in the words immediately following.
Indeed this U a very fallacious way of reafomng : hecaufe
tvhat we rnay call ufeful, convenient^ neceffary, may not le fo
in itfeIf; and we have reafon to helieve it is not fo, if God
have not appointed, what we thinkjo ufeful, convenient, or ne-
ceffaty : whifh is a truer and more modefi way of reafomng,
than to conclude, that God has appointedfuch a fudge i when
no fuch thing appears, only hecaufe we think it fo ufeful and
necejfary, that God ought to do it. Which is not to excmc
a bad Saying with a good one, as the Jsfuite pretends in
anfwer to the Footman, (Prefenvat. Confder..^, 3 61)^ but
to juftifie a good Saying with a good Reafon." Biit if It
vvere fuch blafphe;ny in Alphonfus to fay, that he, thought
be could have ordered feme things letter than God did at the
frft Creation, let the Jefoite confider what, it.isis ito mend
what God has done in the work of out Redemption,
upon a m^er fupppfition, that.it may be mended r fby
Popery is nothing elfe hut amending, or more propesfy
ipeahing, a corrnpting the Gofpel of Ghrift withablipiic-
G mous
-4il
■5,1
IP
' \ ^9
A Vhdicaiicti of the FirSi Part of
mous opinion of mending it. And I think to fay, that
God has done, what there is no other proof he has done,
but only that we think he ought to have done it, is to
fay, that God ought to have done, what it does not ap.
pear he has done; and if not to he, and not to appear, be
the fame in this cafe, then this is equivalent to faying;
that God ought to have done, what he has not done. And
this I hope is fufficient for the Vindication of thofe Prin-
ciples, which are pretended to overthrow- the Ufe of Com-
mon Senfe and Reafon.
Sect. II.
I'he TrifKiples pretended to make void all Faith vh'
dicated, ,
He begins with proving the Proteflant Faith, not to
be a Divine Faith, becaufe it is not a certain one;
prv. p. 6^ which if it were true, is like proving a man not to Ijve,
becaufe he is weak: for if there be as much certainty, as
is abfolutely necellary to the elTence of Faith, it may be
a true Faith, though weak, as a weak man is alive ftill:
and Faith receives its denomination of Divine or Hu-
mane Faith, not from the Certainty or Uncertainty of if,
but from the Authority on which it refts; a Divine Au-
thority makes a Divine Faith, Humane Authority an
Humane Faith, and both thefe may be either certain or
uncertain, or, to fpeak properly, ftrong or weak: fo that
to prove, that the Proteflant Faith is not Divine^ becaufe
it is not Certain, is like difproving the Eflential Properties
by Changeable Accidents,' that a Man is not a reafonable
Creature, becaufe he is not flrong: for there is no more
. necelTary connexion between Faith being Divine, and
being Strong or Certain, than between Reafon andBodi-
theTrefetifittxiJeagainU P0 PERT. 41
ly Strength; a weak Man may be a reafonable Creature,
and a weak Faith may be Divine, if it be founded on aDi-
vine Authority.
- But I wiih the Jefuite had told us, what that degree of
Certainty is, which makes a Faith Divine, whether any
thing iefs than the certainty of Infallibility can do it; for
this ufed to be the old Argument, that our Faith is not
Divine nor Certain, becaufe it is not infallible, but if they
will abate any thing of Infallibility, we will vie all other
degrees of Certainty with them, and that he very fairly
quitted before, when he owned and proved, that there
could be no more than Moral Evidence for the Infallibi-
lity of their Church, and then I am fure, they can have
no more than a Moral Evidence for the reft of their
Faith, which is all founded upon their Churches Infallibi-
lity.
Well, having proved, that our Faith cannot be Divine,
becaufe it is not certain, he next undertakes to prove,
that our Faith is not certain: becaufe we cannot have an
Ad of Faith of any One Article, till our Rule of Faith pro-
pojes it, i. e. till we know certainly what Scripture teaches
of it, not ly any one Text, hut hy comparing all the Texts
that fpeak of that Suhjed. Very well, we cannot believe
any thing upon the Authority of Scripture, which is
our Rule of Faith, till we know, that it is in Scripture ;
wifely obferved, and we grant it. Let us fee, what fol-
lows. I. Then a Proteflant tnufl certainly know, that he
hath all the Books of Holy Writ. a. That all thofe, he
owns for fud? were really written ly infpired Pens. The
fecond we acceptof, but there is no- need to fiibrait to his
fir ft Condition. Hhit a Proteflant mufl certainly know,^hat
he hath all the Books of Holy Writ; that is, he muft be
able to prove, that there never were any other Books
Yf^yitten by th? Appftlcs.pr other infpired. Men, but .what
we reqeiye into pur C^n,c^"of Scripture^wliich cis ,to
r Gz prove
.ji Vindication dfthe FkU Tart of
prove a negative, which is always thought unreafonable,
and at this diftance from the Apoftolick Age is impoffible,
but whenever the Church of Ro)ne will prove this of their
Canon of Scripture, we will prove it of ours. In the mean
time it is fufficien-t, that we rejefl: no Books, which have
been always acknowledged by the Univerfal Church, and
that the Books we receive have been received for inipired
Writings by the UniverfaJ Church ; and if ever there
were any other Books written by the Apoftles or Evan-
gelifts, which are now loft, we have reafon to believe,
that the Church does not need them, but has a perfeft
Rule of Faith and Manners without them ; for the
Divine Providence would never permit , that the
Church fhould want any neceftary part of the Rule of
Faith.
He proceeds. 3^. And (fince the Letter kills) that he
mderflands the true fenfe of each Text which relates to the
Ohjed of that Aci of Faith, ^\y. That he rememler them
all, fo eis comparing them, to fee which is the clearer to
expound the olfcurer, and what is the refult of them all,
(for any one he underjlands not, or hath forgotten, may pofi-
hly he that one that mufi expound the rcjl) he cannot have one
Aa of Faith.
Now, not to take notice of his ridiculous, not to lay
blafphemous, mifapplication of Scripture in that Parenthe-
{x^jhe Letter kills, by which St. Paul underftands the
Law, which he calls the letter, or an External Admini-
ftration, and the Minijlration of Death, and of Condemna*
tion, in diftinftion from the Gofpel, which is the Mini-
Jiration of the Spirit, and the Minijlration of Righteoufnef,
^ Cor. 3 . 6, 7, 8, p. but our learned Jefuite underftands
it of the Letter of the Gofpel as diftinguilhed from the
Senfe of it, which is fuch a diftindfion as no men of fenfe
ever thought of, till the Church of Rome found it neccf-
fary to diftinguilh the Letter and the Words of Scripture
from
thePrefer'z/ati've agawH POP ERY. 43
from the Senfe of it, and to feparate them too, which
they have effeftually done; but yet how the Letters,
which are very innocent things in all other Books, fhould
be fuch killing things in Scripture, is vvortiiy of the Wit
and Learning of a Jefuite to unriddle: But I fay, to
let this pafs, I grant a Proteftant muft underftand the
true fenfe of Scripture (which muB be done by venturing
to underftand the killing Letter of it) before he can know,
much lefs believe, what the Scripture teaches; but that
they Ihould underftand and remember every place of
Scripture which relates to fuch a Subjedf, I fee no reafon
for; if we have one or two or more plain and exprefs pla-
ces for it, it is enough, at leafl: for ordinary Chriftians,
and a great deal more than the Church of Rome has for
any of her new Articles of Faith. For we are fure, what
is plairjly and exprefly faid in one place cannot be con-
tradided by another; and therefore if I had no more than
that one plain Text, Thou jhalt worfhip the Lord thy God,
and him only jhalt thou ferve, I flrould think it a fumcient
Proof againft the Worfliip of Saints and Angels, though
there were no other Text in the Bible againft it. Now
whatever Papifts fay (for we defire to hear them prove as
well as fay) this is fo far from being impoj/ihle to any, oral-
mofl any man, that every confidering Proteftant has
fufficient afTurance of all this to found a Divine Faith
on.
Well, but what fays Dr. Sherlock to give V rot eji ants any
certainty? Truly not one word, for that was not my bu-
fmcfs to Ihew what pofitive certainty Proteftants have,
but to Ihew upon what vain pretences Papifts charge the
Proteftant Faith with uncertainty.
And I. I obferve, that could they prove the Proteftant
Faith uncertain, this is no fufficient reafon to turn Papifts,
hecauje Proteftants are uncertain, does this prove the Church Pnfervat,
of Rome to le infaUihle, hecaufe the Church of England u P'
fal'
I
I
,111.
tl i
: tU X
'I
ft-
M
4^ A Vwdication of the FirH Part of
fallihle ? wuH certainty he necejfarily found amongH them,
hecaufe it is not found ivith us t is Thomas an hone^f man,
hecaufe John is a knave ^ Yes, he fays, if the flolen goods
were found with John, an honefl Jury he conceives would
bring Thomas in not guilty. And if Proceftant Uncer-
taincy, and Popifh Intallibility, were to be decided by an
honed Popifli Jury, we might guefs pretty near at their
Verdift. But he fays, there is a true Faith, and confe-
quently a certain Rule of Faith. Frotefiants on one fide chufe
one Rule, viz. the Holy Scriptures, for we have no other
Rule; Catholicks another ; tlierefore not the Holy Scri-
ptures, for that is the Proteftant Rule : but here he igno-
rantly mifreprefents his own Church ; for the Church of
Rome does own the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith,
though not a compleat and perfe£t Rule; but the difpute
between Proteftants and Papids, is not fo much about the
Rule, as about the Judge; but he fecms nottounderdand
this didinftion between the Rule and the Judge of Faith.
But now for his conceiving ! 1 conceive then, that if the
' Protejlant Rule he proved uncertain, (that is, the Holy
Scriptures) 'tis plain, the CathoUck Rule mujl he the certain
But when the Scriptures are proved uncertain, I
one.
fear, there will be no Rule at all. But however, his At-
gument is fo far true, that if he could prove, that there
are but two Rules, that one is falfe, and the other true;
then when he has proved one to be falfe, I grant with-
out any more difputing, that the other is true: but
now, though there can be but one true Rule, there
may be a great many falfe ones, and then both the
Rules in competition may be falfe and uncertain. In
the Rrefervat. Confider. p. 38. he endeavours to falve
this; and now does not put the quedion about two
Rules of Faith, for that he fays, we are agreed on. That
the Scriptures are the Word of God, that if we undeijlood^
the fuU' extent of its fenfe and meaning, there would never,
^ ' ' he
\ ■
the Trefer'vati've again^i P 0 P ERT.
Pe Error or Herefie amongd us. Which fliews, that, as I
obferved before, he did not underftand the difference be-
tween a Rule of Faith, and a Guide or Expofftor, till
fome wifer man had told him of it. Well, now the thing
in. queflion is, ly what method we ought to come to that
knowledge, as far as it is necejfary to a Chriflian. And I
fay, that ad the methods are reduced to thefe two heads:
that we are guided to the certain knowledge of what God bath
revealed, either hy a knowledge communicated to each of
us, or hy a knowledge communicated only to Guides appointed
to dire^ the rejl. What he meatis by this communicated
knowledge I cannot tell; for we think the Scriptures may
be underftood without either publick or private Enthu-
fiafmj, as all other Books are to be underftood, by confi-
dering the ufe and fignification of words, the fcope and
defign of the place, and by comparing one Text with
another, and the like : Thus the Guides of the Church
muft underftand Scripture, and by their alfiftance thus
private Chriftians may underftand Scripture. This ail Man-
kind confefs to be one way of underftanding Scripture,
the fame way that all men ufe to underftand any Wri-
ting, nay.tiie only natural way, that we know of : No,
fays the Churcli of Rome, there is another poffable way,
for God to dire£l the Guides, the Pope of Rome, or Ge-
heral Council by an infallible Spirit in expounding Scri» -
pture : right fay I, this is poffible indeed,, for God can
do it, if he pleafes, but. it does not follow, this is any
^ .way at all, till it appears, that God has revealed, that he
t will take this way ; fo that before there can be any com-
c petition between thefe two ways of expounding Scriptures,
it muft be proved, that there are two ways; the Prote-
ftant way is acknowledged by all Mankind, for Nature
teaches no other way of underftanding Books, whether
of Humane or Divine Compofition ; that there is fuch a
way as the Popiffi Method muft be proved by R.evelation,
for .
A Vindication of the FirH Part of
for it depends wholly upon the Will of God, and there-
fore can be proved only by Revelation : now to make a
competition between two ways of expounding Scri-
pture, before it is proved there are two ways is ridicu-
lous; and much more ridiculous to prove the certain-
ty of the unknown and unproved way, from the uncer-
tainty of the known way: if. they can prove, the Pro-
teflant way of expounding Scripture, which is the only
way we know of, to be uncertain, the confequence is,
that there is no certaia way of expounding Scripture,
not that the Church of Rome is the infallible Interpreter
of Scripture: and therefore any Proteftant who is per-
fwaded to own the Infallibility of the Church of Rome,
becaufe he is told, that the Proteftant Faith is uncertain,
is a very foolifh Convert, and has fo little fenfe and rea-
fon,that it were fit, he had an infallible Guide, if he were
to be found.
So that he is a little too forward, when he fays, that
all the 'Methods (of coming to the knowledge of Scri-
pture) are reduced to thefe two heads, for we know, but
of one way of expounding Scripture, till he proves ano-
ther ; and when he can prove his infallible Guide, we
will give up Proteftant certaiqty, as I told him before,
but till he has in another way proved the infallible Au-
thority of his Church in expounding Scripture, though he
could prove our Faith uncertain, this cannot prove his
own to be infallible.
In the next place I direfted our Proteftant to ask thefe
Popifh Difputants, what they meant hy the uncertainty of
Freferv. p.80. the Troteflant Faith. For this may (ignifie two things, ei-
ther, I. that the Objelisof our Faith are in themfehes un-
certain, and cannot be proved by certain reafons. Or,
aly. That our perfwafon about thefe matters is mcertm
and wavering. The Jefuitb anfwers, that this is not a true
diyifion, for there is a third thingalfo, to wit, that what-
ever
y
the Prefer'vati've agatnU PO P EKT.
ever Reafons there may he for a thing, he who believes it,
hath for the motive of his belief thofe certain Reafons —-For
he that believes in Chriji only becavfe his Mother hath
taught him fo, hath a very uncertain, and no Divine
Faith. But fuppofe this Mother be the Church, and he
believes it only, becaufe the fchurch hath taught him fo,
Has this man a divine and certain Faith ? No doubt mufl;
our Jefuite fay, becaufe the Church is Infallible. But fup-
pofe this man can no more prove the Church to be infal-
lible, than that his natural Mother is infallible; What dif-
ference is there between thofe, who believe upon the Au-
thority of the Church, and of their Mother ? I can affign
none, and ftiall be glad to learn the difference from our
Jefuite. He who believes the true Chriftian Faith, and
lives in conformity to it, lhall certainly befaved, orelfe I
fear we muft at leaft damn half the Chriftians in the World,
whether Proteftants or Papifts, for want of underftanding
the reafons of their Faith. Nay I am afraid all Traditionary
Chriftiansmufl: bedamned,who believe this is the true Faith
today, becaufe their Fathers and Mothers were taught fo
and believed fo yefterday. So that I guefs upon fecond
thoughts our Jefuite will compound this matter with me,
and let fall the third part of the divifion, and 1 am con-
tented at prefent, till I hear farther from him.
But he might have obferved that I faid, not only that
the Objebls of our Faith are in themfelves certain, but that
they may be proved by certain Reafons. And therefore for
him to fay, that they are indeed in themfelves certain, but
not to any Troteflant, whofe Rule of Faith cannot make him
certain of any one Article, without offering to Ihew, that
the Realons, why we believe are uncertain, is to drop half .
of the firft branch of the divifion, and then to complain of
the want of it. When the Footman had minded him, that
our Rule of Faith is the Scripture, and therefore if what
he fays be true, the Scripture cannot make us certain of
" , H any
4^ A Vindication of the Firfl Fart of
any one Article of Faith, inllead of anfwering this Blun-
der, his Superiors only correft his Words in a Parenthefis,
Preferv. ConjiJ. p. 40. the Protejlant Rule of Faith {con-
fder 'tng the Method he applies it hy) cannot make him cer-
tain, Etc. which is a plain confeliion, that the Footman
was too hard for the Jefuite, but then he (hould have
fhewn us, how we had mifapplied, and what the uncer-
tainties of our Reafons are, but I fuppofe, he will take
time to confider that.
As for what he calls my Rule of Faith, which he fays
jufiifies Turk, Jew, and Gentile. We believe all that God
hath revealed, and nothing elfe., is not all, that he hath re-
vealed certain ? Though I grant a Divine Revelation is
the only Rule of my Faith, yet here I fpoke not of the
Rule but of the Objefts of my Faith, and challenge him to
Ihew, that we do rejeft any thing that God has revealed in
the Gofpel of his Son, or believe any thing elfe; and dare
him, as I well might ail profefled Chriftians, to deny the
truth or certainty of what is revealed in the Gofpel: but
Turks and Jews believe what they think in their judgments
God hath revealed, that is their Rule, and'tis yours. And is
there any fault to be found with this fo far ? Do Papifts
believe, what they think in their judgments, God has
• not revealed, or what they think, he has revealed ? 'If
they believe, what they think God has revealed, then
they juftifie Jews and Turks too, as much as Proteftants.
„ - No fays the Jefuite, Tour own private judgments are on both
fidcEed^f - 40' ^ands your Guides, and not any authority eflablifhed by Al-
mighty God. Now I confefs, I am not aihamed to own^
that Turk and Jew and Gentile, that is all Mankind ex-
cept Papifts, agree with Proteftants in this, that all men
muft believe with their own judgments, and that there is
no other faculty to believe with : and much good may it
do Papifts, that they have found out a way to believe
without judgment, wherein they differ from the reft of
Mankind.
the Prefer'z/ati^e againft POPER.T.
Mankind. As for their Authority appointed hy God, on
which they muft rely without ufing their own Judgment,
when tliey can prove any fuch Authority we will fubmit
to it.
I proved that the Articles of the Chriftian Faith, which
Proteftants believe, are certain and founded on certain
Reafons, as they themfelves muft grant, unlefs they re-
nounce the Chriftian Religion, for here Infallibility itfelf
cannot help them out. For Infallihility cannot make that
certain, which is in itsfelf uncertain, an infallible man muji
know things as they are, or elfe he is miflaken and ceafes to he
infallible, and therefore what is certain he infallibly knows to
he certain, and what is uncertain he infallibly knows to be
uncertain; for the mofi certain and infallible Knowledge does
not change its Objebl, but fees it jufi as it is. Now this he
fays IS notorioufly falfe, fenceJhe (the Church) is not infallible
by any light of her own, but by the guidance of the Spirit of
Truth. Now this is nothing to the purpofe by what light
the Church fees, the Queftion is. Whether an infallible
Church can know that to be certain, which is uncertain ?
if (he can, then Ihe infallibly knows that which is not true.
^ux. were not the Apoflles certain of what Christ told them,
when they acknowledged him the Son of God before he gave
them certain Reafon for it > But was not Chrift's telling
them fo a certain Reafon ? If they believed without Rea-
fon, I am of opinion, how blind an impiety foever it be,
that they believed too foon. I envy no Church the privi-
ledge of believing infallibly without Reafon or Evidence,
but it is well for the Church of Rome if Ihe have this pri-
viledge, for unlefs Ihe can be Infallible without Reafon,
nay in contradidion to it, I am fure, Ihe is not infallible.
But what tergiver&tion is here ? Does the Church of Rome
infallibly know , that the Chriftian Religion is certainly
true? Does Ihe infallibly know, that the certain Truth of
Chriftian Religion is founded upon certain Reafons ? if fo,
H % then
A Vw die at ton of the FirU Part of
then the Chriftian Reli^on is certain and founded on cer-
tain Reafons; and then thofe who believe the Chriftian
Religion for the fake of fuch certain Reafons have a cer-
tain Faith, whether they believe upon the Authority of
the Church or not, unlefs aFaith built upon certain Rea-
fons may be uncertain, or cannot be certain : for if the
Church infallibly knows, that there are certain Reafons
for the truth of Chriftianity, then th-ere are certain Rea-
fons diftinift from the Infallibility of the Church, and they
may be a Foundation for a certain Faith without the
Churches Infallibility.
I obferved, that their great Argument to prove the tm-
certainty of the P rote (I ant Faith is, that there is a great va-
riety of Opinions among Proteflants, and that they condemn
one another with equal confidence and affurance. He fays, I
fhvuld have added, tho they uje the fame Rule of Faith, and
apply it hy the fame means. But there was no need of ad-
ding this, it was fuppofed in all the Arguments 1 ufed,
which he anfwers only by faying, 'Tis an unanfwerahle Ar-
gument againsi your Rule of Faith, and evidently proves it
uncertain. What does it prove the Scripture to be uncer-
tain > for that is our Rule, or does he mean this of our
Way of applying it, that is by ufing the beft Reafon and
Judgment we have to underftand it: and then his Argu-
ment is this, fome men mifunderftand Scripture, and
therefore no man can rightly underftand it; fome men
reafon wrong, and therefore no man can reafon right;
fome men are confidently perfwaded, that they are in the
right, when they are in the wrong, and therefore no man
' can becertain when he isin the right: an Argument which
in all other cafes mankind would hifs at. Some men be-
Fieve they are awake, when they are in a dream,^ therefore
00 man can know, when he is awake: there are filly con-
fident people,, who are cheated with flight appearances of
nhingSr therefore no mani can diftinguiftis between appear-
ances^^
jifi
the Vrefewati've againU TOVERT.
ances and realities. Or to put but one cafe, which will
fenfibly alfed him: feme men, nay the greateft part of
Chriftians, do not believe the Infallibility of the Church
of Rome, and therefore no man can be certain, that the
Church is Infallible : For here are all his Conditi-
ons, the fame Rule, applied the fame voay^ for he con-
fefs'd above that there can be no more than a Moral Evi-
dence for the Infallilility of the Church'. Now in Moral
Evidence every man muft ufe his own Judgment; thus
we do, we confider ail the Arguments they alledge for
the Infallibility of their Church from Scripture, from Pro-
mifcs, from Prophefies, from Bellarmins Fifteen Notes of
the Church, or whatever other Reafons and Arguments
they ufe ; upon the whole we conclude, that the Church
of Rome is not Infallible, they that it is: now if he will
ftand to his Argument, That variety of Opinions, when
men ufe the fame Rule, and apply it the fame way, is an
unanfwerahle Argument, that the Rule is uncertain, then
it is impoffible tiiat they Ihould have fo much as a Moral
certainty of Infallibility ; fince all mankind bsfides arc
againft themi.
His Ani'wer to Dr. Stls Arguments, to prove that the
Scriptures may be a very certain Rule, though men dif-
fer in expounding them, are fo very fenfelefs, tfiat I have
no patience to anfwer them, efpecially fince he grants all
that the Dean intended to prove, that a Rule may be a
eertain Rule, though men, who do not underftandit,^ may.
mif-apply it. But the principle he has laid down for
mine, I confefs, is very extraordinary and furprizing, that
if two men have the Biile, read it, endeavour to underftand
it, and believing they do, draw from the fame Scriptures two
different Conclufions, two oppofte Articles of Faith ^ loth are,
hound to fland to their private judgment, and to believe gfxtf
them/elves in the right, though all the VVorld Jhotdd accufe
them mlieuof the true pretended Rulci to-have ufed. a falfe
One,. ,
Corr
p. 42.
' i-:
i
V:-
A Vindication of the FirUFartof'
One. I affirm, that one man may expound the Scripture
right, and know, that he does fo, though another ex-
pounds it wrong ; and he makes me fay, that when two
men expound the Scripture to different and contrary fen-
fes, they are both bound to believe, that they are in the
right: this it is certain they will do, and there is no reme-
dy againfl: it, but what is worfe than the difeafe, that men;
ffiould not uie their own Judgments, and then they dare
not believe themfelves when they are in the right, which
is as bad, as to believe themfelves in the right, when they
are in the wrong ; but that for this reafon, all the World
fhouldaccufe them in lieu of the true fret ended Rule to have
ufed a falfe one, is very fenfelefs, unlefs by all the World
he means the World of Roman-Catholicks, for no other
men, as I have already Ihewn, nay not he himfelf, if he
will ftand to his own word, will accufe the Rule to be
falfe, becaufe men make a falfe judgment of it; for to call
every man's private judgment of the Rule his Rule, which
is the fubftance of his following harangue, is to refolve
neither to think, nor fpeak, like other men : for that no
man thinks his own private judgment to be his Rule, is
evident from hence, that upon better Information he al-
ters his judgment, without changing his Rule.
I concluded this Seftion concerning the uncertainty of
the ProteftantFaith with this obfervation,that this very Ar-
gument from the different and contrary opinions ofFroteflants
to prove the uncertainty of the Protejlant Faith, fi^ifies no-
thing as to our difputes with the Church of Rome ; for ask
them, what they would think of the Froteflant Faith were all
Trotef ants of a mind d would their confent and agreement
prove the certainty of the Froteflant Faith then the Fro-
tedant Faith in oppofition to Fopery is very certain for they
all agree in condemning the Errors and Corruptions of the
Church of Rome. And thus I think they get nothing by this
Argument: for if the diffenfons of Froteflants proves the
un-
the Frefer'vative againU P OP EKY.
uncertainty of their Faith^ as to fuch matters wherein they
differ, then hy the fame Rule their agreement in oppofition to
Vopery, Jhews their great certainty in fuch matters. And
this I fuppofe is no great inducement to a Rrotejiant to turn
Tapifl.
Our Jefuit had fo much Wit in his Anger, as to conceal
the force of this Argument, and to reprelent it thus, iVere
all Protejlants of a mind would their confent and agreement
prove the certainty of the Protefiant Faith. By which a-
lone no man living could guefs, what I was proving; and
to -this lae anfwers, Not at all, and I agree with him in it;
for meer agreement does not prove the certainty of Faith,
no more then meer difagrcement, or variety of Opinions
proves the uncertainty of Faiths But they prove them
both alike, as I obferved, which he calls a ridiculous In-
ference, and as he has reported it, he has made it ridicij-
lous enough. This is the fame Rule, and their difagreement
proves not their uncertainty. This is to mangle and tfanf-
profe an Argument that it may not be underftood: bijt
to confute this he fays, all Vnion is no Argument of the Spi-
fit of God, for People may comhine to do ill: But what is
this to agreement in Opinions ? May not that argue the
certainty of Faith, becaufe fome men agree to dojll ? for
a general confent and agreement of mens underftandings,
may be an argument of the truth of what they confent in,
though the agreement of their Wills may not be a vertu-
ous but a wicked Combination. Butter St. Paul affures us,
difunion and diffention is a certain mark of the ahfence of the
Spirit of Gff^/,that is,Contentions and Quarrels and Schifms
are indeed fo far the Works of theFlelh. But when two
men or two Churches differ in their opinions of things,
can neither of them be in the right ? Is the Spirit of God
with neither of them ? Is truth on neither fide ? Then the
Gontroverfies between the Church of Rome, and the
Church of England, prove that the Spirit of God is no
more
53
4
A Vindication of the FirU Part of
more with the Church of Rome, then with the Church of
England.
The plain cafe is this; our Roman Adverfaries perfwade
Proteftants-, that they can liave no certainty of their Fdith,
becaufe Proteftants are fo much divided about it, and
therefore they muft go to the Church of Rome, which a-
lone pretends to Infallibility. But fay I, why ihould rhefc
differences among Proteftants oblige them to go over to
the Church of Rome, whenTroteftants have no difference
about this matter, but are all agreed, that the Church of
Rome is fo far from being infallible, that Ihe is a very cor-
rupt Church: I do not lay, that the differences of Prote-
ftants is a good Argument to prove the uncertainty of
their Faith, nor their bare agreement to prove the cer-
tainty of it, but I fay, one proves as much as t'other, and
therefore 'tis a better reafon to Proteftants not to turn
Papifts, that all Proteftants are agreed, that the Church
of Rome is not infallible, but has greatly erred, then it is
for Proteftants to go to the Church of Rome for Infallibi-
lity, becaufe they differ in fome things among themfelves;
efpecially confidering that many points they now differ
about, will not be reconciled by their going to the Church
of Rome; for the fame points are as fiercely difputed among
them too, as to inftance at prefent only in the Qmwim'
artictdar Controverfie.
V'v- V," -"'
' . f r- ■ ^ '
• CHAP.
•T , o nnni i- i
r
the Trefervatwe againji P 0 P E KT. <J5
CHAP, HI.
A Vindication of fome Pofitions^ which are pre-
tended to ma^e fvoid all Scripture-proof all
ufe of Fathers and Councils^ and of Cwil Cha-
rityy and Moral Jujiice to our Neighbours.
AS for Scripture-proof: I was directing Proteftanti
what kind of Scripture-proof to demand for Tras-
fubftantiation : and having fliewn that the Dodrine of
Tranfubftantiation does manifeftly contradift the evi-
dence of all our Senfes and the moft neceilary principles
of Reafon, I told them, that it is but reafonable, that
the evidence for Tranfubftantiation Ihould at leaft be
equal to the evidence againfl: it, and therefore they rmH
demandfuch a Scripture-proof of Tranfuhjlantiation, as can-
not pojfihly fignijie any thing elfe ; or elfe it will not anfwer
that evidence which we have againH Tranfuhjlantiation : P-
for fenfe and reafon pronounce Tranfuhjlantiation to he natu-
rally impoffihle ; and therefore unlefs it he as impofihle to
put any other fenfe upon Scripture^ as it is to reconcile Tran-
fuhjlantiation to fenfe and reafon, there is not fuch good
evidence for Tranfuhjlantiation, as there is againH it. This
he repeats after his ufual manner, to take care that no
body Ihall underftand what it relates to, or fee the force
of the Argument; and in anfwer to it he gives us a new
inftance of his good will to the Doftrine of the Trinity.
He fay s, A' Text which cannot pojfihly have another fenfe^ Anfwtr
doth not leave it in any one's liberty, who owns Scripture to
he an Heretiek j therefore the Church produced no fuch
I Text
A Vindication of the FirU Tart of
Text againH the Arians or Neftorians; whence it evident-
ly follows, that according to Dr. Sherlock, the Arians and
Neftorians were not hound to helieve the Trinity and hear-
nation of Chrift. But did I fay, that nothing can be pro-
ved but by fuchexprefs Texts, as it is not poflible to un-
derftand otherwife ? I faid, this was neceflary to prove
any Doftrine which fenfe and reafon declare to be abfo-
lately impoflible. And will he fay the Doftrine of the-
Trinity is fuch a Doftrine? No he fays, Frefervative
Confide red, p. 4 J. But they fo appeared to the Neftorians
and Arians, and that is the cafe put by Dr. Sherlock : but
I put no cafe about meer appearing, but of fuch pal-
pable contradiftions as the fenfe and reafon of all Man-
kind agree in : as Papifts themfelves cannot deny, and
know not how tojuftifie, without prefting the Almighty
Power of God to make good their abfurd Imaginations.
Now where there is only an appearance of contradi(ftion,
where a Doflrine only lies crofs to mens natural rea-
fon, there fuch exprefs Texts as do more evidently prove
that Doftrine, then that Do£lrine does evidently contra-
did reafon, is a fufficient foundation for the belief of it,
becaufe in this cafe there is more evidence for it than a-
gainft it: and did not the Church alledge fuch Scri-
pture-proofs for- the Trinity ? And are there no fuch
Proofs to be alledged ? He thinks they did not, becaufe
then the Arians could not have continued Hereticks;
for a Text which cannot pofiibly have any other fenfe, doth
not leave it in any ones liberty to be a Heretick. But I
fuppofe, he will allow, that I fpoke not of a natural
but of a moral impoflibility ; now a moral impolfibility
of interpreting Scripture otherwife is, when a man can-
not reafonably do it without offering manifeft violence
to the words, and this a wilful and obftinate Heretick
may do, how plain and felf-evident, how uncapable foe-
ver the words are of any other poftible fenfe to a reafo-
nable.
the Prefer'z/ative again^^ 0 PERT.
rable and impartial Inquirer. This principle, I confefs,
makes void all Scripture-proof of fuch Dodtrines as
fenfe and reafon pronounce abfolutely impoflible, but
this is no injury, but the greatefl right we can do the
Scripture. But I cannot without forhe indignation ob-
ferve, how the Doftrine of the ever blefled Trinity is
upon all occafions introduced by thefe men as contra-
difting fenfe and reafon, which would make one fufpeft,
they kept it for no other reafon but to juftifie the ab-
furdities and contradiftions of Tranfubftantiation.
As for the making void the ufe of Fathers and Coun-
oils to unlearned men,, it is the thing I defigned, and
I am very glad if I have done it: b^ut as for learned
men they may make fuch ufe of them flill, as fuch
Writings are defigned for; not to make them the Rule
of Faith, but either to learn what was the Dodfrine and
Pradlice of the Church in their days, or what their
private Opinions were, or how they expounded Scri-
pture and the like: that I call it fquahling about the fenfe
of Fathers , if the expreffion be undecent, it is ow-
ing to himfelf and fome fuch late Scriblers, whofe Di-
fputes have been nothing elfe but Squables, But I can-
not blame him, that he is fo angry, thatldiredb the Pro-
teftant to inquire, Whether fuch Books were written ly
that Father, whofe Name it hears, for he knows fuch an
inquiry has very lately coil him dear, I was going to fay
a blulh, but that is impoffible. If fuch <^eitions as
I ask cannot be anfwered to the fatisfaftion of learn-
ed men, they are of no more ufe to them, than they
are to the unlearned, who cannot anfwer them them-
felves, and want the Learning which is neceflary to-
make'them capable of a fatisfaftory Anfwer, and this is
all the Anfwer I fhall return to this Charge,
I z His
A VindicAtion of the FirU Part cf
His next Charged a dreadful one : Such Principles
as make void all uje of Civil Charity and Moral Juftice
to our Neighbours. He lays it in the very Jad Seftion of
the Prefervative, Concerning Protejlant Mif-reprefentations
cf Popery. Wherein I fheued, how vain and filly this
charge was, and he has not one word to fay in defence of,
it. Among otlier things I obferved, that thefe men, who
complain fo much cf Mifreprefenting, endeavour to make
the DoHrines of the Church of Rome as like Prote-
fiant DoElrines, as ever they can, as if there were little
or no difference between them. The truth is, the chief
Myflery in this late Trade of Reprefenting and Mifrepre-
fenting is no more hut this, to foyn a Proteflant Faith with
Popijh PraRices , to believe as Protejlants do, and to do as
Papifls do. This I gave fome few inftances of out of
the Reprefenter, and Ihewed that their Faith, as he Re-
prefented it, came very near and in fome cafes was theve-
ry fame with the Proteflant Faith, but their Pra-ftice was
Popilh. Hoiv is this contrary to Civil Charity and Mo-
ral Honefly .<? He fays it is this, When a mans exterior
Anions are naturally capable of a good and pious meaning,
and he. ever and clearly declares, that it is his, yet to fa-
ft en upon him another oppofte defgn and meaning. , But
how does this concern me, who fallen no meaning at all
upon their Aftions, but only barely relate, what they
profefs to believe, and what they practice. He inflances
in two, and let all the World judge, who makes void Ci-
vil Charity and Moral Honefly, He, or F.
To infnuate, fays he, that aCathoUck thinks the Virgin
Mary more powerful in Heaven than Chrifl, he tells you,
that he fays Ten Avc-Maries/(?r one Pater Nofler \ where-
as all that I fay is, He (the Papift Reprefented) Believes
it damnable , tx) think the Virgin Mary more powerful in
F^aven tham Chrijl , which is Proteflant Dodrine, But
the Treferpatiife againU POP EKT.
yet he prays to her oftner than either 'to God or Chriji ;
fays ten Avc-Maries/ffr one Pacer Nofter ; which is a Po-
pijh Devotion. Is here any breach of Moral H"onefl:y
in this ? IS not ail this true ? do I put any fenfe or inter-
pretation upon this adion > I believe all men will think,
ti.at this does more than infinuate, what a belief they
have of the power of the Virgin; and this the Jefuite
was fenfible of, and therefore fays, that I infinuate it, but
I will leave it as I did at firft, to what judgment all indif-
. ferent men will make of it.'
In the next place, he fays, I charge the Catholicks with
worjhipping the vifihle Species in the Eucharifl: Hear my
words again ; He believes it unlawful to commit Idolatry,
and mofl damnable to ivorfiip any Breaden God; which is
fpoke like a Proteftant: but yet he pays Divine Adoration
to the Sacrament, which is dope like a Papifl. Here is no-
thing about worfbipping the vifible Species in the EuCloap
rifl : but whatever is the Sacrament, they worlhip, and
muft do fo by the Dodrine of their Church ; if they
can make a Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Chrilt,
without the vifible Species, then according to their Do-
ftrine, they need not worfliip the vifible Species, if they
can't, thdy muft , for they muft adore the Sacrament;
and if the Sacrament Ihould prove to be Bread and Wine,
not the natural Body and Blood of Chrift.and it isftrange,
if it ftioiild not, then I need not tell them what they
worlhip. But thofe matters have been debated often e-
nough of late.
He concludes with an advice to Proteftants, urging the
Argument againft Scriptures, which I had before done
againft Fathers. Amortgd Chrijlians, there is not one in an
hundred thoufand, who underfland all Scripture , and it is
morally impoffible they fbould; and therefore certainly there
mufl he an eajier and Jhorter way to underfland Chriflian
Religioni
A Vindication of the FirH Party See*
ReligioH than this, or elfe the generality of Mankind, even of
profefi Chridians, are out of pojftbility of Salvation. I grant
every word of it to be true, if underjianding all Scripture,
as he puts it, were neceflary to Salvation; but the only
cafier and Ihorter way is to underftand fo much of the
Scripture as is neceflary to Salvation, and let him when
he pleafes, if he dare venture the Blafphemy of it, prove
that this is vnorattj impojfihle to the generality of Mankind, e*
ven of profefi Chrifiians.
VINDICATION
S ECoVi^T J K T
OF THE
Prefervative againft POPERY.
MEre our Jefuite gives me a great many hard Words,
but nothing of Argument j He talks tragically of
Calumnies and Milreprelentations, how much he
proves of it, unlefs a Iwld Acculation muft pals for
a Proof, I dare leave to every ordinary Reader, who will com-
pare my Book with his. He is much off of his byals here,
for I did not dilpute diredly againft any Popilh Dodtrines,
but ufed luch collateral Arguments, as are very evident and
convincing to ordinary Readers, but fo much out of the road,
that the Jeliiite could tind nothing in his Common-place Book
about it, and therefore does not pretend to anlwer any one
SeBiono^ my Book j but yet out of every SeBion he picks Ibme
fingle SayingSj and if he meets with an Argument, that he
cannot anfwer, he takes Ibme few words of it, and calls it
Calumny and Milfeprelentation j the only way I have to
write fuch an Anfwer to him, as may be fit to be read, is to
"give a Ihort Abftracft of each Section of my Book, and to take
notice, where thofe Paflages come in, which he calls Galum^
nies and Milfeprelentations,
Sect.
62
J Vindication of the Second Fart of
S ECT. 1.
Concerning Idolatry.
I Shewed the great Defign of our Saviour was more perfedly
i to extirpate all Idolatry. To this pur pole he has more per-
fedly inlfi'uded us in the Nature of God. To this end he
'Matth 10 all Religious Worfhip to God alone. Th^n Jhah ■worjhip
^ '' the Lord thy God, and him only [halt thou [erve. It is his anlwer
to the Devil, when he tempted him to fall down and worlhip
him J but he gives fiich an anfwer, as excludes all Creatures,
not only good, but bad Spirits from any lhare in Religious
Worlhip. For he does not deny to worlhip him meerly be-
caufe he was the Devil, but becaufe we muft worlhip none
but God. Which is as good a reafon againif the Worlliip of
Prifetv. Con- 'he molt glorious Angels, as of the Devil himfelf. This he
fid, p. (5i. calls a Milfeprelentation, and to make it lb, firftvery fillily
mifrepreleitts my words, and lays, that I charge the Church
of Rome, that fihe doth not pay to God alone, that degree of Wor-
Jhip, which the tempting Dt'vil demanded of ChriH. But I lay not
one word there about the Church of Rome, tho' the appliCa-
- tion was obvious and he made it for me: but then I do not
blame them, that thef do not pay that degree of Worjhip to God,
which the Devil demanded of ChriB; which was but an inferior
degree of Worlhip, and therefore not proper for the Supreme
Deity ; bur that they pay any degree, how inferior loever,
of Religious Worlhip to Saints and Angels, or any other Being
befides God, for that is the import of our Saviours Anlwer to
the Devil, and anlwers the pretence of the Church of RomCi
that Ihe does not give latria, or that Soveraign Worlhip, which
is due to the Supreme God, but only dulia, or an Inferior Wor-
Ihip to Saints and Angels j whereas our Saviour s Argument
proves,that no degree of Worlhip is to be given to any but God.
He fays farther, p. 64. That ChriB, by refujtng himfelf all Wor-.
flip to God's Enemy the Devil, teaches us to pay none at all to Gods
Saints and Angels, is an inference that no one but Dr. Sherlock
was ever able to make. Then it leems, I have the honour of
inventing a good Argument, which this Jefiiite dares not at-
tempt to anfwer: let him Ihew me if he can,, that to Worlhip
none
thePreferz^ati'veagawH POPEKT.
none but God, excludes only the Worfliip of the Devil, not
of Saints and Angels.
As a farther proof of this, I add. Our Saviour denies to Wur-
giip bim, though the Devil made no terms "with him about the kind
or degrees of JVorfhip. He does not require him to offer Sacrifice to
' him^ (which is the only A£l of Worjhip the Church of Rome appro-
priates to the Supreme God) but only to boiv down before him, as
an expreffion of Devotion. This he calls a Mifi-eprefentation,
that Sacrifice ss the only AB offVorfhip, which the Church of Komt
appropriates to the Supreme God; which is the firft time this was
called a Mifreprefentation j and yet he himlelf owns, p. 64.
that Sacrifice is indeed the only exterior Worfinp infeparable from
latria, and therefore never to be offered to any but God. And is
not this what I faid ? did I deny, that the Church of Rome
paid any other Worlhip to God, but Sacrifice ? but I (ay, and
(b (ays our Jeliiite, that there is no other external Ad of Wor-
fhip (b peculiar to God, that it can be given to no other be-
ing, but only Sacrifice j and therefore fince the Devil did
not demand of Chrift to (acrifice to him, he did not demand
of him that degree of Worlhip, which alone the Church of
Rome thinks peculiar and appropriate to God,and yet Chrid tells
us of all other Ads of Worlhip,which the Church of Rome thinks
may be (eparated from latria, and therefore given to Crea-
tures. Thou fhalt worjhip the Lord thy God, and him only fhalt thou
ferve.
I added, that to preven^the Worlhip of Inferior Daemons,
who were worlhipped as Mediators to the Supreme God, God
advances his own Son to be the Univerlal Mediator, and the
Supreme and Soveraign Lord of the World, that all Mankind
fl}Ould make their Addrefjes and Supplications to him, and offer up
their Prayers only in. his Name, that in him they fhould find accep-
tance, and in no other Name. Hence he concludes, that I charge
the Church of Rome, (chough I did not mention her) that
they offer not their Prayers only in the Name of ChriPl, that in him
they may find acceptance. And this he calls a Milfeprclenra-
tion J and I will venture to be a Mifrepreienter for once,
and charge them with it: for if they pray to God in the Name
and Merits of Saints and the blelTed Virgin ; if they pray to
them to intercede for them with God, as appears in all their
Offices, then they do not pray only in the Name of
K ChrilT,
^3
6^4 ^ Vindication of the Second Fart of
Chrift , nor exped to be accepted only for his lake.
I fiimmed up this Argument thus: Now cbis beingfoappa-
rently one end of ChrilFs coming into the World to fupprefi
the Idolatry of Creature-Worfliip, and to confine all Rtltgiotts
Worjiii^ to one Supreme Being, in oppofition to the many Gods of the
Heathens, and to teach m to make our ^applications to this One God,
hy One Mediator , (this^ he lays^ is another Milrepreftntationj
that they make not their /Applications to One God hy One Mediator,
which is true, if by One he means only One, for they have
Many) in oppofition to the JVorJhip of inferior Deities; can any man
imagine, that the JVorflnp of Saints and Angels and the Virgin
Mary, can be any part of the Chrifiian Religion ? which is not a
diredf Proof againft the Worlhip of Saints and Angels, but
an Argument from what is likely, fit and congruous, and con-
fiftent with our Saviour's defign, to root out all remains and
all appearances of Idolatry ; which makes it improbable and
incongruous to the utmoll degree, that Chrift mould permit
the Worfliip of Saints and the Virgin Mary, as it is pradiled
in the Church of Rome ; with Temples and Altars and Ima^
ges, with Solemn Prayers and Vows, and Solemn Proceffions,
which has fb much the external appearance of that Idolatrous
Worlhip, which the Heathens paid to their Gods, that there
is no vifible diftindtion between them- And if Chrift intend-
ed to root out Idolatry, it is highly improbable, that he would
allow, fomuch of the external pomp and Ihew of it, if it were
no more : Thofe who think this may be, may believe the
Worlhip of Saints and Angels to be a Golpel-Dodtrine, notwith-
ftanding this Argument j but fuch Arguments as thele are
thought by moft men to have Ibme weight in them ; as for in-
ftance, That a Man, who is very curious to prelerve his Wives
Chaftity, will not fufier her to receive all Amorous Addreffes
and Courtlhips from Strangers,no not from hisdeareft Friends;
That a Prince, who is fo jealous of any Rivals and Partners,
as to make it Treaibn to uliirp the meaneft of the infignia Ma-
jefiatis^ will not fuflfer the greateft Favourite to wear the Im-
perial Crown, nor to fit on his Throne, and receive the Ad-
dreffes and Homage of his Subjeds upon the knee. As I obfer-
ved before, that how dear foever the Saints are to God, they are
but bis Creatures, and if Soveraign Princes wiU not receive their
great eft Favourites- into their Throne, much lef wiU God.
dr.'
the Frefervatwe agairtji P 0 P ERT.
This is another of his Mifreprefentations, that I fay^ theVa-
pfis, by their worjhippmg Saints^ Angels^and the Virgin Mar}',
them in the Throne ef God; but this I do not fay, but only that
God will not take any of his Creatures into his Throne. But
yet if giving Religious Worlhip placed the Heathen Deities
in Gods Throne, I would gladly be fatisfied, why the Wor-
Ihip of Saints and Angels iHould not be thought to do the
fame : I am fiire to worlhip Saints in the fame Temple and at
the fame Altar, and with the fame humble Proftrations, and
in the very fame Prayers, that we worlhip God, looks very
like placing a Favourite on the fame Throne with his Prince;
but yet this is not the difpute, whether they do fo or not, but
whether it be not lb like it, that it is unrealbnable to think, that
Ghrilt, who came to root out all Idolatry, will allow or com-
mand it.
Another kind of Idolatry the Heathens were fond of, was,
the Worlhip of Images and Pidures, whereby they reprelented
their Gods as vifibly prefent with them. For they wanted
fbme material reprelentations of their Gods, in which they
might, as it were, lee them prefent, and offer up their Petitions
to them, and court them with fome vifible and lenfible honours.
To cure this kind of Idolatry under the Law, though God
forbad the Worlhip of Images, yet he appoints them to ere<5t a
Tabernacle or Templei where he would dwell among them,
and place the Symbols of his Prefence, the Mercy-feat, and the
Cherubims covering the Mercy-feat j which was a fymbolicai
Reprefentation of God's Throne in Heaven, where he is fur-
rounded with Angels, as the Holy of Holies itfelf was the Fi-
gure of Heaven. Thus under the Law to give them alTurance
of his prefence with them, though they could not fee him, he
had a peculiar Place for Worlhip, and peculiar Symbols of his
Prefence, but no Images to reprefent his Perfbn, or to be the
Objeds of Worlhip.
And hete I took notice of that Pretence of the Church of
Rome for Image-Worlhip, that the Cherubims were worlhip-
ped by the Jews^ and particularly anfwered the Arguments of
the late Bilhop of Oxford to prove it, and it had been worthy
of the Jefuite to have made fome reply to this, but he was
wifer than to meddle with it: amcmg other things, the Bilhop
had urged David's Exhortation to the People to Honour the
Kz Ark,
65
66 A Vindication of the Second Part of
Ark, Bow down to or worship his Foot-fioolj for it j or he is holy^
99 Tfalm , to prove, that the Jews worfhipped the Cheru-
bims; this I faid, was very ftrangc, when he hinifelf,/<?«r fa- .
ges before had told w, that the Ark was God^s Foot-fioolj and the
Cherubims his Throne ; now (iippofe David had exhorted the
people to fForJhip the Ark , which, as he fays, is God's Foot-fiool^
how does this prove, that they mufi Worfiip the Cherubims, which
are God's Throne: this he calls a mifreprefentation, and fb it is
indeed, and a very grofs one too, but it is his own j for he
reprefents this as my Argument againft the Worfliip of the
Cherubims, that they were commanded indeed to Worlliip
the Ark, which was God's Foot-ftool, but not the Cherubims,
which were his Throne : whereas I never granted, that by the
Foot-ftool of God was meant the Ark, but all that I (aid was,
that if the Ark, as the Bifhop affirmed, was meant by Gods
Foot-ftool, and the Cherubims were his Throne, then though
there had been fuch a Command to worfliip God's Foot-ftool,
this could not prove the worfhip of the Cherubims, which in
his Divinity were not the Foot-ftool, but the Throne of God.
This he could not be ignorant of, becaufe I exprelly proved,
that by the Foot-ftool of God could not be meant the Ark, for
the Ark was in the Holy of Holies, which was a figure of
Heaven; and neither the Heaven, nor any thing in it, but
the Earth is in Scripture called God's Foot-ftool j as the fjalmifi
exprefly applies it to Zioa and the Holy Hill, And this I ob-
lerved, isa mfficient confutation ofhisExpofition of the words,
to bow down to, or worjhip his Foot-Jtool; for Mount Zm or the
Holy Hill was not the Objedt of Worfhip, nor Symbol of
God's Prefence j but there God was prefent, and that was rea-
Ibn enough to worjhip him at his Foot-fool, and at bis Holy HillySS
our Englip Tranflation reads it.
I added, Supj>ofe the Jews were to direfi their JVorJhip towards
the Mercy feat, which was covered by the Cherubims, where God
bad promifed to he prefent, how are the Cherubims concerned in this
Worpjip ? the Worjhip was paid only to God, though direBedto God,
as peculiarly prefent in that place, which is no more than to lift up
cur eyes and bands to Heaven.i where the Throne of God is, when we
pay to him: but, he adds, the very Image (for example) of Cbrifi
crucified, istheObjefl of the Worjhip of Papijls, which is certainly
true; but he ftiould have given my own words. The Biihop
the Prefeir'vati've againU P 0 P E RT.
had faidj that bowing to or towards any things was the fame
thing; this I granted^' if they bowed to or towards any thing
as the Objed: of Worlhip; and therefore had the Jews either
bowed to or towards the Cherubims as the Objeds of their
Worlhip, as the Papifts bow to or towards their Images, they
had been equally guilty of Idolatry, and the breach.of the Se-
cond Commandment; but when bowing to fignifies bowing ro
an Objed of Worfhip, and bowing towards fignifies bowing to
this Objed of Worfhip, only towards fuch a place, where he
is peculiarly prefent, this makes a vaft difference. And this he
calls a Mifreprefentation, that I fay, Tapijts bow to their Images
as ObjeBs of IVorJhip; but this has been fo often proved upon
them in the feveral Anfwers to the Reprefenter and M de
Meaux and his Vindicator, that it would be as foolilh in me to
prove it again, as it is impudent in him to deny it.
But I obferved farther, that in the Gofpel God has provided
a more effedual remedy againft Image-Worfhip in the Incarna-
tion of his Son, Mankind have been always fond of fbme vi-
fible Deity, and becaufe God cannot be feen they have gra-
tified their fuperffition by making fome vifible Images and Re-
prefentations of an invifible God: Now to take them off from
mean corporeal Images and Reprefentations, which are both a
di/honour to the Divine Nature and debafe the Minds of Men,
God has given us a vifible Image of himfelf; has clothed his
own Eternal Son with Humane Nature, who is the brightnef of
his Father s Glory, and the expref hnage of bis Terfon.-- Now
when God has given us a vifible Image of himfelf, his eternal
and incarnate Son, whom we may worfhip and adore, can we
think he will allow us to worfhip material and fenfible Images
of Wood and Stone ? And here the Jefuite finds another Mif
repreientation, that by the Incarnation God is vifibly reprefented
to m an our nature, but the Tapijis not contented with this contrary
to the defgn of God, made man, make and adore other Images of
God. Here he has concealed what my Argifhient was, but the
tiaing is trjie: that though God gave us a vifible Image of him-
felf to cure the Idolatry of Iraage-Worfhip, yet this is ftill re-
tained and pra^tifed in the Church of Rome.
In lumming up this Argument, I IHd, Since it was one
main defjgn of Chrift's appearance to root out Idolatry, is it
credible, that the .Wor fhip of Saints and Angels and the Virgin
Miryg
A Vindication of the Second Part of
Mrr/j the Worfhip of Images and Reliques^ as it is praftiled"
in the Church ot Rome, fhould be any part of the Chriftian
Worlhipj or allowed by the Golpel of our Saviour? if Creature-
Worjhip and Image-Worlhip were fo offenfive to God, here is
the IVbrjhif of Creatures and Images fitU, and therefore all the vi-
Jible Idolatry, that ever was ■praitifed in the World before. This
is another of his Milreprefentations, but very true. No un-
derftanding Papirt, that has any modelty, can deny^ that they
worlhip Creatures and Images^ for that they Ihould be wor-
Ihipped is determined by their own Councils; now if there
be any falvo to deliver the Church of Rome from the guilt of
Idolatry in worlhipping Creatures and Images, when the Hea-
thens were Idolaters for doing it, yet here is the vifible Wor-
Ihip of Creatures and Images, that is, all that was vifible in
the Idolatry of the Heathens. This was my Argument to
Ihew how improbable it was, that Chrift, who came to ex-
tirpate all Idolatry, Ihfould ftill allow the external and vifible
Worlhip of Creatures, which if it be not Idolatry, yet is all
that was vifible in the Idolatry of the Heathens: and it had
better become him to have anlwered this Argument, than to
have called it a Mifreprefentation.
I obferved farther. That the great difference the Papifts
can pretend between their Worlhip of Saints and Images, and
what the Heathens did, whereby to excule themfelves from '
Idolatry, notwithftanding they worlhip Creatures and Ima-
ges as the Heathens did, is that they have better Notions of
the Worlhip of Saints and Angels and Images than the Hea-
thens had j but I laid, whether they had or no, would be
hard to prove: The Pagan Philofophers made the fame Apologies
for their Worfhip of Angels and Damons, and Images, which the
learned Papifis now make, and whether unlearned Papifis have not
ofgrof jSlotions, about the Worfiip of their Saints and Images, as the
unlearned Heathens^ had is very doubtful, and has been very much
fit^elled by learned Romanifts themfelves. This he puts down for
another Mifreprefentation, though all learned men^know it
to be true. Had he ever read Origen againil Celfus, he would
have known, that that Philofopher had taught the Roman Do-
dors, how to defend the Worlhip of Saints and Images, and
that the Father had confuted them long fmce j and had he
looked mtoVives upon St.Aufi. de Civitate Dei, he would have
the Trefer'vati've againU F 0 P E RT.
found that learned Man make no great difference between tin-
learned Chriftians and Heathens as to thefe matters, to name
no more at prefent.
I added. Can we think^ that Chrifi^ who came to make a more
ferfeSh reformation, pjould only change their Country-GodsintoSaints
and Angels and the Virgin Mary, and giw new Names to their
Statues and Images ? This he calls a Mifreprefentation too, tho'
it neither reprelents nor mifreprefents any body, that I know
ofi but only argues, what Chrifl: was likely to do. For had
Chrifl: only forbad the Worfhip of Pagan Gods, and fet upthe
Worfhip of Saints, it had not been to extirpate Creature-Wor-
fliip, but only to change thofe particular Creatures, who were
to be Obje<9:sof Worfhip, and inflead of the Images of Jupiter
and Bacchtfs to fet up Images to Saints. ,
Thus I have confidered the Mifi cprefentations charged upon
the firft SeBion of the Trefervative j as for his own reprefenta-
tion of the Faith and Pradice of the Catholicks, as to their
Worfhip, I am not concerned with it. There are a great many
late Treatifes, wherein thofe Matters are fully debated. Such
as. The DoBrines and FraBices of the Church of Rome truly repre-
fented^ The OhjeB of Religious Worfhip. The Anfwer to Fapifis
frotefiing againfi Frotejlant Popery. The late Anfwers to M, de
Meaux and his Vindicator j and a Book, which thisjefuite has
fbme reafbn to know. The Primitive Fathers no Papifis. And to
thefe I refer my Reader, who needs any farther latisfadion.
Sect, II.
Concerning the great hove of God to Mankind, &c.
He has found but fix Mifreprefentations and Calumnies in
this SeBion, which is pretty moderate j and fbme few
Arguments againft Purgatory, and our recourfe to Saints for
their Prayers; which he fays he lias colleded, (not one omitted)
but when I read them over, I could not find any one of them:
I confefs, it is a very dull and troublefom task to anfwer him;
for he tranfcribes feveral Paffages out of ray Book, without
reprefenting their connexion with what goes before or what
follows, or without telling, what their fault is, or offering one
word to confute Biera: dut whoever will but taJte the pains
to
A Vindication of the Second Fart of
to put every Sentence into its proper place, will need no othet"
anlwer. And this I fliall do, as briefly as I can.
Having fhewn, what great aflurance the Golpel of our Sa-
viour gives us of the love of God to fmners, I came to (hew,
how irreconcilable the Doctrine of Purgatory, and the Invoca-
tion of Saints and Angels, as our Mediators with God, is with
the Gofpel-Notion of God's Love, and that Security it gives us
of Pardon, through the Merits and Intercellion of Chrilh
I. The Doctrine of Purgatory, where the Punilhrnents are
as fevere as in Hell itfelf, only of a left continuance, and yet
they may laflfome thouland Years, unleft their Friends or the
Prietts be more merciful to them. This I faid was a barba-
rous Dodrine, and fo inconfiftent with the Gol^l-Account
of God's Love, that it is not reconcilable with any Notion of
- Love and Goodneftj joa may call it yufiice, you may call it
Vengeance, if you pleafi, but Love it is not. Thefe words he
cites as an Argument againlt Purgatory, without repreftnting
on what it is founded, viz,, that glorious dilcovery of God's
love to finners in the Golpel of Chrift ; now if to damn men,
whole fins are pardoned, for a thouland or two thouland
Years, (for fb long fure a man may lie in Purgatory, orelfe
the Pope is a great Cheat for felling Pardons for ten and twen-
ty thouland Years, if no man be in danger of lying one thou-
land Years in Purgatory) I lay, if this be not reconcilable
withtheGolpel-Notion of God's Love, then Purgatory can be
no Golpel-Doctrine. This Argument he never mentions, and
never pretends to anfwer in his Catholkk DoBrine of 'Purgatory.
He lays the Dodrine of Purgatory is Goi's Juftke, tempered
with Infinite Mercy: but I defire him to Ihew me, where this
Infinite Mercy is, to torment a humble, penitent, pardoned
finner forlbme thouland Years in Purgatory ? I believe I fpoke
the lenleof Mankind, when I faid, IJlwuU rather chufe to fad into
nothing, when I die, than to endure a thoufiand Tears torments to ht
happy for ever j for humane nature cannot bear the thoughts of that t
This he leverely cenliires, and fays, that man is unworthy ever to
fee the face of God, who declares with Dr. Sherlock, that did God
of 'er htm the eternal pojjcjfim of himfelf on this condition, that he
fsould fir Li fitffer a thoujand years, he would abfolutely rfufe iti I
wifh he had kept to my own words, for I never would luppofe
lb much Blalpemy, as that God Ihoiild oflfer the enjoyment of
the P refer'vati've againH P 0 F EKT: 71
himfelf upon liich terms, but I am of the fame mind ffill; though
I prefer the enjoyment of God before ail the World, and would
fiiffer all the Miferies and Calamities of this Life to obtain if,
yet a thoufand years torment in Purgatory, which is as intolera-
ble as Hell, is a temptation to big for humane Nature ; and if
moft men think as I do, I believe moft men will be at a lofs to
find out the infinite Mercy of Purgatory.
I obferved, that there are two extravagant Notions whereon
the Dodrine of Purgatory is founded.
I. That God may forgive fins, and yet punifh us for them,
for no man can go into Purgatory according to the Doftrine of
the Church of Kome^ whole fins are not already forgiven, and I
appealed to all mankind, how irreconcileable thefe two are, to for-
give and to punilh. For ivhat if it men are afiaid of when they
have finned ? Is it not that they fiall be pmijhed for it ? JVhat is it^
men defire^ when they defire pardon ? Is it not^ that they may not be
punified? Which fhews, that no man thinks , he. is forgiven,
when he is puniihed. Here ha reprefents me to fay. That men
defire nothing when they ask pardon, but meerly not to be punifhed j
which declares, that they value not God s love and favour as Children,
hut meerly fear the lajh like Slaves. But I never faid any fuch thing.
Does it follow, tlut becaufe all men, who defire pardon, defire
not to be punilhed, that therefore they defire no more ? and yet
pardon in its ftrid: notion fignifies only the remiffion of punilh-
ments; that pardoned Sinners fhall be rewarded too, is the a-
bundanceoF Grace through Jefus Ghrift : but yet I fay, the firfl
ad of God's love is not to punilh, and he who values God's love
and favour, in the firft place defires not to be punifhed: for this
was the Argument I infifled on, that fuch a Notion as this, that
God pardons Sinners, and yet punilhes them fome thoufand years
in Purgatory, is inconfiftent with God's goodnels declared by his
Son Jefus Chrift; for no man thinks fuch a pardon an cxprcflion
of'love, which does not remit the debt nor the punilhment. Tloat
it IS in our power, as he fays, to attain Salvation without fujfering in
Furgatory, makes Purgatory no more an ad of goodnels, than
Hell is, which it is in our power by the Grace of God to efcape
too : but the bell account he gives of God's goodnels with relped
to Purgatory is this: That God refiores his favour to as, before our
hearts be hs perfeBly converted to him, as his jufiice might well require:
that is, he takes us into his favour, before we have thoroughly
repented of our fuis and reformed them, but then Purgatory-fire
L muft
A Vindication of the Second Tart of
JTiufl: expiate the defeats of our repentance and reformation : now^
this is a great deal more and a great deal le(s than the Gofpef
teaclies us of God's love to Sinners. For the Gofpel promiles no
mercy to any^ but to true penitent and reformed Sinners, and
therefore to receive men, into favour before their hearts are thus
perfeBlj converted, (which I fuppofe he, means of an Evangelical
riot of a Legal Perfedion of Converfion, that is, true and fincere
Repentance) is more mercy than the Gofpel promifes; and to
torment fiich men in Purgatory, who are received to favour, is.
a great deal lefs; and it is fomewhat hard to underftand the fa-
ATour of a thoufand years punifhment, though it may be thought
favour to receive Sinners, before they are perfedly converted.
And yet he has told the plain truth of the cafe j for this is the on-
ly thing, that can reconcile men to the thoughts of Purgatory, or
make them think it an Ad of Grace, that it is in exchange for
the pleafuresof Sin, which tliey are fb very fond of j and thofe.
who will venture Hell to enjoy their Luffs, may well think it an.
Ad of Grace to turn Hell into Purgatory : but this is not the
Gofpel reprefentation of God's love to Sinners; which is to par-
don none but true Penitents, and not to punifh thofe in the next
World, who are adually pardoned.
I granted, it is fbmething. To exchange the eternal punijhment of
Hell J "which is due to fin, into the temporal punijhment of Purgatorj,,
hut askt, Whether it would not have been a more perfebl exprejfion of
love and goodnefs to have remitted the temporal punifliment alfo of, it .
map be, jome thoufand years torment irtPurgatory? Whether this might
not have been expebled under a Difpenfation of the moH perfed Love ?.
And from that God, who fent hts only begotten Son into the World to:
fdve Sinners ? This is the force of the Argument, which the Je.
j'uite conceals, that though I^urgatory be more mercy than Hell,,
yet it does not anfwer that reprefentation the Golpel makes of.
God's infinite.love and compallion for penitent Sinners, through
Jefus Chrift.
2. I obferved, that in Purgatory, God does nor only punilli.
thofe whom he has pardoned, but he punifhes for no other reafbn
but Puniihnients-fake. For thus the Roman Dodors tell us, that
the-Souls in Purgatory are in a ffate.of Pardon, and in a ffate of!
pei febt, Grace, that they, fuffer the pains of Purgatory not to
purge away any remains of Sin, or to purifle and refine them,.
and.Tuake them-more fit for Heaven, but only to bear the punilh-
mei^t due to Sin, for wJaich they liad made, no fatisfadion,while .
they.
the Freferifatiife P 0 P E KT.
they lived: now I dare boldly affirm^ this is irreconcilcable with
any degree of love and goodncfs : a jiift punilhment refpedis
the guilt of Sin, but there is no guilt when the Sin is pardoned ;
to make it an A6t of Goodnels, it mufl: refpedt the reformation
of the Sinner, which cannot be, when he is in a perfe<9: ftate of
Grace and needs no amendment; and fuch punifhments as nei-
ther relpedl the guilt of Sin, nor the reformation of the Sinner,
are neither jufl: nor good, which is the exad Notion of Purgaco-
ry. This he lets down as a Mil-reprelentation (p. 68.) but does
not tell us why : this Dodrine is taught by Roman Divines, as I
fuppole he knows, or if he don t, let him conliilt Bellarmin or
liich good Catholick Writers,
I liimmed up this Argument thus : Our Proteftant need not
difpute much about Purgatory ; let him only ask a Popi/h Prieft;,
How the Dodlrine of Purgatory can be reconciled with that ftu-
pendlous love of God declared to penitent Sinners in his Son Je-
fus Chrift ? For it is a contfadidlion to the Notion of Goodnels a-
mong men, to inflid fuch terrible punifhments in meer Grace
and Love, even when the fin is pardoned and the Sinner recon-
ciled, and no longer in a ftate of difcipline and trial. This is the
force of the Argument, and here the Jeluite, if he likes it, may
try his skill.
Secondly^ Another Argument I urged againft Purgatory was
this, that it deftroys or weakens that lecurity the Golpel hath
given Sinjners of their Redemption from the Wrath of God, and
the juft punilhment of their Sins. And that upon two accounts.
I. As it deftroys mens hopes in the Merits of Chrift, and the
Atonement and Expiation of his Blood. For if the Blood of
Chrift does not deliver us from the punilhment of Sin, what le-
curity is this to a Sinner ? Yes, you'll lay, CbriH has redeemed tfs
from eternal^ though not from temporal punijhments, and therefore pS-
nitent Sinners lhall not be eternally damned. This he puts down
as a MiPreprelentation, p. 67. and lays, p. 7.5. That Chrift truly
■obtained remijjion from all temporal as ivell as eternal pain, and that
ivhoever is regenerated by Baptifm, he not only is not adjudged to eter-
■nal torments, but neither doth he fuffer after death any Purgatorf
pains , if. he die in that frate of recovered innocency. This I grant
they own, that unlefs men fin after Baptifm, they are neither in
danger of Flell nor Purgatory ; and yet it is evident they deny
that Ghrift has expiated the temporal punilhnaents due to fin ei"
•ther in this World, or in Purgatory ; for if he had, there were
L 7. 'ifii
A Vindication of the Second Part of
an end both of the PopiHi Sacrament of Penance and Purgatory :
and if Chrift by his death had expiated the temporal puniihments
of fin, I would defire to know, why the temporal punilhment
of fin is not as well remitted by the Sacrament of Penance, as
by Baptifm ; fince the expiation of Chrift's Blood, as they pre-
tend, is applied to us in both : and therefore this is a meer fal-
lacy ; for though a Sinner in Baptifiti is delivered from all pu-
nimmcnt due to fin, yet he is not in a proper fence delivered
from what they call the temporal punifhment of fin, for there
was no fuch punilTiment due to fin before Baptifm. Hell, not
Purgatory,is the punilhment of all fin before Baptifm, and there-
fore a baptized Perfon is delivered by Chrill from Hell, which
is the only punilhment due to Sins before Baptifm ; and if he die
• before he commits any adual fin after Baptifm, he efeapes Pur-
gatory and goes immediately to Heaven, not becaufe Chrift's
death has delivered him from the temponal pains ot^Purgatory,
but becaufe he had done nothing to deferve it» For what they
call the temporal punilhment of fin is only the pains of Penance,
and no man is capable of the Sacrament of Penance, who is not
a baptized Chriftian j and yet Purgatory is of the lame nature
with the pains of Penance, for there men compleat the expiation
of their fins by enduring the pains of Purgatory, .which was
wanting to pcrfed their Penance in this World. And therefore
Baptifm does not remit the temporal punilhment of fin, becaufe
there is none due till men fin after Baptifm : it can no more re-
mit the temporal pains of Purgatory, than the temporal pains of
Penance, which none but a baptized Sinner is obnoxious to; and
therefore it is falfe ( according to their Dodrine ) to fay, That
Chrilt obtained remijjlon from all temporal, as well as etvnal pain, un-
lefs they will fay, that Chrift obtained remiflion of the pains of
Penance, and then farewel Penance and Purgatory together.
And this very bottom our Jefuite fets it cm, p. yj. where he tells
USj Tloefe who fay, that it were a greater, mercy in God to remit all the
pmifment due to fin, blame Chrifi for Preaching Penance, and account
him on that fcore lefs merciful: which juftifies what I faid, that the
pains of Purgatory anfwer the pains of Penance, and therefore
this temporal punilhmerw of fin, was not expiated by the Death
of Chrift no more then Penance is: and when he can prove,
that Chrift Preached fuch Penance as this, we will acknowledge
Purgatory..
Bur to return i-1 defired to know, bow any man can be;fatif-
fied:
the Prefer^attT/e againU POPE KT,
fied from Scriptuee, that Chrift by his death has delivered us from
eternal punilhmentSjif he have not delivered us from the temporal
punilhments of fir} in the next World. For if thof^ Texts which
proveour Redemption b}/ the Death of Chrift, do not prove, that
Chrift has redeemed us trom the whole punilhment dve to fin in
the next World, they prove nothing, and then there is not one
place of Scripture to prove, that Chrift has redeemed us from
eternal punifhments. For if Chrift^s dying for our fins, making a-
tenement for fin, being a frofitiation through faith in his blood; if re-
tnijpon and forgivenefi of fins, being jufitfied, ha'ving peace with God,
being reconciled to God, and faved from wrath, do not fignifie taking
away the punilhment of fin, I defire one Text to prove, that a
Sinner who is pardoned and juftified lhall not be eternally punilh-
ed for fin : and if they do fignifie taking away the punilhment
of fin, how can a Sinner, who is pardoned and juftified be pu-
nilhed for his fins, fb that thefe-Scriptures either prove, that there
is no Purgatory', or they cannotprove, that we ihall be delivered
from Hell. This Argument he llightly mentions, p. 69, but has
fo much wit as to lay nothing to it.
I asked farther, whether there are two kinds of punilhments
due to fin, temporal and eternal, of liich a diftind nature that
the promile of forgivenels does not include both, nay that God
cannot forgive both, that God can only forgive eternal punilh-
ment, but the Sinner himlelf muft endure the terhporal. If this
were the cafe, I would grant, the promiles of forgivenels. could
extend only to eternal punilhments; but if the Curie of the Law
be eternal death, and all other punilhments are only jlarts of the
Curie and a partial execution of it, then to forgive eternal pu-
nilhments muft include the forgivenels of temporal punilhments
as parts or branches of it: and this I Ihewed was the cale here,
that there is no other threatning in all the Gofpel againft fin, but
eternal death, and therefore all other punilhments are inflided by
vertue of this Law, as included in it j and conlequently he who.
is delivered from this Curie of the Law, from eternal puniHiments,
is delivered from the whole punilhment due to fin, though not
from corredion and dilcipline, which is not properly the Curie
of the Law, nor the Wrath of God. A little piece of this he
cites, p. 69, but without an anfwer. In his following harangue:
indeed for Purgatory, he endeavours to prove by Ibme examples
of God's puniihing thofe, whole fins were forgiven, andbyfome.
Sayings of the Fathers, that after the guilt of fin isforgiven^ tliere
re-.
A Vindication of the Second Fart of
remains an obligation to undergo punifhment; but theic have
been anlwered often enough, and arc no Anfwer to the Argu-
ment of the Trefervative^ and therefore I am not concerned ateut
them.
I asked farthor, why they call Purgatory, which is a place of
ptrniftment in the other World, a temporal punilliment? which
is an abufe of the Language of Scripture, which makes this World
a Cor, 4.18. temporal, and the next World eternal. The things which are feen
are ternportil^ hut the things which are not feen are eternal: and there-
fore temporal punilhments fignifie the punilhments of this World,
but the unfeen punifhments, as well as the unfeen rewards, of the
next World are eternal; which is a demonllration, that there is
no Purgatory ,unle6 it be eternal. This he thus repeats, The
things which are feen (that is^ of this World) are temporal j but the
things J which are not feen (that is,of the next World) are eternal. This
is a demonftration, that there is no Purgatory ; which is both to con-
ceal the force of the Argument, and to pervert it; for he lliould
at leaft have added, there is no Purgatory, unlef it be eternal.
But his anfwer to this is extremely pleafant, p. 76. St. Paul »e-
ver taught that all things^ that are not feen^ or of another World^ are
eternal, or elfe God would he eternally judging, and fo never rewarding
his Servants , or punijliing his Enemies. But it is plain the Apoftle
by things that are feen, or not feen, fignifies things which are to
be enjoyed or fuffered by us, not any tranfient Ads of God
Creatures ; and thus if tliere be any fuch thing as Purgatory in
the other World, it muft be eternal.
To this ! added ; The ftate of the next World is called either
'II John 25, life or death, eternal life, or eternal death. Thofe who believe in
■26. .Christ fsail.never die.. Now I defire to know the difference be-
tween living and dying and perijhing in the next World. For bad
inen do not ceafe to be, nor lole all ferife in the next World,
no more than good men j and therefore life can only fignifie a
ftate of liappinefs, and death a ftate of miiery. Now if. good
men muft not perifh, muft not die in the next World, they muft
not go to, Purgatory, which is as much perijhing, as much dying,
as Hell, though not fb long. This he thus recites, p. 69. If ho
helieves w Chnft., Jhall never die j theref■>re good men muft not go
to .Purgatory, which is, as much.penfhing and dying as Hell, but not [0
Jong. Which you fee, is ftill to conceal the force of the Argu-
ment, but the comfort is, he faysinothing againff it, unlefs his re-
peating it muft pais for a confutation. But he immediately
the Frefer'vatiue againH P 0 P ERT.
addSj as if it were in the fame period j otherwife Purgatory way he
everlafiing life for all 1 know, and fo the fains of it eternal. But this
is feveral periods off! In fumming up this Argument I inquired,
how a Papiff, who believes a Purgatory-fire, wherein he fhall be
tormented (God knows how long) for his (ins, can prove, that a
penitent (inner fhall not be damned for his fins. After other
proofs, which, I thought, it was realbnable for them to urge,
(and I am fure they can urge no better) I alledged this in their
behalf j that Chriit has promifed, that thofe who helwue in him,
jhall not perijh, but have everlafiing life: and that proves, that the
pains of Purgatory cannot be for ever, for then Chriff could not
perform he promife of beffowing everlaffing life on them : To
this I anfwer. So I confefs one would think, and fo I fhould have
thought alfb, that when Chriff promifed, that fuch believers
Ihould not perifj, and Ihould never die, that he meant, that fuch'
men fhould not go to Purgatory : but if falling into Purgatory, be
not perijhing and not dying, it may be everlafiing life too, for ought I
know, and then the pains of Purgatory may be eternal.
I hope the Reader is by this time fenfible, how eafie it is to ren-
der any Difcourfe ridiculous by taking half Sentences, and joyn-
ingthofe paffages together, which have no connexion and de-
pendance.
I obferved farther,. That the Dodfrine of Purgatory deffroysour
hope and confidence in the mediation of Ghrilf, as it reprefents
him lefs merciful and compaflionate or lefs powerful than the ne-^
eeffities of finners require him to be.^
1. As for his Compaffion. It is no great fign of tendernefs and
compaffion to leave his Members in Purgatory-fire, which burns
as hot as Hell. Could I believe this of our Saviour, J fhould have
very mean thoughts of his kindnefi, and not much rely on him for any
thing it IS a wonderful thing to me, that when a mercful man
cannot fie a Beaft in torment without relieving it, it fhould be thought
confifient with the mercy and compajjian of our Saviour, to fie us burn'
in Purgatory for Tears and Ages. Part of this he repeats, and I
fuppofe, thought all the World would take it for an ill faying;
and therefore leaves it, as I'le found it- j but I fhall ffand to it, tilP
he confutes it.
2. If it be not want of Compaflion, it muff be want of Power
in our Saviour to help us;— and if he want Power to deliver
from Purgatory,! fhould nwrequeftion his Power to deliver from'.
Hell J for that is the harder of the two; if bts^ Blood could nst
fiaUi
A Vindication of the Second Fart of
pjte fcr the temporal punijliment of fin^ which the Merits of fame fw
pererogatmg Saints ^ or the I'ope''s hdulgencies, or the Priefis MaJJes
can redeem its from, how could it make expiation for eternal puntjh-
ment ? if his intereH in the Court of Heaven cannot do the lef^ how
can it do the greater ? This he calls a Miireprelentation, and truly
as he has recited ir^ it is a very great one. P. 68. That the Blood of
ChriH could net expiate for the temporal punifhment of fin^ which the
Merits of fame fupererogating Saints ^or the Priefs Ma]j'es,or Pope's h-
dulgencies can redeem us from j bow then can that Blood make expiation
for eternal punifhment ? I (ay^ if it cannot do one, which is the
greater^ much lefs can it do the other, which is the lels; he makes
me fay, that it cannot do one, which is the lels, and therefore
cannot do the greater: This is Popilh Liberty of Gonfcience with
a witnels.
From the Dodrinc of Purgatory, I proceeded to the Invoca-
tion of Saints and Angels, as our Mediators ; whether this does
not alio dilparage the Grace of the Golpelj the Love of God,^
and of our Mediator and Advocate Jefus Ghrift, to penitent lin-
nets. ^ ' '
Now I obferved i. with refpecSl to God ; That no man can be-'
lieve, that God is lb very gracious to finners for the lake of Ghrift;
who leeks to lb many Advocates and Mediators to intercede for
him with God. To imaginey that we want any Mediator with Gody
hut only our High-PrieH, who mediates in vertue of his Sacrifcey is a
reproach to the Divine Goodnef. This the Jeluite recites, but what
he has to fay to it, he does not tell us. I there Ihewed at large,
that God does not want Entreaties to do good, though his Wil-
dom and Juftice may require a Sacrifice and a High-Prieft to make
atonement for fin. _
To prevent that obvious Objedion, that God commands us to
Pray for one another on Earth; I obferved, that this is not by way
of Imereft and Merit, as the Church of Rome pretends the Saints in
Heaven Pray for us, but by Humble Supplications, which I Ihewed
was very reconcilable with the Wifdom and Goodnefs of God;
from thofe excellent ends it ferves in this World j this he calls a
Mifreprefentadon, p. 68. but I pray why ? do not they Pray to
God in the Name and Merits of the Saints.' are not all their Ojfces
full of fuch Prayers ? do they think the Saints in Heaven Pray
only as humble Supplicants, when the very realbn the Council
of Trent gives, why they ftiould fly to their Aid and Succors, is,
that they Reign with ChriPi ? do they not, as he adds, take the
theTrefervatweagainU P0 PEKT.
Virgin Mary, Angels and Saints for Mediators to incline God to be
good to peculiar perfons ? which he calls another Mifreprefenta-
cion J why then do they Pray lb frequently and devoutly to
them ? why do they tell of fo many miraculous Delive-
ranees wrought by the Virgin Mary in favour of her Clients,
and of other Saints in favour of their Devotees ? Englifh Prote-
ftants know thefe things too well, to be impoled on at this time
of day by the bawling and confidence of an ignorant Jefuite.
2. I oblervcd. That it is not le6 injurious to the Love of our
Saviour to fly to the Prayers and Aids of Saints and the Virgin
Mary j as if Chrift either wants intereft with God, or wants
kindnels to us, and either will not intercede for us at all, or will
not do it unlefi he be prevailed with by the Interceffion of Saints,
or the Entreaties or Commands of his Mother. And having
Ihewed what alfurance we have of the Love and Compaffion of
our Saviour, I added. This one would have thought Ihould have
given the greateft fccurity to finners of his readiaels to help them.
But it feems Chrift is not merciful and pitiful enough : his Virgin
Mother has fofter and tenderer VaJJions, and fuch an intereft in hirn^
or authority over him in the right of a Mother, (as fome of them have
not without blajfhemy reprefented it) that Jhe can have any thing of
him J and thus they fuppofe the other Saints to be much more pitiful
than Chrift is, and to have intereft enough to proteSt their Supplicants,
or elfe it is not imaginable, why they Jhould need or defre arrp other Ad-
vacates. This he calls another Mifreprefentation, and makes me
fay, that the Church of Rome profelTes to believe all this; but I
fay no fuch thing, but only this is the natural interpretation of
their feeking other Advocates and Mediators befides Chrift: when
he can give a better account of this Pradice, I will acknowledge,
I was miftaken in my Argument, but am no Mifreprefenter; for
to Argue ill, and to Mifreprelent, are two things, as the Repre-
fenter hirafelf, Ifiippofe, has learnt by this time.
Sect. III.
Ah Anfvoer to the Thirty Mifreprefentations and Calumnies,
and fome Fanatical Principles faid to he offered in the Third
and Fourth Sedions.
HEre our Jeluite foams and rages; and I will make him rage
a little more, before I have done with him. For bad Spirits .
are apt to rage moft, the more they feel the power of Exorcifm,
M and
8o A Vwdication of the Second Fart of
and then there is no way to make them quiet, but to cafl: them
our.
The thir/I SeSHon of the Trefervati'ue concerned the Nature of
Chrifiian Worfhip, what Chrift has reformed in the Worlliip of
God, and what Worfhip he has prefcribed.
I. As for the firff, 1 faid, that Chriff has taken away every
thing that was meerly external in Religion; not external Ads,
nor the necelfary external Circumftances of Worfliip, butfuch
exernal Rites, as either by the Inffitution of God, or Superftition
of Men, were made Ads of Religion, to render us more accep-
table to God. This I lliewed was agreeable to the nature of
Ghriftian Religion, which has none of thofe ends to ferve, for
which thefe external Rites were inftituted by God under the
Jewifh Law, or invented by Men. For r. There is no Expia-
tion or Satisfadion for Sins under the Gofpel, but only the Blood
of Chrift, and therefore there is no place now for any Expiatory
Rites and Ceremonies. 2. The Golpel makes no difference be-
tween Legal Cleannefs and Uncleannefs, and therefore diftindi-
ons of Meats and External Wafliings and Purifications are now
out of date. 3. Nor is there any Symbolical Prefence of God
under the Golpel, which puts an end to the Legal Holinels of
Places and Things. 4. Nor are Material and Inanimate Things
made the Receptacles of Divine Graces and Vertues, to convey
them to us meerly by Contad and External Applications, liktf
fome Amulets or Charms to wear in our Pockets, or hang about
our Necks. 5:. The Chriftian Religion admits of no External or
Ceremonial Righteoufnels— Now this cuts off every thing,which
is External in Religion at a blow, becaufe it cuts off allhopesand
relyances on an External Righteoufhefs, 6. Hence it appears,
that the Chriftian Religion can admit nothing, that is External,
but only fbme Faederal Rites; jfuch as the two Sacraments of
Baptifin and the Lord's Supper are.— And fuch Rites as thefe are
iieceffary in all inftituted Religions, which depend uponfreeand
voluntary Covenants. For Jtnce Mankind has by fin fiorfieited their
natural right to God's favour, they can challenge nothing from him noiv,
hut by Fromife and Covenant, and frncefiuch Covenants require atnu'
tual fiifulation on both fides, they muH be tranfiaBed by fiome vifible and
fienfible Rites, vdoereby Ood obliges himfielfi to us and ive to him. This
he calls a Fanatical Principle, but why I know not. And lays,
that this is defiroyed by my former Principle ofi taking away all Rites
that are ABs tf Religion. This is a levere Man, who will not
allow
tiid''
the Prefer'z/ati'z/e againjl P 0 P ERT. Si
allow me to make one Exception from a General Rule, which
no man yet was ever denied j efpecially when I give luch a
peculiar realbn for the Exception, as is applicable to nothing
elfe: that an inftituted Religion'is and muft be founded on a
Covenant, that a Covenant muft be tranlacted by vifible and
fenfible Rites; for there cannot be a vifible Covenant, nor a
vifible Church founded on this Covenant without vifible and
lenfible Rites. And this I fuppofe he will think a fufficient
Anfwar to what he fays. That on th^ Principle I ought to teach,
that the mutual fiipulation betwixt God and us muft he made by Cfl«-
his interior Graces, and our interior TVorjhip, becaufe God mufi be J' ' P' *
worshipped as a meer Spirit. That God muft be worfiiipped as
a meer Spirit, and therefore without any external Ads of
Worfhip I never faid, much left did I aflign it as my reafon
hereagainft a meer external Worfhip, that God muft be wor-
fhipped as a meer Spirit, but that the nature of the Ghriftian
Religion will not admit of fuch an external Worfhip. And yet
if he can tell me, how this Stipulation or Covenant can be
made betwixt God and us by interior Graces without fbme
vifible covenanting Rite, how the Ghriftian Church, which is
a vifible Society diftinguifhed from the reft of the World by a
vifible Covenant, can be thus vifibly incorporated by inte-
^•ior invifible Graces, I will confefs then, that there had been
no need, had Chrift fb pleated, of any vifible Sacraments.
He adds, upon ■whate'ver account that interior Covenant (but
we fpeak of an external vifible Covenant, which requires vifible
Pledges and Seals) requires a vifible fenfible Mark, and our aBual
Communion with Christ another, all the Communications of God's
Graces to us, all our return of fVorJhip and Adoration will equally
admit of fenfible Signs and Rites. Let us apply this then tothofe
Initances I gave of this external Worfhip, and fee whether
there be the fame reafon for that, as there is for fbme vifible
figns of a vifible Covenant. The fame reafon and neceflity,
for inftance, of fbme external Rites to expiate fin j now the
Gofpel declares, there is no expiation of fin, but the Blood of
Chrift, that there is of Gofpel-Sacraments to apply the expia-
tion of Chrift's Death to us. The fame neceflity of external
Wafhings and Purifications, diftindion of Meats, &c. Now
the Gofpel has put an end to all legal Uncleannefs, as there
is of Baptifin to away our Sins, or of the Lord's Supper
M 2 to
A Vindication of the Second Part of
to. ftrengtheii and refrelh our Souls by a Spiritual feeding on
the Body and Blood of Chrift: the fame external holinefs of
Places to fandifie our Worlhipj now God has declared^ that-
he has no fymbolical Prelence on Earth, the lame ncceffity of
material and inanimate receptacles and conveyances of Divine
Graces and Vertues, the fame neceffity of an external and ce-
remonial Righteoufhefs, which is fiich a contradidion to the
whole defign of the Gofpel, as there is of the Gofpel-Sacra-
ments to receive us into Covenant, and to convey the Blel-
fings of the Covenant to us. As for external Ads and Gir-
cumftances of Worlhip and Adoration, 1 allowed the neceffity
of them under the Gofpel, but thefe are very difierent things
from external religious Rites, and if he knows no reafbn, why
the conveyances of Grace ffiould rather be confined to the two
Golpel-Sacraments, then to-Holy Water, or Agmts Detj, or
the Reliques of Saints, or ffich other Popilh Inventions, I will
tell him one: becaufe the Spirit of Grace is the Spirit ofChrilf
and derives his influences only to the myftical body of Chrift,
all our Graces are the immediate-influxes of the Divine Spi-
rit, and nothing can intitle us to the Graces of the Spirit, but
being Members of Chrift's Body, and there ace no vifible Sa-
craments of Union to Chrift, but Baptifm and the Lord's
Supper, and therefore no vifible Rites of conveying the Gra-
ces of the Divine Spirit to. us but thefe. Again, As our Spi-
ritual Life confifts in our Uhion to Chrift, fb this Union
makes us New Creatures, for he that is in ChriB is a Nev>
Creature: Now there are but two things neceflary to a New
Creature, a new birth, and a conftant ffipply of nouriffiment
for its increale and growth. Baptifm is our Regeneration or.
New Birth, whereby we are incorporated into Chrift's Myfti-
cal Body, and receive the firft Communications of a Divine
Life from the Holy Spirit j the Lord's Supper is the conftant
Food and' Nouriffiment of our Souls, wherein we receive
freffi fupplies of Grace, as our Natural Bodies do new Spirits
from the Meat we eat. Now let any man tell me, what more
is neceflary to a New Creature, than to be born and to be
nouriffied by freffi fupplies of Grace, till it grow up to a per-
fed man in Chrift Jefus: all this is done for us by Baptifm
and the Lord's Supper, and if all Divine Grace muft be deri-
ved to us^from our Union to Ghrift as the Members of his
Body,,
the Frefervative agaitiFl P 0 P ERT.
Body^ nothing can be more congruous than that the Sacra-
nients of our Union to Chrift, Ihould be the only vifible and
external Rites of conveying all fupernatural Grace to us: lb
that unlels Holy Water and RelickSj &e. be new Sacraments
of our Union to Chriftj they can be no Golpel conveyances
of Grace; and by the way^ whoever well confiders this, will
think it little lefs than a demonftrationj that there can be but
two Golpel SacramentSj becaufe there are no other vifible Rites .
of uniting us to Chriit_, and conlequently of conveying fuper-
natural Grace to us^ which is the Notion of a Sacrament. But
to proceed,
I came to apply this Difcourfe to Popifii WonTiip to fee,
how confiftent it is with that Reformation Chrift had made of
the Worlhip of God under the Gofpel. And I obferved in
general, that whoever only confiders tlie vaft number? of Rites
and Ceremonies in the Church of Rome, muft conclude it as
Ritual and Ceremonial a Religion as Judaifm itfelf: the Gere-
monies are as many, more oblcure ,. unintelligible and ufelefs,
mere fevere and intokrahle than the Jewijh Take itfelf, which St.
Peter tells the Jews neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear.
The firft part he has nothing to fay to, and by his filencecon-
feffes, it to be trub, and that is proof enough, that it is no
Chrifiian Worfhip. But he will by no means allow, that they
are as fe'vere and as intolerable as the JewiJh Take : this he calls a
Mif^reprefentation, and looks about to fee, what it fhould be,
that is fo intolerable ; he fiifpeds I mean their Fafts in Lent,
or on Fridays Saturdays, but he is much miftaken; I know
all thefe are very eafie and gentle things in the Church of
Rome; or that Trayer and Jim/deeds may be thefe terrible things.
And here becomes pretty near the matter, for I look upon it
very intolerable to fay over fb many Prayers and MafTes every
day without underffanding one word they fay, which is the
daily Task of many thoufand Priefts, who underftand no more
what they fay, than the People do. To part with their real
Eftates, many times to the great damage of their Families, out
of a blind Devotion to deliver their Souls from the imaginary
Flames of Purgatory, which they call Almfdeeds: to whip and
macerate their Bodies (if they be fb blindly devout) with fe-
vere Fafts (for men may faft feverely in the Church of Rome
if they pleafe) with long Watchings, hard Lodging, tedious
and
83
dm
^4 ^ Vindication of the^^Second Part of
and expenfive Pilgrimages, not to cure, but to expiate their
lius. He (ays. If the Ceremonies ufed in the Liturgy, he IhoLlld
have laid in their Mafs-Book and Rituals, and Breviaries, be a
burckn, jurely the Clergy or Religiom must feel the weight of it, yet
I am fire not one ever owned it. Is he liire of this ? Has he con-
felled all the Nuns and Monks ? but if they have not owned
it. Have they never felt it neither ? Will he himlelf lay this ?
but fuppofe they neither felt nor owned it. May it not be as
intolerable as thejewilli Law ? Did the Scribes and Pharilees,
who were lb fond of the Rites of Mofes, own it to be a heavy
Yoke ? And yet does not St. Peter lay it was lb ? Supedlition
will bear very heavy yokes of external Rites and Ceremonies
without complaining, to be delivered from what they think a _
more terrible yoke of mortifying and lubduing fin, but yet they
are very unliipportable Yokes itill to ingenuous and vertuous
Minds.
Hence I proceeded to a more particular confideration of
their Worlhip. i. That molt of their external Rites are pro-
felTedly intended as expiations and fatisfadions for fin. This
he durlt not deny, and therefore all their expiatory Rites are
no part of Chriftian Worlhip, which allows no expiation for
fin, but the Blood of Chrift.
Secondly, Thofe diftindions between Meats, which the
Church of Rome calls falting (for a Canonical Fall is not to
abltain from Food, but from luch Meats as are forbid on
falting days) can be no part of Chriftian Worlhip, becaule
the Gofpel allows of no diftindion between clean and un-
clean things, and therefore of no diftindion of Meats nei-
ther J For meat cemmendeth us not to God, I Cor. 8. 8.
Here is another Mifreprelentation ; That a Canonical FaH
is not to abfiain from Food. Does he deny this ? Yes he lays,
P. 8o, this is mo ft falje, but one Meal being allowed of on Fajling days.
A terrible Penance this! which molt of our Merchants, and
Citizens endure all the year round, and eat later too general-
ly than they do on falting days: But is there no Repaft of
Wine and Sweetmeats to be had at night for thole who cart
purchale them ? ♦ >
I added. There is no imaginable reafon, why it Ihould be
an Ad of Religion, meerly to abltain from Flelh, if Flelh have
no legal uncleannels j and if it had, we muft all have been
the Preferifatwe againU P 0 P E KT. hcy
Carthujtans, and never eat Flefiimore: for how it iTioukl be
clean one day, and unclean anotherj is not eafie to under-
ftand. This is another of his Mifreprefentations j for that
is the wordj right or wrong. He lays^ I would injimate that ibid.
they Judaiz,?. Whereas I exprefly faidj that they did not Ju-
daizej but did fbmething more abfurd: for they do "not make
fuch a diftindlion between clean and unclean Beafts, as the
Law of Mojes did, and therefore are the more abfiird, in for-
bidding to eat Flelh, or any thing that comes of Flelk But,
he fays, when God by Jeremy praifes the Rechabites for abfiaining
from Wme, was it becaufe Wine was held by them to have a legal
uncleannef ? No, nor is Wine Flefh. But, Is taming of the
fief, the curbing of fenfuality, no reafon at all for abfiinence ? And
does abftinence confift meerly in abftaining from Flefh ? Will
not good Fifh and good Wine pamper the Flefh too ? To
place abftinence in deleBu ciborum , as in abftaining from
Flelh, is a fenfelefs piece of Superftition: if it ferve the ends
of Mortification, it is well j if it be made eflential to a Reli-
gious Faft, it's abfurd, and no part of Chriftian Worfhip.
Thus I fhewed, ^ly, that the Church of Rome has infinite-
ly out-done the Jewilh Law, in the Religion of holy Places,
Altars, Veftments, Utenfils, which he paffes over filent-
ly. 4ly. That they attribute divine Vertues and Powers to fenfe-
lefi and inanimate things, as is evident from that great Veneration
they pay to Relicks, and thofe great Vertues they afcribe to them ;
from their confecrations of their Agnus Dei's, their Wax-Candles,
Oyl, Bells, Crofiis, Images, Afes, Holy Water, for the health of
Soul and Body, to drive away evil Spirits, to allay Storms, to heid
Difeafes, to pardon Venial and fometimes mortal Sins, meerly by
kifiing or touching them, carrying them in their hands, wearing
them about their necks. See. Thefe things look more like
Charms than Chriftian Worfhip. Indeed they argue, that
Cich men do not underftand what Grace and Sandification
means, who think that little Images of Wax, that Candles,
that Oyl, that Water and Salt, that Bells, that Crolfes, can be
landified by the Spirit of God, and convey Grace and Sandi-
fication, by the fight, or found, or touch, or fuch external ap-
plications. — He who thinks that inanimate things are ca-
pable of the SanBifcation of the Spirit, or can convey this SanBifi-
cation to us by feme divine and invifible efEuviums of Grace ;
may
A Vindication of the Second Part of
may as well lodge Realbn^and Underftanding, and Will, and
Paffions, in leni^eis matter, and receive it from them again
by a klfs or touch, Here are three of his thirty MiCrepre-
fentations all together; and yetthejefuit is more tame, than
the Devil is ufually reprefented to be, when he is frighted
with Holy Water. But let us hear him: All thefe are Mifre-
frefintations of our Faith^ which teaches us nothing of all this.
Well, however this is pretty moderate ; here is no Hedor-
ing yet; no Minifier Oates, and Minifter Sherlock. What we
believe J is^ that nothing can free us from the guilt of any frn, which
is external, and doth not affeB and change the heart. But this is
not the Queftion, Sir, but whether Agnm Bet's, Holy Water,
&c. can deliver from the guilt of fm, and drive away the
Devil, and work a great many Deliverances for us; whether
with or without the change of heart: if they can affeB and
change the heart, that is the better way ; and then they efFe-
6lually convey Grace, which is the thing I faid, and which
he dares not deny : if they cannot forgive fin, I defire him to
tell his People fo, who like that better than changing the
heart; and then they will purchafe no more Agnus Deis, nor
trade in £uch Roman Merchandize. But they believe. That
all Creatures of God are good, and that they are [anBified by the
Word of God and Prayer. What! to forgive Sins, to give
Grace, to allay Storms, to drive away Devils? Was this the
Apoftle s meaning in thole words ? Is there any word of Pro-
mile in the Gofpel for this ? Which is the meaning of being
lan6lificd by the word. Neither doth Faith teach us, that any
material thing hath any other than moral connexion with Grace,
either obtained for us by the Prayers of the Church, offered for us
at the Mejfrng of thofe things, or of thofe bleffed Saints whom we
honour, and,call upon by that Festeration, or by the Sacraments, ac-
cording to the Infritution and Covenant of Chrifr j but we do not
believe , that Gods Grace is inherent, but in the Souls,of .the
Faithjul, or that any fin is remitted, without a due diffofition in a
repentant finner. As for the Sacraments, I have already given
an account of their Vertueand Efficacy, that they are inftitu-
- ted figns and meanf of our Union to Chrift, and that intitles
us to thp influences of the divine Grace : Whether it be a na-
cural or moral connexion between Grace and fuch inanimate
things, is not the Queftion, but it leems Grace is annexed to
them J
the Frefer'vatI've agairM P0 PE RT.
them; which is all I affirm: But however Grace is annexed
to them^ the conveyance of Grace from them to the Soul, by
meer external applications, as by lighting up, or carrying
a confecrated Taper, by fprinkling Alhes on our heads, by
fprinkling our felves with Holy Water, by wearing an Agnus
Dei J or fbme Relicks about us^&c. look as if it was done, not
by a moral but ^ natural efficacy j for what moral efficacy
can fuch things have upon our minds ? But let it be done
how it will, it feems fuch divine Vertues and Powers are na-
rurally or morally annexed to inanimate and fenfelefs things,
and naturally or morally conveyed from them to the Soul,
by external applications,and I defire him to fhew me the dif-
ference between fuch Obfervances and Pagan Charms. He
has confeffed enough, and as much as we could defire of him,,
when he adds. Or any Vertue to be now-a-days communicated o-
therwife by injenfible things^ than it was to the woman that touched
the hem of Chriffs Garments, ( for Chriff felt Vertue to pafsfrom
him, and therefore it was a very real Communication) or by
■the handkerchiefs of St. Paul, or fbadow of St. Peter : And here
were real and fenfible effeds, without any moral, but only
natural or rather fupernatural efficacy upon the Patient. And
if Holy Water, and Agnus Dei's convey Grace at this rate, I
affure you, they are very notable things. His undertaking at
laft to prove. Whenever required, that they ufe no other blefftngs
( or Confecrations of fuch inanimate things to fuch fpi ritual
purpofes ) but what they find in the Records of the Frimitive
Church to have been ordered by the Afofiles , is bold and
brave, and I here challenge him to make it good; but I hope
he will produce better Records for it, than his Homily of
St. Aufiin of the Affumption of the bleffed Virgin.
fiy. I obferved farther, that all this encouraged men to
trufl in an external Righteoufhefs. For, i. Such external
Rites are very apt to degenerate into Superftition. Efpecial-
ly, 2. When they are recommended as very acceptable to God,
as fatisfadions for our fins, and meritorious of great Rewards.
And this is that ufe they ferve in the Church of Rome: They
affert the neceffity of humane [attsfablions j and what are thefe [atis-
fablory works ? Fafiings, Whiypings, Pilgrimages, 8CC. all which
, men may do, without the leafl Jorrowfor fin, without any true De-
vojjon to God;i mortifying any ono Lnfi, To giake this a
' N MiC
88 A Vindication of the Second Part of
19' Mif reprefentatiorij he repeats it thus: They account fatisfa^o-
ry works, Fafiings, ABs of Penance, Prayers, Alms, though done
without the leap forrow for fin, 8cc. Whereas I lay, they ac-
count thefe latisfadory works, and they may be done with-
out the leaft Ibrrow for fin. I^w are not thefe fetisfadory
works ? That he dares not deny. May not all thefe be done,
without Ibrrow for fin ? That he dares not deny neither.
And this is all I laid ; but then he will not allow, that they
are latisfadory works, without Ibrrow for fin : I would to Go J
he could perlwade all th6 Members of his Church of the
truth of this. But let me ask him one Queftion: Are thefe
Ads of Penance in the Church of Rome intended as exprel-
lions of Ibrrow for fin, or as latisfadions for the punilhment
due to it ? Are they necelTary, before Abfolution, to qualifie
men to receive the pardon of their fins, as the figns and de-
monftrations of a fincere repentance ? or to be performed
after the fin is forgiven, not to exprels our Ibrrow for fin, but
to undergo the punilhment of it ? Are they always the volun-
tary choice of the finner, as the expreflions of a hearty forrow
are, or the fentence of a Judge, impofed by the Prieft upon
Abfolution, or by the fears of Purgatory ? Now if fuch Ads
of Penance are only intended to latisfie for the punilhment, I
think to undergo punilhment, whether with or without lor-
row for fin, does latisfie for the punilhment of fin : Sorrow
may be necelTary to Abfolution j but when the guilt of fin is
pardoned, if men can undergo their penance without forrow,
the latisfadion is never the lels: and Ihould he promote this
Dodrine, that the works of Penance avail nothing, unlels they
be done with a hearty forrow for fin, men would not be lb
eafily perfwadcd to undergo their Penances, elpecially if the
Pricll be fevere-
I ohferved farther, that the true reafon why any thinking
men are lo fond of an external Righteoulnefs, is to excufe
them from true and real Holinefs of Life All men know,
that in the Offices of Piety and Vertue they can never do
more than is their duty j and therefore as nothing can be
matter of meiiit, which is our duty. So the true intention of all
merits and works of Supererogation, are to Jupplf the place of Duty^
and to fatsspe for their fins, or to purchafe a Reward, which they
have no titk to hy doing their duty/: that is, becaufe they do not
their
the Prefer<z/ati'z/e agawfl POPEKT. 89
their duty. But then the Jefuit reprefents itj as if I ftidj They Pag. Si.
could have ?jo reward fer doing their duty, and therefore they add
works of Supererogation j which is JeRiit like: they may be re-
warded for their duty^ if they would do it_, though they can-
not merit by doing their duty.
^ly, I obferved, that to make thefe meritorious and fatis-
factory Superftitions more eafiCj one man may iatisfie for ano-
ther, and communicate iiis Meiits to him; this the Jefuit
confidently fays, is a fsam ; for each man is bound to fatisfie for
hirnfelf, fulfilling the Penances impofid on him. Now liippofe that
men are bound perlbnally to perform thofe Penances which
are impofed on them by their Priefts in Confeflfion^ what I
faid was not confined to Penances impofed in Confeffion ;
and I prefiime he will grant there are other fatisfadions and
penances neceffary befides thele. Did he never hear of men, -
who have been hired to whip themfelves for fbme rich and
great finners ? to fay fuch a number of Ave-Marm for them ?
If one man cannot fatisfie for another^ what becomes of their
Indulgences, which are the application of the Merits of Su-
pererogating Saints to thofe who need them
Another Mifreprefentation is, that I fay. They pay for Indul- P^g. 79.
gences with Money, and buy SatisfaBions and Merits. But though
Indulgences are not to be had without Money, it is a fad Mifi
reprefentation to call this Buying, which fliould only be called
Alms-deeds; but the thing is the fame, let them call it what
they will; Alms-deeds, if they will call them Alms-deeds,
and that at a fet rate and down-right Bargain, are the price of
Indulgences and Satisfadions i and if this were the reafon of
giving Alms, were there fuch an exprefi Bargain and Sale in
the cafe, I am of his mind, that every Alms-giver might with as
much jufiice be accufed to have bought of God his Grace and Par-
don for a fum of money.
From hence I proceeded to lliew, what kind of Wotfhip
Chrifl has prefcribed to his Difciples, and the general account
we have ot it. 4 John 25, 24. But the hour cometh and now is,
when the true worjhippers jhall worjlsip the Father in Jfirit and tn
truth, for the Father Jeeketb fuch to worjhip him : God is a Jfiirit,
and they that wor^iip him, mufi worjhip him in jfiirit and in truth.
In which dcfcription of Goipel-Worihip, there are three things
included, i. That we mufi: worihip God under the notion
N 2 of
po A Vindication of the Second Tart of
of a pure and infinite Spirit: 2. under the charader of a Fa-
ther. 5. With the Mind and Spirit. But he has found little
here to except againft, only two or three Fanatical Principles,
which foall be briefly confideretl.
fag. 85. The firft. God being a Spirit ^ muH not he fought for in Houfes
of Wood and Stone: becaufe he nsuH be worflnfiped in Spirit (as a
Spirit it; ihould be, which differ greatly) he musl ?iot be ovorflnp.
ped bp any material or fenfible Reprefentations (by material Images
and Pi<3:ures) thofe words except your righteoufnef exceeds therigh-
teoujnef of Scribes and Pharifees, you (hall in no wife enter into the
Kingdom of Heaven, cuts off every thing, that is external in Reli-
gion. Here he has jumbled things togetfier of a different na-
ture. I fhall begin with the lait firil, becaufe it concerns
what I have already accounted for. That the Chrifiian Re-
ligion admits of no external nor ceremonial Righteoufnefs:
the gr^at defign of the Gofpel being to make us truly good,
that we may be partakers of the Divine Nature. There is
nothing our Lord does more feverely condemn than an exter-
nal and Pharafaical Righteoufnefs— Except your Righteoufnef
exceed the Righteoufneff 8cc. Now this (not thefe words meerly,
but this rejeiting an external Righteoufnefs) cuts off every
thing that is external in Religion at a blow, becaufe it cuts off
all hopes, and reliances on an external Righteoufnefs, and I
believe men will not be fond of fuch Superftitions, when they
know, they will do them no good. Now what is the fault
of this ? do not thefe Principles remit all Chriffians to the filent
Meetings of Quakers ? exclude finging of Pfalms ? that is, becaufe
it excludes an external Righteoufnefs, it excludes all external
Ads of Woriliip. Well rhymed Father,, Brains and Stairs- ■ -
I Since God will be worihipped as a Spirit, he will now eon-
fine his peculiar Prefence to no place, as he formerly did to
the Temple at J.erufalem,— for though for typical reafbns he
had a typical and fymbolical prefence under the Jewiff difpen-
fation, yet this was not fb agreeable to his nature, who is a
Spirit, and will now be worfhipped as a Spirit, and therefore-
muPi. not now be fought for in Houfes of Wood and Stone: This,
lays he, excludes the ufe of Churches'rather than Barns. That is,
becaufb God does not confine his prefence to one place, be-
caufe he^has no fymbolical prefence, therefore there muft be
no places let apart from common ufes for Religious Worflrip.
Tl^s
the Vreferi/ati've againU P 0 F EKT. y i
Thus God will be worfhipped as a Spirit^ and therefore not by
ImageSj or material Reprelentations, which are lb unlike a
Spirit ; that is, fays he not by fuch material Reprefentati&ns
as finging ofPfalms. Well guefs't for ajcfuite !
The lecond Fanatical Principle is this. God and Chrift are Ibid.
not prefent in the Ajjemblies of Chrifiians by a figurati ve and fymbo-
Heal Prefence: Tioere is no (ymbolical Prefence of God under the Go-
fiel. Though God fids aU Placesy it is a great abfisrjity to talk ofi
more fymbolical Prefences thdn one : for a fjmbolical Prefence
confines the unlimited Prefence of God to a certain place, in order to
certain ends, as to receive the fForJhip, that is paid to him, and to
anfoaer the Prayers, that are made to him j now to have more than
one fuch Prefence as this, is like having more Gods than one. To
which he anfwers, to fay nothing ofi the abfurdity of this Difcourfe,
■which makes that Chrifiian an Adorer of two Gods, who by Faith
adoring God in Heaven 'and in his own Soul, worjhips him in both
places. Truly he had better have faid nothing, than nothing
to the purpofe; for is God fyrabolically prefent in Heaven,
or in tlae Soulsof Men i in Heaven he is really prefent, in the
Souls of Men he is prefent by his Grace and Spirit, Init in
neither by Symbols and Figures of his Prefence, as he was
prefent in the Temple. But he has a terrible Argument to
come. Doth not this defirpy the very efj'ence of your Sacrament, the
Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper, which you own to be a fymbo-
Heal Prefence ofi Chrift ? but no Place nor Object of Worfhip.
And yet though we grant the Eucharifl: is a Symbol and Fi-
gure of Chrift's Body and Blood, it is no Symbol of Chrift s
bodily and perfbnal Prefence, unlefs it be a Symbol of Chrift's
bodily Prefence on the Crofs, for it is a Symbol only of
Chrift's broken Body and of his Blood ihed for us j and the
intention of it is not to reprefent Chrift bodily prefent with
us, but to be a Memorial of him in his bodily abfence, and
therefore it is no fymbolical Prefence of Chrift; for the Fi-
gures and Symbols of his Body and Blood, if they be a fym-
bolical Prefence, muft be the Symbols of his bodily Pre^- '
fence.
His third Fanatical Principle is this. If God be better wer-
flipped before an Image than without one, then the Worfhip of God is
more confined to that place, , where the Image is. I cannot fee, how '
to avoid this, whereas there is no appropriate place- ofi PForfhip under
the I '
p2 A Vindication of the Second Part of
the GoJ^el: and ^tis the fame cafe^ tbo' the Image be not appropriated
to any place, hut carried about -with us ; for ftiU the Image makes
the Flace of Worfnp. Moft of thefe are my words, but hp has
tranfplaced them fo, as to lofe the Argument. The force of the
Argument is this. If the Worfhip of God muft not be confi-'
ned to any Place or (ymbolical Prefence, then he muft not be
worfhipped by an Image, for an Image is a rcprefentative
Prelence of God, or of the Saints, and Men go to Images as
to Divine Prelences to Worfhip ; (o that where-ever the Image
is, which is a {ymbolical Prefence, whether fixt in a Church,
or carried from one place to another, it makes it a peculiar
place of Worfhip, as having a (ymbolical Prefence. So fnat
the whole force.of the Argument, lies upon an Image being a
(ymbolical Prefence. And this he tells us is an Argument for all
Difjenters againsi a Liturgy, or Set-Form of Prayer, (I iuppofe he
means the Book of the Liturgy, or Forms of Prayer) for if
God be better worfiipped by a Set-Form of Prayer, than without it,
then the Wbrfoip of God is more confined to that place, where that
Set-Form of Prayer, that Set Liturgy is ufed, and''tis the fame tho"
no fet place be appointed for that Set-Form of Prayer. The Parallel
is exall. It is (6 indeed, if he can prove the Common-Prayer-
Book to be a (ymbolical Prefence of God, as an Image is, but
till then -it is ridiculous.
At the conclufion of this SeBion I obferyed, that to wordiip
God in Spirit, is to worfhip him with our Mind and Spirit.
And from hence I (hewed the abfurdity of Praying to God in
an Unknown Tongue, when neither our Underffandings,
nor Affedions can joyn in our Prayers. For J fuppofe no man
.will fay, that to pray to God or praije him in words which we do
" not underfiand, is to worfhip God in Spirit, itnlefi he thinks, that
a parrot may be taught to pray in the Spirit. This he calls a Ca-
Pag. 3f. lumny. He would infinuate , that Catholicks when they ajfift to
(prefent he fhould have 'laid at) Prayers, which they do not under-
ft and, are not commanded to pray in Sfir-it by, deyjout Thoughts and
pious AffeBions. Now I infinuate no hich thing; when they
are prefent at Pnayers which they do not underhand, they
may have other devout thoughts for ought I know, but I fay
they cannot offer thofe Prayers to God with their underhand-
ing-, which they do not underhand, a,nd in fuch Prayers
•they do not pray with the Mind and 'Spirit, and therefore all
fiicH
the Prefer'z/ati've againH P 0 P EKT.
fuch Prayers are abfiirdj and contrary to the nature of ChrlftI-
an Worlhip, which is to woi ihip God in Spirit.
But my work is not at an end yet j there are fbme other
Mifreprefentations and CaUimnieSj which he has picked out
of the fourth Station of the Prejeruative^ which mult: be conli-
■ dered.
The fourth SeElion concerns the reformation and improve-
ment of Humane Nature, which I fhewed to be-the great
defign of the Gofpef and that particularly with rSfped: to
Knowledge and Holinefs; and I examined how far the Pi in-
ciples and Practices of the Church of Rome did comply with
this great Gofpei Defign.
I. As for Knov/ledge, J luppoledj neither the Church of
Rome nor any one for her would pretend that Ihe is any great
Friend to Knowledge, which is fo apt to make men Hereticks.
That knowing Papifts are not beholden to their Church for
their Knowledge, which deprives them of all the means of
Knowledge ; will not allow them to belieVe their fenles, but
commands them to believe Tranlubftantiation, which is con-
trary to the evidence of fenle ; forbids men the ule of Realbn
in matters of Religion ; futfers them not to judge for them-
lelves, nor examine the Realbns of their Faith; and denies
them the ule of the Bible, which is the only means to know
the revealed Will of God: and when men muft neither be-
lievc their Senfes, nor life their Reafon, nor read the Scripture,
it is eafie to guefi, what knowing and underftanding Ghrilti-
ans they mult needs be.
Againft this it nuy be obJe^Sbed, that the Church of Rome
does inltrud her Childrenin the true Chriftian Faith, though
Ihe will not allow them to read the Scriptures nor judge for
themlelves, which is the lafer way to teach them the pure Ca-
tholick Faith without danger of Error or Herefie. To this I
anfwered. This were lomething, did the Church of Rome
take care to inftrud them in aU necelTary Dodrines, and to
teach nothing but what is true ; and could-fuch men, who
thus tamely receive the didates of the Church, be faid to
know and to underlfand their Religion: lb that here were
two Inquiries, r. Whether the Church of Rome inftruds her
Children in all necelTary truth, and riothing but the truth.
2. Whether Ihe lo inftruds them, that they may be laid to
knovR
A Vwdication of the Second Part of
\
know and underftand. How k\r the Church of Riweisfrom
doing the firll'^ I fiid, all Lhriltiansin the World arerenfible
but tlicndelvcs^ but that is not our prelent Dilpute. But our
Jeluiteit Icems will make it the Difpute, or it fliall pals for a
ferfebt Slander^ for thus he repeats it, they take'm cart to infiruci
men in all necejjary Dobfrines. VVhich I did not pofitively affiriTi,
bat lince he will have it fo, I do now adiniij That they do not
tnjirubi: tmn in all necejj'ary Doblrines, and that they teach them a
great mdhy falje Doclrines. But then he muft remember, what
1 mean by "injhrucling, it is not meerly to teach them to repeat
the Articles of their Creed, but to give them the true lenfe
and meaning of them ; and I do affirm, and am ready to
prove it, and poffibly may do Id, when leifure permits, that
they do not rightly inllrud men in the great and necelTary
Doctrine of forgivenefs of Sins in the Name of Chrifl:, nor in
the nature of Chrilt's Mediation ^nd Interceffion for us, nor
in the natureof Juftification, or of Gofpsl and Obedience,
but teach fuch Errors as overthrow the true Gofpel notion of
thefe great and necelTary Dodtrines.
Then as for their manner of Teaching, to require men to
believe what they lay meerly upon the Authority of the
Church, without fuffering them to examine, whether fuch
Dodlrines are taught in Scripture, or toexercile their ownrea-
Idn and judgment about it, can make no man a knowing and
underllanding Chriftian. For "no nun underftands his Reli-
gion, who does not in Ibme meafure know the realbns of .his
Faith, and judge whether they be fiifficient or not j who
knows not how to diltinguilh between Truth and Error, who
has no Rule to go by, but muft take all upon truft, and the
credit of his Teachers, who believes whatever he is told, and
learns hi^ Creed as School-boys do their Grammar, without under-
fianding it: this is not an adive, but a kind of paftive know*
ledge; Such men receiue the imp-ejjion that is made on them^ as
Wax does, and underhand no more of the matter. Thefe Sayings
that are marked out, are more of hisMifteprefentations, which
need no other Vindication, but to belhewn in their own light,
and proper places.
And yet I did not deny, but- (bme men might be lb dull
and ftupid, as to be capable of little more than to be taught
their Religion as Children, but certainly this is not the ut-
moft
the T refers at we againU P 0 P E RT.
inoft perfedion of knowledge, that any Chriftian muftaim at t
which he thus reprefents. With them this is the utmofi ferfeSiion
cf Knowledge^ that any Chrifiian muft aim at. This I did not
lay, but this I fay, that it is the utmoft perfedion of Know-
ledge, which any man can attain to, who will be contented
with the Methods of the Church of Rome, not to examine his
Religion, but to take all upon the credit of the Church.
Well, How does our Jefuite confute this heavy (^arge and
§erfell Slander ? Does he fhew, that they teach all neceffary
Truths, and nothing but Truth Does he prove that men
may be very knowing Chriftians without underftanding the
Reafbns of their Faith ? Not one word of this, which alone
Was to his purpofe ; but he fays, hundreds of thoufandsof Re-
Kgious men are employed in inftruding the Ignorant, and
teaching Children ^ and whoever denied this, that they do
teach Men and Children after their fafhion ? But does this
prove, ,that they teach them all necelTary Truths, and nothing
but truth ? Or that they make them ever the wifer for their
teaching ? As for thofe ignorant Proteftants he has had to
deal with, if he made Converts of them, I believe they were
very ignorant; otherwife if there were Ignorance between
them, it was as likely to lie on the Jefuite's fide.
Having laid down this as a Principle, that one great defign
of the Gofpel is to improve the Knowledge of Mankind, I
hence inferred, i. That to forbid People to read and meditate
on the Word of God, can be no Gofpel Doftrine, unlefs not
to read the Bible be a better way to improve Knowledge than
to read it. 2. This is a mighty prefumption alfo againft Tran-
fiibftantiation, that it. is no Gofpel DoArine, beCaufe it over-
throws the very fundamental principles of Knowledge, as I
fhewed at large, and wonder he has not one word to fay for
Tranfubftantiation. 3. The Authority of an Infallible Judge,
whom we muft believe in every thing, without examining
the reafbns of what he affirms, nay though he teaches fuch
Doftrines as appear to us moft exprefly contrary to Senfe and
Reafon and Scripture, is no Gofpel-Doiftrine, becaufe it is
not the way to make men wife and underftanding Chriftians,
for to fiif^nd the exercife of Reafon and Judgment, is not
the way to improve Mens Knowledge j and here I diftinguifh
iKtweeh an infallible Teacher and an infallible Judge. The
O firft
95
p<5 ^ Vindication of the Second fart of
firll teaches infallibly^ but yet he that learns, muft u(e his own
Reafon and Judgment, unlels a man can learn without it. But
the Second ufurps the Office of every Man's private Reafon
and Judgment, and will needs judge for all Mankind, as if he
were an univerfol Soul, an univerlal Reafon and Underhand-
ing, which is to unfoul all Mankind in matters of Religion.
And therefore though there have been infallible Teachers, as
Mofes and the Prophets, Chrift and his Apohles, yet none e-
ver preteffded to be infallible Judges but the Church of Rome,—
Though there may be an infallible Teacher, there never can be an in-
fallible Judge, to whom I mult fiibmit my own Reafon and
Judgment without examination, becauje I cannot know, that be
teaches infallibly, unlef I am jure, that he teaches nothing, that is
contrary to any natural or revealed Law, and that I cannot know,
iiiilefs I may judge of his Dothrine by the light of Nature and
Revelation : for he is not infallible, if he contradids any.na-,
tural or revealed Laws. I gave an inftance of this in Mojes.
and the Prophets, and in C hrift himfelf: for when Chrift ap-
peared, there was a written Law, and all the Miracles he'
wrought could not have proved him a true Prophet, had he
contradided the Scriptures of the oldTeftament. And there-
fore he appeals to Mofes and the Prophets to bear teftimony to
his Perfon and Dodrine : and then Miracles gave Authority
to any New Revelation he made of God's Will, when it ap-
peared, that he had not contradided the Old. The Law of
Nature and the Law of Mofes were the Laws of God, and God
cannot contradid himfelf j and therefore the Do&rine of all new
Trophets, even of Chrift himfelf was to be examined, and is to he
examined to this day by the Law and the Prophets j and therefore
though he was certainly an infallible Teacher, yet men were to judge
of his DoSlrine', before they believed j and he did not recjuire them
to lay afide their Reafon and Judgement, and fubmit to his infallible
Authority without examination.
This our Jefoite makes a horrible outcry about, which
has made me tranforibe the whole of this Argument, fje
will hardly allow either the Author, or the Licenfer to
be Chriftians, and reforved this for the concluding Blow
Pag. 87* to end his Pamphlet with ; What Jefm our God blejjed for ever-
more , even when owned the Son of God, even from us Chrifji-
ans^ cannot exait a fubmijfm to his infallible Authority, without
exammng
the Trefer'vati've againU POP EKT.
examining the truth of what he fays, by comparing it with the prin-
ctpksof humane reafon : this is the fiim of all his Anfwerj the
reft is raving and lenfelels harangue. But the fallacy of all
this lies in a few words, Jejus the Son of God blejjed for evermore,
even when owned the Son of Son, even by ns Chriflians. For
thofe who own him the Son ot Ciod, no doubt will fubmit to
his infallible Authority, and therefore all profeft Chriftians
muif do fb ; but that which I laid is this, that no m^n could,
nor to this day can own hitn, upon wife confideration, to be
a true Prophet, and the Son of God, till he is fatisfied, that
he neither contradicts the plain light of Nature nor the Law of
Mofs; and therefore thus far we are to examine his DoCtrine;
but when it is evident he contradids no former Revelations,
and confirnis his Authority by Miracles, then we are to be-
lieve any new Revelations he makes upon his own Authority.
And therefore in my own Name, and the Name of the Li-
center, I here profefs, that when by examining the DoClrine
of Chrift by the Light of.Nature and the Law of Mofes, I find
he has contradicted neither, and by the great Miracles he
wrought, I am fatisfied he is an. Infallible Teacher, then I
own him for fiich an hfaUtble Teacher (or Judge if he pleafes)
that I muH not judge of his DoBrine (excepting the cafe of the
Light of Nature and the Law of Mofes) but believe it, ami fab-
mtt to him j and in thefe cafes, J fubmit to his Infallible Autho-
rity without examination j J receive all his DiBates as Divine Ora-
cles.
I do not wonder the Jefuite is fb much difturbed at this, for
if it appears, that Chrift himfelf did not pretend to be fuch
an Infallible Judge, as he would have us believe the Pope or
Church of Rome to be, they muft for fhame give up this kind
of Infallibility ; and therefore if he has a mind to Confute
this Principle thoroughly, that he may underftand my mind
plainly, I will reduce all to feme few Propofitions, which he
may try his skill upon, when he pleafes.
1. That no Prophet is to be believed in contradiction to
fuch plain and evident Principles of Nature^ as all Mankind
agree in. '
2. That the firft Prophet, who appears in the World, be-
fore any revealed Law, and confirms his Authority by plain
and evident Miracles, is to be believed in every thing he fays,
O 2 while
^8 A Vindication of the Second Part of -
while he does not contradidl: the plain and evident principles of
natural Knowledge. And tor that reafon Mo(es was to be be-
lieved in every thing, which did not contradict the hght of
Nature, becaufe he was the firft Prophet, who made a Publick'
Revelation of God's Will to the World.
3. That fucceeding Prophets, who confirm their Authori-
ty with Miracles, are to be believed in all new Revelations'
they make, which neither contradict the Light of Naturci
nor any former Revelations ; and therefore Chrift is abfolutfr
ly to be believed, when it appears, that he neither contra'
dieted the Light of Nature, nor the Law of Mofes.
4. When the Revelation is compleat and perfed; and has
no new additions to be made to it, (as the Gofpel-Revelation
is) how infallible (bever any Teachers may be, we muftbe-
lieve them in nothing, which either contradicts the light of
Nature, or the ftanding Revelationj or is not contained in the
Revelation.
And this fliews us, how far we are to fubmit our own Rea-"
fon and Judgment to an infallible Teacher ; that is, when we
are convinced of his infallibility, we muft then believe him
upon his own word, but not till then. And therefore we muft
of neceffity judge of all Prophets, till we can prove them true
Prophets, and then we muft believe them without judging.
The Miracles Mofes wrought were a fiifficient reafon to be-
lieve him to be a true Prophet, while he did not contradiCl
the Laws of Nature, and thus far all men were to judge of
him, and not to rely upon his Authority j but when by his
Miracles and the agreement of his DoCtrine with natural Prim
ciples, they were fotisfied, he was a true Prophet, they, were
to judge no farther, but to receive every thing elfe upon his
Authority.
When Chrift appeared in the World, men were to judge of
him, before they believed, and that not only by Miracles, and
the Conformity of his DoCtrine to the Light of Nature, but
by his Agreement with the Law of Mofes^ which was a ftand-
ing Revelation; and when by thefo Marks he was known to
be the true Mejftas, they were to believe every thing elfo he
laid upon his own Authority.
But Chrift having* now given us a perfeCl Revelation rf
God'i Will, to whioh no additions muft be made; we are to
, " - beHevfr
the Prefer<vatwe agavM P0 PE RT, pp
Believe no men, how infallible Ibever, any further than they
agree with the Gofpel-Revelation, and therefore mull judge
for ourfelves both of the (enle of Scripture, and the Dodtrine
they teach; which is a plain demonftration, that as there ne-
ver was fuch an infallible Teacher, whom we muft in all cafes
believe without examination, (which is what the Church of
Rcme means by an infallible Judge) for Mofes his Doftrine was
to be examined by the Light of Nature, and Chrilfs by the
Light of Nature and the Law of Mofis; fo now efpecially can
there be no fucli infallible Judge, becaufe the Gofpel is the
entire and perfedRule of Faith, and we muft believe no man,
againft or beyond the Golpel-Revelation ; and therefore muft
judge for our felves, and compare his Dodtrine with the Rule ;
which confounds the Infallibility of the Church of Rome. This
is the Scheme of my Principles j and now he knows, what he
has to anlwer, when he has a mind to it.
4//. I obferved farther. To pretend the Scripture to be an
oblcufe or imperfedl RulCjisa direct contradidion to the defign
of the Gofpel, to improve and perfedt Knowledge. He fays
nothing about the Obfcurity of the Rule, as for the Imperfe-
dions of it, I obferved, they pretended to fupply the Defeds
of Scripture by Unwritten Traditions. The firft Anfwer I gave
to this, which alone he pretends to fay fomeching to, was this.
If the Sriptures be animperfed Rule, then all Chriflians have
not a perfed Rule, becaufe they have not the keeping of un*
written Traditions, and know not what they are, till the
Church is pleafed to tell them J and it feems it was a very great
, while before the Church thought fit to do it : for fuppofe all the new
' Articles of the Council of Trent, were unwritten Traditions, fifteen
hundred Years wasfomewhat of the longefi to have Jo conjiderahle a
part of the Rule of Faith concealed from the IVorld. Which the Je-
fuite thus repeats ^ The Catholicks hy unwritten Traditions^ that Pag. 77;.
make up a part cf their Rule of Faith, mean fueh things at may be
concealed fi-om the World for 1^00 Years,never hgard of before in the ^
Church of God, kept very privately and fecretly for feveral Ages, and
totally unwritten. Whereas I laid nothing at all of this, but
that if the Twelve new Articles of Pope Rius his Creed in the
Council of Trent, be pretended (as they do pretend) to be the
Tradition of the Church, th^n de faBo this Tradition was con-
cealed for near ijoo Years, for there was no fitch Tradition
known
I 'OO ^ Vindication of the Second Fart of
known before, nor at the time of the Council of Trent, as has
been proved as to feveral Articles, by the learned Dean of
St. TauU ; and, when our Jefuite pleafes, he may try to con-
fute him.
1 obferved, that an implicit Faith, or believing as the
Church believes, without knowing what it is we believe, can be
no Cofpel Dc6trine, becaule it is not for the improvement of
Knowledge. And here I obferved, that fome Roman Dodors
think it fufficient, that a man believes as the Church believes,
without an explicite knowledge of "any thing they believe;
but the general Opinion is, that a man muft have an explicite
belief of the Apoilles Creed, bur as for every thing elfe it fuf-
ficeSj if he believes as the Church believes. That is, as I infer-
red, it is not neceffary men fhould fb much, as know, what
the new Articles of the Trent Faith are, if they believe the
Apoftles Creed, and in other things refign up their Faith im-
plicitely to the Church. From whence I concluded, that by
' their own confeflion all the Dodrines in difpute between us
and the Church of Rome are of no ufe, much lefs neceffary to
falvation, for if they were they would be as neceffary to be
known, and explicitely believed, as the Apoftles Creed; and
therefore Protenants who believe the Apoflles Creed, may be
faved without believing the Trent Creed, for what we need not
know, we need nor believe. What does our Jefuke fay to
Pag. 82. ■ this i is an implicite Faith no Dcdrine of their Church f have
J, miffeprefented their Dodrine ? he fays nothing of this. But
yfju Calumniator (he fays, meaning poor calumniated me) con-
founds "what is to be known ncceffitate medii, fo that he who
through no fault of his hath not learned it, is bowe'ver uncafable of
/al'vatkn (which is all contained in the Creed) with what mull be
known neceSica.te pra:cepti, becauje God hath commanded all thofe
who are in the occajion and in the capacity of being •injlrubled in it,
'to learn it. Whatever I confounded, I am fiire, this is a diftin-
dion would confound any man to reconcile it with an impli-
• cite Faith. Some things, are fb neceffary to be known, that a
man Ihall be damned meerly for not knowing them, though
he had no opportunity to know them (which fbme will fay is
very hardj other things are necefiary to be known to thofe
who have opportunity to know them, for that 1 fuppofe he
means, by cccafan and capacity, or he means nothing but a trick;
the PrefersjtI've againU P 0 PE KT, ioI
and what place is here for an implicite Faith? when they
mud know all that is a necelTai y means of falvation^ at the
peril of their falvation, and man: know every thing, as far as
they have opportunity of learning it j and therefore niulf ne-
vcr take up with an implicite Faith. He lays. Each man «
not--bound to know aU that Chrifi hath taught, bat yet all that
Chrift has taught as neceJJ'ary to hm in his fiation ; So that if all
Ghrifhans are not bound cohavean explicite belief and know-
ledge of any thing but tlie Apoftles Creed, then the know-
ledge of all the peculiar Dodlrines of Popery, it leenis-, are not
neceflary for them in their Ifation ; and if they be not necel-
lary for all Lay-Chrifliaps Itippofe in their ftation, they are ne-
ceuary for no body but the Pope and his Clergy ; and that is
the truth of the flory : for they are the only people that get a-
ay thing by them, and it concerns them only to know thefe
matters. . ' .
" Secondly, I proceeded to Holinels and Verttie, ■ the prprao-
ting of which is another great Gofpel-defign ; and 'lhewcd
how many ways this is hihdred in the Church of Rome.
I oblerved. That great -value the Church of Rome [ets upcti an
external Righteoufnef^ is -very apt to corrupt mens notions of what is
good, to perjwade thetn that juch external Obfer-vances are much
more pleaftng to God, and therefore certainly much better in them- '
felves,tban true Goff el-Obedience,than Moral and Evangelical Vertues:
for that which will merit of God the pardon of the greateft Immora-
lities, and a great Reovdrd, that which fupplies the want of true
Vertue, which com 'penfates for Jin, and makes men great Saints, mujt
needs be more pkafiag to God, than Vertue it felf. This he cites
as a great Mifreprelentation, and fo it is, as he puts it j for
he makes me fay, that they teach all this : whereas all that I
fay is, that thde are natural inferences which men draw from
that great value the Church of Rome- puts upon an external
Righteoufnefs, and that fuch Conceits as thele are very apt to
make men carelels of a holy life.
Thus he" makes me fay. The Roman Church teaches, that men
need take no care of venial fins,and that they may keep clear of mortal Pag. 7^,
fns, without any great attainment in Vertue; But I never laid,
the' Roman Church taught this. I fay. The DoSlrine of venial
fins, which cannot deferve eternal punishments, how many foever
they are, is apt to give men very fiight thoughts of very great evils:
that
lo;
Pag. 78.
A Vindication of the Second Fart of
that ivdtle this diflinBion lafis, men have an excufi at hand for a
great many fins, -which they need take no care of. What! becaufc
the Church teaches, that they need not avoid venial fins ? By
no means! But becaufe they lhall not be damned for them,
which is encouragement enough to moft men to be carelels
about them : If they keep Hear of mortal fins, they are fafe, thAX. is,
as to eternal damnation j and that men may do -without any great
attainments in Vertue; which is certainly true, whoever teaches
it, according to the Roman diftindion between venial and
mortal fins.
I ftiewed farther, that the Church of Rome makes void moft
of theGofpel-Motivesto a holy life. The fecond was the Ho-
iinels, and Purity, and inflexible Juftice of the divine Nature,
which enforces the neceffity of Holinels, becauie a holy God
cannot be reconciled to wicked men, nor forgive our fins,
unlefs we repent and reform. But the force, of this Argument u
loft in the Church of Rome hy the Judicial. Abfolttiion of the Prjefi.
For they fee daily the Friefi does abfolve them -without forfaking
their (ins, and God mufi confirm the Sentence of his Minifiers ; and
therefore they are abfolved, and need not fear that God -will not ab'
folve them ' Which mujt either dejtroy all fenfe of God's eJJ'ential
Holinefi and Purity, and perfwade them, that God can be reconciled
to Sinners, -while they continue in their fins j or elfe they mufi be-
lieve that God hath given power to his Priefis to abfolve thofe -whom
he could not have abfolved b 'mjtlf. This he thus repeats: They
teach ( for this muft always come in to make me a Mifrepre-
lenter) that -when a Priefi ab/olves men that for fake not their fins_,
God mufi confirm the Sentence of his MiniHer, and therefore they
are abfolved, and need not fear j whence they believe that God can
he reconciled to finmrs, whilfi they remain in their fins j and there-
fore they mufi believe that-God hath given power to his Priefis to ah-
folve thofe whom he cOuld not abfolve himfelf. How unlike tliis
is to what I (aid, I need not cell any man ; but he has not
only rail-reprefcnted my words and lenfe, but has rnade non-
fenfe of it too, which is a little too much at once: for if they
believe that God can be reconciled to finners, while they con-
tinue in their fins, they need not believe that God had given
power to" the Prieft to abfolve thofe whom he could not ab-
folve himfelf, that is, unreformed finners j for if God can be
reconciled to fuch men, who continue in their fins, he nray
abfolve them too, as well as the Prieft. But
the Prefer'vathfe againU PO PERT. lej
But I muft not part with this point thus. 1 faid, that de
fuEto men faw that they are every day^ or as oft as they pleafe
to go to confeffionj abfolvcd by the Prieft" without foriaking
their fins; is not this true ? That they are taught that God
confirms the Sentence of his Minifters, and when they are
forgiven by the Prieft^ they are forgiven by God : That the
Prieft is a Judge and abfolves as a Judge, by a true judicial,
not a meer declarative power: Is not this true ? And is not
this realbn enough for them to believe that when they are ab-
folved by the Prieft, without forfaking their fins, they are ab-
lolved by God ? And does not this deftroy that- Argument
from the holineli and juftice of God, that he will hot forgive
our fins, unlefi we forfake them ? But he lays, Theyteath., that
to receive ahfolution without areal forfaking of our Jtus^ in.lieu of
fdrgivenef of them, adds a hainous Sacriledge. But how do they*
teach this, by words or actions ? Their anions teach quite o-
therwile, for they ablblvemen over and over, who do not for-
lake their fins, though they know that they do not j and if
fuch Ablblutions do not avail to the forgivenels of fins, what
greater fecurity is there in the Popilh judicial, than in the
Proteftant declarative Ablblution? Nay, why do they, cheat
people out of their Souls, and lull them into lecurity by fuch
void Ablblutions ? Nor do their words teach any rieccflicy of
mens foriaking fin, to make their Ablblution valid; Contrition
is the moft that is required to Ablblution. Now luppole Con-
trition fignifie a^ibrrow for fin, and a rclblution to 'forfake it,
yet Contrition is not foriaking fin, is not holirieG of life j and
if Ablblution upon Contrition puts men into a ftatb of lalva-
tion, then men may be laved by the Sacrament of Penance,
without an adiual foriaking of fin^ for if they fin again, it is
only repeating the l^e Remedy, the Sacrament of Penance,
with the AWdution of the Prieft, will reftore them to the fa-
VDur of God, and a ftafe of lalvatibn again. WHiA Ihews
that the Church of Rome does not teach What lie pretends; I
wilh Ihe did^ or that he would teach it for her, that the Ablb-
luficMi of the Prieft will avail no rnan who does nor adlually
fiy^e his fins, and reform his life, and then we Ihould foe
whatrvalue men would have for their Judicial Ablblution.
^ A third Go^l-Motiye to Holinels, is the Death and Sacri-
-'b P fice
104 A Vindication of the Second Part of
fice of Chrift, becaufe his Bloudis the Bloud of the Covenant,
and the efficacy of his Sacrifice, extends no farther than the
Gofpel-Covenant; that is, no man can be faved by the Bloud
of Ghrift, but thofe who obey the GolpeL This I obferved
the Church of Rome leeras very (enfible of, that the Sacrifice
of the Croft will avail none but penitent and reformed Sin-
ners. But then the Sacrifice of the Mafi is a Propitiatory Sacri-
fice for the living and the dead, to expiate thofe fins, tvhich are not
expiated by the Sacrifice of Chrifi upon the Crofi, and that by the
bare opus operatum, by the offering this Sacrifice of the Mafi it
felfi without any good motion in the per/on for whom it is offered,
Pag. 82. Thele are fome moi'e of his Mif-reprefentations, to which he
adds, That when Chrifi was facrificedupon the Crofi, he expiated
only for the eternal punifiiment of fin ] when facrificed in the Mafi
only, for the temporal.
What has he to lay to this,, only three loud Calumnies. We
teach,thaf Chrifi on the Crofi gave himfelf a full Redemption for aU
the guilt.and debt of finners, who apply to them/elves that precious
Bloud by the means appointed by Chrifi. Very tender this! But
did Chrift expiate the fins only of true penitent and reformed
finners? Is that the only means of applying his precious Bloud
to us ?, "Xhat by the Sacrifice of the Mafi, as alfo by any geod Chrir
fiian Prayers for obdurate finners, fuch Graces may be obtained as
fiiall work in them their falvation ; but that no fin is remitted to an
, impenitent finner. Very artificial and trickilh ftill! Does the
Sacrifice of the Maft expiate fins, or not ? Do other good
Chriftian Prayers expiate, fin ? Why then does he joyn the
Sacrifice of the Maft, and other good Chriftian Prayers, as if
they attribute no more expiation to the Maft, than to Chri-
ftian Prayers ? Is the Sacrifice of the Maft to obtain Grace for
finners,. or to expiate fin ? Pray what Grace is obtained by
the Sacrifice of the Maft for thofe who are dead ? or is the
crifice of the Maft available for obdurate finners, or for thofe
only who are in a ftate of Grace? But pray, why not one
word to the main cafe, that the Maft expiates thofe fins, for
which the Sacrifice of the Croft made no Expiation ? What he
adds. That no fin is remitted to an impenitent fimur, is nothing to
the purpofe f, the queftion is, Whether no maafhall be par-
doned, who does not reform his fin, and live a holy me ?
Thefe
f
ICi
illtf
«IIE
lEK
'«.II3
E»1
Ctki
m
asit
Xli
IIS
!ssi
iin
■m
Si
Dir
aPifi
Jir!'
bSj
aob
iiti'
jditi
«!&
*;
the'Prefer'vati've againji FOFEKT, 105
Thefe are two things in the Ghurch of Rome, where men re-
ceive Abfolation upon their Contrition, as is pretended, who
never reform their lives. But as for the Opus Operatum he tells
us, Ip hath no reference to him^ "who receives the Sacraments,-^-but
to thofe who adminifier the Sacraments^ from whoje Viety they take
not their force. This I know Cajfander and fbme other mode-
rate Romanifis would have to be the fenle, but in contradidi-
on to the Dodrine of their Church: I lhall not enter into that
Dilpute now: our prefent cale is very plain. For the Mafi is
offered for the living and the dead, for thofe who are abfent
and know nothing of it, and therefore cannot joyn in the Ob-
lation of this Sacrifice j that if it have any vertue it muft be
its own, the bare Opus Operatum^ without any good motion of
him, for whom it is offered.
A Fourth Gofpel Motive to Holinefs is the Interceflion of
Chrift for us at the right hand of God. Becaufe he mediates
and interceeds only for true penitent Sinners 5 which obliges us,
as we hope for any benefit from the Interceflion of Chrift,
heartily to repent of our fms, and live a new life: but the
Church of Rome has found out a great many other Advocates
and Mediators, who by their great Intereft in Chrift, or fa-
vour with God, may obtain that pardon, which otherwife
they could not hope for : and that this muft be the meaning
of their Addreffes to Saints and the Virgin Mary, I proved, be-
caufe there is no other account to be given of it j for will they
fay, that Chrift wants Will or Power to undertake our Caufe,
if we be fuch, as according to the terms of the Gofpel it is his
Office to interceed for: I confefs'd, it was hard to think, that
they fhouW imagine, that the Interceffion of the Virgin Mary, or
the moSi powerful Saints can prevail with our Saviour to do that,
which according to the Laws of his own Mediation, they know he
cannot and w 'td not do. But yet fo it is, that is, thus they do,
and there is no other account to be given of it but this. This
. he fays is a bare-faced Calumny 1 But what is the Calumny ?
that they do pray to Saints and the Virgin ? or that fuch vile
Wretches hope to be heard by them, who could not reafona-
biy cxped, that Chrift would hear them upon their own ac-
count ? I^t him have a care of calling this a Calumny j there
are many fine Stories, how gracious the BlelTed Virgin has
p z been
jp6 A Vindication of the Second Fart of
been to the moft profligate Villains, which I fuppofe are rela-
te^for th.ia purpole: to rnakc fuch Wretches great Devotoes of,
the Virgin. ^ ,
W!:iat he fays. That the hlejjed Saints only joyn their Trayers to
ours to obtain mercy of Chrifi , is nothing to our prefent purpofe:.
the Queltiorx is,Why thofe who have fo mercifuland compafli-
onatc an High-Prieft, Ihould make fuch frequent Addrelles to
other Advocates, if they did not hope to find them more piti-
ful and cpmp^fhonate, to obtain that for them of their Savi-
our by their Intereft and Interceffion, which good men know,
they may. have of Chrift for asking, without applying to other
Advocates.
A Fifth Gofpel Motive to a Holy Life is, the hope of Hea-
ven and the fear "of Hell; but then the terror of Hell is mightily
abated by the DoSlrine 'of Purgatory^ for though Purgatory be a ier-
rihle placey yet it is not eternal j ejfecially confidering hotv many
eajte ways there are for men to get otit of Purgatory : thofe who cart
buy IndulgenckSy while they live, or MajJ'es for their Souls, when
they die, need not lie long there, if the Priefs are not out in their
reckoning.
83. Here he finds three Calumnies,. The firft. That Catholicks
N exempt Sinners from Hell, who in the Protefiant DoUr'tat would be
condemned to it. No unrepented mortal Jin is lodged in Purgatory,
or efcapes Hell. Now I confefs, though I did not fay fa, yet I
think they do ; and I grant it is a true confequence of my
Argument: That all impenitent Sinners fhall go to Hdl, we
both agree j but then we make the reformation of our lives
elTential to repentance, and how fbrrowfiil fbever nicn are
for their fins, if they live after fuch fbrrow and do not re hrm
their lives, they Iball go to HelL In the Church of Rome, at
moll contrition or fbrrow for finis all that is necellary to Ab-
Iblution, and that keeps them out of Hell, and fuch men
muft expiate their fins by Penance in this World, or in Purga^
tory in the next, but though they do not reform their fins, if
they be contrite and abfolved again, they are reftored to a
Hate of Grace again, and fo toties quoties. Now liich Peni-
tents as are fbrry for their fins, but do not reform them, are
condemned to Hell in the Protefiant Church, and only to
Purgatory ia the Church of Rom ^ and therefore the Firfl is
the Prefervative againji P OPERT.
no Calumny. The Second is^ That In^uJgerides may he bought
for Money^ this is no Calumny as I have already rtiewOj or avail,
a Soul mdijpofed to receive the benefit of them, through want of
contrition, the guilt of fn not being before remitted. This I never
laid, and therefore is no Calumny of mine. The third. That
MaJJ'es jaid for any Soul in Purgatory avail jucb as during life have
net deferved and merited that mercy. This I take to be nonfenfe
according to the Do<5trines of their own Church. For certain-
ly thole Souls who have merited to get into Purgatory, have
merit enough to receive the benefit of Maffes.
Another Gofpcl-Motive to Holinels are the Examples of Good
Men, but in the Church of jRowe the extraordinary Vertuesof
great and meritorious Saints are not fb much for imitation as
for a ftock of Merits.The more Saints they havejthe lels need
is there for other men to be Saints, unlels they have a mind
to it, becaufe there is a greater trealurc of Merits to relieve
thofe who have none of their own — and if one man can me-
rit for twenty, there U no need there Jhould be above one in twenty
good. Here he quibbles upon the different acceptation of Me-
rit, as it relates .to a reward, or as it expiates the puniiliment
of fin. In the firft fenle he fays Merit is perfbnal, not com-
municative; but if it be communicative in the fecond fenle,,
that one man may be delivered from punilhments by the Me-
rits of another, (and if it be not, there is an end of the gainful
trade of Indulgendes) that is fufficient to my Ai^iment, and
v/ill fatisfie moft finners, who are not concerned about degrees
of glory, if they can efcape punilhment. ^
Laftly I Ihewed, that the Gof^l-Means and Inftruments
of HoEnels, do not efcape much better in the Church of
Rome: among others I inftanced in the Sacrament of the
Lord's Supper , which befdes thofe fupernatural conveyances (f
Grace, which are annexed to it by our Saviour s Infiitutioa, is a
great Moral Infirument of Holinef— but in the Church tf Rome
this admirable Sacrament is turned into a dumb jhew, which no-
body can. be edfed with, or into a facrifae for the living and the
dead, which expiates fin and ferves infiead of a holy Ife,. Here he
lays, there are three crying Calumnies* i. That the Sacrament
anfiwig them is nothing but a fhew or a facrifice, whereas
they very often receive it j and did I fay the Sacrament was
never
A Vindication of the Second Part of
never received in the Church of Rome ? 2. That they re-
quire the praSlia of no Vertue to the receiving the Sacrament,
whereas they require the Sacrament of Penance to prepare
for the Eucharift. But I fpoke of thofe Vertues which were to
be exerciied in receiving, which there are not (iich advantages
for in the Church of Rome, where the Office is not under-
ffood, and the mind diverted with a thoufand infignificant
Ceremonies. 5. That our expofing the bkjfed Sacrament, is a
dumb fhew, and fo we aJJiH at holy MajS. And whether it be or
no, let thofe judge, who have feen the Ceremony. How
much the Sacrifice of the Mafs encourages Vertue, we have al-
ready feen.
I doubt not but our Jefuite can give as good an Anfwer to
this Vindication, as he did to the Prefervattve, and I as little
doubt but he will ; unlefs M.r.NeedhamsName to the Licenfe
may be my fecurity, for he has threatned, it jhall be to him a
fufficient Note and CharaSlerof a Book,not worth the Reading, much
leji the Cenfuring, where-ever he fees, that Reverend Perlbn has
opened it the Tref: and I commend him for if, for he has had
very ill fiiccefs with fuch Books of late: but though I never
grudge my pains in anfwering an Adverfary, who gives occa-
fion for any ufeful and material Difcourfe, (for I defirewhat-
ever I fay, fhould be fifted to the very bottom, and am as rea-
dy to own any Error, I am convinced of, as to vindicate
tfie Truth) yet it is very irkfbm to be forc^ to write a great
Book meerly to refcue my words from the injuries of a per-
verfe Comment, which has been my prefent Task; Thus any
Book may be anfwered, by a man, who has wit or ignorance
enough to pervert it: and fiich Anfwers may be eafily an-
fwcred again by men, who have nothing elfe to do; but if
this trade grow too common, they muft be very idle people
indeed, who will find time to read them.
And therefore to prevent fiich an impertinent trouble for
the future, before I take leave of my Adverfary, 1 will ven-
ture to give him a little good Advice, which may ftand him
in Bead againft the next time.
X. That he would be more modeft and (paring in his
Title-page j not to p^t it fo formidable as Co m^e ic.ridicu-
lous:
the Trefer'vatit^e againfi PO P EKT. i op
lous: it is a little too much to talk ofPrindtles -which defiroy all
right ufe of Reafon^ Scripture^ Fathers, Councils, undermine Divine
Faith, and abufe Moral Honeftj. Or Forty malicious Culumnies
and forged untruths, hejides feveral Fanatical Principles, -which de-
firoy all Church Difcipline, and oppofe ChrijFs Divine Authority,
If fuch things be proved againft any Book, I afllire you it is
very terrible , though there be nothing of it in the Title,
but the World has been fo long deceived with Titles, that
commonly the more the Title promifes, the lefs they expedt
in the Book. Some cry it is a Mountebank's Bill, others, the
Man raves, and if curiofity tempts any to look any farther,
the dilappointment they meet with, provokes their Icorn, or
indignation. The bare name of an Anfwer to a Book, which
is commonly known and approved, is a fufficient invitation
to all men to read it, but it is a very impolitick thing to pre-
judiee the Readers by a frightful Title.
2. That he would not think , he has confuted a Book by
picking out Ibme fayings, which he thinks very inconvenient
and obnoxious, but in which the main Argument of the Book
is not concerned : this is the cafe in many palTages he has ob-
jedted againft the Prefervative, for though there is never a one,
but what is very defenfible, and what I have defended , yet
there are many , that if they could not be defended, the
main Argument of the Book is never the worfe: This is as
vain , as to think to kill a man by launfhing a Sore, while aU
his Vitals are found and untoucht.
5. That he would not boaft of confuting a Book, without
bearing up fairly to any one Argument in it.
I know in his Poftfcript, he inySjthat he omitted nothing'mPin-
(wer*to theFirft part of the Prefervative , that even pretended
to the appearance of an Argument; that all the reft, which he
did not anfwer in his fingle fheet, was only fwelled up -with
words, but void of Senfe and Reafon. A ftrange Tympany this
poor Prefervative was fide of, that when the wordy fwelling
was taken down , that' and the Anfwer too could be reduced
to a fingle fheet. But the Prefacer he fays,. fsould have pointed
at finlfi pretended {roofsJ which he flighted to expofe^ or have praifed
1 lo A Vindication of the Second Part of'
btm for not •wearying his Readers with a dull prolixity. But the
Pretacer pointed him to the Book, and that was enough, un-
lels he would have had himtranfcribe the Book again,and con-
eluded every entire Argument, with this is not Anfwered by the
Jefuite. For I know not any one paragraph, that he has pre-
tended to anfwer, though ibme fingle fayings he has nibled at/
and Iktle pieces of Argumeat,as appears from this Vindication,
and that fo dully too, that there was no need of more prolm-
ty to tire his Readers. Our Author little thinks, how he ex-
poles his Reputation among our people by fucb vain b^ags as
, thefe : They can find a great many Arguments, which he has
not medled with , and therefore conclude the Jeliike to be
very blind, or very impudent in pretending to have anfwered
all he could find, or (which it may be is the truth of the cafe)
that he wa? not trufted to read the Prefervative, but hadlbrae
fayings picked out for him to anfwer , and he miftook them
for the whole.
4^, That when he talks big of Calumnies and Mifrepre-
fentation, he would not only lay but prove them^to be 16; diat
is, that I attribute any Dodrines to them, which are not
taught by their own Councils and Dcxftors, or impute fuch
Pradlices to them, as they are not guilty of: for this Cry of
Milfeprelenting is grown lo familiar now, and that Charge
has been 16 often balled of late, that our. People will not take
his Word for it, nor allow every Argument he cannot An:
fwer, to pafi for a Milfeprefentation.
I would advile him to have a cafe, that he do not
Confute his own Church, while he is zealous to Confute his
Adverlary j this often happens, and has,done lb to him ia this
very Difpute: elpecially in his Talk of Moral InfalliBilkyi
which has elFedually given up the Roman pretences to Infelli-
bility) as I have Ihewn abov^
6ly^ If he relolves to Write again ; I defire him to take but
any one Chapter or Se«^on in the Pr$fervative, and try his
Bkili on it; not to pick out a fmgle Saying or two, but to An*
fwer the whole of Arguments, as they Ue thite j ^
if
the Prefervati've again^ POP EK T. in
If he can make any work of it, I promife him a very grave
and modeft Reply.
But if he skips about from one Page to another, and only
hunts for Calumnies and Mifreprefentations as he calls them,
which he firft artificially makes, by changing Words and Pe-
riods, and joyning Sentences, which have no relation to each
other, and then triumphs over his own Creatures, I fhall leave
him to be anfwered and chaftized by any Footman, who
pleafes to undertake him, and I wifli the next may not be fo
much his Over-match, as the firft was.
I have taken no Notice of his Poftlcript in Anfwer to the
Preface to the Proteftant Footman's Defence of the Prefervative^
That Author is able to Anfwer for himfelf, if he tfiinks fit;
but I prefume he looks upon that Difpute as at an end, if
Difputes muft ever have an end : for when all is laid, that a
Caufe will bear, and the fame Arguments and the fame An-
fwers come to be repeated over again, it is time then for a
modeft man to have done, and to leave the World to judge;
unlefs Difputing be only an Art of Scolding, where the laft;
Word is thought the Viftory.
timsi
the end.
\
EooJ{t V tinted for ^and are to be Sold by Ml. Rogers^
' '£■
Bp n'tlkjni his Fifteen Sermons. OBdvo.
Dr. fVallts of the Neceifity of Regeneration : In Two Sermons,
to the Univerfity of Oxford. Quarto.
His Defence of the Royal Society and the Philofophical
TranfacSions; particularly thofe of 1670. In Anfwet to the Cavils
of Dr. fVidiam Holder. Quarto. '
The NecelTity, Dignity and Duty of Golpel-Minifters, difcourfedof
before the Univerfity of Cambridge. By Tho.^ Hodges^.T). Quarto.
The Peaceable Chriftian. A Sermon. Quarto. Price, 3 d.
A Treatife of Marriage, with a Defence of the 32d Article of the
Church of England, viz. Btjfhofs, Priejls and Deacons are not commanded
by Gods Lam, either to Vow the State of Single Life, or to Abjiam from
"Marriage, (3c. By Tho Hodges, B. D. OBava.
Hiftory of the Afiairs of Europe in this prefent Age, but more parti-
cularly of the Republick of Venice.,, By Battifia Nani Cavalier,. q[
St. Marl{. Fol.
Srerr/s Freedom of the Will. Folio-. ' ■ • ' - ■ ■ '
Light in the Way to Paradife, with other Occafionals. By Dudley
the id, late Lord North. OBavo.
Molins of the Mufcles, with Sir Charles Scarborough's Syllabus Mufeur -
lorum. OBavo.
.ijI CoUedlion of Letters of Gallantry. Twelves.. . - . -
Leonards Reports, in Four Parts. The Second Edition. Folio.
Buljlrode's Reports in Three Parts, the Second Edition Correded;
with the Addition of Thoulands of References. i6iS. Fol.
The Compleat Clark'; cqntaiping tl^' beft Fonns of all forts ofPrefi-
dents, for Conveyances and Aflurances; and other Inftruments now in
Ule and Pradice. Quarto.
Sir Simon Degges Parlbns Counfellor, with the Law of Tithes and Ti-
thing. In Two Books. The Fourth Edition. OBavo.
An Anfwer to the Bilhop of Condom (now of Meaux) his Expofitionof
the Catholick Faith, (3c. wherein the Dodrine of the Church of Borne is
Deteded, and that of the Church of England Eyprefled, from the Publick
Ads of both Churches. To whkh are added Refledions on his Pafto^
?al Letter.
Boo\f lately Printed for W. Rocker?.
H E Doflrines and Pradlices of the Church of {(ntne, truly Repre-
fcnted i in Anliver to a Book, intituled, A Pajtilf M.fieprefented, and
Heprcfented, &c Quarto. Third Edition.
An Anfwer to a Difcourfe,intituled, Papifts protcflingagainSl Proteflant
Popery; being a Vindication of Papijlt not Mi/reprefented by Protefiants;
And containing a particular Examination of Monlieur de Mcaux, late
Bilhop of Condcm, his Expofition of the Doiirrine of the Church of I^me,
in the Articles of Invocation of Saints^ Worfcip of Images, occalioncd by
that Difcourle. Quarto. Second Edition.
An Anfwer to the Amicable Accommodatton of the Differences, between
the Ppprefenter and the Anfirerer. Quarto.
A View of the whole Controvcrfie, between the peprejenter znd the
An/merer ; with an Anfwer to the Ppprrfinters laft Rpply i in which are
feid open fome of the Methods, by whidi Protefiants are Mifieprejented
by Papifls. Quarto.
The Dodlrine of the Trinity, and Tranfuhfiantiation, compared as to
Scripture, Pcafm, and Tradition; in a new Dialogue between a Prote-
fiant and a PapiFt, rhe firft Part: Wherein an Anfwer is given to the late
Proofs of the Antiquity of Tranfuhfiantiation, in the Books called, Confin-
fiu Veterum, and Nubes Tefiium, See. Quarto. .
The Dodfrine of the Trinity, and Tranfuhfiantiation, compared as to
Scripture, Pcafcn, and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protefiant
and a P apt Ft, the Second Part: Wherein the Dodfrine of the Trinity is
Ihewed to be agreeable, to Scripture znd B^afim, and Tran/iihfiantiation
' repugnant to both. Quarto.
An Andver to the Eighth Chapter oi the Ppprefenter's Second Part, in
the firft Dialogue, between him and Kis Lay-Friend.
Of the Authority of Councils, and the Rule of Faith. By a Perfon of
Quality : With an Anfwer to the Eight T&e/er, laid down for the Tryal
ot the Enghfh Reformation ; in a Book that came lately from Oxford.
Sermons and Difcourfes, fome of which never before Printed: The
Third Volume. By the Reverend Dr. T/Z/oryow,Dean of S®.
A Manual for a Chrifiian Souldier, Written by Erafmtis, and Tranf-
lated into Englifh. Twelves.
A new and eafie Method to learn to Sing by Book, whereby one (who
hath a good Voice and Earj may without other help, learn to Sing true
by Notes. Defign'd chiefly for, and applied to, the promoting of Pfal-
, mody; and furnilhed with Variety of Pfalm-Tunes in Parts, with Dire-
dlions for that kind of Singing. Odtavo.
A Book of Cyphers, or Letters Reverft: being a Work very plea&nt
and ufeflil, as well for Gentlemen as all forts of Artificers, Engravers,
Painters,
Books lately Printed for W. Rogers.
Painters, Carvers, Chacers, Embroiderers, (3c. Where you may find a
Cypher for any Name whatfoever, curieufly compol'ed after the neweft
Mode. By Jeremiah Marlem. Price Bound 5 s.
A Perfwafivc to frequent Communion in the Sacrament^-^ Lor<ts
Suffer. By Dr. Ttliotfon, Dean of Canterbury. In Ocftavb. Price 3 d.
A Diicourie againft Tranfuhftantiation, In Odtavo. Price 3 d.
The State of the Church of I{$me when the Reformation began, as it
appears by the Advices given to Paul III. and Julius III. by Creatures
of their Own. With a Preface leading to the matter of the Book. 40.
A .Letter to a Friend, Reflecting on lbme Paflages in a Letter to the
D. of P. in Anfwerto the Arguing Part of his lirlt Letter to Mr. G.
The Pefleclers Defence of his Letter to a Friend, againft: the Furious
Aflaults of Mr. I. S. in his fecond Catholic Letter. In four Dialogues. 4®.
»-
A Difcourfe concerning the Nature of Idolatry : in which the Bifhop
of Oxford's true and only Notion of Idolatry is Confidered and Confu-
ced. 4°.
The Proteflant l{efoh'd; or, a Oifiourfi, floetting the XJnreafortahlenej! of
his Turning Roman Catholick/or Salvation. Second Edition. 8°.
The Abfolute impoflibility of Tranfuhftantiation demonftrated. 4®.
The Practical Believer: or,the Articles of the Apoftles Creed. Drawn
out to form a True Chriftian's Heart and Pracftice. In two Parts. 4®.
A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Benj. Calarr^,'Dfi.
and late Minifter of Sz. Lawrence-Jury, Land. Jrfw. 7th, i6i%. 4*.
A Vindication of Ibme Proteftant Principles of Church-Unity and
Catholick-Communion, from the Charge of Agreement with the Church
of Pome. In Anlwcr to a late Pamphlet, Intituled, An Agreement be-
tween the Church of England and theChurch ofB.ome,evincedfromtheConr
ecrtation of fame of her Sons with their Brethren the Dijfenters. id Edition.
A Preiervative againft Pofery j being fome Plain Direcftions to Un-
learned Prcteftants, how to Difpute with Bfmijh Priefts. The Firft Part.
The Fourth Edition.
The Second Part of the Preiervative againft Popery: Ihewing how
contrary Popery is to the True Ends of the Chriftian Religion. Fitted
for the Inttruclion of Unlearned Proteftants. The Second Edition.
A Dilcourfe concerning the Nature, Unity and Communion of the
C.itholick Church; wherein moft of the Controverfies relating to the
Church, are briefly and plainly ftated. The Firft Part. 4®.
Thefe Five laft by Wtlliam Sherlock^ D.D. Mafter of the Temfh.
Imprimatur,
oaob. 17. ZJJham, R. P. D. Hetyrh, '
' Epifc. Lond, a Sacris.
yio-1
THE
CASE
; ET TT tJ E*
1 ALLEGIANCE
i d u e t o '
I ^otiemgn ^otoers.
Stated and Resolved,.
i According to
I SCRIPTURE and REASON,
I ' A N D T H E.
Principles of the Church of SngUnd^
WITH
A more particular Refped to the OATH, '
j lately en;ovned, of Allegiance to Their
! Prefenc MAJESTIES,
K. WILLIAM and Q^<SMARY
By WILLIAM SHERLOCK, ]>. D "
Mailer of the Temple.
LONDON:
Printed for ^[21, at the Sun over againft St.
Dunfians Church in Fleet-fireet. 1691.
THE
PREFACE
INeed not acejuaint the World with the Occajion of publijhing
this Book J which indeed is extorted from me by the rude Cla-
mours and unchriftian Cenfures of fome,and the earnefi Importu-
nities of others.
My taking the Oath of Allegiance to King William and
Queen Mary, after fo long a Kefufaly has occafioned a great
deal of talk, and a great many uncharitable guejjes about it j -Fa-
Bim and blind Zeal always wanting either the Wit, or the good Will,
to guef right.
One would have thought it the mofi probable ConjeBure , That a
Man, who had forfeited aU his Preferments by refufing the Oath, and
had for ever lofi them, had not the Government been more mild and
gentle in delaying the Execution of the Law, aBed very honefily and
fincerely in it j and if fo , That there u alfo good Reafon to believe ,
that if the fame Perfon afterwards takes the Oath , he aBs ho-
nefily in that too: for what Reafon is there to fuJf>eB, that he ,
who would not [wear againfi the prefent perfwafon of his Confcience
to keep hu Preferments , jhould Jwear againft his Confcience to get
them again 1 I do not know , that I have given any jufi Occafi-
on to the World to mark me out for a Dijl)onefi Man , or a
Fool J I may be mifah^n , and fo may any Body elfe, though never
jo Wife and honeji: But this I am Jure of, that I never aBed
A , with
The PREFACE.
vJith more ftnccrity in any y^ffair of my whole Life, than I havt
(lone in this Matter , from the beginning to the end ; and whethtr
1 have Jufficient Reafon for what I do, I refer to the trial of this
Difcourfe,
The truth is, though I refufed to take the Oaths, I never enga-
zed in any Faction againfi it : I never made it my Bujlnef to
'dijjwade Men from it : When my Opinion was asked, I declared
my ovm Thoughts, hut I never fought cut Men to make Profelytes.
IVhile I thought it an til thing , I was fecretly concerned , that
feme of my old intimate Friends had taken the Oat hi ^ hut yet as
Opportunity ferved, I convcrfed with thofe of them , whofe IZeal
had not made their Converfation uneafte , with the fame Friendjhip
and Freedom , that I ujed to do : I believed them to he hcneH
Men, and that they acled honeftly , according to the perjwajion of
their own Minds, and 7vi(hed that I could have done as they did.
I complied with the Government, as far as I thought 1 could with a
Jafe Confcience : 1 always lived ejuietly and peaceably , and was rea-
dy to have given Security to do Jo. I prayed for King William and
Queen Mary by Name, according to the Apojiles diretfion , to pray
tor all that are in Authority, which they vijibfy ouere j though I
knew at the fame time, this highly offended feme , who refufed the
Oaths, and made me fland, in a manner, fingly by my felf.
I always cppofed a Separation , and advifed not a few , who
thought fit to confult ivith me , to keep to the Communion of the
Church', and not to entertain Prejudices againfi their Minifhers for
taking the Oath : for I was fenfible of the Evil and Mifchief of
Schifm, which fome hot Men were then forward to promote, and are
fo JiiU J 7iiitnefi a late Pamphlet in Anfwer to The Realoning part
of the Unrealonableneti of the New Separation, which juftifies a
Schifm now, upon fuch Principles, as would have made all the Jews
. Scijmaticks, when the High PrieHhood became Annual (though our
Saviour hirnfelp then communicated with the Jcwith Church ) and
makes the ovhole Greek Church Schifmaticks, as often as the Grand
Senior changes their Patriarch.
For 1 did not refufe the Oaths cut of any fundnefi for the Govern-
ment of King J unes, nor z,eal for his Return ^ which , the prefer,t
profpeSl of affairs gives no Man,who loves the Church of England, and
th%Liberties of his Country,any reafon to wijli: Nor yet out of any Averfion
to the Government of King William and Queen Mary: but againfi' my
own Inclinations and Interefi , cut of pure Principles of Confcience ,
to
The PREFACE.
to comply with the ObligtUions of my former Oaths^and that Duty which
Subjeih owe to their Ptiuce , which I then apprehended irreconci'eable
with the new Oath.
This w/a a dijpojtfion of Mind prepared to receive fatisfaBion ,
when ever it was offered j and to comply chearfitlly with the prejent
Government j when ever I could do it with a fife Ccnfcience. I
prayed heartily to God^ that if I were in a mtHake , be would let
me fee it; that I might not forfeit the Exercije of my Mimflry ,
for a rneer mifiake: and I thank God^ I have received that jatisfa'
Bkn which I defired j and if any Man canjhew me^ that the Prin-
ctples I aB on are falfe, uncertain, or precarioits, and fuch as cannot
rtafonahly fathfie an hone[i and unbiajfed Mind , I will confef, that
my dejire of fatisfaBion has fecretlj and infetifibly di/hrted my Judg-
ment, though I took all pojjible care that it fhould not.
I find, the general Cry and Expeblation is., that 1 fhould give my
Reajons j though why I fhould be more obliged to give my Reafons for
Swearing, than I was for not Swearing, I cannot tell.
Some feem very fond of this , upon a prefumption that I can fay
nothing, but what they can eafily Anfwer'y and that will ferve to
expop Me, and the Caufe together: I have for once gratified thefe
Men, that they may have the opportunity to (hew their skill.
Others, who are very well fatisfied themfelves, have yet a Cu-
riofitj to know what fatisfied me, who have been fo long dif-
fatisfied. But this was no jufi Occafion to write Reafons ; for
if Reafons were never fo plentiful with me, I can hardly think
it worth the while to write a Book to gratifie a meer Curio-
There are others , who are Bill difjatisfied about the Oaths,
and are defirous to try, Whether they can find that fatisfaSlion ,
which 1 have done. This , I confejS, is a good Reafon , which
may in Charity oblige me; and how baicardous an Attempt fo-
ever it he j my Duty to God, and to his Church , and to the
Government, as well as Charity to my Brethren., feem to re-
quire it , when it is defired , and exaBed from me : and I hope
fuch Men will confider too , what is their Duty , as they will
anfwer it to God, and to their own Confciences ; to read what,
I have written for their fakes , carefully, and with an bonefi
Mind J and to judge impartially ; and whatever the EffeB be,
take it kindly.
A 2 But
The PREFACE.
But there u another Motive has prevailed ivtth me^ more than aU
the refi : tVe live in an Age of great Prophanenefs and Infidelity,
"which is ready to take all occafions to reproach Religion, -and expoje
it, as a Cheat and Jmpofiure, and to neglect no Opportunity to
blacken the Clergy, as men of no Faith nor Religion themjelves, though
they make a great noife about it to ferve their own Interefis : And
the general compliance ofi the Clergy in taking this New Oath, hath
been improved by men ofi this Spirit to very ill purpojes: And not
only fo, but fome very Devout Chriftians have been greatly fcanda-
liz^d and offended at it: And others, who Jhould have tmderfiood
better, and checked this ill Temper, which is of fuch dangerous Con- -
Jequence to Religion m general, have given too much countenance to
it, and have Jeemed too much pleajed, to fee and hear all the Clergy
that have taken this Oath, expofed to Contempt j as if, when the
great Body of the Clergy is ridiculed and expojed, the Credit of Re-
ligion could be fupported only by fome few men, who refufe the
Oath. Many of them indeed, to my knowledge, are very great and
excellent Per/ons, whom I do from my heart Honour and Reverence,
and whom I hope, and heartily pray, God will reftore again to the
Minifiry of his Church : Yet I jhould be very forry ( and fo 1 am
fure, would they) that the Church and Religion fiiould be reduced
fo low, as to he confined to their numbers ; and have no firmer hot'
torn to reft on than their Reputation, which though it be defervedly
great, cannot bear the whole weight of the Church and Religion.
It is time to give check to fuch mchrifiian Cenfures, if we have
any regard to our common Chriftianity : And fince fome little Wiri'
xers among them ( who are too head-[hong to be governed by wifer
men ) engrofi the Church and Religion to themfelves ; and reprefent
all who have taken the Oaths, efpecially the Clergy, as Apofiates,
at leaf from the Church of England, if not from the Chrifiian
Faith ^ it-is necejfary to convince all fiber Chrifiians, that men may
/wear Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary without Per-
jury, and without renouncing any Principles of the Church of Eng-
land j nay, that the Doctrine of the. Church of England requires us
to do jo; And I hope, if this appear, their Zeal for the Church
of England^ if no other Confideration can prevail with them, will
oblige them aljo to do it.
But It feems, it will not ferve my turn to offer fuch Reafins, as
will jufltfie my compliance now, unlefi I can give a good Reafon,
■why I did not take the Oaths before j that is, I muft give fuch
Reafons
The PREFACE.
Reajtfts, as 'will ee^ually •provCj that no man ought to have taken
the Oaths before^ and that they ought to take them now.
Thefe are very hard Task-Mafiers, and no doubt, have very kind
Defgns in it, to draw me in to frovoke the Government by a need-
lef juflification of my feJf, as to what is fa ft j which can ferve no
other end, but a little Vain-glory., that I would not be thought ca-
fable of a mifiake j and lefi the Non fwearers JJiould not be Match
enough for me, I mufi Troolaim War, and bid open Defiance to all
that have taken this Oath j and prove, that they ought not to have
[worn before I did, but were obliged to do it the very next minute.
But what now, if nothing of all this be neceJJ'ary ? What if I was
not [o well fatisfied about this matter before, as I am now ? Is any
man forbidden- to grow wifer, and upon a- careful and thorough-exa-
mination of things, to alter bis mind, when he fees good reafon for it ?
I am not afhamed to own, that I am fill a Learner; and hope, I Jhall
be fo, as long as I live, and improve my Knowledge every day by
Study and Converfation.
So that without producing the Reafons of my diffatisfaSlion before,
or being obliged to anfwer them, having never made them Publtck, I
think it very fair to give a fatisfablory Reafon now, for my taking of
this Oath, hoping, thatyvbat hath fatisfied me, may have the fame
ejfell upon feme others, that will have the patience impartially to confider
it.
I had indeed feme of thefe Thoughts long fince, which I drew up
in Writing, -and fhewed to fome of my Friends, and difceurfed with
others about them, and told them where I fluck : but flick I did, and
could find no help for it ; and there 1 had fuck to this day, had 1
not been relieved by Bifhop Overars Convocation-Book, which not
only'confirmed my former Notions, and fuggefied fome new thoughts
tome, which removed thefe Difficulties, which I could not before Ccn-
t^uer; but alfo by the Venerable Authority of a Covocation, gave me
greater freedom and liberty of thinking, which the apprehenfrons of No-
velty and Singularity had cramped before.
Thus, Reader, I have made Thee my Confeffor, and declared my
■whole Heart to Thee, as to this Matter ; and now judge of me, - as
Thou wouldfl be judged by God another day.
I mufr add one thing more: That I have renounced no Principle
that ever I taught, excepting one in The Cafe of Refinance, which P't2%,Zcc.
is the only material Pafjage I. know any reafon to retrall in that Book,
viz, That when St. Paul fays. All power is of God^ he means only
Legal
The PREFACE.
Powers; hrtt that in an Hereditary Monarchy^ where the righf
Heir is living, Ufurptd Powers are not of God, nor the Ordinance of
God; as r proved by the Example of Joalh: The Reafon and the
Example yon wiH find [ufficiently anjwered in the follooping Difcourfe^
and toe Doctrine at filf rejected by the Convocation , though tt hiU
been of late years fo prevailing a mifiake, and impofid by Jucb great
Authorities, that it is very pardonable, ejjxcially when it is fo fieely
acknowledged: Though the truth is, .1 think fitd it is very true, as to
the Cafe 1 then bad in my Eye, viz. The U/urpaticns of the Rump
Parliament, Scc. but the fault is, that it is too generally exprejfed.
In managing this Argument upon the Principles I have laid down,
it is neceJJ'ury to reafon upon the Suppofition of unjufi Xjfurpations, and
Illegal Revolutions of State J and it may be I may meet with feme fuch
Readers, as may charge me for fo doing with RefieEling upon the pre
Jer.t Government, ovhtcb 1 am very jure, 1 am far fiom intending to
do. And they who underhand what belongs to Dijputes of this Na-
ture, know very well that the fhortefi way to bring the matter to an
ijjue, is to put the Cafe at the worft that can be fuppofed; becaufe
this gives fo much the greater force and advantage to the Argument,
when it is fuited to thoje, who are mofi firongly prejudiced againfi the
Legality of the late Revolution : For fuppofng, but not granting, them
to be in the right in this matter, I doubt not to make it appear, that
it is for all that their Duty to [wear Allegiance to the prejent Govern-
ment, when reepuired fo to do : And this being clearly proved, it bc'
comes altogether needlef to debate the Legality of the late Revolution
THE
T H E
CONTENTS.
SE£t. I. The Cafe plainly and briefly flated. That the Que-
Jlion , Whether Allegiance be due to a Prince^ who is fettled
in the Throne, does not necejjarily involve the Dijj^ute about a
Legal Right. pagci i
SeA. 2. The DoBrine of the Church of England in this Point, as it
is taught in Bijtsop Overarj Convocation Book. 5
Two things provedfl-om that Bock: i. That thofe Princes,who have
no Legal Right to their Thrones, may yet have Gods Authority.
2. That when they are throughly fettled in their Thrones, they are in^
vefied with God's Authority , and muH be reverenced and obeyed by
all that live within their Territories and Dominions. 5^ gcc.
Seft. 5. TheTefiimovy of Scripture and Reafon in this Mattery
reduced into feveral Propcjitions. I o,Scc.
Sed, 4. Some Reajons and Arguments urged, and ObjeQions An-
fwered, for the further confirmation of this Dotlrine. 1 8
1. That the Scripture has given us no direBion in this Cafe, but
to jubmit and pay all the Obedience of SubjeBs to the prefent Powers.
ibid.
Whether I 3 Rom. 1,2. concern only Legal Powers. 19
2, This gives the eafiefl and mofi intelligible Account of the Origi-
nalof Human Government:, That all Power is from God. 23
The jeveral Hypotbefes about the Original of Government confidered ,
end (hown inejfeBual to found a Right, without refolving all into the
Authority of God. ibid.
Object.
The CONTENTS.
Objed. This m»kes a King lofe his Right, by being notorioujly inju-
red, 2 J. Anfiver 26
Concerning the Oaths of Allegiance. 2y,8lc,
Ob[e(5l. This DoSirine makes it impejjible for an injured Frince to
recover his Right. Anfwered. ^2
Object. This encourages Ambitious Spirits to grajj> at Croivns. An-
fwered,
Obje<ft. That Fyrates and Robbers have as good a Title to our Furje
oi Ufurpers to the Crown. Anfwered.
Object. The Cafe of Jehoiada'/ anointing joa^, and killing Atha-
liah. Anfwered. ibid.
Objcdt. That all Kings are not fet up by God, proved from Hofea
8. 4. Anfwered. 5 j
5. This DoBrine is founded on the fame Frinciple with the BoBrine
'of Non-Rejifance and Fajjive Obedience. <^6
4. To deny this is to deny God's Authority to remove Kings, and to
fet up Kings.
J. It limits God'sFrovidence in governing Kings, and proteBing in-
nocent and injured SubjeBs. ibid.
6. The necefity of Government to preferve Human Societies, proves
this. 58
Bifhop Sanderfon'j Opinion about Submijfron to Ufurped Fowers, ex-
amined. ibid.
7. Theft Frinciples anfwer all the ends of Government, both for the
Security of the Frince and SubjeBs. 43
An Anfwer to a great Frejudice, that thefe Frinciples will et^uallj
ferve all Ujurpations, with a particular re/peB to the Rebellion in 16401
The ObjeBion from the Laws of the Land confidered,and fome brief
Remarks on a late Book, entituled, The Cafe of Allegiance to a
King in Pofleffion. p. ji.
THE
THE
CASE
© F THE
ALLEGIANCE
DUE TO
^ol)ere<g[nBoU)ets.^o^
I
S E C T. I.
The Cafe plainly and briefly fated.
That which has perplexed this Controverficj is the
intermixing the Difpute of Right with the Duty of
Obedience J or making the Legal Right Princes to their
Thrones the only Pvcafbn and Foundation of the Alle-
giance of Subjeds: That Allegiance is due only to Right^ not to
Go'vernment, though it can be paid only to Government. Many
of thole who have writ in defence of che New Oath, have fup-
pofed this, that a Legal Right is neceffary to make Allegiance
due, and therefore have endeavoured to juffifie the Legal Right
of Their prefent Majefties; This as I have fhewn it to be unne-
cefTary; (6 it feems to me to be unfit to difpute the Right of
Princes; a thing which no Government can permit to be a Que-
liion among their Subjects; And how well foever fuch Difputes
B \ may
'2 . The Cafe of the Allegiance
may be intended^ they are certainly needlels in this Gaulcj and
ferve only to confound itj by carrying men into fuch dark La-
byrinths of Law and Hiltory, &c, as very few know how to
find their way out of again: And therefore I fhall not meddle
with this Difpute, as being both above me^ and nothing to my
prefent purpole.
And on the other hand, thole alio, who refule the New Oath,
go wholly upon this Principle, That Allegiance is due only to a
Legal Right. And take away that, and you remove all the dif-
ficulties they labour under. They think, that a rightful Prince
only has Right to our Allegiance. That though he be difpolTel-
led of his Throne, if ever he had Right to it, he has Right ftill j
and therefore our Duty is ftill owing to him, and to no other;
, and our Oaths of Allegiance to him ftill bind us: and that no
other Prince, who alcends the Throne without a Legal Right,
has Right to our Allegiance; and that to fwear Allegiance to
him, while we are under the Obligation of a former Oath to
our rightful Prince, is Perjury.
As far as I know, this is the fum of all that can be laid in
this Caufe : Allowing thele Principles, there is no way to latil-
fie fiich men, but by juftifying the Legality of the late Revolii-
tion. Tut though many things are laid, which may make
men much more modeft in the point than Ibme are; yet to
judge truly of this requires liich perfed Skill in Law and Hi-
ftory, and the Gonftitution of the Englijh Government, that
few men are capable of making lb plain aj^ certain a judg-
ment of it, as to be a clear and lafe Rule of Conlcience.
But if the Principle be falle, there is an end of the Dilpute :
And Subjeds have a plain Rule of Duty without underftanding
Laws and Politicks, the Intrigues of Government, the Revolu-
tionsof States, the Dilputes of Princes; which I am fure is both
for the lecurity of Governments and Subjeds.
, - If then Allegiance be due, not for the lake of Legal Right,
but Government.
If Allegiance be due, not to bare Legal Right, but to the
Authority of God.
If God, when he lees fit, and can better lerve the ends of
his Providence by it, lets up Kings without any regard to Legal
Right, or Humane Laws.
If
due to Scveraign Towers^ &c.
If Kings, thus fet up by God, are invefted with Gods Aucho-
rity, which muft be obeyed, not only for wrath, but alfo for
confcience fake.
If thefe Principles be true, it is plain, that Subjeds are
bound to obey, and to pay and (wear Allegiance (if it be requi-
red) to thofe Princes whom God hath placed and fettled in the
Throne, whatever Difputes there may be about their legal Right,
when they are invefted with God's Authority.
And then it is plain, that our old Allegiance and old Oaths
are at an end, when God has fet over us a new King : for when
God transfers Kingdoms, and requires our Obedience and Alle-
glance to a new. King, he necelfarily transfers our Allegiance
too.
This Scheme of Government may ftartle fome men at firft,
before they have well confidered it. But every One at firft
fight muft acknowledge, that it is 1?) much for the eafe and
fafecy of Subjeds in all Revolutions (which very frequently
happen) what the generality of Mankind, from an inward
principle of Selfprefervation, have always done, and will al-
ways do, that they have reafbn to wifh it to be true, and to be
glad to fee it well proved.
And this I lhall endeavour to do from the Authority of
Scripture and Reafon; and that I may not appear to be fin-
gular in it, and to advance Paradoxes, I fhall prove it like-
wife from the Dodrine and Principles of the Church of Ew?-
land.
S E C T. II.
The Doctrine of the Church <?/England in this Poini^ as it
is taught in Bijhop Overall Convocation Book.
I Shall begin with the Dodrine of the Church of England, not
that I equal, much lefs prefer it, before the Scripture; but
becaufe (bme, who refufe the Oath, lay great ftrels on it, and
upon this fcore charge their Brethren with no lefs then Apoftafie
from the Church; and poflibly when fuch a venerable Authority
ftandsin the Front, it will prepare a kinder Reception for the
Reafbns, which follow.
B 2 The
4 The Cafe 6f the Allegiance
The Church of England has been very careful to inftrucSt Her
Children in their Duty to Princes; to obey their Laws^ and fub-
mit to their Powers and not to refift, though very injurioiifly op-
prefled ; and thole, who renounce thele Principles, renounce the
Doftrine of the Church of England : But Ihe has withal taught.
That all Soveraign Princes receive their Power and Authority
from God j and therefore every Prince, who is letled in the
Throne,is to be obeyed and reverenced as God's Minifter,and not
to be refilted j which dlreds us what to do in all Revolutions of
Governnrenr, when once they come to a Settlement; and thole
who refufe to pay and fwear Allegiance to fuch Princes, whom
God has placed in the Throne, whatever their legal right be,
do as much rcjed the Do6li iueof the Church of England^ns thofe
who teach the Refirrance of Princes.
For the proof of which, I appeal to Bifhop OveraVs Convoca-
tion. Book, which contains«he Ads and Canons of the Convoca-
tion begun in the firfl: Year of Kingi<5o;. and continu-
ed by Adjournments and Prorogations to idio. under Archbifhop
a wife and learned man. ' . \
Page 57. In Chaj)t. 28. the Convocation having given an Account of the
various and irregular Revolutions of Government, brought a-
bout by the Providence of God, " who for the fins of any Nati-
on or Country, altereth their Governments and Governours,
transferreth, lettethup, and beftoweth Kingdoms, as it leemeth.
beft to his heavenly wildom,they add thele remarkable words j
And when having attained their ungodly dejires ("ivhether amhitiom
Kings, by bringing dny Country into their Suhje5lion; or dijloyal Sub-
jeSls, by their rebellion rifing againft their Natural Soveraigns ) they
have eBabltjhed any of the fame degenerate Forms of Government a-
mong their People j the Authority either jo uniujtly gotten , or wrung
by force from the true and lawful Pojjeffor , bemg always Gods Au'
thority (and therefore receiving no Impeachment by the wickednefs of
thofe that have it) ss ever (when any fuch Alterations are through-
ly fettled) to be reverenced and obeyed, and the People of all Jorts,
(as well of the Clergy, as of the Laity) are to be fubjeB unto it, not
only for wrath, but alfo for confcience fake,
5age 59. In C</«. 28. where this Doctrine is decreed, they take care to
condemn all thole wicked means whereby luch Changes of Go-
vernments are made, and yet to affert, That whenever luch
Changes are made, the Authority is Gods, and mull be obeyed.
If any man therefore lhall affirm,either that the Subjetfts, when
" they
due to Soveraign ForperSy See. 5
" they fliakeoff the Yoke of their Obedience to their Sovcraigns,
and fet up a Form of Government among themfelves, after
" their own HumourSj do not therein very wickedly: or that it
" is lawful for any bordering Kings, through Ambition and Ma-
" lice, to invade their Neighbours; or that the Providence and
" Goodnefs of God,in uftng of Rebellions and Oppreflionsagainft
"any King or Country, doth mitigate or qualifie the Offences of
" any fuch Rebels or opprefling Kings : or that when any fuch
" new Forms of Government, begun by Rebellion, and after
" throughly fettled,the Authority in them is tiot of God ; or that
" any, who live within the Territories of fuch new Governments,
" are not bound to be fubjed to Gods Authoiity, which is there
" executed, but may rebel againft the fame: or that the Jews in
" Egjft or Bahylonmi^M lawfully, for any Caiife, have taken
"Arrasagainft any of thofe Kings, or have offered any violence to
" their Perfons, he doth greatly err. •
Men may difpute any thing, but I know not how it was pof-
fiblefor the Convocation to exprcfs their fenfe plainer , that all
ufurped Powers, when throughly fettled, have Gotl's An-
thority , and muff be obeyed: So that here arc the Two
great points determined, whereon this whole Controverfie
turns.
1.That thofe Princc,s,who have no legal right to their Thrones,
may yet have God's Authority.
2. That when they are throughly fettled in their Thrones,
they are invefted with God's Authority, and muft be reveren-
ced and obeyed by all, who live within their Territories and
Dominions, as wellPriefts, as People; If thefe Propofitions be
true, it is a plain Refolution of the Cafe; that if it Ihould at any
time happen, that the rightful Prince Ihould be driven out, of
his Kingdom, and another Prince placed in his Throne , and
fettled in the full Adminiftration of Government, Subjedlsnot on-
ly may, bat muft for confcience fake, and out of reverence to the
Authority of God, with which fuch a Prince is invefted, pay all
the Duty and Allegiance of Subjeds to him.
As for the firft, the Cafe is plain, that the Convocation
fpeaks of Illegal and ufurped Powers, and yetaffirmsthat the Au-
thority exercifed by them, is God's Authority, and therefore thofe
Princes, who have no legal right,may have God's Authority : the
Words of the Canon are very plain and exprefs, and yet if any
man defires further fatisfadion , that this was the Judgment of
the
S The Cafe of the Allegiance
the Convocation, that Princes, who have no Legal Right, may
have God's Authority, it is very eafie to give it.
ragi 46. 'J'hey teach. That the Lord (in advancing Kings to their,
Thrones) is not hound to thoje Laws^ which he prefcribetb others to
ohferve, and therefore commanded Jchn aSuhjeti to be anointed King
over Ifrael, of purpofe to punifh the fens of Ahab <r»^/Jezebel: and
what he did by Prophets in Ifrael, by an exprefs Nomination of
the Perfon, he does by his Providence in other Kingdoms, fet.
up Kings when he fees fit, without any regard to the Right of
Psgt 53. Succeflion, or Legal Titles. For as they tell us elfewhere. The
Lord both may, and is able to overthrow any Kings or Emperors, not-
withjianding any Claim, Right, Title, or Interefi, which they can chal-
lenge to their Countries, Kingdoms, or Empires.
The Moabites and Aramkes never could have a Legal Right to
the Government Ifrael, and yet the Convocation aflerts, That
Page sr. when Ifrael was in fubjedion to them, they knew, that it was not
lawful for them of themfelves, and by their own Authority to take
Arms againfi the Kings, whofe Subjebls they werfe, though indeed they
were Tyrants. And that it bad not been lawful for Ehud to have
killed King Eglon, had he not been fir(t made by Ood the Judge, Vrince,
and Ruler of the Veople.
The like, we fee, they teach of the Kings of Egypt and Babylon,
who never had a Legal and Natural Right to Govern Ifrael; and
the like they affirm of the Four Monarchies, which were all violent
Ufiirpations; and the Principle they ground this on, plainly ex-
tends to all Kings and Soveraign Princes: That God, and his
Ch. 35. Son Jefiis Chrift, who is the Univerfal Lord and Ruler over all the
fgi 83- PEorld, does remove and fet up Kings, as will beft ferve the Ends
Jer. 27. 5. of his wife Providence. I have made (faith he) the Earth, the Man,
and the Beafis that are upon the ground, and have given it to whom it
pleafeth me. And again, the Frophet Daniel telleth us, That God
changeth the Times and the SeaJons, that he hath Power, and beareth
4Dan. 17. Rule over the Kingdoms of Men : that he taketh away Kings, and fet-
32* teth up Kings j and that it was the God of Heaven, who gave unto
2 Dan. 37. Nebuchadnez,z,ar fo great a Kingdom, Power, Strength, and Glory, as
then be had, to Rule with Majefly and Honour a very great Empire :
in reJfeEl whereof, although Kings and Princes might have been Jatisfi-
ed with theTitles of Lieutenants, or Vicegerents on Earth, to the Son of
God J yet he did communicate and impart fo much of his Power, Au-
thority, and Dignity unto them , as he was content to flik them with
his own Name j I have /did ye are Gods, and the Children of the
moH
dne to Scveraign Pomrs^ 8^c»
moB High. And therefore we may obferve_, there is no Duty
SubjedSj as {uchj owe to the moft Legal and Rightful Kings, but
the Convocation alFerts due to all Kings, whom God hath placed
in the Throne, by what vifible means fbever they obtained it: as
to obey and fubmitto them, nottorefiftthem, nor rebel againft
them, to pay all Cuftoms and Taxes, to pray for them, nay, to
fwear Allegiance to them, if it be required.
Thus they teach with relped to Alexander fand I think any
Prince who gets the Throne, may pretend as much Right to it,
as hej. If any Man therefore (hall affrm, either that the Jews^ gene- Can. gr.
rally, both Priefis and People, ■were not the Subjeels 0/Alexander, of- ^7*
ter his Authority was fetled amongjl them, as they had been before the
SubjeBs of the Kings 0/* Babylon and Perfia j or that they might law-
fully have born Arms againfi him ; or that they were not all bound to
pray for the long Life andProjferity, both of Alexander, and his Em-
pire, as they had been before to pray for the Life and Pro^erity of the
other faid Kings, and their Kingdoms, while they lived under their
SubjeBion : or confeeyuently, that they might lawfully, upon any occafi-
on whatfoever, have offered Violence and DeflruBion, either to their
Perfons, or to their Kingdoms, See. he doth greatly err.
Thus Can. 3;. they teach. That whoever affirms. That the Page 1^.
Jetvs were not bound, both to have paid their Tribute, and to have
prayed for Gasfar without dijjimulation, Jtncerely and truly, notwith-
(landing any pretence of Tyranny, ovhich they had rvilfuUy drawn upon
their own heads, or of any caufe fvhatfoever j or that fuch as curfed
Caefar, (their chif Governeur) did not thereby deferve any corporal
punijhment, which is due to beHnfUBed upofi fuch Traitors j or that
the Rebellion agatnH Any King, Abfolute Prince, or Civil.Magijirate^
for any cauje whatfoever, is not a fin detefiable in the fight of God, See.
he doth greatly err.
Chapter 34. they condemn the Pharifees, who when Herod upon Pagej^.
occafion caujed his SubjeBs to bind themfelves by Oath, Qfibd non decef-
furi ejjent a fide officio, refufed to take that Oath. And in their
34th Canon they teach : That if any Man affirm. That the Phari- PsgiS2,
fees in refufing to bind their Alkgiance and Faith to Carfar, by an Oath,
did not thereby (hew themfelves traitereufly ajfeBed towaxdshim f which
evidently is not true of all, who may refufe fuch Oath, but the
intention is only to condemn fuch a refufal) ; or that it was not, ■
a fedittous DoBrine To refufe all Taxations impofed by the Ro-
xmns,their lawful Magifirates,and rather to rebel than to pay any Tri-
bute to them, 6cc. he doth greatly err.
8 The Cafe of the _^egtatice
In the Cafe of Jaddifs fwearing Allegiance to Darius, they
Can. 30. condemn thofe^ who fay, Jaddus the High-Vrkfi did amif m
pagi 65. hindtng bis Allegiance to King Darius by Oath, or that he had not Jin-
}ied, if he hadrcfujed (being thereunto required) to. ba've [worn. And
yet in the^^ry next Canon, which 1 have already quoted, they
teach. That both Vriejis and People (and therefore Jaddus bins-
) became as much the Subjects oj Alexander, as they had been
OH Darius j and then according to this Do<?trine, if Alexander had
required an Oath of Allegiance from Jaddus, (as it is probable he
did) Jaddus had finned, if he had refufed that Oath, though
according to all the Circumftances of the Story, Darius was then
living, to whom Jaddus had before fworn Allegiance.
FigiSs,. But it will be obje(5ied againfl this, that the Convocation takes
notice of that Anlwer Jaddus gave to Alexander, when he Pent to
him itoxnTyre, after the Overthrow of Darius, That hejhould af
JiJl him in his Wars, and become Tributary to the Macedonians, at
he had been to the Perfians; He. returned for his Anfwer, That he might
not yield to thU, becaufe he had taken an Oath for his true Allegiance to
Darius, which he might not lavfuUy violate, while Darius lived, be-
ing by flight efcaped, when his Army was difcomfited. But we may
Page 6$. obierve, that the Convocation in thsiv Canon upon it, takes no
notice, that Jaddus having fworn to Darius, could not fubmir,
or fwear to any other Prince, while Darius lived ; and it is plain,
Jaddus himfelf did not mean this by it, for he immediately fub-
mitted to Alexander, as foon as he came to JeruJalem, before he
had given the lafl fatal Overthrow to P^irr«r,when Darius in his
flight was murdered by his own Servants. The meaning then
of Jaddush Anfwer to Alexander, was no more but this: That he
having fworn Allegiance to Darius, could not make a voluntary
dediticn of himfelf to Alexander, which was the thing defired ;
but when he was in Alexanders Power,. (which made it a matter
of force, not of his own choice) he madeno fcruple tofubmit to
Alexander, and beco.me his Subjed and Tiibutary, as he former-
ly was the fworn Subjed of Darius.
This, I think, fufhciently proves the firff thing, that this Con-
vocation taught, that Princes, who have no Legal Right to their
Thrones, when they are placed there by God, are inveffed
with God's Authority, and muft be reverenced and obeyed by
all Subjeds, in as full a manner, as any other the molf legal
and rightful Prince can challenge.
due to Scvereign Ponoers, See. p
^ily, The only Enquiry then isj what the Convocation means
by the Government's being throughly jetled. A Prince, who is
throughly letled in his Throne, has Gods Authority, and muft
be obeyed; but when is his Government throughly letled ?
Now here it is, that men may impoleupon themlelves, if they
will, and if they think it their Interefl: to do foj and may make
as little or as much go to a through lettlement, as they pleafe
for the Convocation has not determined the bounds of it: they
thought this a vifible thing, that every Subjecfl: could Ice, when
the Government is lb letled, as to make our Obedience due and
necelTary, and therefore there was no need of defining, what
it is to be throughly letled; When the whole adminiftration
of Government, and the whole power of the Nation is in the
hands of the Prince; when every thing is done in his Name,
and by his Authority ; when the Eftates of the Realm, and the
great Body of the Nation has fubmitted to him, and thole who
will not fubmit, can be crulhed by him, when ever he pleales;
if this be not a letled Government, I defpair of ever knowing
what it is; for there is no Government in the World lb letled,
but that by Ibme unleen Accident, or by greater Force and
Power, it may be unletled ; and in this lenle it is impoffible ever
to know, when a Government is letled ; for no Goverment is, or
can be thus letled againft all events: but then the Government
is vifibly letled, when the Prince has the full and perfeft Admi-
niftration of all Affairs relating to his Kingdom.
But if the general labmiffion of the People lettle a Govern-
inenr, I am fure, that is eafily enough known, when a Nation
has fubmitted to a Prince j but this will not be allowed us, that
the liibmiffion of the People fettles the Government, unlels the
Prince, who has the Right to Govern, fubmit allb ; but I would
gladly hear a gO'od Reilbn for this: The lubmiflion of the
Prince indeed may be thought neceiTary to transfer a Legal
Right; but the lubmiflion of the People, of it lelf, is fuffici-
ent to lettle a Government, and when it is letled, then it is the
Authority of God, vvhatever the Humane Right be.
This I take to be the true lenle of this Convocation concern-
ing Obedience to Sovereign Powers; all Sovereign Powers,
whole Power and Goverment is throagbly fetkd, muff be obeyed,
whatever their Legal Right be; for they have the Authority
of God, to which our Obedience and Subjeilion is due, and
that liiperledes all further enquiries. This is a good Argument
C from
The Cafe of the Allegiance
from Authority, and as good Authority as can be urged to the
Members of the Church of England; for if a Conwcation can-
not declare the Judgment of the Church of England^ I know
not whence we lhall learn it.
But I will not rely only upon Authority, _ but I think Co
great an Authority, if it do not determine our judgment, ought
at leaft to make us more carefully and impartially to examine
the Reafons of things, and to. deliver us from the Tyranny
of Pra^polTeffion and Prejudice ; and to that I proceed.
SECT. III.
The Tejiimony of Scripture and Reafon in this matter.
''^"irHat which we are to prove, is. That all Sovereign Princes,
X who are (etled in their Thrones, are placed there by God^
and invefted with his Authority, and therefore muft be obeyed
by all Subjeds, as the Minifters of God, without enquiring into
their Legal Right and Title to the Throne : The Proofs of this
from Scripture and Realbn muft neceflarily be intermixt and
interwoven with each other ; and to fet this matter in as clear
a Light as I can, I lhall reduce the whole into Ibme plain Pro-
pofitions,
Frop. I. That all Civil Power and Authority is from Gcd;
for he is the Supreme Lord of the World, and has the Ible Right
to Govern his Creatures, and therefore no man can have any
Authority but from God: this will be readily acknowledged by
all, who believe, that there is a God, and that he made and
governs the World.
Prop. 2. That Civil Power and Authority is no otherwile from
God, then as he gives this Power and Authority to fbme par-
ticular Perfbn or Perfons, to Govern others: For Authority be-
longs to a Perfon, and that Power and Authority, which any
PerTbn exerciles, is not from God, which God never gave him:
If -he Governs without receiving his Perfonal Authority from
God, he Governs without God's Authority.
I take
due to So'vsreign Powers, See. 11
I take notice of this to prevent a common EvafioHj that all
Power is laid to be of God^ becaule God has inftituted Civil Au-
thority; tiot that every one, who exerciles this Authority, re-
ceives it from God.
But what they mean by the Inftitution of Civil Authority,
I cannot tell, unlels it be, that God intended, that Mankind
Hiould live under Government: but this does not prove, that
all Power and Authority is from God, unlels thole, who exer-
cife this Authority, receive it from God: And it is plain, that
Sr. Vaal, 15 Rom. i. by the Higher Fowers, and aU power, means
thofe, who excrcife this Supreme Power, that all fuch Soveraign
Princes are fet up by God, and receive their Authority from
him; they are the Rulers, v. 5. the Minifiers of God, who bear
the Sword, v. 4. and in St. Feter, the King as Supreme, i Fet, 2.
J?-
Frop. 5. There are but three ways whereby God gives this
Power and Authority to any Perlbns: Either by Nature, or by
an expreft Nomination, or by the dilpofals of Providence.
By Nature: Parents have a Natural Superiority over their
Children, and are their Lords and Governours too: This was
the firft Government in the World, and is the only Natural Au-
thority ; for in propriety of Ipeaking, there is no Natural Prince
but a Father. But by what bounds this paternal and Patriarchal
Authority was limited, we cannot tell; how the, extent of their
power was Hinted, and where new Families, and new Govern-
rrients began; and it is in vain for us to enquire after it now.
By a particular Nomination : God made Kings only in Jewry,
and entailed the Kingdom of Judah upon Da'vid's Pofterity: and
after the Divifion of the Ten Tribes from the Kingdom of Judah,
by exprels Nomination let Jeroboam and Jehu over the Kingdom
of Ifrael.
But God ruled in all the other Kingdoms of the World, as well
as in Jewry, and all other Kings ruled by God's Authority, as
well as the Kings of Judah and Ifrael, who were advanced by
his Command: For the mofi high ruleth in the Kingdom of men,
and giveth it to whomfoever he will, and fetteth up over it the baje^
of men, 4 Dan. 17. It was the God of Heaven, that gave Ne-
buchadnezzar a Kingdom, Fewer, and Strength, and Glory. It is
he, that changeth times and feafons, that removeth Kings, and fetteth
up Kings, 2 Dan. 21. 57. and the Prophecy of the four Monar-
chies is a demonftration of it.
C 2 But
12 The Cafe of the Allegiance
But now God governs the reft of the world , removeth Kings,
and fetteth up Kings, only by his Providence; that is, then God
lets up a King, when by his Providence he advances him to the
Throne, and puts theSoveraign Authority into his hands; then he
removeth a King, when by his Providence he thrulhhim from his
Throne, and takes the Government out of his hands: for Provi-
dence is God's Government of the world by an invifible influence
and power, whereby he dire6i:3, determines, over-rules all Events
to theaccomplifhmentofhisown Will andCounfels, in dillindion
from his more vifible Government by his Oracles and Prophets fiv the
exprcft fignifications of his Will,as he in former Ages governed If-
rael.
Nor does it make any difference in this Cafe to diflihguilK be-
tween what God permits, and what he does; for this diftindion
does not relate to the Events of things, but to the wickednefs of
men; which is the only reafon for this diftindion ; for the Scrip-
ture never fpeaks of God's bare permiflion of any Events,but makes
him the Author of all the good or evil which happens either to
private perfbns, or publick Societies. The Events of all things are
in his hands, and are ordered and difpofed by his Will and Goun-
lei, as they muft be if God governs the world: but God cannot be
the Author of any wicked nefs,cannot infpire men with any wick-
ed counfels or defigns, nor incline their wills to the commiflton of
it, and therefore this we fay God only permits; but when it comes
to adion, he over-rules their wicked defigns to accomplilh his
own Counfels and Decrees; and either difappoints what they in-
tended, or gives fuccefs to them, when he can ferve the ends of
his Providence by their wickednefi : and herein confifts the un-
fearchable wifdom of Providence, that God brings about his own
Counfels by the free Miniftries of men: Fie permits men to do
wickedly,but all Events, which are for the good or evil of private
men, or publick Societies, are ordered by him, as the Prophet de-
clares,/ifw« :^.6. Shall there be evii m a City^ and the Lord bath not
done tt.
And yet if there were any fuch diftindion as this, that fbme E-
vents God only permits, and fbme he orders and appoints , we
ought in reafon to afcribe the advancement of Kings to God'sde-
cree and counfel, becaufeit is the principal ad of Providence,
which has fo great an influence upon the government of the
world ; and if he decree and order any Events, certainly he pe-
culiai ly orders fuch Events as will do moft good or molt hurt to
the
dm to So'veraign Ponders^
tli5 world. He muft with his own hand immediately dired the
nx)tions of the great wheels of Providence ; and not permit them
to move as they pleafe them (elves. Efpecially when vve lemem-
her, that Kings are God's Mini(fers and -LieutenantSj and are in-
vefted with his Authority: Now to give Authority to any perfon,
does not fignifie to permit him to take it; and we cannot but think
that God will exercife a particular care and providence in ap-
pointing his great Minifters. No man can have God's Authori-
ty, but he to whom it is given ; and if the advancement to the
Throne inverts fiich a Prince vvith Gods Authority, then God
gives him the Throne, and does not meerly permit him to
take it; for no man can take God's Authority, but it mull be
given.
Nay, fince God makes Kings now, not by an exprefs nomi-
-nation of any perfons, but only by the Events of Providence,we
mart not allow, that God at any time permits men to make them-
(elves Kings, whom he does not make Kings: for then we can
never dirtinguilh between Kings by the permirtion and by theap-
pointment of God, between God's Kings,and Kings of their own
making ; unlefs all Kings are (et up by God, and inverted with
his Authority, we can never know what King's have God's Au-
thority, who thofe are, whom we murt obey out of Confci-
ence, and whom we murt not obey : there is no diredion how
to dillinguilh them, and the Events of Providence in placmgthem
in the Throne, are the (ame in both.
Now the neceffary Confequence of this is,that Wf what means
foever any Prince afcendsthe Throne, he is placed thereby God,
and receives his Authority from him.Thereare very ditFerent ways
indeed, whereby this is done; (bmetirnesby the Election of thepeo-
pie; (bmetimes by Conqueit (which has been the vifibte Original
of moft Governments} and when any Family is thus advancedto
the Throne, it is continued by Succetfion and legal Entails; but all
the(e ways, or any other,that can be thought of, are governed and
determined by the Divine Providence, and the Prince thus ad-
vanced is as truly placed in the Throne by God, as if he had been
exprefly nominated,and anointed by a Prophet at God's command^
as Saul and David were. Sometimes God leaves a free People
to choole their own King, and then he diredls their choice to.
(iich a perlon as he will make King. Sometimes he liiffers an a-
(piring Prince to invade and conquer a Councry,bu,t he never (iif-
fers him to a(cend the Throne, but when he fees fit to make him
. - ' King,
The Cafe of the Allegiance
King.Sometimes he not only places a fingle Perfon in the Throne,
but entails it on his Family by Human Laws, and makes the
Throne a legallnheritance; but when he fees caufe for it, he in-
terruptsthe Succedion,or finally transfers the Kingdom to another
Family.
Prop. 4. All Kings are equally rightful with refpe(9: to God:for
thofe are all rightful Kings,who are placed in the Throne by God,
and it is impoffible there Ihould be a wrong King, unlefs a man
could make himfelf King, whether God will or no. The whole
Authority of Government is Gods,and whoever has God's Autho-
rity is a true and rightful King;for he has the true and rightful Au-
thority of a King; and if all Kings, who are fettled and eftablifli-
ed in their Thrones, are fet up by God, and have his Authority,
with refpedt to the Authority which they have from God, they
are rightful Kings.
Prop.%. The diitindion then between a King </^y«re,and a King
defadto^ relates only to Human Laws, which bind Subjeds^but are
not thenecelTary Rules and Meafuresof the Divine Providence.
In Hereditary Kingdoms, He is a rightful King, who has by Sue-
ceflion a legal Right to the Crown; and He who has poffeflionof
the Crown, without a legal Right, is a King de fallo ; that is, is
a King, but not by Law: Kow Subjeds are fo tied up by the
Conftitutions of the Kingdom,that they muft not pull down or fet
up Kings contrary to the Laws of theLand; but God is not bound
by Human Laws, but can make whom he pleafes King, without
regard to legal- Rights, and when he does fo,they are true,thoi!gh
not legal Kings,if thofe are true Kings who have God's Authority.
Prop.6. We can have but one King at a time: two rival and op-
pofite Princes cannot at the fame time polTefs the fame Throne,
nor can Silbjeds be bound to two oppofitcand contrary Allegian-
ces; for no man can ferve two Mafiers; and yet Allegiance is due
to a King by the Laws of God, and to every King whofe Subjeds
we are, that if we could have two Kings, we muft have two AI-
legiances.
Prop. 7. He is our King who is fettled in the Throne in the
adual Adminiftration of Soveraign Power: for King is the Name
of Power and Authority, not of meer Right. He, who has a le-
gal Right to the Grown, but has it not, ought by the Lawsof the
Land to be King, but is not: but he,who is adually fettled in the
Adminiftration of the Regal Power, is King, and has God s Au-
thority, though he have not a legal Right.
due to Soveraign Towers'^ See.
But the Objeftion agatnfl this is^ That it is Hobbifin^ that Do-
minion is naturally annexed to Power; but thofe who fay thisj
do not underftand Mr. Hobbs, or me: for He makes Power, ^ad
nothing elle, to give Right to Dominion; and therefore alTefts,
That God himfelf is the Natural Lord and Governour of the
World, not becaufe he made it j but becaufe he. is Omnipotent;
but I fay. That Government is founded in Right, and that God
is the Natural Lord of the World, becaufe he made it; and that
no Creature has any Right to Govern the World, or any part of it,
but as he receives Authority from God: and therefore fince Power
will GoverHjGod fo orders it by his Providence,as never to intruff
Soveraign Power in any Mans hands, to whom he does not give
the Soveraign Authority : that Power does not give Right
and Authority to Govern, but is a certain fign to us, that
where God has placed and fettled the Power, he has given the
Authority.
Prop. 8. Allegiance is due only to the King: for Allegiance fi-
gnifies all that Duty, which Subjedsowe to their King,and there-
fore can be due to none but the King.
If then he who has the Legal Right may not be our King, and
he who has not, may ; when any fiich Cafe happens, v/e muft
pay our Allegiance to hirn who is King, though without a Legal
Right; not to him who is notour King, though it is his Right to
be To: And the reafbnisvery plain, becaufe Allegiance isdueon-
ly to God s Authority, nor to a bare Legal Title without God's
Authority ; and therefore muft be paid to him.who is invefted
with God's Authority, who is his Minifter and Lieutenant; that is,
to the Adfual King, who is fetled in the Throne, and has the Ad-
miniftration of Government in his hands.
ObjePi. But if this be fo, what does a Legal Right fignifie, if it
do not command the Allegiance of Subjeds}
Anfw. lanfwer: It barrs all other Humane Claims: No other
Prince can challenge the Throne of Right: and Subjects are
hound to maintain the Rights of fuch a Prince, as far as they can;
that is, againft all Mankind ; but not againft God's difpofal of
Crowns: and therefore when God transfers the Kingdom, he
transfers our Allegiance, which is due, and annexed to his An-
thority, whether this Authority be conveyed by a Legal SucceC
fion, or by any other means.
. *
Objift'.
The Cafe of the Allegiance
OhjeCi. But if we have fworn Allegiance to fiich a Prince, and
his Heirs, and lawful Succeffors, how can we pay Allegiance to
any other Prince, while He, or any of his Heirs, and Legal
Succellbrs are living, and claim our Allegiance, nithout violating
our Oaths ?
Anfw. I anfwer : An Oath of Allegiance made to any King,
can oblige no longer than he continues to be King ; for if it did,
it would oblige us againft our Duty, and fb become an unlawful
Oath : for our Allegiance is due to him who is King, in the a-
<5tual and letled polTeffion of the Throne, and therefore muft
by the Law of God be paid there; and then it cannot be paid to
the difpolTefled Prince,unlefs we can have two Allegiances: Our
Oath then to the difpoffeffed Prince ceales, CeJJ'ante materia ; for
though the Man is in being ftill, the King is gone.
But we (wear to maintain and defend his Right, and the Right
of his Heirs: but yet we do not (wear to keep them in the
Throne,which may beimpoffible for us to do againft a prolperous
Rebellion; nor do we fwear in Cafe they are thrown out of the
Throne, never to fubmit or pay Allegiance to any other Prince;
which would be an unlawful Oath, as contrary to that Duty we
owe to the Divine Providence in making Kings, and removing
Kings. The Oath of Allegiance contains the Duty of Subjects
to their King, and can extend no farther, and therefore can ob-
lige no longer than he is our King, and we his Subjects.
Thefe (eem to me, to be very plain Propq^tiens, and to carry
their own Evidence with them ; and if this be true, it is a.verv
plain Diredion to Subjects in all the Revolutions of Govern-
ment.
The moft that can be expcifted from them, according to the
ftribteft Principles of Loyalty and Obedience, is to have no hand
infuch Revolutions, or to oppofe them as far astheycarr, and
not to be hafty and forward in their Compliances; but when
fuch a Revolution is made, an,! they cannot help it; they muft
reverence and obey their New Prince, as invefted with God's
Autiiority.
Nor is it very hard to know, when our Obedience becomes
due to a New Prince ; forit does not confift in a Mathematical
point, nor require Mathematical certainty: Onr Obedience is due
to. Gods'Authority, and when we can reafonably conclude, that
God'iias made him King; that is, when the Providence of God
has fetled him in the Throne,we muft pay our Obedience to him.
There
due to Sovoraign Towers^ See.
There are different degrees of Settlement, and muff neceflari-
iy be in fiich new Governments, which feem to me to require
different degrees of Submiflion, or at ieaft to juffifie them, till
it increafes to fuch a full and plenary and fettled poffeflion, as
requires our Allegiance , as being notorioufly evident and
ienfible to all that do not wink hard, and will not fee
it. , % ^
It the generality of the Nation fubmit to fuch a Prince , and
place him on the Throne, and put the whole power of the King-
dom into his hands, though it may be, we cannot yet think the
Providence of God has fettled him in the Throne, while the dif-
poffelTed Prince has alfb fuch a formidable power, as makes the
Event very doubtful, yet if we think fit to continue in the King-
dom, under the government and power of the new Prince, there
are feveral Duties, which in reafbn we ought to pay hfm.
As to live quiedy and peaceably under his government, and to
promife, or fwear, or give any other fecurity that we will do fb,
if it be demanded ; It is reafonahle we fhould do fo, if we think
it reafonahle to live under the proteAion of the government; this
all men do in an Enemies quarters, and no man blames them foe
it.
We muft pay Taxes to them ; for thefe are due to the Admi-
niftration of government, as St. Paul obferves ; For this caufe pay
je Tribute alfo, for they are the MiniHers of God, attending continually
on this very thing, 13 Rom. 6. And if we owe our fecure poffeib
fion of our Eftates to theprotedion of government, let the go-
vernment be what it will, we ought to pay for it.
We muft give the Title of King to fiich a Prince,when we live
in the Country where he is owned for King j for befides that it
is a piece of good manners (which is the leaft thing we can owe
to him, under whofe government we live) he is indeed King,
while hd adminifters the Regal power, though we may not think
him fb well fettled in his government, as to all intents and pur-
l pofes to own him for our King.
Nay, we muft pray for him under the Name and Title of King,
for we are bound to pray for all who are in Authority ; and that a
■: Prince is, who has the whole government in his hands, and has
f power to do a great deal of hurt, or a great deal of good ; and
this is fo far from being a fault, that it is a duty, while we take
care to do it in fuch terms, astiot to pray againft the difpolTefled
Prince.
' D Thus
The Cafe of the AUegtance
Thus far 1 think the tloubtful poffeffion of theThrone obliges us,
and it wei every happy if no more were requited in the beginnings
of fiich a new government; but when befidesthe poffeffion of the
Throne, the power of the difpoffeffed Prince is bioken , and no
vifible prelpeft of his recovering his Throne again; nay, if it be
vifible thi^ij^he can never recover his Throne again, but by ma-
king a nevt^ Conquelt of the Nation by-Foreigners, who will be
our Mafters, if they conquer, and no ^^ry gentle ones neither;
we may then look upon the new Prince as advanced and fettled
by God in his Throne, and therefore fuch a King, as we owe an
entire Obedience and Allegiance to.
For we mult not take the confideration of Right into the let-
tlement of Government; for a Prince may be lettled in his Throne
without legal Right, and when he is lb, God has made him our
King, and requires our Obedience.
Thefe principles are lo very uleful , efpecially in all Revoluti-
ons of government, that Subjcds have great reafon to wilh them
true, and to examine over again thole llrid principles of Loyal-
ty, which if purfued to their jult conlequences, mult unavoidably
in Ibme Jundures, facrifice whole Kingdoms, at lealt all Subjeds
who pretend to this degree and kind of Loyalty and Conlcience,
to the ill Fortune of their Prince.
S E C T. IV.
Some Reafons and Arguments urged^and OhjeSiions anfwered^
for the further Confirmation of this Dotlrine.
THat we may examine this more impartially and more lecure-
ly rely upon the Didates of Realbn in this matter, I obferve,
I. That the Scripture has given usno Diredions in this Cafe,
but tolubmit,and pay all the Obedience of Subjeds to the prefent
powers. It makesmo diltindion, that ever I could find, between'
rightful Kings and Ulurpers, between Kings whom we muft,and
■ whom we muft not obey; but the general Rule is. Let every Soul
be [ubjeB to the higher Powers, for all power is of God, the Powers
that be are ordained of God: whofoever therefore refifieth the Power,
refijieth the Ordinance of God , and they that refifi Jhqll receive to
them-
due to Soeveratgn Powers ^ See.
thmfelves damnation, i; Rom. r,2. To fay the Jpoflle here
fpeaks of lawful powers, is gratis diBum, for there is no Evi-
dence of it: The Criticifm between and will not
do ; for they both fignifie the fame thing in Scripture , either
force and power, or authority : iic i-)<d W wis.
I will fiat be brought under the power of any thing , muft fignifie
force, I Cor. 6.17.. and muft fignifie authority and dig-
nity, I Eph. 21. xae^i^.vM Ww ly Jbrnuiuf xjjeso-
7x1 3 which are feveral names and degrees of dignity and
authority, as well as power. Kv&kI'hv and fignifie the
fame thing, the exercife of civil authority and power, 22 Lukt
ay and therefore al are the ot , thofe who
exercife authority and dominion ; the 0/ df;^v1es, the Rulers, v.^.
the Miniflers of God, which bear the Sword, <c. 4. In St. Peter ,
the BADiKdii and 'HyifMvu , the King, and his Governours and
Magiftrates, i Peter 2.13, 14. Now there may be Kings and
Emperours and Rulers, who exercife civil government without
a legal Title to it, in the fenfe of the Objedors, yet St. Paul.
has made no Exception againft them ; but if they be the Pow-
e;s, if they exercife the Supream Authority, they are of God,
and are the Ordinance of God .* for Tmm 'J^kiAa is ms
J which evidently relates to the Exercife of Civil Authority,
not to a legal Right. And why lliould we think the Apofile
here intends a diftinftion unknown to Scripture : had there been
any fuch Rule before given, to fubmit to lawful powers, but not
to fubmit toUfurpers, there had been fbme pretence for un-
derffanding St. PauPs all power of\aU legal power ; but the.'-e be-
ing nothing like this any where elfe in Scripture , it he had in-
tended any fuch diftindion, he ought to have faid it in ex-
prefs words,orelfe nobody could reafonably have underffoodhim
to intend this precept of fubje(9non to the higher powers', only
of powers that had a legal Right. For then, in order to the ful-
filling ot this precept, it would beneceffary for Subjefts to exa-
mine the Titles of Princes,and to that end to be well skilPd in the
Hiftory and Laws of a Nation, and to be able to judge between
a pretended and real Right,and to know exactly what gives a real
Right, that they may know to whom they ought to pay fubjedi-
on, and may not mifplace their duty in fo important a matter.
And let any man judge in what perplexities this fenfe of the Apo-
files precept would involve the Confciences of men ? for thefe are
great difputes among learned men, and how then ihould unlearn-
D 2 ed
2 0 The Cafe of the Allegiance
ed men underftand them ? And I cannot think that tlie refbluti-
on of Confcience, in fuch matters as all Mankind are concern-
ed in, fhould depend upon fuck. Niceties as learned men them-
felves cannot agree in. Elpecially if we confiderthe Cafe of the
Roman Empirej in which^for fo many Ages together, the Titles
of their Emperours were either all of them ftai k nought, or the
very heft of them very doubtful. And yet this Epiftleto the Ro-
mans was written to the Subjects of that Empire to dired: them in
the point of fubjedion and obedience. This I take to be little
lefs than a demonftration, that this precept of St. Faul cannot be
underftood only of fubjedion to powers that had a legal Right.
Befides this, the reafon the Afojllt gives for fubmiffion to the
higher powers is not a legal Right, but the Authority - of God j
that all power ("or every one, who exercifeth the fupreme power^
u of God, and the Ordinance of God, which feems plainly intended
to wave the difpute about the legality of the powers, which was
the Objedion of the Pharifees, againfl fubmiffion to the Roman
power; and an Objedion which no body made but themfelves;
they thought they were not bound by God to fubmit to the Ro-
man powers; nay, that they were bound by the Law of God not
to fubmit to them, as being unjuft Ufurpations upon the privi-
ledges and liberties of God s people , and therefore the Apofile
tells them, that all power is of God ; the powers that be are ordained of
God, wherein certainly he never intended to juffifie all the Reman
Ufurpations , or to vindicate the legality of their power,
which will as reafonably juffifie all the Revolutions that ever
were in the world ; but to affert the providence of God, and
his fiipream authority, in transferring Kingdoms and Empires,
in removing Kings, and letting up Kings. And when the Ape-
file fays, All power is of God, there is no reafon to confine this
to all legal powers, unlefs it were evidently the Dodrine of
Scripture, that ufttrpedpowers are not of God, which is fb far from
being true, that the contrary is evident; that the mo ft high raleth
in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomfoever he will, 4 Dan.
17. which is fpoke with reference to the four Monarchies, which
were all as manifeft Ufurpations as ever were in the world,
and yet fet up by the decree and counfel of God, and fore-
told by a prophetick Spirit: and whoever will confine the pow-
er and authority of God, in changing Times and Seafons, in remo-
liing Kings and jetting up Kings, to Human Laws, ought not to be'
dilputed with.
To
due to Soveraign Fowers^Zcc.
' To this 1 addj that this diftindionj that only Legal, not Ufiir-
ped Powers, arc of God, had made thcApofiles direfftion fignifie
nothing, for the great Qaeftion had been ftiil undetermined, what
Powers are of God, and what Powers they muft obey, if (bme
Powers be of God, and fome nor. When he lays, the Fowers that
he, had he confined this to the then prefint Powers, it would have
direcSted them at that time, but had been no general diretftion to
Chriftians in other Agjes, to obey the prelenc powers, and then
vys have no dire(5tion in Scripture, what to do in fuch difputed
Cafes, unlels by a parity of Reafon ; and if we muft obey fuch
powers, as the Roman power was, I know very few powers that
we may not obey : for whatever Legal Right the Roman Empe-
rors had, who by fear, or flattery, or other arts, extorted fbme
kind of confent from the Senate, it is plain, the Romans themfelves
were great Ufurpers, and had no other Right to the greateft pare
of their Empire, but Conqueft and Ufurpation.
This I'm fiire, the only diredion of Scripture is to fubrait to
thole who are in Authority, who are in the adual adminiftration
of Government, to reverence and obey them, to pray for them,
to pay Tribute to them, God's Mimgers, attending continually up-
on this very thing, and not to refill them ; but there is not the ieaft
notice given us of any kind of Duty owing or to be paid to a
Prince out of Authority, and removed from the adminiftration of
Government, whatever his Right may be: We have no Example
in Scripture, that any-people were ever blamed for fubmitting to
the prelent powers, whatever the Ufurpation were, though we
have Examples of their being condemned for refufing to lubmit to
them ; witnefi the Prophefies of Jeremiah, and the Dilcourfes of
our Saviour with the Scrihes and Pharifees about paying Tribute
to Cafar.
Our Saviour's Argument relies wholly on the poftelfion of power,
whofe Image and Superfcription hath it ? And if this be a good Rea-
fbn, it is good in all other cafes; that we muft fubmit to all Prin-
ces, who are pofTefled of the Soveraign power, and are in the full,
adminiftration of Government: The Prophet j^ervw/s Argument
is Prophecy, or an exprels Command from God to lubmit to the
King of Babylon ; and there was great realbn for an exprels Conv-
niand from God at that time, becaule God himlelf had entailed
the Kingdom upon D;?w/i's Pofterity, and therefore without an
exprels Command from God, they could^ not lubjccft themlelves
to any other Prince, while any of that Family were living, which
2 2 'The Cafe of the Allegiance
which is the reafon that Jehoiada the High-Prieft gives for
AQ^o^mgAthaliah, who had Ufurped.the Throne for (ix years,
and anointing Joagi the King's Son; behold the King's Son
jhall Reign, as the Lord hath [aid of the Sons of David: But
where God has made no entail of the Crown, but the entail
is only by Humane Laws, there is no need of Prophecy to
dired people to lubmit to any new Prince, whom God lets over
them.
For we muft obferve, that this was at the beginning of the four
Monarchies^ which God intended fucceffively to ered, to whom
he gave the Kingdoms of the World, not excepting his own peo-
pie Ifrael; and in that Command he gave to them to fubmit to
thole Powers, ( which was renewed by Chrift and his Apoftles)
has taught all Chriftians to do fo too, and not to oppofeany Hu-
mane Right or Intereft againft the Divine will and pleafure, when
it is fufficiently declared by the events of Providence. And the
Prophecy of the four Monarchies is not yet at an end; for under
the fourth Monarchy the Kingdom of Chrift was to be let up, and
Antichrift was to appear, and the increale and deftrudion of the
Kingdom of Antichrift is to be accomplilhed by great Changes and
Revolutions in Humane Governments; and when God hasdecia-
red, that he will change Times and Sealbns, remove Kings, and
let up Kings, to accomplilh his own wile Counfels, it julfifies our
necelTary, and therefore innocent compliances with fuch Revolu-
tions, as much as if we were, expretly commanded to do lb, as the
Jews were by the Prophet" Jeremiah. This a man may lay with-
• ' out Enthufialin, or pretending to underftand all the Prophefies of
the Revelations, and to apply them to their particular events, for
without that we certainly know, that all the great Revolutions
of the World are intended by God to lerve thole great ends;
and when God will overturn Kingdoms and Empires, remove
and let up Kings, as he fees will beft lerve the accomplilhment
of his own Counlels and Decrees, it is very hard, if Subjeds
mulf not quietly fubmit to fucli Revolutions: we mull: not con-
trary to our Iworn Duty and Allegiance promote fuch Revolu-
tions, upon a pretence of fulfilling Prophefies, but when they
are made and lec'ed, we ought to fubmit to them.
Now when we have no diredion in Scripture at all about
making or unmaking Kings, or reltoring a difpolTeired Prince
to his fhrone again, and all the Commands we have in Scrip-
ture about Obedience and Subjedion to Government, manifellly
refped
' Whc to So'veraign Ponders, See. 2 3
refped the prelent Ruling Powers, without any dlftindion
between Rightful or Ufurped powers, it feems plainly to deter-
mine this C^effion on the fide of the prefent powers j at leall
it leaves us to the guidance and condud of Reafon in this mat-
ter, and therefore let us impartially confider what Reafon
fays.
2. I obferve then in the next place, that this gives the eafiefl:
and molf intelligible account of the Original of Humane Go-
vernment j that all Power is from God, who is the Soveraign
Lord of the World.
This has been a very perplext and intricate Difpute both iri
Religion and Politicks, and men have zealoufly efpoufed dit-
ferent Hypothefes^ as they have had different ends to ferve.
The matter of Fad, how Monarchies firft began, and what
was the Original of particular Monarchies, is very obfcure for
want of Hifiory, which is the only way to know it: Some
think, all power was originally derived from the Choice and - ^
Confent of the People: others afcribe it to the Right of Con-
queft, which they think without more ado confers a Right of
Government; others think Conqueft gives no Right, but the
Submiflion of the conquered people, or the long continuance
of fuch an Ufurpation does j elpecially when fiich a Govern-
ment defcends from Father to Son, and is become an Inheritance,
either by Pr^feription, or Laws; which fbme men think then
fb Sacred, that they muft in no cafe, febmit to any other Go-
vernment, while any Legal Heir to the Crown is living, and
makes his Claim.
Now I think there is no doubt, but feveral Governments have ^
been begun all thefe ways, biit ftill it is God, who by his Provi-
dence advances men to the Throne, and invefts them with his
Authority by all thefe ways; for the Authority is Gods, and it
is his advancing them to the Throne which gives them this Au-
thoricy.
It is evident, there is no Natural Authority, but the Paternal
znd Patriarchal Authority; and that Monarchies were ereded
upon the ruins or great diminution of it; and whether this were
by confent, or (as is moft probable) by violent Ufurpations,
of which Nimrod feems to have fet the firft Example, it was
equally unjuft ; for no Authority is fb Sacred, as what is Natu-
ral, which no man had Authority to give away, or to Ulurp:
But
I
t : ■
I
V:
,■1
2'^ The Cafe of the AUegtOfrce
But by this means God erefted Monarchies, and gave his Ati- ,
thority to Men, who had no Authority of their own. J lo^
If the Choice and Confent of the ]^ople makes a Prince,then liffJ
no man is a Subjed, but he who conients to be fb j for the Major
Vote cannot include my confent, unlels I pleafe; that is the effed
of I,aw and Compad or Force, not of Nature. If Subjeds give •
their Prince Authority, they may take it away again, if they
pleale; there can be no irrefiftible'Authoiity derived from the
people; for if the Authority be wholly derived from them, who ^
lhall hinder them from taking it away, when they lee fit? Up- '5Sic
on thefe Principles, there can be no Hereditary Monarchy; one sto'
Generation can only choofe for themfelves, their Pofterity ha- siaiC
ving as much Right to choole as they had: jjjjt
If Conqueft gives a Right, then Force, the mofl: unjuft and
violent rorce,is Right; and then every man by the fame Rule,who bh
is llronger than I am, has a Natural Right to govern me. * noit
Submiflion is only a forced and after-conlent not to make a
King, but to own him, who has made himfelf King,and whom ran
very often we would difbwn and rejed, were it lafe to do lb; . iis
and what Right can that give more than Force ? eoiI
The continuance of an Ufurpation can never give a Right, dti
unlefs that which is wrong can grow right by continuance: An
Ulurper by long continuance may out live thofe, who formerly 'iidS
wore the Crown; but does it give Right to him, who has none,
that he out-lives thole, who had the Right ? For though no body
elle has any Right to the Crown, how does this make him a iib
Rightful King, who has no Right ? sii:
An Hereditary Right is either a continued Ufurpation, which siix
can give no Right, or a Right by Law; that is, by the conlent of ;!»
the people to entail the Crown on fuch a Family, which, as I ob- -iat
lerved before, if Right be refblved into the Choice and Conlent „i;
of the people, cannot be done; for what Right had my Ance-
dors three or four hundred years ago, to choole a King for me? b':
So that I cannot fee where to fix the Foundation of Govern- :„
ment, but in the Providence of God, who either by the choice of h
the major or ftronger part of the people,or by Gonqueft,or by Sub- »ooi
miffion, and the long luccellive continuance of power, or by Hu- ilfe
mane Laws,gives a Prince and his Family pofleffion of the Throne,
which is a good Title againft all Humane Claims, and requires the \ si 4
Obedience and Submiflion of Subjeds as long as God is plealed to ' »»«
continue him and his Family in the Throne; but it is no Title a- laii
gainft God, if he pleale to advance another Prince. To
cfue to Sovereign Powers, &:c. 25
To fay that God fets up no Prince, who afcends the Throne
without a Human and Legal Right, is to fay, that fome Kings arc
removed, and others fet up, but not by God; which is a direct
contradidlion to Scripture ; it is to fay, That the Four Monarchiet
were not fet up by God, becaufe they all began by Violence and
Ufurpation: It is to fay. That God, as well as men, is confined by
Human Laws, in making Kings; It is to fay. That the Right of
Government is not derived from God, without the confent of the
People 5 for if God can't make a King without the People, or againfl
their Confent declared by their Laws, the Authority mufl be dcri-
vcd from the People, not from God ; or at leaft if it be God's Au-
thority, yet God can't give it himfelf without the People, nor
otherwife than as they have diretfted him by their Laws.
This is all very abfurd, and what thofe perfons abhor the thoughts
of, who infill fo much upon a Legal Right, that they will own no
King, who afcends the Throne, without it, nor believe that God
places him there without and againfl a Legal Right: but if they
would examine themfelves for what Reafon they believe that a
King who has no Right to the Throne, is not fet up by God, and
inveiled with his Authority, they will find. That it muft ultimately
refolve it felf into the Authority of the People to make Kings, which
it is unjufl for God himfelf to over-rule and alter i for a Legal En-
tail is nothing more than the Authority of the People; and if the
People have fuch an uncontroulablc Authority in making Kings, I
doubt they will challenge as much Authority to unmake them too.
If the fole Authority of Government be from God, and God gives
this Authority only by placing a Prince in the Throne, then by what-
ever means he docs it, it is the fame thing. When fuch a Prince is
fetlcd in the Throne, he is God's King and Minifler, and muft be
Reverenced and Obeyed by the People who live under his Govern-
tnent; thus it muft be, if all Torvir be of God.
But there are feveral Objedlions againfl this, which muft be
briefly anfwered.
I. It is objedled, That this makes a Prince lofe his Right by 'OhjeSt,
being notorioufly injured; for if a profperous Ufurper gets into
the Throne, and fettles himfelf there, God has taken away his
Crow n, and given it to another; and therefore he ought not to at-
tempt the recovery of his Throne ( nor any other Prince to ailill
him in it ) which is to oppofeGod, and to challenge that.which he
has no longer any Right to»
E I anfwer.
The Cafe of the Allegiance
lanfwer. By no means; The Providence of God removes-
Kings.and fcts up Kings,but alters no Legal Pvights,nor forbids thofc
who are dirpoflelTed of them, to recover their Right, when they
can. While fitch a Prince is in the Throne, it is a declaration of
God's Will, that he (hall Reign for fome time, longer or fhorterj
as God pleafes; and that is an obligation to Subjedfs to fubmit and
obey •, for Submilfim is owing only to God's Authority •, but that
one Prince is at prefent placed in,the Throne, and the other remo-
ved out of it, does not prove, that it is God's Will it fhould always
befo, and therefore does not divelt the difpolTelf Prince of his Le-
gal Right and Claim, nor forbid him to endeavour to recover his
Throne, nor forbid thofe who are under no obligation to
the Prince in pofieffion,. to aililt the difpoffelfed Prirjce to recover
his Legal Right: A Legal and Succelllive Pcight is the ordinary way
whereby the Providence of God advances Princes to any Hereditary.
Throne : And this bars all other human Claims ; but yet God may
give the Throne to another, if hepleafes j and this does notdeftroy
the Legal Right of the difpoffeffed Prince, nor hinder him from ,
claiming it, when he finds his opportunity.
But it may perhaps be farther faid. If thedifpofTefTed Prince may
ftill have the Legal Right and Claim to the Crown, and he , who is
pofTeffed of the Crown, may have none, is it not very unjuftin Sub-
jeds to pay Allegiance to him who is pofTelTed of the Throne with-
out Right, and to withdraw their Allegiance from him who has
the Right? Isnotthis to juliitie and fupport Injultice and Violence,
and to opprefs opprefTed Innocence and Right? Andean the Provi-,.
denceof God make that our. Duty, which is fo manifeftly^unjuft
and wicked ?
I anfwer ; To deny any man, much more a Prince, what is his
jufi Right, and which I am bound to give him, is certainly very
unjuft, and that which the Providence of God can never jufiihe;
but then we muft confidcr, Whattjie Prince's Right is; and. What
is the Duty of Subjects; and, When Subjedts may be faid to deny
their Prince's Right.
The Right of the Prince is to.adminifterthe Government of the
Nation ; the Duty of S'ubjed:s is to fubmit to his Government, and
©bey his Laws, when he does adfually ^dminifler the Government >
and thofe who do not refufe to obey him when he goyerns, deny
him no Right that they owe him ; for there is no Duty Subjeds .
©we to Princes, asSubjedfs, but to obey them> and not to obey,,
when they don't and. can't Qovern,. is to deny no Right. Yes, ^
due to Sovereign Powers, 5cc.
Yes, you'l fay, The poffeffion of the Crown, and the actual Ad-
minirtration of Government, is his Right •, and if we own any other
Governing Power, we deny him that Right.
I anfwer, Suppofe he have a Legal Right to Govern, but can't 5
Obedience is not his Rights and therefore to pay my Obedience to
thofe who do Govern, is no denial of his Legal Rights but a due
Submillion to the Providence of God, who hath a Right fuperiour
to all Human Plights , in the difpofal of Crowns and King-
doms.
The Duty of Subje(3:s as fuch, is to obey their Prince, and fub-
mittohim whillf he governs, and is in polTellion of the 1 hrone ;
But then Kings mult take fome care alfo to preferve their Crowns by
good Government; and if they will run the hazard of their Crowns,
thofe of their Subjedts are certainly not to be blamed by fuch a
Prince, who did nothing to take his Crown from him.
But fome it may be will fay. That fuch Subjedfs are bound even in
fuch a cafe to maintain and defend their King in his Throne.
I am not fo very fure of that •, but this 1 am lure of. That when-
ever People have a good King, it is both their Duty and Intercft to
defend him •, and if they be not milled by the Cunning and Arti-
ficeof ill men, they will certainly do fo. But if they have a very
bad one, that notorioufly violates their Rights, and breaks the Con-
ftitution upon which himfelf Bands, and ftrikes at the dearelf things
they have, their Religion eftablilhed by Law, and their Properties,
I doubt the cafe may be altered ; and though every body will not
fpeakitout, yet moftmay fay in their hearts. Let him go, if he can-
not defend himfelf. It is enough in confcience patiently to bear fo
bad a Prince, but a little too much to venture their Lives and For-
tunes to keep him in the Throne to opprefs them ^ this is againft
Reafon and Nature, and I know no Law of God which requires
it; A Subjedf, and a Soldier •, to Obey a Prince, and to Fight for
him, are two things •, and to be a Subjedl of any Prince, does not
either by the Laws of God or Man, necelTarily make him a Soldier.
But have we not fworntothe King, his Heirs and Lawful Succef-
fors, to defend and maintain his Perfon, Crown, and Dignity ? And
are we not bound by this Oath ?
I anfwer, 1.1 grant it is fo j but then we muft diftinguifh two
parts in this Oath; 1. The Natural Duty of Subjeds, which is Faith
and true Allegiance, or Obedience and Submillion to the Govern-
Went of the King. 2, That Duty and Obligation which is fuperindu-
E 2 ccd
The Cafe of the Allegiance ,
cedby Law, to maintain and defend the King's Right to the Crown,
and all the Dignities and Prerogatives of it, which is now made
a part, not of our Natural, but Legal Allegiance.
The reafon of the thing tells us, That this is not an Arbitrary, but
real Difiindtioni and then, tho ourNatual and Legal Allegiance be
both included in the fame Oath , they are of a diltinff Conlidera-
tion.
Natural Allegiance, or Obedience and Subjedfion to Government,
is due to the King,confidered in the adfual Adminilfrationof Govern-
ment, and no other wife, becaufe it can be paid only to the Regnant
Prince j and it is due to all Kings, who are fetled in the Govern-
ment 5 for it is due to Government, and for that reafon, to the
Prince who governs.
Legal Allegiance, or Maintenance and Defence, is due only by
Law, and therefore can oblige no further than Human Laws do,
which muft always give way to the Laws of God 5 and therefore
Natural Allegiance (in cafe of a Competition ) vacates the Obligi-
tion of Legal Allegiance and Oaths i as the Laws of God and Nature
muft take place of all humane poiitive Laws and Oaths. If then,
I have fworn to maintain and defend my King, who has a Legal
Right to the Throne, whatever is meant by this Maintenance and
Defence, if he happen tobedifpolfeffedof his Thione, and another
Prince placed there,whom,in Reverence to the Authority of God,I am
to obey, and fubmit to, without Retillance i I amabfolved from my
Legal Allegiance to maintain and defei-id myejedied Prince, becaufe
I cannot do it without violating that Allegiance, which by the Laws
of God I owe to the Pccgnant Prince i for I cannot defend the dif-
pofiefted Prince, whom I have fworn to defend, without oppoling
and rellfting the Regnant Prince, whom by the Laws of God I am
bound to obey.
2. This Legal Allegiance, or Maintenance and "Defence, is Sworn
only to a King in Poifeftion, and fignihes no more, than to main-
tain and defend him in the PolTellion of the Throne, as having a
Legal Right to it: We can legally take this Oath only to a King,
who is in PolTellion, for it muft be adminiftred by his Authority 5
and the Obligation of Oaths muft not be extended beyond the ne-
cdTary Signihcation of Words; now to maintain and defend the
King's Perfon, Crown, and Dignity, and. to reftore him to his
Throne, when heisdifpolTefred, are two very different things; and
jhercforc he, who Swears to maintain and defend, is not by virtue
due to Sovereign Powers^ 5cc. 29
of that Oath obliged to reftorei while a Piince is on the Throne,
Subjefts are in a capacity to defend and preferve him there; and
therefore may oblige themfelves to it, and there may be Pveafons
why this fhould be exadfed from them s but in ordinary Cafes, if
they cannot defend the King in PofTellion , there is little likelihood
they (hould be able to reltore him; and therefore no reafon, that
Subjeifs flaould bind themfelves by fuch an Oath.
To venture our Lives and Fortunes to preferve the King's Perfbn
and Government, while he is in Poffeilion, is reafonable enough j
bccaufe it is a real Service to our King and Country, to prevent un-
jull Ufurpations, which overturn the Government, and often un-
fettle or deftroy the Laws, and with them the Rights and Liberties^
of Subjeds , as well as the Right of the King; but to Swear
to do our utmoft to reflore the King, when he is difpoifeffed,
is to Swear never to fubmit to, ufurped Powers, but to take
all Opportunities to overthrow fuch Governments to rertore our
King, which is contrary to our Duty, when God removes one
King, and fets up another; whi»}i expofes our Lives and Fortunes
to ruin, when we cannot ferve our King by it; which provokes
fuch new Powers, if tliey be not more merciful, to fecure themfelves
by rooting out fuch fworn Enemies m their Government; and then
the Confequence of this Oath, is. That if our King be driven out
of the Land, we will follow him into Banilhment, or venture be-
ing hanged at home; that we will difturb all Governments, and
raife Rebellions, and Civil Wars, if we can, to refiore our King,
tho with the utter Ruin and Deltrudf ion of the Nation. I believe,
fhould all this be expreffed in an Oath, there is no Man in. his wits
would take it, for the fake of the beif Prince that ever fway'd a
Scepter; and how unreafonable then is it, to expound an Oath to
fuch a Senfe, as no Man would have taken it in, had it been ex-
prelTed ? However it appears, that there is fuch a vail difference be-
tween maintaining and defending a Regnant Prince, and refioring a Dif-
polfeffed Prince, that to reftore is not neceffarily included in maintain-
ing.
But we Swear not only to the King, but to his Heirs, and Lawful
SuccelTors, who are not in Adual Pofleilion ; and therefore that mull
fignify to give them Pofleffion; Right! if the King dye polfefl of
the Grown, we Swear to maintain the Succetbon, and to own the
true Heir, for our King; but if the King be driven out of PoffeHion,
and his Heirs with ,him, and another Prince polTeired of the
Throne,
30
floe Cafe of the Allegiance
Throne, this Oath can no more oblige us to fet the Banifhed Heir
upon the Throne, than to reftore the Banifhed King.
But by fwearing to the Heirs, and Legal ot Lawful Succejfars, wc
Swear not to own, or fubmit to any Prince, who is not the Legal
Heir. That I deny •, we Swear, if you pleafe, not to make it our
A<ft, not to fet up any Prince, who is not the right Heir^ and wc
Swear to own the right Heir, if he gets PolTeffion; but we do not
Swear not to fubmit to any Prince, who gets into PofTeflicn, and is
fetled in the Throne without a Legal Right; the words fignify no
fuch thing, no more than Maintaining and Defending, fignifies Re-
ftoring.
3. I obferve further. That this Maintenance and Defence, which
we Swear of the King's Perfon and Crown, is only a Legal Mainte-
-nance and Defence j for the Law will not juflify, much lefs does it
command any illegal Defence j and therefore a Legal Oath can ob-
dige us only to a Legal Defence-.
This is true, with reference to the Caufe; for we are not bound
to defend the King againft Law, or when he Subverts the Laws,
and Liberties,and the Legal Elfablilhed Religion of the Kingdom,by
Illegal Methods. A Sovereign Prince muff not be reliifed by force,
-nor muft he bealBfted and defended againll Law 5 for tho the King
be unaccountable, yet his Minifters and Inftruments are not; and
no Man is bound to ferve or defend the King in that, for which
by the Law of the Land he may be hanged for a Traytor; and this
in a limited Monarchy, fets Bounds to Sovereign Power; for un-
lefs SubjetSs will betray their own Liberties, and venture to be
hanged for it, fuch a Prince cannot hurt them; and the late Revo-
lution teaches us, ( and all Princes ought to take warning by it)
how eafily a Prince is ruined, when he has forfeited the Affeddions,
and the Legal Defence of his Subjeds, by the Exercife of an Illegal
and Arbitrary Power; and if the Oath of Allegiance does not
oblige Subjedts to defend a Prince in the Exercife of an Arbitrary
Power; I think, it much lefs obliges them to reftore fuch a Prince,
and Arbitrary Power with him.
But that v^ich I mean by a Legal Defence,(let the Caufe be what
it will) is fuch a Defence, as the Law requires all Subjedds to give
their King; for a Legal Oath can require r.o other Defence than the
■Law requires.
Now the only Legal Defence, wherein all Subjedds axe concem'd,
is either the Militia^ or the Pojfg Comitatm, which are in the Power
of
a
X
due to Sovereign Powers, &c. 3 if
of the Regnant Prince, and cannot defend a Prince who is out of
Pcffeirioni and therefore, if this Oath means only a Legal De-
fence, it muft be confined to the King while he is in PolfeHion,
and has the Power of the Kingdom in his hands ; for 1 cannot de-
fend a DifpolTelTed Prince by ferving in the Militia^ or Comitatufi
which is always in the Power of the Regnant Prince.
But a Prince may raife an ^rmy for his Defence, befides the
Militia. o( the Country i and this he may do, when he is out
of PolTeffion, and Loyal Subjedts ought chearfully to ferve him
in it.
Now here is a great Queftion, which I am not Lawyer enouglr
to decide; Whether a Commiffion granted by a King out of Polfef-
fion, be a Legal Commiilion; but be that how it will, I am fure,
there is no Law that requires all Subjedts to receive Gommiffions-
from the King, tho he be in PolTeffion of theGovernment,nor to Lift
themfelves Soldiers in his Army; and therefore this is no part of
that Legal Defence which weSwear. All that Legal Defence which,
we Swear to the King, can be paid only to the King in PolTeffion ;
and what we have not Swore, we are not bound ta by the Oath;
of Allegiance, which is the only;thing we are now inquiring after.
This the whole Nation, both Prince and People have, fufHciently'
acknowledged, by making and receiving AddrelTes of Lives and
Fortunes, which is fuppofed to lignify fomc other defence than the
Oath of Allegiance obliged them to; and therefore, were not of the
mind of thofe Men, who think their Sworn Allegiance binds them,
torellore the King, when DifpolTelTed of his Throne., at the.Ex--
pence of their Lives and Fdrtunes..
4. It is worth confidering alfo ; That the Oath of Allegiance is-
a_ National Oath, and therefore the. defence or maintenance we.
fwear, is National, that is, to join with our F^ellow-fubjedts in de-
fending the King's Perfon and Crown.: for fingle Subjedfs cannot
do this by .themfelves, and the way to oblige them all, is to impofe:
a National Oath to be taken by all Subjedts.
Now fuch Oaths as thefe oblige every particular Man to do no in-
jury to the King's Perfon or Crown, not to enter into Plots and
Confpiracics againft him; and as for adtual defence, chearfully to j
venture his Life and Fortunes with his Fellow-^lubjedts to preferve .•
the King. But in cafe the great Body of the Nation ablolve them®-
felves from thefe Oaths, and depofe their King, and drive him out :
of his Kingdom, and fet up_another Prmce ia his room, it is worth-i
, " ' coniln.-
52 The Cafe of the Allegiance
confidering, Whether feme private men, it may be but a little hand-
I'ul, are hill bound by their Oath, to make forae weak and dange-
rous attempts, and to fight for their King againft their Country;
certainly this was not the intention of the Oath, for it is a National,
not a private Delcnce, we fwear ^ and therefore a general revolt of
a Nation, thtaugh it Ihould be wicked and unjufiitiable, yet it feems
to excufe thofe, who had neither hand nor heart in it, from their
fworn defence of the King's Perfon, and Grown, and to make their
compliance with the National Government innocent and neceffary;
For an Oath to fight for the King, does not oblige us to fight againft
our Country, which is as unnatural, as to fight againft our King.
The fum is this \ God, when he fees fit, can remove Kings, or fet
up Kings, without any regard to human Right, as being the Sovc-
reign Lord of the World, who rules in the Kingdoms of Men, and
giveth them to whomfoever he will: but Subjeds, in fetting up, or
removing Kings, muft have regard to Legal Right; and if they pull
down a rightful King, and fet up a King without right, (unlefs the
Conftitution of the-Government in fome Cafes ftiould allow it)
greatly fin in it, efpecially when they have fworn the defence of the
Legal Right, and Legal Succeftion : but the Duty and Allegiance of
Subjetfts does not immediately refpedt Right, but the adfual admini-
ftration of Government, when there'is a fetled Government in a Na-
tion •, for that is God's Authority, which muft be obeyed : no man
muft fwear away this, no more than any other part of his Duty; and
no man does fwear away this by the Oath of Allegiance, as I have
already fhown. ' _
^bjetiion. But it will be farther objedfed. That if this Doc3:rine do not take ,
away the Legal Right, yet it makes it impoflible for fuch an injur d
Prince to recover his Right, when all his Subjedfs have fworn Alle-
giance to a new Prince, and therefore can no longer aflift him.
jinfreer. I anfwer; This may be called a difficulty in Providence, if you
pleafe, but it is no difficulty to the Subjedf, if he purfue his Duty
in it, unlefs a paffionate affedfion for the difpoffeffed Prince make it
a difHculry : but fuch a misfortune as this, can rarely happen to a
beloved Prince; and when Subjeds are overpowered by force, and
can neither defend themfelves, nor their Prince, there is no remedy
left but to yield to neceftity, and leave every thing clfe to the Di-
vine Providence.
The Divine Providence has ways and methods of removing Kings,
and fetting up Kings, which we are not aware of, nor concerned
to
due to Sovereign Powers^ 6cc.
to know, becaufe it is no part of our duty: No man could have
forefeen,how Ch. II. Qiould have returned,who had a powerful Army
againft himj or J. II. be driven out of his Kingdom,at the Head of
a powerful Army, without (bedding of blood. All the Plots and
Confpiracies of the Loyal Party were vain, and had no other effed,
but to bring fome worthy and gallant Men to an unhappy end 5 but
what they could not do, God did without them ; and all fuch Ca-
fes we muft leave to God.
But does not this encourage daring and ambitious Spirits to grafp Objertm.
at Crowns, and invade their Neighbours, when they know that Sue-
cefs gives them Sovereign Authority, and obliges Subjeds, not-
withhanding all former Oaths, to pay all Duty and Allegiance to
them ?
Ambitious and daring Spirits need no other encouragement but Anftver.
Power to grafp at Crowns; and if they have this, they value no
more : promife them but Succefs, and they will try, whether Sub-
jeds will obey or not. I dare fay, fuch men never took it into con-
lideration, whether Subjeds would think themfelves bound in Con-
fcience to obey them, in cafe they prevailed they feldom trouble
themfelves about Confcience, but truft to other Arguments to fecurc
their Thrones, when they have once gotten them. And if they
take this Dodrine.all together, as they muft do, if they encourage
their Ambition, by Realon, and Principles, it will give no encou-
ragement to Ambitious Spirits without a great dofe of Enthufiafm ;
For if the Kingdoms of the World be difpofed by God, and no Art
or Power can place any Prince on the Throne, but by God's appoint-
ment, unlefs they can flatter themfelves, that God has ordain'd
them to be Kings, it will check all their ambitious Attempts, which
God can fo eafily defeat.
But if this Dodrine (hould prove inconvenient to Princes, and
dangerous to their Thrones; I am fure the contrary Dodrine is
much more dangerous to Subjeds, when any fuch Revolution hap-
pens; for k facriflces them to the rage and fury of Conquering and
Reigning Princes, when they are obliged by Principles of Con(ci-
ence to oppofe and difown their Government, which it is folly to
think any Prince will endure j and though I have as great a revc-
tence for Princes as any man, 1 do not think the Right and Intereft
of any Prince fo coniiderable, as the Safety and Prefcrvation of a
Nation, and the Lives and Fortunes of all his Subjeds.
F
111
34 The Cafe of the Allegiance
Ilia word. The Objedors do not think it a fufficient Confuta-
tion of the Dodrine of Non-refitfance, and Paffive Obedience, to
fay, That this puts it into the King's power, to invade the Laws
and Liberties, the Lives and Fortunes, of his Subjedts at pleafurc;
and yet there is mere danger of this from an Ambitious and Arbi-
trary Prince, than there is, that the Dodfrine of Obedience and Sub-
miilion to the Governing Powers, fhould encourage Ambitious Spi-
rits to invade their Neighbours Thrones •, the Divine Providence
takes care of all fuch extraordinary Cafes, and there we muft leave
them.
Ohjcif. But have not Pyrates and Robbers as good a Title to my Purfe,
as an Llfurper has to the Crown, which he fehes by as manifeft
force and violence ? Does not the Providence of God order and
difpofe all thefe events ? And are we not bound then as much to
fubmit to Pyrates, as to Ufurpers ?
u4nfjv. The difpute is not about human and legal Right in either Cafe,
but about Authoiity, which is the only reafon of a confcientious
fubjedfion; now no Man pretends, that Thieves and Pyrates have
God's Authority, towh'ch we mull fubmit y but the Scripture ex-
prefly iells us. That Kingdoms are difpofed by God ^ That all
Power is of God 5 and therefore when any Prince, by what
unjull means foever , with refpedi to Men , is placed in the
Throne, and fetled there. He is advanc'd by God, is God's Ordi-
nance, God's Min.fter, and mull be obeyed for Confcience fake;
And therefore the outrages of Thieves and Pyrates are very imper-
tinently alkdged in this Caufe. They have force and violence,
which every Man mull fubmit to, when he cannot help if; but So-
veraign Power is God's Authority, though Princes may be advan-
ced to it by no honeller means, than Thieves take a Purfe, or break
open my Houfe, and take my Money, or Goods. The beginnings of
the four Monarchies were no better, and yet their Power was God's.
OhjeCt. But did not Jehojada the High'priell anoint Joajh the King's Son,
and depofe and kill Ath.iliah^ who had ufurped the Throrfe for fix
aChr. 23. years ? And did he think then, that an Ufurper's polTeffion of the
Throne, required the Allegiance and Fidelity and Obedience of the
Subjed ?
Anfw. I. All that this Story amounts to, is no more than this. That
when theLegal and Rightful Heir isadually poffefled of his Throne,
Subjects may return to their Allegiance, and by the Authority of
their King profecute the Ufurper j for JoaJh was firll anointed and
prO'
I., a
due to Sovereign Powers, See. 35
proclaimed, before any one fiirred a finger againlt Jthaliah: Now
this is a very different Cafe from railing Rebellions againft a Prince,
who is in the poffeffion of the Throne , to relfore an ejed^ed
Prince.
2. But this was a peculiar Cafe i for God himfelf had entailed
the Kingdom of Judah on the poiterity of David, and therefore no-
thing could juilify their fubmilTion to an Ufurper, when the King's
Son was found, to whom the Kingdom did belong by a Divine
entail j and by this, juflifies what he did, Behold, the King's V. |.
fin jhall reign, iK the Lord hath Jdid of the fins of David. Now when
God has entailed the Crown by an exprefs declaradon of his Will,
and nomination of the Perfon, or Family, that Ihali Reign ( as it
was in the Kingdom of Jndah ) Subjects are bound to adhere to
their Prince of God's chuling, when he is known, and to perfe-
cute all Ufurpers to the utmoft, and never fubmit to their Govern-
raent but in other Kingdoms, where God makes Kings, and en-
tails the Crown, not by exprefs nomination, but by his Providence,
the placing a Prince in the Throne, and fetlinghim there in the full
adminiftration of the Government, is a reafon to fubmit to him, as
to God's Ordinance and Minifter.
But it is further urged. That according to thefe Principles, all ObfiLf.
Kings are fet up by God, and yet God exprefly charges Ifrael with
making Kings without him, Hofia%.o^, They have fit up Kings, hut
not by me '■> they have made Princes, and I knevc it not.
-Now I. This is not true as to all the Kings of Ifrael, after their Anfrv.
feparation from the Tribe of Judah-, for fome of the Kings were
fet up by God's own appointment and nomination, as Jeroboam and
Jehu, and their pofterity: So that this can be true only of thole
Kings, who Reigned over Ifrael between the Pofterity of Jeroboam
and Jehu, and after the Kingdom was taken from the Line of
Jebu.
2, One of thefe Kings was who {\<fw Nadab the Son of i Kings
Jernhoim, and made himfelf King without God's exprefs nomiina- if- 27-
tion and appointment, and yet God tells him, I exalted thee out of
tloe dufl, and made thee Prince over my people Ifrael. And all the other
Kings, who were not nominated by God, nor anointed by any Pro-
phet, no more than Baafha was, were yet fet up by God, as he
was.
3. The true Attfwer then is this; Ifrael was originally zlheocraey,
as wdl as Judah; and though God allowed them at their requeft
F 2 to
The Cafe of the Allegiance
to have Kings, yet he referved the appointment of them tohimfelf;
and therefore, as in the Kingdom of Judah, he entailed the Crown
on David's Poflerity, fo he appointed Jeroboam to be the hrll King
in Ifrael, and they ought, when that Line was cut off, to have con-
fulted God, and received his nomination, by his Prophets, of a
new King s but inftead of that, when Jeroboam's Line, and Jehus^
were cut off, who were the only Kings named by God, and a-
nointed by his Prophets, they fubmitted to any, who could fet
themfelves over them: This was a great fault in a people who were
under the immediate Government of God ; for hereby they fell out
of the ftate of theocracy, into the common condition of the reft of
the World, where Kings are fet up by the Providence of God, as
Baa(ha was, but not by his appointment and nomination; which
was the privilege of Ifrael, but which it feems they defpifed and
negledfed, as no privilege or favour; as great a Crime, asfor£yi«
to contemn his Birth-right; and therefore are very juftly reproved
for it by God, and charged with it as a great crime, it being in ef-
fed, a renouncing their prerogative, of being God's peculiar Peo-
pie.
^dly. To juftify this Dodrine of Obedience and Allegiance to
.the prefent Powers, there is an Argument, which I know Tome Men
will not like, but muft be a good Argument to thofe, who moft fcru-
pie the new Oath; viz. That it is founded on the fame Principle with
the Dodrine of Non-reftjiance and Paffive-obedience, and therefore both
muft be true, or both falfe for it is founded on this Principle,
That God makes Kings , and invefts them with his Authority ;
which equally proves, That all Kings, who have received a Sove-
raign Authority from God, and are in the adual adminiftration of
it (which is the only evidence we have that they have received it
from God ) muft be obeyed, and muft not be relifted. Set alide
this Principle, That all Soveraign Princes receive their Authority
from God, and I grant that Non-re(iftance is nonfenfe; for there
is no other irreliftible Authority, but that of God. If God have
given a Soveraign Authority to them, they are immediately his
Minillers, and unaccountable to their Subjeds; but if they receive
their Authority from Men, and human Laws, I cannot imagine,
that their Power is any more than a Truft, of which they muft give
an account to thofe who have entrufted them with if, according to
thofe Laws, by which they were entrufted to exercife that Power;
for whether there be any exprefs provilion made in the Law to call
them
due to SovereignPowers^ &C. 37
thetn to an account or not, the nature of the thing proves, that if
they receive their Power from Men, they are accountable to them y
for thofe who give Power, may take an account of the ufe and
abufe of it.
1 am fare St. Faul^ who moft exprefly teaches this Doctrine of Rom. i
Non-refiftance, joyns thefe two together, Obedience to the preient
Powers, and Non-reliftance, and deduces them both from the fame
Principle, That all Power is of God: Let every foul be fubjed to the
higher poncers, for all ponoer k of God; the powers that be^ are ordained of
God-, he therefore that refijieth the power, refijieth the ordinance of God, and
they that refiji, ft all receive to themfelves damnation.
And Bp. Overal's Convocation Book^, which is lately publiflied, the
principal defign of which is to alTert the irrefiftible Authority
of Sovereign Princes, does as plainly aflert this too. That all fetled
Governments, whatever their beginnings were, have God's Au-
thority, and muft be obeyed •, of which, more above: For thofe
wife Men, who fate in that Convocation, plainly faw the neceC-
fary connexion between Non-refiftance, and Obedience to the pre-
fent Powers; both which were equally refolved into the Authority
of God, in removing Kings, and fetting up Kings. So that Obe-
dience and Allegiance to the prefent Powers, when they are once
well fetled among us, is fo far from being a renouncing of the
Dodrine of Non-refiftance and Paffive-obedience, that thofe who re-
fufe to comply, muft renounce the only Principle whereon that
Dodrine is reafonably founded, and confequentially renounce the
Dodrine it felf.
Afthly, To fay. That when the Divine Providence has removed
one King, and fet up another, we muft not own this new Prince;
nor pay the Duty of Subjeds to him, if he have no Legal Right,
is to deny God's Authority to remove Kings, or to fet up Kings
againft Human Law; for he cannot make a King, if he cannot
oblige us to obey him ; nor can he remove a King, if he cannot
difcharge us from cur Allegiance to him ; and thofe are bold mea
who will venture tofay,in plaincontradidionto Scripture, that God
cannot remove or fet up Kings.
^thly. Nay this limits the Providence of God, in governing Kings,
and proteding Innocent and Injured Subjeds; We fay, the Punilhr
ment of Sovereign Princes, who are unaccountable to their Subjeds,
is peculiar to God, who is the King of kings; and thus we anfwer
the Objedions againft Non-Reliftance, That if Prmces abufe their
Powcrv
38 The Cafe of the Allegiance
Power, God will punilh them for it, and deliver their opprefled
Subjeds; but it feems God has no way to do this, but either to turn
their hearts,or to take them out of tlie Worlds for he cannot remove
them from the Throne j or if he dees, the Subjeds are never the
better for it j for they muft not own any other Prince, though he
would be never fo kind to them but muft bring new calamities
upon themfclves by an obftinate adhering to their old Prince, and
provoking the new one: This Teems very hard, that when God has
adually delivered us, we mult refufeour deliverance; Thatwe will
not allow God to deliver us, unlefs he do it by Law; as if God
were as much conHned to human Laws, as Men are : It is enough,
methinks, if we Tuffer patiently, without violating the Laws to de-
liver our felves; but let God who is above all human Laws, deli-
ver us what way he pleafes.
6thly^ That which is itill more tonfiderable, is the neceftity of
Government to preierve human Societies; for human Societies inuft
not dilfolve into a orMx.Hobbss ftate of Nature, becaufe the
Legal Prince has loft his Throne, and can no longer govern. Billiop
SLiticquid Sanderfon tells us. That the end of Civil Government, and of that
evimfnis Obedience which is due to it, is the Safety and Tranquility of Hu-
Mltcujus naan Societies; and therefore whatever is neceffary and ufeful to
gratia fa- gnd, becomes our Duty ; for the End prefcribes the Means.
cundum •
f/, eatenns feri oportet, in quantum ei fini confeqtiendo necejfarium vel utile njidebitur. Civilis
autem regiminis, ejufque qua ipfi debit a ejl obedientid, finis eft, httmana Societatis fatus & tran-
quilitas. De Oblig. Confc. Prael. $. Seft. 19.
And therefore this Great Man, and the moft zealous Loyalifls, do
own it lawful for Subjeds f o pay Tome kind of fubmiilion, and com-
pliance, to Ufurped Powers. Let us then examine what it is they al-
low, and whether it anfwers the great End, which gives Law in
all thefe Cafes, The fafety and tranquility of Human Societies.
Ibid. Seft. They grant then, that we may obey the Laws of fuch a Prince,
16,17,18, has no Right or Authority to make them, if they contain no-
thing which is finful (which is an exception againft all Laws,
whatever Prince makes them) ard may defend our Countrey againft
a Foreign Enemy, mayadminifter Jultice to reward the Good, and
punifh the Wi. ked, and preferve the Trade and Commerce of the
Nation ; but then we muft have no regard to the Authority of the
Prince, nor of His Laws ; for he has no Authority, and his Laws do
not oblige the Conicience; but we may thus far comply to preferve
our
due to Sovereign Pcrrers, dec.
eur felves,,our Lives, and Fortunes, and Edates, and for the good
of the Comniunity,and out of gratitude to the Reigning Prince for his
protedion , and the many EldLings they enjoy under his Govern-
ment; though a late TVriter thinks this gratitude a little too much,
and not owing to an Vfurfer-, which feems ftrange; for I will thank
any man, and make grateful Returns too of his kindnefs, who has
power ( whatever his Authority be^ to do me hurt, and does me
none, but a great deal of good. I am forry Loyalty, which is a
very great Virtue, fhould put men out of conceit with any kind or
inftancesof Gratitude; which 1 think is not a lefs Virtue than that.
But tho 1 greatly reverence the profound Judgment of Bilhop San-
derjon, I cannot be of his mind in this point; if the Safety and
Tranquility of Human Societies requires any thing of us, it both re-
quires and julHHes a great deal more.
For 1. As he Bates the matter, this deftroys Civil Government,
and a governed Society; for here is neither King, nor Subjed, no
Authority to Command, nor Duty to Obey ; and I fuppofe no Man,
who conliders it well, will call this a Civil Government, or a Ci-
vil Society, to which Authority and Obedience is ElTentiah He
would have a Civil Society preferved, this is the fundamental Law
of all j but he will allow no Authority to fupport it, which is as
vain a deiign , as to refolve to maintain the Superftrudure, but to
take away the Foundation. The Prince governs by force without
Authority ; the Subject obeys for fear or gratitude, without a lenfe
of Duty, which may laft as long as the Prince has Power, or the
Subjeds are in good Humour, and no longer; and is this a fure
bottom, for the Safety and Tranquility of Human Societies ? If Hu-
man Societies muft be preferved, then the neccffities of Government
give Authority to the Prince, and lay an Obligation of Duty on
the Subjed; if God will preferve Human Societies, we muft
conclude, that when he removes one King out of the Throne,
he gives his Authority to him whom he places there; for
without Authority , Human Societies muft disband ; Power
may tye them together a while, but can never unite them into a
Civil Body, without the Bands and Ligaments of Duty and Con-
fcience.
2. For I would ask, Whether the care of my own Prefervation,
and the publkk Duty, and Gratitude to the Government for my
Protedion, do oblige me in Confcience to obey and lubmit to the
Government, and the Prince who Governs, and to wifh and pray
for,
4® The Cafe of the Allegiance
for, and do my utmofi: to endeavour their Profperity ? If it does, I
fee no difference between this and Allegiance; and what I am bound
in Counfcience to do, I may fwear to do: If it does not, then! am
at Liberty to difturb the Government, notwithftanding all my
gratitude, when I can 5 nay, am under Obligation by my Al-
legiance to the Difpolfelfed Prince, to do it when I can j and how
does this contribute to the Safety and Tranquility of Human Socie-
ties ?
3. Suppofe then the Government does not think its felf fafe, to
leave all Men at Liberty to difturb it when they pleafe, and when
they have a promiling Opportunity to do it, but (hould require an
Oath of Fidelity from them, which, we fee, is the univerfal Pra-
dice of all Governments 5 what fhall Subjeds do in this
Cafe ?
According to thefe Principles, no Subjed, when his Rightful
Prince, to whom he owed, or to whom he had fworn Allegiance
(which the Biftiop makes the fame Cafe) is difpoffelfed, ought to
fwear Fidelity and Allegiance to any other Prince i and now, then
let us fuppofe, that they all did their Duty, and refufed this Oath,
and the Prince had power enough to compel them ; what muft be
the effed of this, but the utter Ruin and Deftrudion of the Nati-,
on ? The Land, indeed, would remain as it was, and where it
was, for that can't be removed; but the People of it muft either be
deftroyed, or imprifoned, or tranfplanted into fome Foreign Coun-
tries, as was formerly pradiced in the Eaflern Conquefts , witnefs
the 7e« 'tribes^ who were carried away Captive, and the Country
new peopled ; and is .not this a Diflblution of Human Society ? And
if the Prefervation of Human Society, be the great ultimate end of
Government, and will juftify what it makes necelfary, nothing
can be a Duty, which if univerfally obferved , muft unavoidably
in all fuch Revolutions of Government, deftroy Human Socie-.
ties. j
For to fay. That it can never be fuppofed, that all, or the great- '
eft part of any Kingdom in fuch Revolutions will adhere to their,
Duty, and obftinately refufe to fwear Allegiance to a new Prince,,
and that is fufficient to preferve the Nation, tho fome few confcien-
tious People fuifer by it, does not alter the Cafe; for ftill, accord-
ing to thefe Principles, Human Societies in fuch Revolutions can-
not be preferved without Sin; for if all Men did their Duty, they
muft all be deftroyed: Now, I believe it will be hard to perfwade,
any
<33
X
due to Sovereign powers, &c. 41
any confidering Men , that that which in fuch Cafes is necelTary to
preferve a Nation, is a Sinj and that which will infallibly deftroy
it, is a Duty and Virtue j if we allow the fafety and .preiervation of
Human Societies, to be the great Law of all.
4. I obferve further, that as cautious as the Biihop is,.'That wc
fliould pay Obedience to Ufurped pothers, without owning their An-
thority 5 yet he is forced to allow us to do fucli thingsfor the pub-
lick Good, as cannot be done without owning the Authority; as
the Defence of our Country againft a Foreign Enemy, and the Ad-
niiniftration of publick Juflice; for this 'rauft be done by Commit-
lion from the King, and, I fiippofe, to take a Commillion from hita,
'owns his Authority, and owns it to be a good Authority ; for if
they hang any Man either by Military Difcipline, or Civil Juflice.,
and have not good Authority for it, they are Murderers. The
truth is, to exercife all the Ad:s of Civil Government, which arc
necelTary for the Community, without owning the Authority of
' the Prince, in whofe Name, and by whofe Authority all is tranf-
adcd, is a Riddle to mes if we muft not own the Authority of the
Prince, we muft do nothing by his Authority, and then Civil Go-
vernment in fuch Cafes muft ceafe, and Human Societies diffolvc-
So that the prefervation of Human Societies does of neceffity force
us to own the Authority, even of Vfurped Powers >-and if the prefer-,
vafion of Human Societies be the end of Civil Government, and
the reafon of that Obedience which we owe to Government, as the
'Bijh)p alTerts; then when an obftinate Allegiance to the Difpoffefled
Prince muft difTolve Civil Government, the reafon of that Alleg.i-
ance ceafes, and therefore that Allegiance muft be at an ^nd ; and
when Allegiance to Ufurped Powers, is neceffary to the prefervation
of the Society, it muft become a Duty.
5. The B^op refolves all this into the prefumed Confent of the /M. Sek.
ejeifted Prince, that his Subjects fhould rather confult their own n.
fafety by a modeft compliance with the prefent Powers, than bring
certain Ruin upon themfelves by an unfeafonable Oppofition: Now
tho I confefs, I lay no ftrcfs upon a prefumed Confent j yet, if wc
will prefume, we (hould prefume all that is reafonable, that is, all
that is necelTary for the Prefervation of his Subje(ffs, when he can
govern them, and protedfthem no longer ; and thela we may pre-
fume his Conlent to Oaths of Allegiance and Fidelity, when this is
necelTary to their prefervation; and I can vefy eafily prefume, that
Princes think this a lefs fault, than fome Subje^s do; they know
G what
^2 The Cafe of the Allegiance
what they themfelves expert from Subjedfs, where they have Power,
whatever their Right be, and therelore cannot complain of their
Subjefts , if they pay it to another Prince , hi whofe Power they
are; this is the Pradicc of the whole World, and Princes know.,
iti and may as reafonably be prefumed to allow it, as, any other
A A of Obedience and Subje<ftion to Ufurpcd Powers.. And tho I
will not meddle with that Qiieftion , Whether a King's leaving his
Kingdom in a great Fright, without any one to Govern and Pro-
tedf his Subje6ts, be to all intents and purpofes an Abdication of
the Government^ Yet one may reafonably prefume , that a King,
who forfakes his Kingdom to confult his own Safety, will give his"
Subjeds leave to confult theirs j if this will julfify a King to
fave himfclf by leaving his Kingdom j why will it not julhfy Sub-
jeds, when their King has left them, to lubmit and comply with
the prevailing Powers, as far as is neceffary to preferve themfelves ?
That is, even by Oaths of Allegiance, if that be neceffary: Self-
prefervation is as much a Law to Subjeds, as to the Prince ^ and he
is as much fworn to Govern and Proted his Subjeds, as they are
to Obey and Defend hims and if the necellities of Self-prefervati-
on abfolve him from his Oath of governing and proteding his
People i I deiire to know, why the fame neceifity will not abi'olve
Subjeds from their Oaths to their Prince ? protedion and Allegi-
ance are not fb reciprocal, as to be the neceffary Coirditions cf
each other ; that if a Prince violate his Oath of Governing by Law,
and inflead of Proteding does Opprefs his Subjeds, Subjeds are
then freed from their Oath of Allegiance, and may take Arms againil
tlieir Prince") for tho Protedion and Defence.are the Duties of Ke-
latives, of a Prince and his Subjeds yet they are r.ot neccffatily
fuch Relative Duties, as that neither of thi:m can be pcrfi.rmed
unlefs both be. A Prince may govern by Law , and j roted his
Subjeds, and yet in Fad they deny their Allegiance to him ; and
Subjeds may pay their Allegiance to their Prince when he Oppref-
fes them") thefe Duties may be diflindly and feparately obferved,
and therefore do not in their own Nature , cither infer or detiroy
each other. But Government and Allegiance are fuch Rela-
lives, as do wutua fe fonere & tolkre ; the one cannot fubtiif
without the other ; if the Prince can't Govern , the Subjcd. can't
Obey ; and therefore , as far as he quits his Government, he
, quits their Allegiance, and leaves hisSubjtds as he does his Crown,
CO be po/feffed by another , and muff recover them both together.
Ke
c
due to Sovereign Powers, 5cc.
He may have a Legal Right to both, but he cannot a(f^ually have
the Subjeds Allegiance without the Crown j nor can SubjetSs pay
him their Allegiance, without his being reftored to the PolTdlion of
his Throne, no more than they can obey, when he can't command •,
orfubmit, when he has no Power to govern ; or defend his Perfon
and Crown, when he has withdrawn his Perfon, and left his Crown.
This is as certain as any Propofition in and to extend Allf-
glance beyond the Adtual Adminiilrationof Government, is to pre-
krve a Relative without its Correlate: for when one of the Rela-
tives is loh, thQ'Kelation is deftroyed, and nothing but the Memory
of it left.
jthly, Thefe Principles anfwer all the ends of Government,
both for the fecuricy of the Prince and Subjedfs, and that is a good
Argument to believe them true.
A Prince who is in PolTelfion, is fecured in PoiTelTion by them, fas
far as any Principles can fecure him ) againlf all Attempts of his
Subjeds, who mutt reverence God's Authority in him j and fubmit
to him without Relilfance, though they are illufed.
They will not indeed ferve the Revolutions of Government, to
remove one King, and fet up another •, and if they would. Princes'
might be jealous of them; for whatever Service they might do them
at one turn, they might do thern as great Dilfervice at.another:
The Revolutions of Government are not the Subjeds Duty, but
God's Prerogative ; and therefore it is not likely that he has pre-
fcribed any certain Rules or Methods for the overturning and
changing Government, which he keeps in his own hands, and
which when he fees rit to do it, he never wants ways and means of
doing.
But when any Prince is fetled in the Throne, by what means fo-
ever it be, thefe Principles put an end to all diiputes of Right and
Title, and bind his Subjeds to him by Duty and Confcience, and a
Reverence of God's Authority ; which is the fafteft hold he can
pollibly have of them; for thoie whom Religion will not bind, no-
thing but Force can.
And therefore thefe are the only Principles which in fuch Revo-
lutions can make Government ealie both to Prince and People f and
if Government muft be preferved in all Revolutions, thofe are the
bell Principles which are moft for the eafe and fafety of it.
But on the other hand, fuch an immoveable and unalterable Al-
, legiance, as is thought due only to a Legal Right and Title, and
G 2 . muft
4?
44- Cafe of the Allegiance
muft be paid to none, but to a Legal and Rightful Prince, ferves no
ends of Government at all ; but overturns all Government, when
fuch a Prince is difpofleffed of his Throne, how longfoever he con-
tlnuedifpoflefled: And what long Inter-regnums may this occalion, to
the.diirolutiori of Human Societies ? ^
If you fay that this is the belt Principle to prevent all Revolutions
of Government, when it is known, that Subjed:s are bound in Con-
fcience not to fubmitto any Illegal and Ufurping Powers.; and this
is very much for the peace and fecurity of Human Societies; I -
anfwer,.
I. If this Principle would prevent all Revolutions of Govern-
ment, itis a demonllfation againll it, that it is a bad Principle, a
meer Human Invention, which cannot come from God. For lince
God has referved tohimfelf his Sovereign Prerogative of removing
K|ngs, and fetting up Kings; Imce this is fometimes necelTary for
the prefervation of the Church, and the deliverance of the Good
from Opprellion and Tyranny, and for the }ull Punilhment cither of
Kuig, or People; it is impoffible that he Ihould give any fuch Laws
to, rpankind, as (hall debar him from the exercife of this Preroga-
tive, in \yhat way he pleafes ; yet it is certain God cannot make
Kmgs, if he cannot oblige Subjeds to obey them; and that he can- .
not dp, if they muft obey and fubmit only to Legal Kings.
2.,It is evident, That this Principle was either unknown to the
Wprld before, ( and that is an argument that it is not the natural. .
fehfe of mankind ), or elfe, That this Principle caniaot prevent the
Revolutions of Government ; for there have been fuch Revolu-
tiqns in all Ages, .and I believe will be to the end of the World.
Since then fuch Revolutions will happen, fuch Principles as
muft diflblve Human Societies, when fuch Revolutions happeii, or
expofe the mod innocent and confcientious men to the greatcft Suf-
fcrjn'gs, without ferving any .good end by them, cannot be tiuei
fojr the end of Governrr^ent is the Prefervation of Human Societies,
and therefore that can be no, good Principle of Government, which ,
inj.any turn of.AIfeirs, if purfued, muft dilToIve Human So-
cieties..,
Npr can that be a true Principle, which at any time obliges ho- .
neft men tolofe theft Lives,their Eftates,their Liberties,in oppofition .
to.the Government of the Nation wherein they live, when they
may preferve them all by Obedience and Submiffipn to.the Govern- .
ment: 1 am fure the Scripture teaches us to fulfer patiently in Obe-
dience
due to Sovereign Powers, 5cc.
dience to Government, but not to fufFer in Oppoiition to it: And
when the very Reafon of our Obedience to Government> is for the
prcfervation of Human Societies, and that we our felves may enjoy
the BlelTingsof Government, it feems very ilrange to extend this
Duty to the overthrow of Human Societies, and to deny our felves
the Security and the Blcilings of Government •, which is to extend
a Duty to fuch cafes, as contradid the only Reafon, whereon that
Duty is founded.,-
It is true, we muftin all cafes be contented to fulfer in doing our
Duty j tor we mull chufe rather to fufFer than to tin 5 and it is no
Argument that any thing ceafes to be my Duty,, bccaufe it expofes
me to Suftering: But then we mufl be very fure that it is our. Duty ;
that it is expreily enjoynedus by the Laws of God or Nature, before
we venture to fufFer for it: But when we are to learn our Duty, ,
not From any exprefs Law of God or Nature, but from the. Rea-
fon and Nature of things, it is a fudicient Argument, that is not
my Duty, which willexpofem; to great Sufferings, without ferving
any good end •, nay, which expofes me to Sufferings, for contradift-
ing the natural end and intention of that Duty, for .which L pretend
to fufFer.
4. But let us grant that this Principle is the befl Security to the
Rights of Princes s is the Right of any Prince fo Sacxed.as to hand
ill competition with the very being of Human Societies, and-the
fafety and preLrvation of all his Subjeds f And muft we.then de-
feiid a Prince's Right, with the deflrudiion of the Nation, and the
Ruin of all his Subjedfs ? Which is molt necelFary, That the Nati-
on (hould be governed, or. That fuch a Prince fhould govern it
And if he be driven out of his Kingdoms, and cannot .govern, mufl
we then have no Government ?. Or how (hall the Nation be goverm
cd, if Subjedls are bound in confcieiice to obey, and pay Allegiance
to no other PrinceThis is to make all mankind the Slaves and .
Properties of Princes •, as if all men were made for Princes,, nctw
Princes for the government of men. •
This, I think, is abundantly fufFicient to juftitie our Obedience
and Allegiance to the prefent Poryers, though it fhould at any time
happen, that the Legal and Rightful Prince fhould lofe his Throne,
But there is a great prejudice againftall thiss for fo I call -it,-, ra-
fher than an Objei^ion ; for there is -no Argument in it, nor can it be
formed into an Argument s viz. that this will equally ferve allReyo-
lutions of Government, whatever they be; Uponthefe Principles we ,
The Cafe of the Allegiance
might fubmit anc fwearto a Kumf Varliament., or to another
or to a Committee of Safety^ or whatever elfe you pleafe : And yet
under that Ufurpation, the Loyal Nobility, Gentry, and Clergy,
thought themfelves bound in Confcience tooppofe that Ufurpation
at their utmofr peril ; And fliall we Arraign them all, as relifling
God's Ordinance by their oppolition to'thofeUfurped Powers, and
their attempts to reftore their King to his Throne?
This, as I obferved, is a great prejudice, but no Argument;
for if thefe Principles be true, and according to'thefe Principles
they might have complied with thofe Ufurpations ; that they did
not, is no confutation of them.
But yet, I fuppofe, all Men fee a vail: difference betvveen thefe
two Cafes , it is evident thofe Loyal perfons, both of the Clergy
and Laity, who fufFered in the former Caufe, and have now com-
plied with the prefent Government, think thefe is a vait difference
between them; and mufl think themfelves more reproached and
injured by fuch a Comparifon, than by fuch Principles as juflify
their prefent compliance: And the great Body of the Nobility,
Gentry, and Clergy, who have fworn Allegiance to their prefent
Majeftics, would take it very ill to be thought lefs Loyal than thofe
were, who fufFered for King Charles T. and II. under thofe Ufur-
persand therefore they alfo muft apprehend a vail difference be-
tween thefe two cafes.
But what is it that makes this difference? If you will allow the
fuppoiition. That the Rightful King is difpoifeifed; and that in
fuch a cafe it is lawful to comply with any Government, which be-
comes the fctled Government of the Nation.
lanfwer; The difference is very great upon all accounts; and
that no man may wonder at the obllinate Loyalty of thofe days,
and the eafie aird ready compliances now, (from whence feme
men conclude a renouncing the Principles of the old Church-of-
Ewg/W-Loyalty, to the great fcandal of Religion), I ihall ihow
the difference upon many accounts ; and all together will be more
than anfvyer enough. ' -
I. Firil then. The great Villanies of thofe days, in an open and
bare-fac'd Pvebellion, perfiiled in after the molt Gracious Offers
and Condefcentions; and in the Barbarous Murder of one of the
Belt Princes in the World, was enough to prejudice wife and good
men, againft all compliances, though they had been lawful ; for
who that could polfibly avoid it, would fubmit to fuch men ?
2. The
due to Sovereign Powers^ 6cc.
z. The barbarous Ufagethe King's Friends mef with, made a
Submiilion and Compliance ufelefs and impoffible: Thofe who had
fought for their King, or expreffcd any diilike of thofe Proceedings,
whom they had any jealoulie or fufpicion of, or whofe Eftates they
had a mind to. polTefs themfelves of, were plundered, fequcftred,
imprifoned, forced to fculk and hide at home, or flie abroad, to
pfeferve their Lives and Liberties.
3. Bipops^ Veans^ and Prebendaries were turned out, and their
Lands and Revenues fold 5 the Loyal Clergy weref' Malignants for
what they had done ; and had no way to keep their Livings, efpeci-
ally if they were of any Value, but by renouncing the Church of
Eflg/W, as well as by Submilfion to that Government, which I
believe, notwithllanding their ready compliance in taking the Oaths,
the Clergy at this ^ay would more univetfally have refufed, than
they did then.
V j^thly. Another difficulty was, That the whole Government both
of Church and State was overturned, which was the Fundamental
Conllitution of the Nation; The King was not only Murdered,
and the Rightful Heir driven out of the Land, but the Monarchy
itfelf wasdellroyed, and neither King, Lords, nor Commons, leftv
but a few of the Houfe of Commons, who by Force and Power
had turned the reft out of doors, undertook to govern all, in the
name of the Commons of England s which was fuch an Invalion on
the Rights and Liberties of their Countrey, ( which are as facred
as the Rights of the King ), as required theutmoft oppofition that
could be made. And it may be, if it be well conlidered, the De-
Luce of Monarchy, and the Pughtsand Prerogatives of the Crown,
-will appear a very material part of the Oath of Allegiance, which
may bind Subjeds when the P..rron of the King is changed •, and
may make them think themfelves more obliged to rellore fuch a
Prince, when they cannot reftore Monarchy, and the Ancient Laws -
and Government of the Nation without him.
y. And moreover it is plain, That their Government was never
fetled ; it was frequently changed, and new modelled, which was -.
no Argument of Settlement; and which is more than that, they had
not a National Confent and Submiilion.
Men, who were forced, fubraitted to force j but the Nation did not
by any Natioival A<Sk ever own them^ for I think the Kump-Farliamenti
who were the Ufurpers themfelves; or fome little packt Conventicler^
rather tlian P^rlmmmts., could not be called the Reprefentatives of the
Nation. This
The Cafe of the Allegiance
This feems tobc muchlike the Cafe which BilhopOvcx^-Vs Cofwoca'
mentions in relation to Aniiochnf-, who had by force kept
the Jervs in fubjediion for fome years j and yet when Mattathm
took Arms in defence of their Religion, they juftify this Adfion by
faying. That the Government of Antiochm was not fetled among
them, either by Submifton or Continuance 5 that is, tho TcopJe were
■forced to fubmit to Power, his Government was not owned by any
Publick, National Submiffioiii and in fuch Cafes a long continuance
is required to fettle a Government •, whereas a National Submilfion
fettles a Government in a fhort timcjas we may conclude from what
they tell us of the Settlement of Alexander's Government among the
Jervs^ who was but a very little while with them; but Jaddus the
High-Frieii t and the<JOverning-part of the Nation fubmitting to
him ; this fetled his Government in a few days.
This (hows how unlike all this was to our prefent Cafe in every
. particular •, that thofe who thought it their Duty never to fubmk
to that wicked Ulurpation, are now fatistied, they may fubmit with
a good Confcience to their prefent Mayfikt.
In our prefent Cafe, all things are quite contrary to what they
were in the former j every thing concurred to make the Nation fond
of fuch a Change, and very eafy under it.
Kin^Janus^ more;l hope, by following ill Counfels,than by his own
Inclination, had effedfually removed all Prejudices and Objtdfions
againft fuch a Revolution, excepting the Obligations of Duty and
Confcience.
In the late times of Rebellion and Ufurpation, all the Friends of
Monarchy, and of the EngHJlo Government, and of the Church of
England, and of the Liberties of their Country, and of their o^nHo-
nours and Fortunes, were bound in Intered to take all Opportunities
to reftore the King In our late Revolution, the very fame Reafons
and Interetts difpofed all Men to be very well contented to part with
their King, if they had known how-to da it honeftly; for the Con-
tinuance of his Government, by the bold Steps, and extraordii ary
Methods he had taken, gave them great Apprehenlions that all thefe
were in danger, even the Rights and Prerogatives of the Crown it
felf fthe prefervation of which was amain end-of the Oath of Alle-
giance) by his Submiffion to the See of Rome, and fejedfing the Oath
o{ Supremacy, and as far as he could, abfolving bis Subjetfts from it;
and yet in that Oath alone, we Swear to the Lanful SuccelTor, in Op-
pofifton to the pretences of the Bilhopof Rome, to depofe, and fet up
Kiqgs at pIeafure,for the Service of the Church. This
due to Sovereign ^owersj &c.
This helpt fbme Men eafily to aSfblve themfelves Earn the
Obligation of their Oaths; for they could not think, that Oaths^
which were made and impofed for the Prefervation of a Pri>te-
jiant Prince, and the Proteftant Rights and Liberties of Churc'j
and State, could oblige them to deiend and maintain a Prince
in his Ufiirpations, as they thought, on both.
This made his Subje<S:s, and even his Army defert his Service,
when the Prince came with a Foreign Force; and this made it
necelTary for him to leave the Kingdom, and to leave his Subjects
in the Hands of the Prince ; which made an eafie way for the
Prince to be placed on the Throne.
Now not to difpute the legality of all this, here was nothing
foformidable, as to prejudice an honeftMan againft fubmiffion
and compliance, as there was in the late times of Rebellion; no-
thing that could reafonably hinder a compliance, but an Opini-
on, that we muft never pay Allegiance to any but a Legal King;
and poffibly had that Point been waved; no Proteftant would
have dilputed a quiet and chearful fubmiffion to the Govern-
meiit.
To fight againft a King, and not to fight for him, I think are
two very different things; and when Kings make it impoffible
to fight for them, without frghting againft the Religion and Li-
bertiesof our Country, they may thank themfelves, if their Sub-
jeds cannot defend them. This is a dangerous ftate Princes
bring themfelves into, efpecially where there are different Per-
fuafions in a Nation: vvhenfbme Men think,they may lawfully
defend their Religion and Liberties againft the Ufurpationsof
their Prince; and others think, they are not- bound to defend
and maintain their Prince in his illegal Ufiirpations on their Re-
ligion and Liberties; for a little oppofition without any defence
Will quickly ruin any Prince. To tqilce a CroWn from a Prince,
and his Liberty and Life with it, and to fuffer him to leave his
Crown if he pleafes, and to defert his Government, are two
very different things..
I cannot indeed think (neither do I believe, that any body elfe
does) that for a King to leave his-Grown and Government in a
flight is in all cafes neceflaijily to be interpreted fuch an Abdica-
tion as is equivalent to a voluntary Refignation; whereby he re-
nounces all future Right and Claim to it.- But if he fiave re-
duced himfelf to fuch >. ftate, that he is forced for his own pre-
H • fervation
4?
Tbe Cafe of the Allegiance
fervation to leave his Kingdom and Government; ic is plain,
that in fome fence he leaves his Throne vacant too: that is,
there is no body in it, no body in the adtual Adminiltration of
the Government.
Thus far I think Subjefts may be very guiklefs, who do
not drive the King away, but only lufFer him quietly to efcape
out of his Kingdoms; for this is no Rebellion, no Refinance, but
only Nbw- ^ffijlance, which may be very innocent: for there are
fome cafes, whereinSubjeds are not bound to affift their Prince;
and if ever there were fuch a cafe, this was it.
What then fhall Subjeds do, when the King«isgone, and the
Government Diffolved, the People left in the Hands of another
Prince, without any Reafbn, or any Authority, or any formed
Power, tooppofe him? The Governmentmuft be Adminiftred
by feme body, unlefs we can be contented, that the Rabble
Jhould Govern.
But I lliall not meddle with that Interval, between the going
away of the King, and the Prince's coming to the Throne; but
only cofider him as placed in the Throne, and fettled there. And
nov/ we can find no alteration in the Ancient Goverment of the
Nation, but only the exchange of Perlbns; and all things concur
to make this a very advantageous and acceptable Change, ex-
cepting fiich difficulties, as ufeally accompany fiich Revolutions.
The Monarchy the fame flill, and the Three Efiates of the Na-
tion the fame; tlie Church of England, and the Laws and Liber-
ties of the Nation fecured; and no profpecft of fecuring them by
any other means: fb that here is nothing to prejudice any Man
againft the prefent Government, or to make the Reftoration of
the difpoflefTed Prince neceflary, as there was in the late Uliir-
pation, but only a miftaken Notion of Allegiance to that Prince,
whom we fuppofe to have the legal Right though he be difpof
fefled, and another Eftablilhed in his Throne; which I have
alreadly proved to be a miftake.
But not to difpute the legal Right (which is nothing to my pre-
lent purpofe) here is a fettled Government, which was not in the
former Cafe.
Their prefent Majefiies are in the full Pofieflion of the Throne,
and Adminiftration of the Government by a National fubmifli*
on and confent; for though fome Men dilpute, whether a Con-
vention of the i^ates, not called by the Kings Writ be a legal
Parliament,.
\
due to Sovereign lowers, Sccl 51
Parliament, yet all Men muft cpnfefi, that they are the Reprelen-
tatives of the Nation; or elle a Nation can have no Reprelenta-
tlves, tvhen it has no King in the Throne, or when there is any
difpute about the Title to the Crown.
Now, though this might be improved farther, I (hall content
my felf only to (ay; that the confent and fubmiffipn of the Con-
vention, efpecially when confirmed by fubfequent Parliaments,
is a National Ad, and makes a Settlement of the Government,
efpecially fince the generality of the Nation have (o willingly
and chearfully fubmitted, and bound their Allegiance by Oath;
which is a very different thing from fubmitting to mere force,
when the inclination of the Nation (lands bent another way;
when there is nothing but mere force, it may admit fbmedifpute,
when the Government is fettled; but though in fbme cafes, it
may be hard to determine, when the Government is fb fettled,
as to make Allegiance due; this is no reafon to deny Allegiance,
when there is a viffible Settlement. If this be not a fettled Go-
vernment, I know not what is; I am fure, we have reafon to
pray for the continuance of it; when nothing can unfettle it,
but fuch a Power, as will overturn our Religion and Liberties
with it. It is indeed commonly faid, as I obferved before, that
tlis fubmiflion of the People without the fubmiffion of the
Prince, cannot transfer the Government; by which they may
mean the legal Right of Government: Now to avoidunneccf
fary Difputes, fuppofe this were true; yet the fubmiffion of the
People, when their Prince has left them, if it cannot give a legal
Right to another Prince, yet it may give an adual Settlement to
him ; and that is all we are enquiring after. This 1 think is a
lufficient anfwer to that odious Comparifbn between the late
Ufurpations> and this prefent Revolution.
I (hall conclude the whole with anfwering an Objedion, Objed.
which many, who refufe the Oaths, place great confidence in;
and that is from the Laws of the Land : In all fuch cafes as thefe,
the Laws, they fay, are the meafure of our Duty, and the Rule
of Confcience, and therefore we muft own no King, butwffions
the Law owns to be King; that is, in an Hereditary Monarchy,
the right Heir: and to pay and fwear Allegiance to any other
Prince, though poflefied of the Throne, when the rightful King
is dif^flefled, or the right Heir living is contrary to our duty to
God, becaufecontraiy to the laws ofthe Land.
Hi ' I.la
Tlje Cafe of the Allegiance
I . In an(werto this I confidcr; this is no real Objecftion againft
any thing, I have (aid; but all that I have laid, if it prove true,
is a fufficient anfwer to this: The Laws of the Land are the Rule
of Conlcience, when they do not contradid the Laws of God:
but when they do, they.are no Rule to us; but their obligation
muft give place to a Divine Authority. Suppole then there were
an exprefs Law, that the Su^eds of England Ihould own no
King, but the right Heir; arid notwithftanding this Law (as it
will fometimes happen, and has often happened in England) a
Prince who is not the right Heir, fhould get into the Throne,
and fettle himfelf there: If the Divine Law in fuch a cafe, com-
mands us to pay all the obedience and duty of Sub)eds, to a
Prince in the adual Pofledion of the Throne, and the Law
of the Land forbids it, which muft we obey, the Law of God, or
the Law of the Land ? This, I think is no difpute; and therefore
It is in vain to urge the Laws of the Land in any cafe, where we
are under a Superior Authority: let them firft prove that no King
is fet up by God againft the Laws of the Land ; and then I will
confefs, we muft own none but legal Kings, for we muft own
no Kings, whom God does not make, and who have not Gods
Authority.
a. The Englifh Monarchy is Hereditary, and the lineal Heir
has the legal Right to the Crown ; grant this; but ftill we muft
confider, how far this is a Law to al| private Subjeds; how far
every Subjed is bound in Confcience by this Conftitution, to give
the Pofleflion of the Crown to the right Heir, and not to fuffer
anyone elfe to take it; or if he do, not to pay Allegiance to him,
or own him for his King. What Law is there, that lays this ? And
1 think, the reafon of the thing does not prove it. The Law does
not refer the Cognizance of liich matters to private Subjeds; and
therefore they are not by Law bound to take care of it, and I know
nothing but Law can bind us to a legal Conftitution. Legal
Rights muft be determined by a legal Authority; and there is no
Authority can take Cognizance of the Titles and Claims of
Princes, and the difpofal of the Crown, but the Eftatesoi the
Realm : They indeed are obliged to take notice of the legal
Defcent of the Crown, alid if through miftake or any other
caufe, they fet the Crown upon a wrong Head, they muft an-
Iwer for it j but private Subjeds, who have no legal Cognizance
of the matter, afe bound by no Law, that 1 know of, to difown
a King,
due to Sovereign Towers, &c.
a King, whom the Eflates have owned, though they fliould think
the Right is in another. If Authority may not over-rule private
Subjeds in thefe ca(es, even againft their own private Opinions,
and juftifie their Obedience to a King, who is placed in the
Throne, Subjeds are in a very ill cale, who have no Authority
to Judge, and no Power to Refill: There are numerous cales,
wherein Subjeds imift acquielce in the determinations of a legal
Authority againft what they think a legal Right: the realbn
and neceffities of Government require it; and the Law, which
gives a Right, will not allow us to vindicate our Right againft a
legal Authority. And therefore it does not follow merely from
the Law of Succeffion, that Subjeds are bound in Ccnfcknce to own
no King, whoisnotthe rightful Heir: And Duty and Confci-
ence in Obedience to Laws, is the only thing I am now inquiring
after.
;. Tho I have not skill enough in Law, to know certainly
what our Conftitution allows in this point; yet it is the declared
Judgment of Ibme of the beft Lawyers of former days, and lb-
far as I can learn, the moft common and prevailing Opinion
ftill, That our Laws do allow and require Allegiance to a King
defaBo, who is in Pofleflion of the Throne without a legal Right.
And this they have done in the Reigns of legal and rightful-
Kings, as my Lord Ch. Jufi. Coke, the Judges in Baggeds Cafe,
my Lord Ch. Juft. Hales, my Lord Ch. Jufi. Bridgwan in the Try-
al of the Regicides, in Anfwer to Cook\ Plea; who allowed the
Law, but would not allow his Cafe to be within the purview
of it. Now when the Difpute is meerly about the Senfe of the
Law, to judge rightly of which, requires fome skill in Law, and
a great deal more than I can pretend to; Which is the fafeft
way to refblve my Confcience ? Whether to adhere to my own
Judgment, againft the Judgments and Opinions of the ableft
Judges and Lawyers ? or to rely on their Judgments (when
learned Men generally agree in it) tho I do not comprehend
th? Reafbns of their Opinions
In moral and natural Duties, which every Man may and muft
underftand for himfelf, the Cafe is different; we muff not there
rely wholly upon Authority, efpecially not againft the Reafbn
and Sentiments of our own Minds, tho Authority is in that Cafe
of great ufe to over-rule meer Doubts and Scruples; but when
the Cafb of Confcience is a meer Point of Law, and we con-
elude.
TJ^e Cafe of the Allegiance
dude that to be our Duty which the Law determines, I am of
Opinion, That Judges and learned Lawyers, efpecially when
they have determined the matter without any Byaft on them,
or any prolped of our prefent Affairs, are the beft Cafuifisy be-
cau(b they underftand the Law beft.
That we muft obey and iubmic to our Prince, is a Duty which
the Laws of God and Nature enjoyn; and we muft not fiifter
any Man, be he Lawyer or Divine, to periuade us, that this is
not our Duty: but what Prince we muft obey, and to what par-
ticular Prince we muft pay our Allegiance, the Law of God does
not tell us, but this we muft learn from the Lavys of the Land.
Here is a ^leftion then arifes. Whether the Subieds of England
(when fuch a Cafe happens) muft pay their Allegiance to the
King Je jure, who is difpoffeffed of his Throne;, or to the King
de fadhy who is poflefled of it without a legal Right ? Now will
thcfe Men, who ground their Diffent upon the Laws of the
Land, abide by the Decifion of the Law ? If they will not. Why
do they infift on it, and urge it, as an unanfwcrable Objcdion ?
If they will. Who muft judge of the Senfe of the Law, and from
whom muft they learn it ? for every one is not a competent
Judge of this matter, tho he thinks he very well underftands the
Grammatical Senfe and Conftrutftion of Word?. And is it not
moft reafonable to think that to be the Senfe of the Law, which
learned Judges and Lawyers have agreed is the Senfe of it .' Is it
not reafonable to take that to be the Senfe of the Law, which has
been the Senfe of Weftmm[ter-HaUy and is like to be again, if
we think fit to try it ?
I do not think it fo dangerous to miftake in a human Law, as
in natural or divine Laws; our Obligation to obey human Laws,
IS that Obedience which is due. tq Government, and then what-
ever we apprehend the Senfe of the Law to be, we muft not pre-
tend to obey human Laws in our Senfe, in oppofition to Govern-
ment: if we miftake with Authority, and obey the Law in that
Senfe which has been allowed in all Reigns, even of the moff
rightful Kings, we are (afe in Confcience: And he who will ad-
vance another Senfe of the Law, upon confidence of his own
private Judgment, and venture his Efiate and Fortune, his Liber-
ty and Life on it, I think does neither wifely for himfelf nor
pays that deference he pretends to Government.
But
due to Sovereign Towers, See. 5 5
But here is an Oath concerned, and danger of Perjunv, if
having (worn Allegiance toK. Jamei while he is It^'ing, we fwear
away our Allegiance from him to K. William and Mary: but
I (uppofe legal Oaths muft be expounded by the Laws; and if by
the Law of the Land Allegiance to K. James ceafes, as being
put of PolTeflion, our Oath can oblige us no longer ; and if by
the Law of the Land we owe Allegiance to KWiSiamand (X.Mary
as in Polleflton of the Throne, then we may, and ought, to
fwear Allegiance to them : and this being a point of Law, mull
be decided by the proper Judges of it; for, if we keepan Oath
when the Law does not allow it, and refule an Oath when the
Law requires it, we tranlgrefs the Law. And this is not the
only legal Oath, wherein Men govern themfelves by Judgments
of Law, I am fure as much, and I think more plainly againll the
exprels Words of the Law, than can be pretended in the Oath
of Allegiance; 1 mean the Oath of Simony, in which Men fwear
in as general Words as can be thought of, agamft all Bargains or
Contradls, either diredlly or indiredtly, for the obtaining fich a
Living, or Spiritual Preferment; and yet make no Scruple of any
fuch Contrads, as are not adjudged Simon}/ in Wejminfter-Hall,
tho they feem included in thole general Words. And if we will
not allow it to be a fafe Rule of Conlcience to obey Laws, and
to take legal Oaths, in that Senfe which Courts of Juftice, or
learnedjudges and Lawyers give of them, tho we mult abide by
their Judgments when it comes to be tryed whether we have bro-
ken or kept thele Laws; Subjedls are in an ill Condition both
with refpebf to their Conlciences, their Lives, and Eftates.
This might very well lerve in Anfwer to the Argument from
Law; for it is acknowledged. That there is great Authority for
our Allegiance to a King de faSio, when the King de jure is dif-
polfeffed; but I have a mind to confider this matter a little farther.
There is a Book lately Printed, Entituled, The Cafe of Allegi-
ance to a King in Tojjejfion; The learned Author has taken a great of aiiegi.
deal of pains in confidering our Statutes and Hillories ; and his ance,
Delign is to prove, that my L. Ch. Jufi. Coke was miftaken in
his Opinion, That the Statute of Treafon 15 Ed. 5. c. m to be
mderfiood of a King in EoJJ'effion of the Crown and Kingdom ; for if
there be a King regnant in tojj'ejjion, tho he be Rex de fadto, & non
de jure, yet he is Seignior le Roy within the Eurveiw of this St a-
tme\ and the other that hath Right, and is out of FoJJeffion, is not
within
*ihe Caft of the JJk^iance
Tvithin the ASi. It is too long a Book to be particularly anfvyer-
ed here; but as I apprehend, his Fault is, that he does not rea.
fon right upon matters of Fad; and fpme of his fundamental
Miltakes maybe anfwered in a fmall cbmpafs: and I choofethe
rather to do it, bscaufe they are the Very lame Miftakes that
impofed upon me for fome time.
Our Author thinks. It -would feem a very odd ^efiion for any
to asky touching the Laws that are made in any fettled Monarch)
for the Defence of the Kin£s Terfen, Crown, and Dignity, who u
meant by the King in thofe Laws ? the lawful and rightful King of that
Realm, or any one that gets into the Fojjejjlon of the Throne, tho he be
not a rightful King, but a Ufurper ?
Now this leems to me no odd Queftion at all; for when the
Law only mentions theKing, and the Law-makers certainly knew
that Kings without a legal Right do often afcend the Throne; if
they had intended to except all fiich Ufurpers, they fhould have
laid fo: for a Yi.\ng defaBo, as the Ch.Juft, aflerts, is Seigmorle
Roy, or King; and there is no other King but he: for King fig-
nifies that Perlbn who has the Supreme Government in the Na-
tion; A King de faBo is he who adually has the Government;
that is, who is adually King; a King de jure, as oppofed to a
King de faBo, is he who of Right Ihould have the Government,
but has it not; that is, who of Right Ihould be King, but is not;
and the Statute of Treafon tells us what is Trealbn againlf him
who is King, not againft him who fiiould be, but is not King.
But he proves, this Statute can intend only a King de jure, be-
caule it makes it Treafon to kill the King's eldefl Son, to vio-
late the Queen, or the Prince's Wife, or the King's eldeft Daugh-
ter, all which, is to fecure the Succeffipn to the Crown, and
therefore cannot concern an Ufiirper, who has no Right him-
felf, and therefore his Heirs have no Right to Succeflion ; and
we cannot fuppofe that the Law fhould take care to fecure the
Succefiion to the Poflerity of an Ufhrper.
But this is no Argument to me; fbr the Law looks upon the
• Crown as Hereditary, and the Change of the Pei fpn or Royal
Family, does not make the Crown ceafe to be Hereditary ; and
therefore whoever has Pofleflion of the Crown, has an heredita-
ry Crown, and leaves it to his Hen s, as long as they can keep it;
as is plain from the Example of the three Henries, who fucceed-
ed each other. And this islReafbn enough, why the Law ftiould
make
due to Sovereign lowers, See.
make no difference upon this Account between a King defaBo
df de jure.
But, my Lord Ch. Juft. Coke does not found his Gl(>f upon the fun-
damental Constitution of the Realm, tho methinks he fhould have
underftood it as well as our Author. But what is this fundarnen-
tal Conftitution ? Why, The Regal Authority, and the Allegiance of
the SubjeBs, is expropriated to the lawful and rightful King, But
where does he find this fundamental Conftitution ? Thefunda-
mental Conftitution, I take to be an hereditary Monarchy; not
that the Monarchy fhould continue always in fiich a Family;
for that may fail, or may be changed by Conquefts or Ufurpati-
ons, as has often been, and the Conftitution continue. The
moft that can be faid is, that when any particular Family, by the
Providence of God, and the Confent and Submiflton of the Peo-
pie, is placed in the Throne, of Right the Crown ought to de-
fcend to the Heir of that Family: but fuppofe it does not, muft
we pay Allegiance to no other Perfbn,tho poflefled of the Throne?
Let him fhew me that fundamental Conftitution, for a meer He-
reditary Monarchy does not prove it; and according to thejudg-
ment of the heft Lawyers, the Laws of the Land require the con-
trary, that we muft pay our Allegiance to him who is a<ftually
King, not to him who ought to have been King, but is not.
And to think to confute this by pretending the fundamental
Conftitution of an Hereditary Monarchy, is to take that for
granted which ought to have been proved.
The Queftion is not. Whether the Monarchy be Hereditary,
that is agreed; but whether in an Hereditary Monarchy we muft
pay Allegiance to no Prince who js not the legal Heir, tho pof-
felled of the Throne; This the Lawyers deny, and produce Law
for it, and if there be fuch Laws, it is certain by Law we may pay
Allegiance to a King in Pofleffion, notwithftanding the funda-
mental Conftitution of an Hereditary Monarchy; for the Law,
which makes one, allows and commands the other; and than it
is an Hereditary Monarchy with this referve; of paying Allegi-
ance to the King in Pofleffion, when the legal Heir cannot ob-
tain his right.
And tliK I take to be a very wife Conftitution, which fecures
the King's Right, as far as Law can do it ; but if the King fhould
be deprived of his Right (which the Exjperience of all Ages
proves he may be) does not think fit, that the Government
I fhould
57
.s'r
i E'
Ij.
id
H w •'
H'
I
5 8 7l?e Cafe of tf?e Allegiance
Should fink with him, and therefore makes provifion for the fecu-
rity of the Government and of Subjects under the Regnant
Prince, which the Reafbns and Neceltities of Government re-
quire and juftifie, though there had been, no Law for it.
F, 9. ;• He (ays, my Lord Cokeb Glefs is contrary to the confiant Pra-
Lltce and Cufiom of the Realm, For ifTreafon by the Cufiom and Pra-
hlice of the Realm lay only againf a King in Po£'ejJion of the Crown
and Kingdom, then
1. Thofe only -would be attainted by our Kings and Parliaments, who
aSted againfi a King in Pofjejjion.
2. And then certainly a KinginPofJefJion himfelf cannot be guilty
efTreafon for what he does while in Pojjejfion againft a "f Pof-
JeJfion. And yet when a King de jure has regained his Throne,
the King de faBo and his Adherents have been attainted by Par-
(iament for Ufurping the Throne, and oppofing the right of
the King dejure.
In anlwer to this, lobferve, i. That this does not prove that
any one Ad which is Trea(on againft a King de jure, is not Trea-
fbn when committed againila King defaBo ; now that is enough
to prove, that Allegiance is by Law due to a King de faBo, if
Treafoo may be committed againft him : for no Treafon can
be committed, where no Allegiance is due.
This is confefTed, that all luch Ads, as are Treafon againft
a King dejure, are Treafon when committed againft a King
defaBo, but not, fay they, becaufe Allegiance is due to him, but
becaufe they are againft the Order of Government, and there-
fore are Treafon by the prefumed content of the King de jure,
I anfwer.
That fuch Ads are- againft the Order of Government, and
very deftrudive to it, is the only Reafbn why they are made
Treafon by Law ; and this is as good a Reafon why the Law
fhould make them Treafon againft a King defaBo, as againft a
King de jure; for they are equally againft the Order of Go-
vernment, and deftrudive to it, whoever be King ; and that is
the only Reafon why they are made Treafon at all.
The prefumed Confent of the King dejure is a very pretty no.
tion, and ferves a greatmany good turns; it makes Laws,
and it makes Treafon, and gives Authority to the inauthoritative
Ads of a King de faBo: that is to fay (or they fay nothing ) that
the prefumed Confent of a King dejure, inverts the King defaBo
with
due to Sovereign TotverSj 8cc.
With his Authority ; for if he have no Authority of his own, un-
le(s the prefumed Confent of the King Jejure give him Anthori-
ty, it cannot make any treafbnable Ad done againft him to be
Treafon ; for it cannot alter the nature of things, nor make m®
guilty of Treafon againft any Perfon, to whom I owe no Du-tv
and Allegiance. And if the prefumed Confent of the King de
jure inverts the King de faFro with his Authority, it murt transfer
the Allegiance of Subjeds too; and then Subjeds are as fafe in
Confciencc, as if the King de jure were on the Throne ; for it
feems there is his Authority and Confent, though not his Perfbn.
But this is all meer trifling; the King defaEto has Authority, or
none of his Ads of Government can have any; for that which is
done by a Perfon, who has no Authority can have none: whence
then has he this Authority, fince he has no legal Right to the
Throne? Not from the prefumed Confent of thsYLmg de jure,
which is great non fenfe to fuppofe, but from the Porteflion of
the Throne, to which the Law it fclfi as well as the Principles of
Reafon and Religion,have annexed the Authority of Government.
a. As for the Attainders of Kings de facto and their Adherents
in Parliament, that does not prove that Subjeds cannot be guilty
of Treafon againrt a King in Poffeffion, nor that the Statute of
Treafon does not relate to a King in Pofleflion: for the Statute of
Treafon does not relate to the difputes of Princes,but to the Order
of Government; and therefore may relate to a King in Pofleflion,
though the King himfelf, if he be an Ufurper, when ever the
rightful King-regains the Poffeffion of his Throne; if he were a
Siibjed before, may be attainted of Treafon for his Ufurpation,
And thefe things are as confiftent, as it is to take care of the Go-
vernment, when fuch Revolutions happen, and yet to difcourage
all illegal Ufurpations.
And yet the truth is, there is no Argument to be drawn from
this; for whenever there is a Competition for the Grown, there is
no doubt but he that prevails, be he King de faElo or de jure, will
attaint his Rival and all his Adherents: Thus it was between
Ed-ward IV. and Henry VI. between Richard III. and Hen. VIL
who attainted one another ; and this is no proof, what the Law
of the Land is, but it proves, that Parliaments have always fa-
vored the King in Poffeffion.
3. He argues, that if Treafon lay only againf the Kmg in EojJeJJi-
on, whither de jure or no, the SubjeElt mujt look upon themfel-ves as
I 1 obliged
Tl^c Cafe of the Allegiance
obliged upon pain of Higb-Treafon not to admit of any claim of the
King de jure —■ and yet Richard Duke of Tork, put in his claim to
the Crown in the Farliament %c) H. 6. and it was received and'allow-
cd by them.
But I would fain know what kind ol Treafon this is for a Par-
liament, to whom, or to none upon Earth, appeals in fuch Cafes
can be made, to receive a Claim to the Crown ? a little improve-
ment of the Argument would make it High-Treafon, for any of
the Courts of fVeJlnfinfier Hall to receive a Complaint, and try
and judge a Caule againfl the King.
If he had faid, that the Law had allowed Subjeds to fight for
the King //ey«re againfl the King in PofTeflion, this had proved
his Point, that Treafon does not lie only againft a King in Pof^
feflion ; but there is no fiich Law as this to be found: It is Trea-
Ibn to fight againft the King, and that, fays my LordCo^e, is the
Kingin PofTeffion, without making any referve for the defence
or re-eftablifhment of the King de jure, when out of PofTeffion:
For it feems theWifdom of the Nation has not yet thought fit to
make a Law to juffifie Civil Wars when fuch a Revolution hap-
pens, with an orderly and national Submiffion.
An appeal to Parliament is a proper way to declare to whom of
right the Crown belongs, when there is a Competition; but
though fuch Ufurpations very often occafion Civil Wars, yet the
neceffity of Governraent.requires, that the Law fliould always bg
on the fide of the King in PofTeffion, and then it can never jufti-
fie any Man in fighting againft him.
4. Flis next Argument is, that if Treafon Uy only againft a King
in VoJJ'efion, then the Law in other regards would look upon the King
in VoJJeffon, as having the dignity and honor of a King, whereas he
obferves r. ThsX the Law, where it confders them as Ufurpers, does
hardly vouchfafe that the name of King' for in the Statute i Ed. IV.
Henry IV. is called Henry Earl of Derby, and the Henries arecall'd
pretenfed Kings, and Kings indeed, and not of right: But he has an-
fyvered this himfelf, that our Law allows them the name ofKings,
with regard to their having the Execution of the Kingly Office; that
is, our Laws do not allow thofe to be legal Kings who have no
legal Title, but yet allow them to be Kings as exercifing the Re-
gal Power, and what would he have more unlefs our Laws fhould
fpeak non-fenfe? And yet he fhould remember that Ed. IV.
after this had as hard words from H. Vt Parliament as the Hennes
h?k^{iOimEdward the Fourth's,
a.. He
due to Sovereign Towers, See. 6\
1. He obferves, th.it the Law does not look upon the Acts of Go'
vernment done by a Kin^ in FoJJejJlon, if an Ufarper, as valid and au-
thoritative in them/elves, becaufe they have been confirmed by
Subfequent Kings; and yet he himfelf confcfles, that they had P. t<
not bean invalid without fuch a Confirmationj but not upon ac-
count of any Auti^ity in thefe Kings but upon account of the necejjky of
Government, and the pre fumed Confent of the Rings de jure excluded
from their right. But if thefe Kings have no Authority, I know
not how their AAs fhould be authoritative; he ought to have
faidjthat the neceflity ofGovernment gives Authority to fuchKings
and their Ads without a legal Title, and that had been Senfe;
but this and the prefumed Confent has been confidered already.
But he has made an untoward Objedion againil this himfelf^
that the ABs ofParltament made by Hen-IV^jViVIiifere not confirmed
by the Parliament i Ed. IV. and yet aire good Laws ffill; and his
anfwer to it is very lame, that fome of their Ads of Parliament
are confirmed there, viz. An ABfor Founding any Abbies or Religi-
' ousHoufes, &c, but this feems to be abundans cautela\ for the
fame Reafon, that the Univerfities and other Religious Founda-
tions renew their Charters in feveral Princes Reigns, though con-
firmed by Ad of Parliament j which does notfiippofe, that they
thought their former Charters invalid, but for their greater fecu-
rity defire the Confirmation of the prefent Powers: but when all
publick Ads made by Parliaments called by Kings de faBo are
receiv'd and own'd for good Laws without any new Confirmation,
that is proof enough, that they thought] the Authority fuflScient,
whereby they were made, though the King had not a legal Right.
But yet let me add, that had it been the conftant and univerfal
Pradice for the Kings dejureyrehzn they returh'd to their Crowns,
to confirm all the judicial Ads, Grants, Statutes, &c. of the Kings
defaBo, this had been evidence enough, that the NecefSties of
Government require, that all the Ads of Kings de faBo fhould
be valid ; for that is the only Reafon why they are confirmed by p. 15
a legal Authority; becaufe it is necelTary they fhould be valid, and
yet convenient for the difcouragement of fuch Ufurpations, that
they fhould not be thought valid, without a legal Confirmation,
but what the neceflity of Government makes valid, is valid in it
felf without any new Confirmation; though the Reafons of
State may make fuch a Confirmation ufeful.
The next thing he undertakes to anfwer is BaggoPs Cafe, con-
cerning the validity of his Patent of Naturalization granted by
Hen. VL
Tl^e Cafe of the Allegiance.
Hen. VI. who was only King de faBe; though k were not con-
firmed by the Statute i Ed. IV. Tiiis he branches out into feveral
Particulars^ and fays a great deal about it, but nothing new : He
always takes Sanctuary in his old Salvoes of the neceffity of the
Government and the prefiimed Confent of the Ring de jure,
which have been fufHciencly confidered already.
All that I fliall conclude from this cafe (which I muft take
as he has reprefented it) is this; that the necefltty of Govern-
ment ffor both the Judges and Council underftood things better
than to urge the prefumed confent of the King de jure,) gives Au-
thority to all thofe Ads of a King de fahto, which are for the
Adminiftration of Juftice, and belong to Sovereign Powers;
and then by the fame reafon, they muft juffifie Subjeds in pay-
ing Allegiance to fuch Kings; for this is neceffary to Govern-
ment. -Our Author will allow this in all cafes, which are not
againft the Interefl of the difpofTefTed Prince; but this is to al-
low nothing, for the very Pofleflion of the Throne, and every
Ad of Authority the King de facto does, is againft the Intereft
of the King de jure : But he feems all along to miftake Gifts and
Grants, to the Diminution of the Crown (which they would not
allow to ftand good, when the King de jure returned^ for all
Ads againft the Perfonal Right and Intereft of the King de
jure : But the Diminution of the Crown, and the Right of the Per-
fon, are very different things, as he will eafily fee, when he con-
fiders it again.
As for the Statute ii. H. 7. which indemnifies Subjeds in
^>8- 2^ • Fighting for the King in pofleflion; he difputes very largely
about it, but I can at prefent make only fome fhort Remarks on
what he fays.
I. He obferves, that it is only laid in the Preamble, not ena-
Bed in the Body of the Statute, that the Subjects Jhall be obliged to
pay Allegiance to the King f.- the time being ; but whether a Pre*
amble be Law or no, it is an Authoritative Declaration of the
Law, and that is a fufficient rule for Subjeds; and if 2,5. Ed. 5.
concerns Kings in Pofleflion, it is enaded there.
J, He will not allow this Preamble to be^ direB andpeftive De-
'' -claratton of the Law; becaufe the King only fays, that he calls to
remembrance his SubjeBs duty of Allegiance, &c. But if the King
and Parliament declare, that they remember, this is the duty of
Allegiance, does not that declare their Opinion, that it is a duty
as
due to Sovereign Vomers, 6cc. 6^
IS efre£l:ually as can be done in any other form of words; nay
Ibmewhac morej for what they remember, they declare was (b
before, and not made fo now, merely by their Declaration ; and
what the Parliament fuppoles and takes for granted, it naore ef-
fedually declares.
;dly. He fays, ifhat is laid down in the Preamble, is exprejljr 2^,
falje ■ ■ " that it is not reafonable, but againjl all Laws, Reajon,
and good Cenfcience, that the Subjects going with their Sovereign
Lord to Wars, any thing Jhould lofe or forfeit for doing this their true
Duty and Service of Allegiance; Now if this be falfe, I know not
what can be true; is the contrary to it true ? that it is agreeable
to Law, Reafon, and good Cenfcience, that Subjedts iliould lofe or
forfeit any thing for Fighting for their King ? But thu is meant
of Fighting for an Ufurper againfi their lawful King. And yet
here is not one word of Ufurper, or Lawful King, but our Sove-
reign Lord, whom the Law requires us to own for our Sovereign;
and it is againfl Law, Reafon, and good Confcience, that Sub-
jeds fhould fuffer for Fighting for any Prince, whatever his Title
be, whom the Law owns for Sovereign at that time: That Kings
and Parliaments as he urges, have attainted Subjeds upon fuch
accounts, does not prove, that it was not againft Law and Rea-
fon and good Confcience to do fo; and it feems H. 7. who
had done this himfelf, was now convinced of it, and took care /
to provide it fhould be fb no more : I am fure my Lord Bacon
fays this Law was rather/«/? than legal-, and therefore owned the
Reafon and good Confcience of it, though he demurred about
the legality.
But our Author will be fb liberal, as to grant, that all this Pag. 29,
wire the Body of the Statute and adireB Law, then it is plain,
that Subjeds might by I .aw Fight for the King in PofTeffion,
and their Allegiance would oblige them to it. No, he fays, it
will remain to be confidered, whether the Statute can be looked upon
as valid and obligatory ; and he thinks it is not.
I. Becaufe it was made by an Ufurper, and by an Ufurpers Par-
liament. This is a bold ftroke to call Hen. VII. an Ufurper,
who had fomany Titles, and no Titlefet up againft him; and
to queftion the Authority of a Parliament, called by the Writ
of a King in Poileflion; and to deny the validity of Ads of
Parliament made by Ufurpers, when our Statute Books, arc full
of them, and they are owned good and vaUd Laws.
64 77?^ Cafe of the Allegiance.
So that 1 will not difpute with him, whether fuhfequent lawful
Fag. Jo. gjyg conlent to this Law or not, it is fufficient, they
have not repealed it; but what he urges, that it has been in ef-
feB declared null and void, I doubt will not pafs among our Law-
yers to be equivalent to a repeal; for I never yet heard, that an
A(5t of Parliament could be repealed by confequence; but let us
hear, hovt fubfequent Kings and Varliaments have in effedt declar-
cd it null and void; and he has thought of two ways for this.
1. By their proceeding exprefly contrary to the letter of this
Law ; viz,, in the Attainder of the Duke of Northumberland in
Queen Marfs time, who was lent with an Army againfl ^ Mary
by order of Council and a Warrant under the Creat Seal in behalf f
Queen Jane.
2. Their laying a contrary obligation on the Confciences of SubjeBs\
which he proves by the A(5i:s concerning the Succeffion made by
Hen. VIIL and the Oath of Allegiance. Now I am apt to think
he is miftaken in this matter, becaule after all this was done, my
Lord Coke, and other great Judges and Lawyers, have taken this
for a very good Law, and therefore did not think, that it was
in efFedt declared null and void. As for the condemnation of
the Duke of Northumberland, it was either reconcileable with this
Law, or it was not; if it were, I fuppofe it did not in effeB de-
dare it null and void; if it were not, it was a Sentence againft
Law ; and I never heard, that an Illegal Sentence did either Re-
peal a Law, qr declare it void. As for the Ads of Succeffion
niade by Hen. VIIL and the Oath of Allegiance, tho fome Men,
if they pleafe, may expound them fb as to contradid the Statute
of II Hew.VlI. yet they being fiiblequent Laws, made without re-
pealing that former Statute, it leems moft realbnable to me, that
their Senfe and Interpretation Ihould be limited by that former
unrepealed Statute; for if thole Kings and Parliaments had in-
tended to lay any obligation upon Subjeds, contrary to any thing
enaded by that Law, they would have repealed it; for a former
and unrepealed Law muft limit the Interpretation of fublequent
Laws, unlels we will allow the Laws to contradid each other. '
This is all in our Author, that ftridly concerns Law; for in
what follows he proceeds to dilpute againft the Law, from Prin-
ciples of Reafon and Religion, and to prove, that it is to be look-
Pag. 36. ed upon in itfelf null and void in refpeB of the matter of it, tho'it
were granted, that this Statute was made by a Legal Authority, and
has
due to Soveyei^ IPowers^ &c.
las fiood ever Jince unrepealed. Now this is what I at firft fufpe-
that they would not ftand to the determination of the Law
in this matter, and then why do they trouble themlelves and
the World about Law, if nothing fhall pals for a good Law,
which they don't like ? '
If our Author carefully confider what I have already dilcour-
fy, I hope he will find a fatisfa<3:ory anfwer to all his follow-
ing obje<ftions; or at leaft fiich Principles, as will enable a Man
of a great deal lefs skill than he has to anfwer them all.
But tho I am in great haft to conclude, I lhall ftop a little to
examine the two^ Reafons he gives to prove that Statute 11.
Mm. VIL which indemnifies Subjefts for Fighting for a King in
Pofleffion to be a void Law with refpeft to the Matter, though
the Authority that made it be allowed good, viz,. For it either di-
vefis the Lawful King of his Right to the Crown, and gives it to^^^' 37-
the Ufurper, or it fiill referves his Right to him, but yet notwith-
fianding, orders the SubjeSls to obey and fiand by the King in Po£ef-
fm: Now a veiy Ihort anfwer will ferve for this. For,
J. The Law does not deny his Legal Right to the Crown,
but yet may reafonably deny nim to be King, when he is out of
PofTeflion. For a King is he, who a(5tually adminifters the Go-
vernment with a Regal Authority; not he, who has right to do
it, but is kept from his Right, fuch a Prince may retain the Ti- ^
tie of King, but he has nothing elfe.
a. When fuch a Cafe happens, it is not fb unjuft or unreafon-
able, as to make it a void Law, to order Subjects to obey and fiand
by the King in Pojfefiion: For the King has no Right but by Law,
and then the "Lm may determine how far his Right lhall ex-
tend; and if the King himfelf by the advice, confent, and au-
thority of the Eftates of the Realm (confidering how often fuch
cafes happen, that a Prince who has no legal Right gets PolTef^
lion of the Throne^ and what defolations the difputes of Princes
occafion, and how impoffible it is for Subje<5ts to avoid Fighting
for the King in PofTeflion^ fhould think lit, for the fecunty of
the Government and Publick Peace, to bind the Allegiance of
Subjedfs to the PofTeflion of the Throne, what iniquity is there
in this Law ? why may not a legal Right be bounded and limi-
ted by Laws ? Why may not the Supreme Authority of the Na-
tion make the beft Provifion they can to preferve the Govern-
tnent, to fccurc the Lives and Fortunes, and to eafe the Con-
K fciences
The Cafe of the Jllegtancel
fciinces of SubjeAs, in fueh revolutions as no Right and no
LaVvs can prevent? Since humane Governments will not always
proceed in regular Methodsj provifional LaWs, which are exce-
ptions from the Conftitution, but neceflary in fach jundures^
liem to me to be highly realbnable.
Thus I have fairly reprelented what my thoughts are about
this matter, and have taken all due care, neither to impofe upon
my felf nor others by Ibme.little fallades, nor to provoke any
fort of Men with hard words: If what I have laid, do not make
other Men of my mind; yet I hope it may latisfie them, that J
have fomething to (ay for my felf, and that it is poffible, I may
be an honeft Man ftill, the they may think me raiftakea.
t BE ENX>,
BOC»CS
BOOKS Publifhed by the Reverend
Tdt,Sherloc\y and Printed for JV> Rogers.
An Anfwer to a Difcourfe EntituIed,P.j/»i7?i Pmejlingagamfl Protejlant
Pofery: Being a Vindication of Papills not Mifreprelented by Prote-
ftants,and containing a Particular Examination of Monfieur de Meaux
late Bifliop of Condon^ his Expofition of the Doftrine of the Church oi Rome
in the Articles of Invocation of Saints Worlhip of Images, occafioned by
that Difcourfe, 4° ad Edition.
An Anfwer to the Amicable Accommodaticn of the Differences between the
P^frefenter and the Anfwerery 4°.
A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Benjamin Calamy D. D, ^
and late Minifter of St Lattrrence Jury London, Jan. 7. j68f, 4°.
A Vindication of fome Proteftant Principles of Church Unity and Catho-
lick Communion, from the Charge of Agreement with the Church of Rome :
In Anfwer to a late Pamphlet Entituled, An Agreement between the Church
of England and the Church of Rome evinced from the Concert ation of fome <if.
Her Sonsy with their Brethren the Dijfenters, 4" ad Edition.
A Prefervative agairjl Pofery: Being fome plain Direftions to unlearned
Proteftants how to Difpute with Romifh Priefts, Fiifl Part, 4° yth Edition,
A Second Part of the Prefervative againjl Popery, (hewing how contrary
Popery is to the true Ends of the Chriilian Religion, fitted for theInflrufti- .
ens of unlearned Proteftants, 4" Second Edition.
A Vindication of both Parts of the Prefervative againjl Popery, in Anfwer to >
the Cavils of Lewis Sabran, Jeluit, 4°.
A Difcourfe concerning the Nature, "Unity and Communion of the Catholick^
Church, wherein moft of the Controverfies relating to the Church, are briefly
and plainly Stated, Firft Part, 4*.
A Sermon Preached before the Right Honorable the Lord Mayor and
Aldtrmen of tltt City of London at Guild-Hall Chappel, on Sunday Novem-
ber the 4th, 1^88, 4°.
A Praitical Difcourfe concerning Death, Fourth Edition, 8°. .^
A Vindication of the DoSrine of tik Holy and ever Blejfed Trinity and the
hwamation of the Son of God, occafioned by the brief Notes on the Creed of j
St. Athanafius znd the briefHiftory of the or Sawwdwr, and con?
taining an Anfwer to both, 4°.
m
r
=->' ■
. J .>>' -;r V'v
J;.:
5 '. ■
,-> 1-;
if?;.'
V.
i®S
E'
.. .7 J : ■
:
J-
f.-.
" :p r:
•'v ; -u1
Ik
•
"'?■ '"•. '^1 ■;v'ri;U77m-i'.x v' .-A;^^^^7.■^ti.■^ i^K" ,,
0 ■ * ■f* t-^'-'■•^ 'v'-j-;.
■ '■ t-Z§K: 'Ixi' -yfiyl':.,:, r.'^^i:-.' ■■■ n-j'J i\
1
, 1 i -J :^.-l
E
vp:-7
li'y- •}■'■''■ '•
s>',7 7-i-7.
;■' £■ ■•'.". '..".JwO V ', ., / ': -. '.■•;:i ',i 'p;d'.-i '\'J ^,7^^ V;'A% V.l'iAj7 "^TTI
. \. f,-:' I. ^ '■■' "> ,v;v..,-,.;. 7 t.A; •t'.'iiiii'Vn Npi
"A'
Oj CT"' ?'J'S- ' r \'j;V.'; ; K
.P:''.,V Pv? ' 'f> 'yy-r':^ iidn ■;.'..'I
-p ,.. ''v ' Wil - v;\'.:;7: ;JVvi~ -'Ii'lo ^ A '•
'7,,,:;7 '■ ..-J,;'!-;! 'tu ''•' ' cf'i A ;i;:7u^ *'j li-'v.rPI .
:,,,.■'A. - .■/-■•--.A <> ..'AA-A'U::i.A.AU-1oU'
[i-> .■•A,-.'- •. -•. "i. P" ' • • •■ ' '• ' •■•-'-iC'., ...
rr;iA)]:iA 7:'.\7-i7;'^A ■,jV...; A dv.l\ Av A
^.'•v. ' ,;-, ,;, A ":• P,-'. ...A A :Va.Tl^.r^■.•r,•lAAo iVt7j.,0 sxlJ
;. " V A;i^-.t:i. Ai'A 7AP\1' y'.:':i\.T\ i.\..:j ;;;,'rti3:)tiG3 A 3^.
,"E vii^ftiEjAs :A;>:g:IA-;;Ik g; ^ :';;ii 7. fiorn nt37;,;'-;.Air;AC*1
G- .. • '■ ,rj:.-j fiii'I-A :• xJ'li viriidij o)!2 .. ■
L^\
n
k
' .. .LjG.I 'y'.i ■:' '. ■ ;. .'T PA" ?nrxwA' A '
•*''.; .-A A -5'.72'j,V1 iio r,L'7 !u) 'iiAtyiA7.> 3 3.: v-Aiwi ''/'■ \JI3 srli 'io^fiirnuL! \
t82Si jXlif 5;h
■PA-., ; AAAA .VA3 <noi37&:i xih-ciT ,uu.3a'§Aw33iv-2 5\;<viip;QkAIlM^K
, J . . A. ::A:AA\''^-'"-'^''A'EA'rl.C^PA-<-.'A A7S7. 7(;A Tjii A 3uvvA-G vS\sv%%\(n I'.' ' 7
fMA A ■ ■. A^;-_ " A) hi-.D 5||i 1: j g,. y ■; ,..5 A^D V «-•- -.v i ®
:?|A- A A-sA:,,. i-iAtj Ixi A \nV,i;.AAJ;;;{Ao v,c.iAIiA:id PIj l;ji i .A;; '■
■J - A '
Sf- ^siioci 01 53 iVlilA XiS sai/'.isj
The Dean of St. Pauh's
SERMON
Before the Honourable
Moure of Commons*
J >
On Ae ^otb of fanmry, y6^l^
Lurtie 1®°- die Februarii^ 1691.
ORderedy That the Thanks of
this Houfe be given to the Dean
of St. Tauh, for the Sermon Preached
before this Houfe at St. Margarets
Wejiminfler y the :^Qth day of January
!aft; And that he be defircd to Print
the lame; And that Sir "tbo. JJarcy,
and Mr. Biddol^h do acquaint him
therewith.
Paul Jodrelly
Cr Dom. Com.
A
1
SERMON
Preach'd before the
HONOURABLE
llottfeoC Commons,
A T
St. UA^GAi^ETi WESrMmSTB\,
January the XXXth,
By William Sherlock, D. D,
Dean of St. PauPsy Mafter of the Temple^ and Chap-
lain in Ordinary to Their MAJESTIES.
Clie ^econh cgDtttoiT>
L 0 n V 0 :
Printed for I0ll'um Rogers at the Sm, over-
againft St.Dunjlans Church, in Flee'fireet. 1692.
I
4
SERMON
PreachM before the
House of Commons,
On the XXXch of January^ 16(?^.
XC. PSALM 15.
Ma}^ ^ glad according to the day^ where-
in thou hafl affli&ed and the years
wherein we have feen evil,
(HIS Pfalm, as the Title tells
us, and as Learned Men ge-
nerally agree, is a Prayer of
Mofes; penned by him, as is
fuppofed, after God had pro-
nouncecl\that final Sentence
againft the Jfraelites, That none of that great
Army, which came out of from twen-
S , ty
A Sermon Preached before
ty years old and upwards, fhould enter into
Canaan^ but flioiild all die in the Wildernefs,
excepting Calei? and JoJ]?aa. And therefore
he complains, IVe are confumed in thy anger^ and
by thy wrath are w troubled; Thou haft jet our
iniquities before Thee ^ our fecret fins in the light
of thy countenance : For all our days are pajfed
a'^ay in thy wrath, we fpend our years as a tale j'icl
that is told. Which is literally true of no o- Ciiiin
ther period of the Jewift? Church, but this, inlli
when God in great anger had condemned ^nk
them all to die in the Wildernefs; They lb
ved then to little other purpofe, bpt topafs iitli;
away the time, as men tell Stories, till forty * m
years fhould put an end to them all.
But in my Text, and fome Verfes before,
he prays for, and foretells a more happy ftate jji'u
• of the Jewip? Church j when all the Troubles
they had fuffered for fo many years in Egypt,
and the Wildernefs, fliould corne to an end,
and they fhould be fetled in a quiet poflef-
fionof the promifed Land, (feturn, 0 Lord,'
how long ? and let it repent thee concerning thy fev w.
"Vants, 0 fatisfyus early with thy mercy, that we Jy
may rejoice, and he glad all our days. Make us I
the Houfe of Commons.
glad according to the days wherein thou haft afjti^ed
us J and the years "therein ive haVe feen eVd.
So that in my Text there are three things
confiderablei i. The firft is implied, That
fin for which God thus punillied them;
For that it was for their fins, not only the Ju-
fticeof the Divine Providence fuppofes, when
the Calamity is National j but the ^falmifi
exprefly affirms, v. 8. Thou haft fet our viiqui=
ties before the, our fecret fins in the light of thy
cmitenance. Which intimates, that there were
more fins than one, and fome of them very fe-
cret ones too, for which God punifhed them :
For fo commonly it is, that a great many
fins, fuch as we have forgot, or took little
notice of, are brought to account, when fome
onegreat Provocation tempts Godtopublick
A6ls of Vengeance.
If we apply this to the Cafe I before men-
tioned, then it is very evident what this pro-
yoking Sin was,« Their murmuring a-
gainft that good Land, their rebelling againft
God and Mofes, their attempt to make them a
Captain to return into Egypt ^ and to ftone
B z Caleb
A Sermon Preached before
Caleb 2indJoflmaj who encouraged them to go ''!j
up, and take poffeflion of the Land, which
God had promifed to their Fathers, 14.
2. Their Punifhrnent, The continuance
and leverity of it • They were to wander in
the Wildernefs Forty Years, and to die there, -''fi
without entring into that good Land.
3. Mofess Prophetick Prayer, That God
would return to them in Mercy, and recom- h'xt
pence thefe Sufferings, by giving them a qui-
et poffeffion of the Land of Promife; ^ake ipr
us glad according to the days wherein thou hajl affliB- : til
ed usy and the years ipherein we ha^e feen eVtl. ; sfei
Our cafe, which is the occafion of this m
prefent Solemnity, differs fomewhat from this iiar
in every particular, but yet bears fuch an Ana- ller
logy, and proportion ta it, that 1 fiiall take '|koi
occafion from hence to difcourfe to you on -jie
thefe Three Heads; , A
' if) a
I;. The Sin which we this day Lament, -i h
2. The Evils and Calamities, which we
have now for raorethan Forty Years, in fome
degrees or other, and fometimes very feverely
fuffered under, as the natural effects, : or juft
PunidimentsofthatSin. 3, What
the Houle ef Commons.
itoj! 5. What a happy Profpe(51: we have of an
end of allthefe Evils, if we can be content-
ed to be Happy.
Ml I. As for the Firft, The Sin we this Day
irk- lament • I Chall make no Icruple to call it what
you have this Day in your Publick Prayers to
hk Almighty God confefled it to be; The 'Barba.-
iiii® rous Murder of an Excellent Trince: And thole
leimip are guilty of bafe Hypocrilie, and put a great
!e|ii!:'i Contempfupon God; who join in the Devo»
fifp tionsof this Day, and don't think it fo.
d ,-Befides our imploring the Divine Mercy
in of 13 arid Forgivenefs, I have fometimes. thought
tfroma that fuch an Annual Solemnity as this, is due
iunk to the Memory of our murdered Prince ; the
(Jjllnlf leaft Recompence we can make to him, and
) joo c! yetihe greateft thing we can now do for him;
To celebrate his Funeral, with a Religious
Pomp, and to fhed Penitential Tears upon
iienr, his Grave ; And indeed fuch an Honourable
.jjjciiWi Prelence as this, gives an illuftriousTeftimony
j[jfo® to him, and vindicates his Memory from thole
leveifi' fcurrilous Refledlions which are made on it
orjiii by envenomed. Pens.
I fhalll
A Sermon Freach'd before
[ fliall not dilpute the Lawfulnefs of Re-
filling the King's Authority j whether it were
'Lawful for the Parliament to take Arms
againft the King, to Defend the Laws and
Liberties of their Countrey ; for whether it
were or were not, all Wife and Good Men
muft abominate the Villany of this Day ♦ as
we know many of thofe did, who began the
War, without being aware what the end of it
would be.
For fuppofe ( which is all that can be asked
in this cafe ), That in a Limited Monarchy
the Eftates of the Realm have Authority to
maintain the Laws and Liberties of their
Countrey, againft the Illegal Encroachments
and Ufurpations of their King; How does
this juftifie the Murder of King Charles ?
For I. They could pretend to no farther
Right, than to keep the King within the
Boundaries of Law j and when they werefe>
cured of this, they had nothing elfe to do',
but to lay down their Arms, and return to
their Duty j for he was their King ftill, and
they his Subjeifts j and if it were no Rebel-
lion
the Houfe of Commons.
7
li,.
iUf;
h
8^:
u
ifjii
lli!!!J:
IfCftfj
toi
ijl
lion to refift his illegal Ufurpations, yet it
muft be Rebellion to oppofc him, when he
was contented to Govern by the Meafures of
Law ,- if there be any fuch Sin, as what men
ufeto call Rebellion.
Efpecially when the Subverfion of the
Laws and Government, and Eftablifhed Re-
ligion of the Nation is made the Condition of
Peace ; For tho it were Lawful for Subjects
to Refill their Prince for fubverting Laws,
furely this don't make it Lawful for them to
Murder him for oblerving the Laws which
he is fworn to obferve : And therefore whe-'
ther it were Rebellion or not before, one
would think it fliould commence Rebellion,
when the 5cofc/; Covenant, the Abolifliing of
Epifcopacy and Liturgies, that is, of the
Worfliip and Government of the Church Ella-
blifhed by Law, were made the neceflary
Articles of Peace, without which, a Prince*
who fued for Peace, mull be denied it by his
ownSubjedls.
And yet it is much worle ftill, whena Prince -
for the fake of Peace fhall make fuch Concef-
fions, (tho it may be to the diminution of,
his>
8 A Sermon Preached before
bis juft Authority ) as the Eilates ot the Realm
fliall VoteSatislatSlory, and yet be Perlecuted
by a Prevailing Fad:ion, who had got the
Power in their hands, and did equally opprefs
both King and Subjedls. I need not commencj
upon thele things, you know the Truth, and
the Application of them.
-1^
jyJCU
:Wy
SKil
llo!r(
'M
nii
idly, And yet it is a monftrous Aggravation
of this, when they had ayeilding and com-
plying Prince in their hands, as far as with a
lafe Confcience he could comply, to arraign,
judge, condemn, and execute him : For what
Authority had they to judge and condemn
their King? How came they to be his Sovc' '-'A
raign, and He their Subjet^l ? What Law or
Rule madefuchan Example or Prelident as hiiikfc
this ? And if they had no Authority for itf ■ av:
it was Murder, and that the moft execrable hte
Murder, the Murder of their King. It was a
Sarcaftical Qjueftionof dilate to the Jews^ Will
ye crucifieyour ? This they were afhamed
of, and therefore Difowned hira, Wehhe.'m 'lE
I^inghut Cacfar : If the murder of a private
man be fo great a crime, becaufe in the Image of
God
16^ p
the }Ao\xk Commons.
God made he man; what is the Murder of a
King, who is doubly Sacred, doubly the
Image of God , both as a Man, and as a
fop King, who is God's Minifter and Vice-
:oiiiEi oerent ?
ii,r
And yet aiecret Scab orPoyfon had been
a civil way of Murdering Princes, in com-
w® parifon with this Mock-Scene and Pageantry
dffi of Juftice-; For what a Tragical Sight vvas
this! How could Humane Nature bear fuch
to2K an Indignity ! To fee a Crown'd Head, which
not long fince received the humbled: Submif-
Icooij fions of his Subje(5ts, and had Life and
■liijjjt Death at his difpofal 5. who was the Foun-
tain of all Authority and Juftice, now Ar-
raigned before his own Subjeds, treated with
ylJiji Ignominy and Scorn, brought in Triumph
through his own Palace, where he ufed to
Shine with an Awful Majefty , and in the
y f fight of the Sun, in the fight of his own
Subjeds, who fcarce durft beftow a lecrec
ij:k{ > how his Royal Head to the
Murdering Axe: I cannot bear telling the
L,' Story, and were it upon any other occafion,
" C - - I fhould
A Sermon Preached before tk
I fliould think it very unmannerly to put
you toib much pain as to hear it.
And if to this we add the Charaderof his i-kec
Perfon, and thofe Princely Vertues which a- -oor
dorn'd his life j fuch Vertues as are rarely jMei
found in meaner Perfons; nay, which would ■ fj^:o
have adorned, even a Hermits Cell ,• it ftill ag-
gravates the Iniquity of it; But I fliall not in- jjjefo
fill on this, for he has drawn the Pidure of
himfelf in his admirable Book, better than
anyoneclfe can draw it. It is an amazing ..jp^
Providence , That God fhould expofe the ...jjjjj
greateft Example of Piet yand Vertue, that
had fate upon the Engjifh Throne, to fuch Im
dignities and Sufferings, as in all the Cir-
cumftances of them had no Example : What Ct
Wife Reafons God had for it, we know not j
but I am fure thus much we learn, That
there is a Spirit of Zeal and Fadion, tke .1
Principles of which, if not reftrained, will |
ruin the beft Princes, and over-turn the beft
Governments in the world j for they make
little difference between Princes, where they f
can find Pretence and Power.
This
the Houfe of Commons.
iifi
This was a very great Wickednejfi, for
i which it becomes us, as we do this day, to
j hnmble our felves before God, and xo im-
plorehis Mercy to Pity and Spare us. It is
not enough to fay. That we had no hand in
it; that it was done before many of us were
born, or before we could know- and judge
any thing about it, or that we did abhor and
deteft it when it was done: This will excufe
us from all Perfonal Guiltwe fliall not an-
fwer for it in another world , but we may
fuffer for it in this. National Sins bring down
liiii'i National Judgments , which all men will
more or lefs feel, till they are removed by a
National Repentance and Humiliation: And
w™ therefore tho we cannot confefs this Sin, as
(l^^our own Perfonal Guilt, we ought to ex=
otij-prcfs our Publict Abhorrence of it; to beg ■
1,''^;God to remove thofe Judgments which
tlif^this Sin has both deferved, and has brought
iDi^upon US; efpecially after fo many days ^
we haVe heen affliBed^ after fo many
prsj wherein wehaVe feenevil.
C I " 1. Which
12 A Sermon Preached before ^
- —
2. Which brings me to the fecond part of
my Text, Thofe many Evils we have feen
and fiplt ; Thofe Judgments with which
God has afflided us for this Sin : For fo
we have reafon to believe, when the Pu- "
nifhment bears the Chara(5ter of the Sin up-
on it, and is the natural efFedt and confequent J
I fliall not give you a Hiftory of thofe' ^1
lace Tragical Times, which moft of you')"^,
know as well or better than I do;
much this unhappy Divided Kingdom fuf-'^'^
fered by a Bloody Unnatural War, which'.
ruined fo many Noble and Flourifhing-^^
Families, made fo many miferable..WP"®
dows and Orphans, fpent fo much ChrP'®
ftian Blood and Treafure, ruined the bef®^
Reformed Church, together with the bef
Prince; put the Sword into thofe mens hands
who knew better than to part with
when they had it, till they had carve
out their own Fortune and Greatnefs. Ta
need not tell you, That the fundamenti.3«
Coi
the Houfe of Commons. i ^
Conftitution of the Englifh Government was
overturned, and exchanged for new Models,
which did not laft long enough to be licked
into any fliape, and at laft dwindled and
glimmer'd away in fome fhort and faint Ap-
paritions of Power.' How the Subjedl was
all this while opprefted by the worft fort of
Oppreffors, their Fellow-fiibjecfts; and found
a vaft deal of difference between the Govern-
ment of their King with all his Faults, and
their new Mafters. Thele things, I fay, I
fhall pafs over, for thanks be to God, there
is an end of them ; and they remain only in
Story, as Sea-marks to warn us, where the
Rocks and Sands lie : but fuch violent Storms
as thefe feldom end without leaving a rowling
and troubled Sea. Thefe terrible Convulr
fions of State, like a fliarp fit of the Gout,
when the pain is gone, leave a great weak-
nefs upon the Government, and make it very
unquiet, and liable to frequent Relapfes. As
for Example ;
. i
This deftroys all confidence between
Prince and Subje<fts, leaves ill Refentments,
14 A Sermon TreacFd before
JealoLifies, Diftrufts, which make Govern-
ment uneafie and weak, when a Prince can-
not cruft his Subje(5ts, nor Subje(5ts their
Prince; but they guard and fence againft
each other, the one to fecure his Crown,
the other their Liberties: An unhappy ftate,
which muft needs make all Publick Affairs
move flowly, and lamely, and create many
Inconveniences to a Kingdom, both at home
and abroad.
This temps Princes to affe(51: Arbitrary
power, when they feel their Crowns fit tot-
cering upon their Heads, and fee themfelves
checked at every turn, and it may be finally
ftopt in the moft generous Defigns, to ad-
vance the Glory, Safety, Riches, and Power
of their Nation ,• nay find themfelves too
weak to iecure their Government from Fo-
reign Powers, or from Home-bred Factions
without it.
I believe, no confidering man doubts, but
-that the late Attempts to introduce Arbitrary
Power in form of Law, were principally
owing
the Houfe of Commons,
% owing to the Tragedy of this Day : And if it
vvere pollible any thing could excufe fuch
Attempts, this would have done it. How-
ever we ought to acknowledge, that thofe
Difficulties we fo lately ftriigled under, and
Pitas, from which the good Providence of God has
Uiiin delivered us, were the juft punifhment, be-
tfiii cayfc the juft deferr, and the unavoidable ef-
stb fedtof our Sin.
While this is the ftate of things, without
fetting up the Royal Standard, or levying
Aiii Forces, Prince and Subjects ( however the
lifi:®' matter may be diflembled) are at War with
tik each other ^ and how unealy a ftate this is,
lefijill] and how much the Publick fuffers by it, our
I toai late Experience will tell us, or nothing will.
iPoM
\m IOC Arbitrary Power and Popery were the two-
GUI Fo- great Pretences to juftify the War againft King
'adioiii Charles I. Now whatever appearances there
might be of the firft through miftake and ill
Councel, and the neceffity of Affairs, which
{Cj but might mifguide an Excellent Prince ; there
biwif little pretence for the fecond, befides a
jjpjl' Fanatical Imputation of Popery to the Church
101 of
i6
A Sermon Preached before
of England, of which that Prince was fo zea-
lous a Patron j The Church of England, I fay,
the great Bulwark againft Popery ,• whofe
firft Reformers fealed their Teftimony againft
Popery with their Blood j and vvhofe many
Learned Pens have defended the Proteftanc
Caiife, to the great fatisfadion of all the Pro-
teftant Churches, and to the Cotifufion of
their Popifli Adveriaries, and that even in the
late Reign, when few other Pens durft engage
in the Quarrel. But obferve now, as Adonv
does, how God has requited us.
To prevent the vain Fears of Popery, Pro-
teftants take Arms againft their King, barba-
roufly murder him, and drive their Princes to
feek their Bread, and to fecure their Lives in
Foreign Countries. There one of them learns
the Religion of thofe Countries, which is a
very convenient Religion for a Prince, who
afFe(f;ts to be Abfolute. And this brought our.
Fears upon us; we faw a ZealoiisPopifiiPrincc,,
and Popifli Bifhops, and fuch bold fteps made
to fetiip Popery, a§ made us all tremble. %igh-
Uqus artthouy 0 Lord, andjnfl are thy judgments]-
On
the Houfe of Commons. i
On the other hand, this makes Subje£i:s
very Jealous of the Power of their Prince,
and ready to take all Advantages to Icden iti
which in time may prove very dangerous to
Government, at leaft will infenfibly alter
the Conftitution : For too little Power is as
fatal to Government as too much \ nay, in
fome Jun£iures it is the moft dangerous Ex-
tream of the two: for what we call too
much Power may be well ufed, wheh in
the Hand of a wife and good Prince i And
then the more the Power is, the ftronger
and more flourilhing muft the Government
and Nation be i but too little Power can
never Govern ,well when the Government
is fo weak, that it can neither defend it felf
nor its Subjefls , and therefore the Juft
Rights and Prerogatives of the Crown, and
the neceflary Powers and Authority for Go-
vernment, ought to be as dear to Subjefts,
as their own Rights and Liberties are. fC
is certain Power will be fomewhere, if the
Prince loofe it, the People will get it, and
when once the People gain fucb a Power as
to top their Prince, there is an end of Mo-
K D narchy.
8 A Sermon re ached before
rarehy^ As abfolute Power changes the
Conftitution of a Legal and Limited Mo-
narchy into an Arbitrary Government, fo a
precarious depending Power, changes the
Monarchy it fclf into a Venetian State, Both
which Extreams wife Men , who love the
Engltjlj Government, would by all means a-
void j and it is a very great mifchief; when
Princes or Sub)e^s are violently Tempted to
either of the Extreams: and this we owe
alfo to the Sin of this Day.
Another very lafting and fatal Evil of fuch
Examples, as that of this day is, that it in-
fc£][s Mens minds with loofe Notions of Go-
vernment and Obedience, which are at firft
invented to jufiifie fuch A£iions, and which
People are focner taught then untaught: As,
that all Power is radically in the People,
and therefore but a truft, which a Prince
muft give an account of, which he may be
deprived of j for the Abufe of which he may
be Punifhed, even with Death, by his own
Sub)e6i:s. Nay there are fome among us
who charge all Men who deny this, with
being
JItJU
being Enemies to the Conftitution , and
with reproaching the Wifdom and Jufticc
of the Nation in the late happy Revolution,
which they think can be defended upon no
other Principles. But as wife Men, and
as hearty Friends to the prelent Govern-
ment think other wife ; and I am fure it
would be no Service to the Government to
perfwade all, who cannot own thefe Prin-
ciples, to difown and renounce all that has
been done.
But how docs it appear, that the late
Revolution turned upon thefe Princi-
pies.
The Undertaking of the Prince of Orange^
now our Gracious King, needed none of
thefe Principles to juftify it : He was no
Subjed of England^ but an Independent
Prince, and fo nearly related to the Crown,
that he was concerned to fee the Succeffion
iecured, and the Government kept upon
its ancient Bottom 5 which was thought fo
juft and honourable and neceffary an Un-
D a taking
20
•i :
4'
A Sermon T^reached before
h
dertaking, that Men of all Principles feem-
ed very well fatisfied with it j even thofe
who think the Matter carried fo far that
they cannot now comply with the prefent
Government *, in fo much, that fome, who
are the greateft Sufferers at prefent by their
Non-compliance, could not be perfwaded
at that time to declare their abhorrence
of it.
ji to
e
k Go
iai:
The great Body of the Nation ftood ftill
and looked on j wifhed well to the Prince
without wiftiing ill to the King's Perfon, or
to the juft: Exercife of his Authority. And
I am verily perfwaded, there were very few
even among thofe who were more adive,
who at that time while the King continued
with us ever thought of more, then to ob-
tain a free parliament, by whofe mature
Counfels, the Law might be reftored to
its due Courfe, and the Religion and Li-
berties of England fecured. '
•rl,
lie
:;Sap
kji
:«|j
But the King would not ftand this Tryal,
but disbands his Army, withdraws his Per-
fon,
the Houfe of Commons. 21
fon, without leaving any Authority behind
hira to adminifter the Government. No
body ever thought that this was a per-
fe6ily free and voluntary Aft, but -however
gone he was, and had left no body behind
him to govern by his Authority i and then
'the Government was either diffolved, or
the Power muft refide in the Eftates of the
Realm: for if at any time there be no
Power in the Nation the Government is
diflblved. -
The Eftates upon this great Exigency
of Affairs affembled, but did not pretend
the Superior Authority of the People over
Kings, and their Power to judge, depofe,
and punifh them, but they only undertook
to judge, what properly falls under their
Cognizance in fuch cafes, and what now
lay before them, whether the Throne were
vacant, and if it; were, how it muft be
filled: And wfien thofe, who were the
fole and proper Judges of this Cafe had
once determined it, private Subjefts fac-
cording to the fundamental Reafons of all
Govern-
22 A Sermon 'Unreached before
Governments) were bound to acquiefce,
whatever their private Opinions were, or
eTfe fuch Scate-difputes can never be de-
termioed, but we muft neceflfarily diflblve
into Anarchy and Confudon. Where there
is no determination of the Law of Nature,
or of the Law of God againft it ("as there is
none about meer legal Rights) the Refolu-
tions of Government muft determine the
Conftiences of private Subjeds j for the
Power of Judging muft extend as far as
the juft Fewer of governing does.
So that (whatever difpute there may be
about other Matters) the late Revolution
has made no alteration at all in the Princi-
pies of Government and Obedience. It docs
not oblige us to own the Superior Power
of the People over the King,, which would
be a very tottering Foundation for Mo-
narchy, and could never fupport it long.
Thole who believed the Dodrine of Non-
reffftance and Pafllve Obedience to be a
good Dodrine before may think fo ftill,
and be hey.er the lefs Friends to the prefent
Govern-
the Houfe of Commons. 23
Government: and I have often thought it a
wonderful Providence of Godj that in an
Age, wherein the Loyalty and O-
bedience had been fo earnefiJy preffed on
Men, fo great a Revolution fhould be
brought about, while the generality of Sub-
je^ls were meerly pafTive, and furprized
info a Deliverance. But it is quite other-
wife in ihe prefent Cafe, the horrid Fafi:
committed on this Day has poyfon'd the
very Springs and Fountains of Government,,
and fo deeply tin£fured Mens Minds, that
1 pray God, we may not ftill live to fee
and feel the miferable EfFe£fs of it. For
when Men fit loofe in their Obedience ,
without the Reffraint and Ties of Con-
fcience, nothing but Power can keep .the
disjoynted and incoherent Parts of fuch a
Government together; they are a fluid
Body like the Sea, which every breath of
Wind puts into a new Difturbance and
Commotion,
Efpecially when a Nation is already di-
vided into Parties and Fa^fions both in
ChurcR
M
•tf
M
Si 5
I - ■ - - ■ - ■
24 ^ Sermon re ached before
Church and State, which are a6l:ed with
a furions and reftlefs ?^eal, and will be
fatisfied with nothing lefs than to be upper-
moft ; which is another Mifchief our late un-
natural War has left behind it. Thofe bit-
ter Animoficies are not yet forgot, nay they
daily revive again , and our old Qyarrcls
are aded over with a new Zeal. This is
not only an uneafie, but a very dangerous
^ State for any movernment *, when there are
two or three or more Parties in any Nation,
which contend to be uppermoft, and to
opprefs the others, and are refolved to dif-
like, and to mifreprefent what the others
do. When a Name (hall make common
Friends and common Enemies, and few Men
have any regard to the Publick good, if it
be againft the Intereft of their Party. Nay,
when good Succefs is grievous to them, if
they have not been the chief A(^ors in it,
and they are well pleafed with the greateit
and moft irreparable Mifcarriages, if they
give them any advantage over their Rivals,
though the Nation is in danger to be undone
by them. What difficulties does this impofe
upon
■ii
the Houfe of Commons. 35
Upon a Prinoe, when it is dangerous to choofe
any fide, and yet impoffible to be thought
of none,
Thcfe are fome of thofe Evils, which our
own - Sins, and the ;uft Judgments of God
have brought upon us. And when (hall we
fee an end of thefe things! When fhall
Peace, and Righteoufnefs, and Truth, take
up their Habitation among us I When will
God return in Mercy, Heal the Breaches of
our StoH^ and Build up her Walls! Now is
the time if ever, heartily to endeavour, hear-
tily to Pray for this, That God would tnah^
Hs glad according to the dayf^ wherew he hath
affiBed us, and the years n>herein we have
feen Evil.
g. Which is the third part of my Text,
which I can but name. Now in order to
this, God has done a great deal for us alrea-
dy , if we will do any thing for our
felves. God hath advanced fuch Princes to
the Throne (whom we befeech him long
to continue , preferve and profper there)
E as
2 6 A Sermon T re ached before
as fcein on purpdfc fitted by Nature, by
Fducation 5 by Religion, by Inteteft, to
accomplifh this glorious Work. We have
a King, who was always in the Inrereff of
bis Country,whofe greatMind knows no grea-
ter Glory then to be a publick Benefador,
to bc'a Patron to the Injured and Opprefled,
and to break the Chains and Fetters prepa-
red for Europe A King, who knows how
to Govern a free People, who knows the
price of Liberty, and what a value Man-
kind have for k. A King, who was never
Perfonally concerned in any of our Quarrels,
and therefore has on Perfona! Refentments j
brings no Spirit of Revenge, no Spirit of a
Party to the Throne with him. A King and
Qiieen , who by Education, Principle and
Interefi, are profefled Enemies to Popery,
and the great Defence and Support of the
Proteftant Caufe at home and abroad j who
teach and encourage Piety and Vertue by
Their Examples as well as Laws, and main-
tain and defend the Worfliip and Govern-
ment of the Church of England^ and at the
fame time endeavour to foften and temper
Mens
the Houfe Commons. 27
Mens paflions with Eafe and Liberty j and
God grant we may fee the good effects
of iti for Liberty unltfs wifely ufcd, fel-
dom proves a kindnefs, even to thole who
have it.
So that all the old Complaints are redrei-
fed, all the plaufible Pretences for Fadion
are filenced, by the Advancement of Their
Majefties to the Throne. Here is no ap-
pearing Danger of an over-growing Power,
and illegal Ufurpationsj no opprefllon of the
Subje6}:s in their Juff Rights, no divided
Intereft between Prince and People j unlels
People will divide from a Prince who makes
their Safety, Happinefs'and Intereft his own i
nay,LC!who purchafes their Eafe and. Security
with the endlefs Fatigues' and Hazard of his
own Sacred Perfon. Here are no feans of
Popifli defigns, no pretence for form'er Cla-
mours of Perfecution for Confcience fake;
andilwhat have the moft diffaHsfied Men to
complain of, but only the p'redlng Neccftiries
o^Af^irs 3rid;fpch,nriavdidable iMifcari iages,
rfuch Neqeftitje? will. alVvays occafi-
E 2 on
i
'-ti
28
A Sermon T^reached' hefo) e
on under the beft Government in the
World.
And why then fliould we not all unite
in fuch Princes, and forget all former Qiiar-
rels? why fliould we fl:iil divide into Parties,
when the Throne is of no Party, and will
admit of none ? what are thofe grievances
ftill to make party quarrels, unlefs -Monar-
chy and the Church of England be thought
the only remaining Grievances; and 1 pray
God I may never live to fee thefe Grievances
removed; may the Throne always fupport
the Church, and the Church the Throne, for
neither of them can long fubfift apart: A
fondnels for Parity will foon affed the State
as well as the Church, for Parity is parity
ftill, whether in Churt^ or State, and moft
of the Arguments for it will do equal Exe-
cution both ways.
To conclude: If ever we deflre to fee a
flourifliing Church and Kingdom again, let us
learn Wifdom from the Example of this day;
for he being dead^ yet ^eakgth^ and warneth
us
the Houle of Commons. 2^
us all to have a care of a blind Zeal and Fa-
fiion, not to lillen to defigning and difcon-f
tented Spirits, who to gratihe their own pri-
vate PalTions and Refentments, will Revenge
themfelves upon the publick Peace \ not to
be impofed on again by the glorious Names
of Religion and the Caufe of Chrift, not to
help fuch Men to begin a Quarrel who will
end it without us, and which we rtiall then
in vain repent that ever we began , but thefe
Cautions are needlels in fuch a Wife and Ho-
nourable Aflembly. God grant we may all
mind the things that mah^ for Peace, and thofe
things whereby we may edify one another.
To God the Father, Cod the Son, and God
the Holy GhoH^ he Hononr, Glory, and
Power, now and for ever Amen,
F I N I s:
BOO KS rublifhed by the Re<z/erend Dr.
Sherlock, Dean of St, Paul*/, Mafler of
the Temple, and Chaplain in Or din any to
Their Majejiies.
j\ N Anfwer to a Dlfcourfe, Entituled, Paf>i/s Vrotefiing
Tx againjt Prote^ant Po^erj. Second Edition., 4* '
An Anfwer to the Amicable Accommodation of the:
DilFerences between the Reprelenter and the Anfwerer 4,
' 1' '
A Sermon at the Funeral of the Kevevyn^f.Be^amin Ca-
lamjt D. D. 4° - "
A Vindication of fome Proteftant Principles of Church-;
Unity and Catholick-Communion, from the Ch«fge of A-
greement with the Church of Rotm. 4? • ,
• v. . ^ ^ U
A Prelervative againft Popery: .Being fome iplairt Dire-
<ftions to .unlearned Proteffants, how to Depute with Ro-
mirti Priefls. Fii^ Part. Fifth Edition. 4°
A Second Part of the Prefervative againft Popery. Se-
cond Edition. 4°
T
A Vindication of both Paris of the Prefervative againft
Popery, in Anfwer to the Cavils of Lewk Sahran, Je-
fuit. 4
' 0
A Difcourfe concerning the Nature, Unity, and Com-
tnunion of the Catholick Church. Firft Part. 4®
A Sermon
liliil-'
A Sermon Preached before the Right Honourable the
Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London, on
Sunday, Novemk 4. 1688. 4*
A Vindication of the Dodlrine of the Holy and Ever-
Blefled Trinity, and the' Incarnation of the Son of God
Occafioned by the Brief Notes of the Creed of St. Athana-
fui, and the I3rief Hiftory of the Unitarians, or Socinians,
and containing an Anfwer to both..The Second Edition. 4*
The Gale of the Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers fta-
ted and refblved, according to Scripture and Reafon, and
the Principles of the Church of England j with a more par-
ticular Relped to the Oath lately enjoyned, of Allegiance
to their prefent Majefiies, King William and Qiisen Mary,
Sixth Edition. 4°
A Vindication of the Cafe of Allegiance due to Sove-
reign Powers; In Reply to an Anfwer to a late Pamphlet,
Entituled , Obedience and Submijjion to the prefent Govern'
ment dtmonfirated from Bijliop Overall Convocation'Book j
with a Pofifcript in Anfwer to Dr. Sherlock'r Cafe of AlTe-
gtancc. 4"
A Sermon Preached at White-Hall before the Queen, on
the 17th of 1691. being the Faft-day. 4*
A Pradical Difcourfe concerning Death. The Fifth E-
dition. 8»
^ Praiftical Difcourle concerning a Future Judgment.
Second Edition. 8*.
jfldC® ■
ieiB® i . ;
Printed for W. Rogers.
BOOKS
BOOKS lately f tinted for W. Rogers.
A Sermon Preached at White-HaU, before the Queen, on
the Monthly-Faft Day, September'x6th^ 1691.4"
APerfuafive to Frequent Comirtunion in the Holy Sacra-
ment of the Lord's Supper. The Eighth Edition. 12" ^
Both by the mofi Reiterend Father in God, John Lord Arch-
Btfhof of Canterbury.
A Sermon Preached on the 28th of jfrt«e,\at Andrew's
tiolbourn. By the Right Reverend Father in God John
Lord Bilhop of Fiorwicb.
A Sermon Preached on the 28th of at St. Maty k
Bow, on Sunday the Fifth of July, 1691. at theConlecra-
tion of the moft Reverend Father in God John Lord Arch-
Biflibp of Tcrk; and the Right Reverend Fathers in God,
Lord Bifliop of Norwich, Richard hovA Billiop of
Peterborough, and Edward Lord Bifhop of Gloueefier. By
Jcjhua Clark, Chaplain to the Right Reverend Father in
God, the Biftiop of JNcrM'/cA 4°
The Neceffity of Serious Confideration, and fpeedyRe-
pentance,as th,eonly way to be fafeboth living and dying. 8"
The Lambs of Chiilf fed with the frncere Milk of the
Word orGotl", in a fhort Scripture Carcchifm. 12®
The f Oily of Atheifm demonftrated to the Capacity of
the mofi unlearned Reader. 8°
Thefe Three by the Reverend Mr. Clement Elis, Reflor of
Kirby w Notingharnfhire.
Rcdedichs upon two Books, one Entituled, The Cafe of
Allegiance to a.King in Tcjfejfm. The oth.er. An Atijwer to
Dr. Sherlock'j Cap ^ AUipance to Scveretgn Powers in Pof-
Jejftcn : on thofe parts efpccially, wherein the Author endea-
voucs to ftew his Opinion to be agreeable to the Laws of
this Landl In a Letter to a Friend. 4*
A
S E R M O N
Preach'd before the
QUEEN
A T
WHITEHALL,
February the
By W ILLIAM SH'ERLOCKj D. D.
Dean of St. Paul\ Matter of the Temfle^ and Chap-
lain in Ordinary to Their MAJESTIES.
fpectal Comtitanh.
L 0 H D 0 H/,
Printed for Wtlltam Rogers, at the Sun over-
againttSt. Dmjlans Church, in Flee'Jlreet. 1692.
A
SERMON
Preached before
HER Majesty
At W M IT E-H A L L, Febr, 12. i
IV. MAT T. I.
Then Jefus led up of the Spirit into the Wilder-
nefs^ to he tempted of the Devil,
H E Temptation of our Sa-
viour, after his failing Forty
Days, is a very proper Sub-
je6l for our Meditation at
this time; and fuggefts fo
many ufeful obfervations,
that I fhall not waft any time
in a needlefs Preface J but fhall i. Confider
in general, what concerns his Temptation j
and 2. Explain the Nature of thofe particular
A 3 Tempta-!
A Sermon at White-Hall,
fi
i •••
<1
Temptations wherewith the Devil affaulted
him.
I. In general, Concerning our Saviour's be-
ing tempted by the Devil: Now to tempt, is
to make a Tryal and Experiment; and when
the Devil tempts, it is to try, if he can per-
fwade, or feduce us from the Fear, and Worlhip,
and Obedience of God.
I. Now in the firfl: place it is very obferva-
ble, that Chrift hirafelf, when he became
Man, was tempted of the Devil; and there is
no greater myftery in this, than that he waslia-
ble to hunger and cold, and had all the inno-
cent Appetites, Inclinations, Infirmities of Hu-
nun nature} that is. That he was a true and
real Man. The Ancients generally conclude,
that the Devil did not know at this time, how
great a Perfon our Saviour was, even the Eter-
nal Son of God } for it is hardly credible, that
had he known this, he would have made fo vain
and hopelefs an attempt on him: It is likely
enough, he thought him to be fome extraordb
nary perfon } He knew by the Ancient Prophe-
cies, that the ^tefficMwa.s to appear} and knew
from the Prophet Daniel, that the time for his
coming was accomplifhed ,• nay, it is probable,
he knew all the circumRances of his Birth, and
heard
before Her Majesty.
3
heard that teftimony God gave him at his Bap-
tifm, This is myheloyedSon ; but he faw he was
a Man, though an extraordinary Man,- and
might not know that he was any thing more ;
and having formerly foiled our firft Parents in
Paradife, in the State of innocence, hoped for
the like fuccefs again.
Now if Chriil himfelf was tempted by the
pevil, none of us muft hope to efcape tempt-
ed we fliall be, and therefore muft take care to>
ftandupon our guard, and to fortify our Minds
againft all tepiptations.
And this encouragement we have from the
example of our Saviour, that to be tpmpted is
no Sin, unlefs we yield to a temptation i for
He was tempted as we are, yet without fin; and
we cannot imagine, had it been a fin to be
tempted, that God would have permitted the
Devil to have tempted our Saviour; which may
eafe the fears of fome Melancholly Chriftians,
who are afflided with evil and tempting^
thoughts which their Souls abhor; for whatever
the caufe of fuch thoughts be ,. whether a
frighted and difturbed imagination, or the ftig«
geftion of wicked Spirits, they can no more
defile the Soul, which abhors and rejects them
with grief and indignation , than tiiey can
the;
-f" '
:r]
A Sermon at rWhite-Hall,
the Paper , on which they are writ.
Nay, hence we learn, that God many times m
exercifes thofe with the greateft and moft diffi-
cult Tryals and Temptations, who are moft dear i
to him. He had no fooner proclaimed Chrift
his beloved Son, in whom he was well pleafcd, jirk
but he leads him by the Spirit into the Wilder® ^{[5;
nefs, to be tempted of the Devil.
This Life is a State of Tryal and Probation ^ jJi
and Temptations,though they create fome trou-
ble and difticulty to good men, yet do them no y
hurt. If good Men Conquer, Temptations do
butexercife, encreafe, and confirm their Graces,
and make them great and illuftrious examples to
the World, glorify the Divine Power in the Vi-
(Stories and Triumphs of his Servants, over the
World, theFlefh, and the Devil j give them a ...ij
fecure hope in God, and a tranfporting fenle of .[^
his Love, and prepare great rewards for them
in the next Life. And if they happen in any
particular encounter to be overcome, as St. ,
^eter himftlf was, when he denied hisMafter;
yet they rife again with glory, and the fenfeof
theirfin, and thefliame of a defeat, fills them ,
with forrow , indignation , felf-reyenge, gives
them new fpirit, vigour, a(5livity, refolution,
makes them more patient of hardfihips and fuf-
ferings,
before Her M a-j e s T y.
5
ferings, more unwearied in doing good, more
humble and modeft, and more perfecfVly refigne
ed to the Will of God, to difpofe of them and
their Services to his own Glory, as he pleafes.
God does not train up thofe whom he Loves,
and whom he prepares for Glory, in eafe and
foftnefs; Whom the Lord kyeth he chajlneth; and
Jcourgeth eyery [on whom he rece'tveth: And the
more difficult Temptations heexpofes us to, the
greater honour he does us j the more glorious
will our Triumphs, the richer and brighter will
our Crowns be. Let us then behold our Saviour
in the Wildernefs, feparated from human con-
verfation, and all the comforts of Life, in the
midft of wild Beafts and tempting Spirits, and
not think, that God ufes us hardly, if at any
time he lets loofe the Tempter upon us, and
gives him power over all we have, as he did in
the Cafe of Job, to afflict us in our Relations,
our Bodies, our Eftates, good Names, or what-
ever gives us the fharpeft and keencft fenie of
fuffering; and is the moft difficult exercife^of
our Faith.
2. Let us confider the time, when our Savi'
our was tempted, immediately after his
Baptifm, being full ofth Holy Ghofi, 4. Luke. i.
i .
i
B
I. As
A Sermon at White-Hall,
I. As foon as our Saviour was baptized, he
was led by the Spirit into the Wildernefs. For
in my Text relates to the time of his Bap-
tifm j and St. Luke tells us, this was done in hig
return itom Jordan, where he was baptized by
John.
By this Religious Rite, our Saviour had dc-
voted himfelf to the immediate fervice of God
in the Salvation of Mankind, and was inaugu-
rated into his Prophetick OflRce, by that Tefti-
mony which was given to him by a Voice from
Heaven,T/?w is my beloved So?i in whom I am well plea-
fed 5 and this was the Critical time, both for the
Devil to tempt, and for our Saviour to baifle
all his temptations, and to triumph over him.
Could the Devil have conquered our Savb
our in this firft aflault, there had been an end of
this Glorions defign of mans Salvation, when
he had enflaved and captivated the Saviour him-
felf; and therefore he began as early with the
fecond Adam, as he did with the firil, though
not with the like fuccefs. Had our hrft Parents
refipied the firft temptation, we had been happy
for ever ; but they yielded and brought death
upon themfelves and their Pofterity ; but the
feed of the Woman, whom God had promifed,
fliould break the Serpents Head, who was made
manifejl
before Her Majesty, j
mnifejl to dejiroy the the Kingdom and the
power of the DevUfyy God's order and appoint-
menc, firft encounters him in his own perfon,
refifts his mofl: furious alTaults,makes him retreat
with fhame and defpair, as forefeeing his own
deftiny, and the final deftrudtion of his King-
dom. As the old Serpent feduced our firll
Parents in Paradice, and brought fin and mile-
ry, and death into the world, fo it was very fit-
ting that the Saviour of Mankind fhould give
the firft proof of his Divine Power in conquer-
ing the Tempter,
This gives us great encouragement to fight
under Chrift's Banners againft the World, the
Flefh, and the Devil ; for the Captain of our
Salvation has already conquered, and if we arc
not wanting to our felyes, we fhall be more thm
Conquerors through Q)rift who ftrengthem us.
He knows what the power of temptations is,
and what meafures of Grace are neceflary to re=
fift them and if we do not forfake hjm, he will
not forfake us. He has conquered himfelf, and
knows how to conquer 5 and if we faithfully ad=
here to him, we fliall conquer too.
Nay, in cafe we fhould fbme time be eon-
quered, this has made him a merciful and compaf-
fionate High ^rieft , being in all things temlited like
B 2 as
8 A Sermon at W hite-Hall^
Aswz are : He knows the .weaknefs of humane
nature, and the power and fubtilcy of the Tern-
pter, and prays for us, as he did for St. Teter^
7hat our faith fail not 5 that if we fall, we may
rife again by Repentance': And this is a mighty
Confolation, l hat if any 771m fm^ m haye an Ad'
locate Ipith the Father^ fefm Chrift the righteom^who
' is not only a Propitiation for our Sins, but was
tempted alfo, as we are.
2ly. St. Luke obferves, that our Saviour was
full of the Holy Ghoftj (which he received without
meaflire at his Baptifm, when the Holy Ghoft
defcended like a Dove, andrefted on him) be-
fore he was led by the Spirit into the Wildernefs
to be tempted of the Devil.
For Human Nature (and it was the Human
Nature of Chrift on which the Holy Ghoft de-
fcended ) cannot refift luch powerful Affaults
without Divine Afliftances. And the Example of
our Saviour affures us, that God will not expofe us
to any Temptations, without giving us proper-
tionaHemeafuresof Grace to refift them : That
if we are at any time conquered , k is not for
want of power, but for want of will to con-
quer : that is, the fault is wholly our own, and
we cannot blame God for it.
I doubt, there are few men in the World, but
* /
the
before Her Majesty.
(
the Devil (lud he the full power oF tempting)
could find out feme Temptations too big for
them; but the Divine GoodneFs is feenjaswell
in reftraining the pow^r of the Devil, that we
fliall not be tempted above what we are able to
bear, as by the ftrengthning our minds by the
internalAlTiftances oFhis Gracejand therefore our
Saviour has taught us to pray. Lead m not into
temptation J but deliver us from evil, d-Tn tS TroK/ipS,
from the wicked One, which does not fignify,
that we may never be tempted , which is i'm-
polTible, while we live in Bodies of Flefh and
Blood, and are incompafled wkh all the Flat-
tering Objecls of FleOi and Senfe ,• but that God
would not give us up into the power of the
Devil, to be tempted above what vve are
able.
Some of the Ancients oblerve from this Sto-
ry, That when we devote and confecrate our
felves to God, we muft expe(5i: to be tempted as
our Saviour was: As for bad men, who are
the Slaves and ValTals of the Devil, he cannot
fo properly be fa id to tempt,as to govern thena;
for he is the Spirit that vvorketh in the Children of dif-
okdience: but when men defert his Service, he
is very buGe to recover his Slaves again ; but
then our comfort and fecurity too, is, That
^ ' when
/-
1 o
A Sermon at White-Hall^
when we give up our felves to the Service of
God, he takes us into his prote(5lion5 the wick-
ed One cannot touch us without his leave,
and he always proportions our Trials to our
Strength.
-^dlyy Confider the Place of our Saviour's
Temptation : He iPos led by the Spirit into the
Wildernefs, where there were no tempting Ob-
jedts, but yet there the temping Spirit found
hirn.
Some men think, that the fureft way to get
tid of Temptations, is to get out of the World j
to withdraw themfelves from Human Convert
fation ; or to make a fhew of doing it, without
doing it; as if the Devil could not follow them
into aDefert, or a Cell.' While we live inBo»
dies of Flefli and Blood, we may be tempted
where-ever we are : If we mortify our Senfual
Appetites, and our love to this World, we may
live very innocently in the World ; if we do
not, we can never get rid of the World,
but where-ever we go, we carry it in our
hearts.
Do thefe men imagine, they can never be
tempted to luft, unlefs they daily fee and con-
verfe with beautiful Women ? or that they cannot
love the World without living in a Court,and en-
joying
^jUi
iOIl'l
1'iip.C
:;]k
S21111
'jifflei
I
It! ■
ti.,,
before Her Majesty.
11
joying all'the eafe and luxury of a plentitul For-
tune?or that it is not poffible to defpife theWorld
with as much haughtinefs and vanity of mind,
as any Man has, who moft admires it ? That a
Monk can't be as proud as an Emperor, and
glory as ranch in a fullen Retirement, in
Voluntary Aufterities, in an AfFe(5ted Poverty,
in a Vain Opinion of extraordinary Sandtity,
as any Man can do in Wealth and Power?
Whence came all thofe Superftitions, which
have corrupted both the Faith and Worfiiip
of Chriftianity, and done more mifchief to the
Church and Religion, than all the loofenels
of a Secular Life , but from Defarts and
the Cells of Monks and Hermites ? Wfjich
proves that the Devil has bis Temptations for
the Wildernels, as well as for the Court ^ for
the moft Religious Devotees, and Melancholly
Enthufiafts, as well as for the Men of this>
World ; and thofe the moft dangerous Temp-
rations too; which as experience tells us, open
a back-door for Pride and Ambkion, and Sccu-
lar Power, and a general corruption of Man-
ners to enter into the Church, and into the
Lives of Chriftians; And therefore we muft
■guard our felves ^.gainft the Tempter as well
in our greateft iolitudes and retirements from
the
12 -4 White-Hall,
the World, as in a croud ol bufinefs. We mull J in
have a cave of the temptations of Devotion, ijlk
and Mortification, of Fadings and Penances, of.jjilffs
a fiillen difcontent at this World, as well as of
the temptations of a bufie Life, and of an eafie o,p
and proiperous Fortune. ' yt
4thly^ I obferve, That Chrift wds led hy the w
Spirit into the Wildernefsy to be tempted of the
Devil; that is, It was God's appointment, not
his own voluntary choice. And this Teaches y'
us manfully to refift Temptations, when the
Providence of God, and the unavoidable cir-
CLimftances of our Condition bring us into i'
Temptations, but not prefumptuoufiy to thruft .,.j
our felves into them.
There is always danger in Temptations,]^
efpecially wheii we rafhly venture upon them.|?^'
Let not him that putteth on his Jrmour, boajly (W*
he that putteth it ojfy is true in our Spiritually^
Warfare. We have feen great Men conquered,
even St. Teter himfelfj and therefore Let
that thinketh he jlandeth ^ take heed left-he fall^^' ^
and not unnecefTarily venture too near aPis;
Precipice, where he may be in danger of,*«l
falling. >
w e nsx l A JEST Y .
13
0:.
Our Saviour has raugTit us to pray, that God
would not lead us into iTemptation , as I ob-
ferved before j much Icfs then ought we to lead
our felves into Temptation. VVe may eafily
prefumetoo far upon the Strength of our Faith,
our Courage, our Refolution, as Sr. Peter did,
who had he been more diffident of himfelf, had
Icept out of the High-Prieft's Hall, andefcaped
the Temptation, which he could not relift.
f \Ve daily fee, that Men who prefume upon
the Streiigth of their Coniftitution, and ufe their
Bodies ill, deftroy their Health, and Qiorten
their Lives, while Men who feel their own
weak andcrazy Temper, live on with Care to a
good Old Age ; and thus it is with refpe£f to
the Mind, as well as to the Body : Frefumption
.will deftroy thofe, whom Fear and Caution
will fecure and therefore, let ns not be high-
minded^ hntfear.
. Ther^ are a great many ways, whereby Men
^expofe themfelves to Temptation, and tempt
,even the Tempter j fome of which are very
^obvipiM : As to keep 111 Company, whofe Con-
vef^tion is a daily Temptation : Sloth and Idle-
nefs, which betrays Men to any Wickednefs,
y^hjch offers itsfelf: Lor it is an uneafie thing
to have nothrng to do, atjd thatitfelf is a Tern-
C ptatioa,
14 A Sermon at White-Hall, i
ptation, and the Devil never wants Bufinefs to jjjjj
employ fuch Men in ^ and I know nothing
worfe than this, but when Men choofe fuch
Biifinefsj as is nothing elfe butldlenefs and Va- .'j,
niry, or can only minifter to their own, or to
other Mens Lufts. . j
But there are other ways, whereby Men
thrufi: themfelves into Temptations, without
confidering what they do. I might name ma-
ny, but fliall content myfelf with fome few at
piefent, which are leaft obferved, and which
prove Snares to good Men j as for inftance :
To impofe upon our felves conftant Tasks of
Religion, that we will Read and Pray fo much, ' .
and fo often every Day, and obferve volunta- ff
ry Fafts , and abftain from fuch innocent Di- ^
^i) Of
verfions, ^c. which Men commonly refolve in •'
foma great Heats and Fits of Devotion, which
they fancy will continue in the fame fervour, ,
but never do ; and then thefe Tasks grow very
unealie, as every thing of Religion does, when
it grows a Task and then thej degenerate in- '
to dulnefs and formality, and then Men either
leave them off, and with that are tempted to 5"^^
leave off Religion itlelf j or they are fo very
cold, that they fancy themfelves fpiritually dead, -'fc
and fall into Melancholly, into Defections, into Sfei
Defpair itfelf. It
before Her Majestt.
It is a dangerous thing for Men by rafh and
arbitrary Vows, to tye themfelvesup from do-
ing that, which otherwife they might very in-
nocently do, and which they will be firongly
tempted to do, when they have vowed not to
do it. The Guides of Souls know, that this
is no imaginary Cafe, but what they fo often
meet with, and fee fuch ill effedls of, that it is
very fit to warn Men of the fnare. Were there
no other reafon again ft the Monkilli Vows of
Celibacy, Poverty, and Obedience, I fhcuid
think this fufficient, that confidcrcd only as per-
petual Vows, they are a dangerous State of
Temptation i and for my own part, I would
never advife any Man to make a perpetual Vow
to do, or not to do any thing , which it is
not perpetually his Duty to do, or not to
do,
'Thus to marry with Pcrfons of a difagrecable
Age, or a difagrceable Humour, or a contrary
Religion, h to put our felves into a ftate of
Tcihptation ; but fuch particular Inftances
^ would be cndlefs, and therefore f forbear-
If God lead us into Temptation, he will give
lis fufticicnt ftrength to refift, if we improve
his Grace j if we lead our felves into Tcmpta-
tion, andi God leave us to the power and fub-
C 2 filry
l6 A Sermon at WKite-Hallj
tilty of the Tempter , the fin and the fdify is
our own.
I obferve by what means our Saviour
conquered the Devifs Temptations, and that
was by the Authority , and by the Word of
God : It is written^ Man fhaJl not live by bread
alone. It is rvritten^ Thou /halt not tempt the
Lord thy God. It is written^ IhoH Jhalt voorjhip
the Lord thy Gody and him only jhalt thou ferve.
Thefe are fuch Anfwers, as would admit of no
Reply 5 for the Authority of God can never be
anfwered.
And thus we muft conquer alfb, if ever we
will conquer, by a firm Faith in God, and Be-
Jief of his Word : Faith is our Shield, and the
Word of God is the Sword of the Spirit, and
we have no other fure Defence againft all Tern-
ptations.
This ruined our firft Parents in Paradife, when
jtheir Reafon and Natural Powevs, were in
their greateft Vigour, Perfeffion, and Integrity, ,
that inftead of infifting on God's Authority,
they ventured to reafon the Cafe with the
Tempter. Set afide the Authority of God, and
the Devil will quickly out-wit, and out-reafon
us 5 he is skilled in all the Arts of Deceit, and
Me-
^ ^
Methods of Perfwaflons, arid without God s
Authority, our Courage, our Refolutiori, our
Honour, out Reafon itfelf^ even all the Rants
and triumphant Speculations of Philofophy, will
fail us in the Day of Trial : to Tempt, is ei-
ther to deceive, or to perfwade, and there is
no other fecure defence againft either, but the
Authority, and the Word of God. The wi-
feft Reafoner may be impofed on by fo artificial
a Tempter j but God can neither deceive, nor
be deceived, and then while we believe God,
and have regard to his Commands, we cannot
be deceived neither : And what is able to refift '^
all the Terrours and Flatteries of the World,
and the Flefii, but the Authority of that God,
who is our Maker, and our Judge ? What in-
fignificant Names are Vertue and Vice, how
weak and feeble is the fence of Decency and
Honour, and the Dignity of Human Nature, and
of a Life of Reafon Rafter we have read or writ
lb many Volumes about it) when we feel the
^ foft Charms of Pleafure, and our Eyes are filled
with vifible Glories ? Who would not part
with a fine Thought or two, with fome pret-
ty Notions of Moral Beauty, and InteIIe£lual
Pleafures, for a Happinels which may be leen
and felt ? But the Authority of G 0 D, the
firmv
18 A Sermon at White-Hall,
firm belief of his Proinifes and Threatnings,
the hopes and fears ol: anodier World, are be-
yond all other Perfwafions, unlefs any thing can
perfwade a Man to be ecernally milerable.
This may fuffice to be (poke in General,
concerning our Saviours Temptation j we come
now to confider,
II. The particular Temptation,wherewith our
Saviour was Affaultcd, and they are Three.
I. The Fir ft was to relieve his Hunger,after his
long fafting by working a Mir acle: Arid when the
Tempter came to him Joe faid^if thou be the Son of
God^ CO mmand that thefe jiones be made bread.
This was a veiy artificial Temptation^ whicii
it may be, none but Chrift himfeif would have
been aware of: For what hurt was it, for the
Son of God to work a Miracle ? VVhat hurt
was it for a Man, who .was Hungry to reliQve
his Hunger ? For here was no Temptation to
excefs, but to fatisfie the ncccfiitiej of Nati re:
What hurt was it for him,, who afterwards fed
fo many Thoufands by Miracles,^Ja this^ri?at
Diftrefs, to have wi^ught a Miracle to fatisfie
his own Hunger ? This was very Plaufible, and
looked like very charitable Advice , but yet
there was a fecrct Snare in it.
10, For this was niado a Trial, whether he
were
before Her M a J e s t y;
were the Son of God or not, Jf thou he the Son
of God^ command that thefe jlones be made bread:
Now had he complied with this, it had argued
a diftriift of his Relation to God, and of the
Love of his Father j and this was a Tempta-
tioD to Sin. Thus the Tempter dealt with
our firft Parents, made them jealous of God's
good Intentions towards them, and by that
Tempted them to Difobedience. The Serpent
faid unto the Woman^ ye fhall not furely die. For
God kpon^eth, that in the day ye eat thereof^ then
your eyes fjall he opened:, and ye fhaU be as Gods,
h^orvipg.^ood and evil. Th'atis, God envies your
Happine(s, and therefore has forbid you to Eat
of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
, Thus the Devil fuggefted to our Saviour,
that he had great reafon to Queftion, whether
he were the Son of God, becaufe he was dc-
fiitute of all the Comforts and Supports, of
Life, and after forty Days Faffing, had nothing
in the Wildernefs to Eat, unlefs he would turn
Stones into Bread.
And though this part of the Temptation
our Saviour takes no notice of in his Anfwer,
'but fcorns it; yet we find it makes a very
powerful Impreillon upon other Men, who
are apt to meafure God's Love or Hatred by
prefenf
go A Sermon at Whiite-Hailj
_____ ________ ^ - —
prefent things •, whep they ace ProfperQUs, ihey
conclude they are the Favorites of Heaven i ^
when they are Affllfted and meet with crofs
Eventf, then God is angry with them and has 'J
Forfaken them : And though this argues fuch a
fiupid Ignorance of Chriftianity, that one ;
would think, it could be no Temptation to a ?
Ghriftian, yet it is too Notorious, that three
parts of the Melancholy, the Defections, nay
defpair of many Chriftians, is owing to no
other Caufe: they think their Conditipn fafe
for the next World, while tliey are Prolperous f""
in this,but as foon as the World begins to Frown '1^
they are irrecovewbly Damned j but would ^
fuch men confider, that our Saviour himfelf ^
wanted Bread in the Wildernefs, and had no ^
place, whereon to lay his Head j it would cure
thefe/Defertions if there be no greater Guilt,
which a ftrait Fortune awakens the fenfe of,
which I doubt is too often the Cafe. "
idly-, There was another Snare in this, to '0
perfwade our Saviour, to fupply the neceffi- 'iyi
ties of Nature by extraordinary means, with-
out the immediate Dire(^iion and Command-of
^God •, for this had been a diffruft of God's >ik
' Care and Providence, to have relieved his own lex
-wants by preternatural and uncommand^d Me-
thods I
before Her Majesty.
21
thods: And therefore to this he Anfwers, It is
written^ man fljall not lii/e by bread al^ne^ but
by every word that proceedeih out of the mouth of
Cod. That is, Bread indeed is the ordinary
Prcvifion God has made for the fupport of
Mans Life, but when thefe ordinary and natu-
ral Provifions fail, he has other ways to fup-
port Life , as he fed the Ifraelites with Manna
and Quails in the Wildernefs, and gave them
Drink out of a Rock, but then we muft pati-
cntly and fecurely expe^ by what means God
will provide for us, and till the word proceed
out of his mouthy till we have fome particular
Command and Direftion for it, we mu/p take
no Extraordinary, Uncommanded, much left
Forbidden ways, to preferve our Lives: for
this is want of truft in God, or want of Sub-
miffion to his Will. Extream want and necef-
fity is almoft an irrefiftible Temptation to
human Nature, to diftruft the ordinary Provi-
fions of Providence, and to provide for our
felvcs by what means we can 5 and to juftifie
what we do by fuch neceflities: it requires a
great degree of Faith aiKl Truft in God, when
We have no Profpefi of ordinary Succors, pati-
ently to expe^ God's Provifion, without going
out of Gods way ; But thus our Saviour was
D Tem-
i
I
I
22 A Sermon at White-HaU,
tempted, and has taught us how to conquer
this Temptation, Man fhall not li<ve by bread a-
lone^ but by e'very word which proceedeth out of
the fnoHth of God: If Bread fail, we muft ex-
pe6^ by what other means God will fupplypur
Wants, and not tranfgrefs thofe Laws God nath
prefcri^d us, how defperate foever our Condi-
tion feem to be.
idly^ The next Temptation is in theothCT
extreme, to prefume fo far upon his Intcreft in
God's Favour and Prote6iion, as to make dan-
gerous and vain-glorious Experiments of God's
care : He fet him upon a pinocle of the temple, and
faid unto him. If thou be the Son of God, caU thy
felf down : for it is written, He fhall give bis an-
gels charge concerning thee, and in their hands they
fhall bear thee up, leU at any time, thou fhonlcM
daflj thy foot againU theJlone,
When the Tempter perceived, that Chrifi:
wholly relied on the Dire^ions and Authority
of Scripture, he inforces his Temptation with
Scripture too, mifunderftood and mifapplied.
And thefe are the moft dangerous Temptations
of all, which impofe upon Men with a fliew of
Religion, as our late Experience of a wild En-
thu/iaftic Age will tell us j when nothing fo
bad
V
before Her Majesty.
23
bad could be thought of, but fome Men had
Scripture-Examples, or Precepts, or Prophe/ies,
or Parables, tojuftifieit; and therefore we mud
be aware of this, as well as of all the other Arts
and Stratagems of the Tempter.
In anfwer to this our Saviour proves, that
this Text could not mean, that God would
command his Angels to bear him up in their
hands, if he Ihould fling himfelf from the Pina-
cle of the Temple, becaufe we are exprefly for-
bid, to make fuch Experiments of God's Prote-
ftion, as this: It is written^ Thou jhalt not tempt
the Lord thy God.
To tempt is to try, and to tempt God is to
try what he will, or can do for us, beyond his
Promife, and beyond the ordinary Methods of
his Providence j efpecially when we either mur-
mur againft God, for not anfwering our unrea-
fonable demands, or prefume upon his favour
to do that, which he has forbid us to do, or
exped his Prote£Iion and Blefling, when we
put our felves out of the ordinary Prote^ion of
his Providence: it were eafle, had ! time to
give inftances, of all thefe ways of tempting
God ; the Temptation of our Saviour concerns
thelaft I mentioned, out of a vain-glorious hu-
D 2 mor,
A Sermon at White-Hall, ^
^ ■■■ H ''
mour, and a prefumption of God's peculiar fa»
vour to us, voluntarily 'without any reafonable ^
pretence, much lefs necefllty, to thruft ourfelves ^
into apparent and unavoidable Dangers, and
cxpeft God (hould fave us by Miracles: for this
is what our Saviour was tempted to, to fling "
himfelf down from the Pinacle of the Temple, ^
in a prefumptuous confidence of God's care of ^
him, that he would command his Angels to
bear him up in their hands.
This looks like Faith in God^ a plerephory
of Hope, and full aflurance of his Love, but ^
indeed is Vanity, Pride, Infolence, Prefumpti* i|'
on, and a tempting of God. It is fuch an Af-
front and Indignity, as wife Men will not bear
from their befl: Friends, when they impofe up» (Go
on them, not to do them a real kindnefr, but ^
to gratifie their vanity and humour in fuch Dc- isa
mands, as a wife Man cannot honourably k
grant. k
And yet there is a more dangerous and fatal i,
Prefumption then this, when men have fiich a ili
ftrong Imagination of their being the Sons, the j,"
Chofen and Ele6^ People of God, that they
think they cannot do any thing to forfeit God's
Love: they may make more bold with 5|)[s
Laws ill
before Her M K j E s t y. '25
Laws then other Men, for God fees no fin in his
people j nay indeed, that it is no Sin to advance
themfelves, and the Caufe they have Efpoufcd,
whiph they call the Glory of God, by ex*
^ traordinary means, that is, by tranf^reffing
all the known and ordinary Rules of Juftice and
Charity.
Thefe are dangerous Temptations, and we
have feen the miferable EfFefts of them, and ,
therefore let no man think, that he is Co great
a favorite of Heaven, as to have God at his
beck to fave him by Miracles, when he wil-
folly expofes hiinfelf to fuch Dangers, as no-
thing but Miracles can Deliver him from; much
lefs to think, that God will alter the nature
of Good and Evil for his fake j that he will
difpenfe with his Laws, (Laws which are as
Eternal and Unchangeable as his own Nature)
when ever fuch vain Enthufiafts pretend to ferve
themfelves, and his Glory by the breach of
them, It is writteny Thou fhalt not tempt the Lord
i . thy Cod.
9. Thefo two Temptations were managed
with great Art to deceive, the third is open
and bare-faced. The Devil in exprefs words
tenapts him to Idolatry, with the Promife of all
the Kingdoms of the World, and the Glory of
them)
' -
2^ A Sermon at White-Hall,
them V whicli he had drawn a beautiful Land-
^kip of, and Oiew'd him from a high Moun-
tain : All thefe things tvill I gi*ve thee, if thou,
wilt fall down ahd worjhip me : Or as Sc. Lnke
relates it : All this power will I give thee^ and
the glory of them j for it is delivered unto
and to whomfoever I will^ I give it. Which in
fome fenfe was true at that time; not that the
Devil had the Supreme and Abfolutc difpofal
of Kingdoms, for Sc. Paul aflures us, that
all the Powers even of the Pagan World,
; Rom. were of God and ordained by God. But yet he
was at that time the God of this World, and
had a more viable Kingdom than Cod himfelf.
The true Worlhippers of God were at that
time chiefly confined to Judea^ a very little fpot
of Earth, but all the Power and Glory bf the
World was dn the hands of Idolaters, who
Worfiiipped the Devil and wicked Spirits;
And the force of the Argument is, as if he had
fa id to our Saviour, You call your fe If the Son
of God, and Worlhip him, but will God do
that for )ou, which I can and will do, if you
Worlhip me: You your felf fee, that he has
no Kingdom but Judea to bellow on you, and
that alfo is at prefent in the Han<?s of my
Worlhippbrs; but what is that to all the King-
doms
hefore Her M A J E s T Y;
27
doms of the World, which are at my dilpofaljand
which you iee your felt are mine and under
my Government. But our Saviour without
difputing the value of this World, or what
Power the Devil had in the difpofal of it, chides
away the Tempter with Indignation, be gone
Satan, far it k written^ thou Jhalt loporjhip the
Lord thy Gody and him only pjak than fer'z/e. But
tho* Chrift refufed this proffer, his pretended
Vicar has taken it, and revived the old Pagaa
Idolatry for the Kingdoms of the World, and
the Glory of them. r, -
This is the prevailing Temptation to this
day, to corrupt Religion, the Faith and Wor-
fhipof God for fbme temporal Advantages:
too many Men think that the beft Religion,,
which will beft ferve a fecular Intereft; And
we have reafon to think, that too many do this,
and know what they doj that their furious
Zeal for a falfe Religion is not all Ignorance
and Miftake, but an undifterabled Love of this
World: For can we think, that the Devil ne^
ver tempted any Man but Chrift, knowingly
and willingly to renounce the true Religion,
and the true Worfhip of God for this World ?
No doubt he docs, and very often prevails too j
and thefe knowing Idolaters who tnakc a down-
'' 28 ^ Sermon at WhitC-Hall, ,
■ ■ ' ' ' X f
right bargain to Wotfliip the Devil for
Kingdoms of the World and the Gfory of thehr;^
are thofe who abufe the Ignorant and Credu-
lous with a falfe and hypocritical Zeal.
But let us remember, that wc mufl H^orjhif
the Lord onr God^ arid him only mu^ we fernle^
Let us remember what our Saviour telis us,
What fhall' it projit a man^ if he gain th^ whole
rc&tld and kofe his own foul? ^Or,\Whair JhaB a
man gii^e in exchange for his foul ? Let us re-
member, that the end of R eligion is to pleafe
God, to Glorifie him, to be like him, and to ;
enjoy him for ever, and this will give us a fe- j
aire Vi^ory bVcr the World and the Devil^
Which God of his injinite Mercy grants through j
our Lord Jofus Chrifl^ to whom with the Father \
and the Holy Ghofl^ he Honour y Glcfry^ aud
Fewer^ now and for ei/yr^ Amen.
• ■ -'I - • ■ . . .
i.
%
di i
t \y'
; .z .till ysto •
ilfcv/ • IJ ■ If . ^ \ li.t
F I N J S
'V
E '>
*
( f .
» T
•;j-4
The Dean of St. Paulf's
SERMON
BEFORE THE
QUEEN.
On the i2tbo[ February ^
A
SERMON
Preach'd before the
QUEEN
A T
WHITEHALL,
Fehruary the
By William Sherlock, D. D.
Dean of St. Paul\ Mafter of the Temfle^ and Chap-
lain in Ordinary to Their MAJESTIES.
f^ubliOieD fpectal CommanD.
L 0 N D 0 H/.
Printed for Wittiam Rogers, at the Sun over-
againft St. DunjlAns Church, in Fleet fir eet. 1692.
9;';,
4
H
,V'
/ V
t.;;! v5.;:r ■' i
,:J Ir.'^ ."■ Wrrt \y - ?r ^
."J-4' ^:-*iw««.v. - -i-
. . ■ V - •• -V jvi , rf ,_, ^
; ^ T''"''^,6 "/ 3 ": ■'"-^ii ;V-TOt iw';|
■ ' ■ :. . ■. ;,.:.l.:X|iE
I
A
SERMON
Preached before
Her Majesty
k WMITU-BALL, Rk. 12.
IV. M A T T. I.
I
Then f^as Jefus led up of the Spirit into the Wilder*
nefs^ to be tempted of the DeViL
,HE Temptation of our Sa^
viour, after his fafting Forty
Days, is a very proper Sub-
jeiSt for our Meditation at
this time j and fuggefts fa?
many ufeful obfervations,
that I fhall not waft any time
in a needlefs Preface ; but fliall i. Conilder.
in general, what concerns his Temptation j
ind 2, Explain the Nature of thofe particular
A I Temptar
2 ' A Sermon at White-Hall,
Tempcations wherewith the Devil affaulted ;
him.
I. In general, Concerning our Saviour's be-
ing tempted by the Devil: Now to tempt, is ^
to make a Tryal and Experiment; and when "
the Devil tempts, it is to try, if he can per- i
fwade, or feduce us from the Fear, and Worfhip,
and Obedience of God.
1. Now in the firft place it is very oblerva- ^
ble, that Chrift himfelf, when he became '
Man, was tempted of the Devil; and there
no greater myftery in this, than that he waslia-„
ble to hunger and cold, and had all the inno-
cent Appetites, Inclinations, Infirmities of Hu-
man nature j that is, That he was a true and
real Man. The Ancients generally conclude,"
that the Devil did not know at this time, how' -
great a Perfon our Saviour was, even the Eter-
nal Son of God ^ for it is hardly credible, that
had he known this, he would have made fo vain'
and liopeleG an attempt on him: It is likely
enough, he thought him to be fome extraordh '
nary perfon ; He knew by the Ancient Prophe-
cies, that the JMeffitis was to appear j and knew^'':^
from the Prophet that the time for his|Sii
coming was accomplifhed; nay, it is probable,-^
he knew all the circumflances of his Birth, and^'i
Eeard
V
before Her Majesty.
li; heard that teftimony God gave him at his Bap-
tifm, TJjis is my beloved Son ; but he law he was
a Man, though an extraordinary Man; and
fflfi might not know that he was any thing more ;
itip and having formerly foiled our fiift Parents in
ttu Paradife, in the State of innocence, hoped for
the like fuccels again.
Now if Chrift himfelf was tempted by the
pijj Devil, none of us muft hope to efcape ; tempt-
ed we (hall be, and therefore muft take care to
jijjjf. Hand upon our guard, and to fortify our Minds
hi temptations.
And this encouragement we have from the
jjjjilj} example of our Saviour, that to be tempted is
jjjiu no Sin, unlefs we yield to a temptation,- for
was tempted as we are, yet without fin; and
cannot imagine, had it been a fin to be ^
[iikli^empted, that God would have permitted the
.Devil to have tempted our Saviour; which may
^^-.eafe the fears of lome Melancholly .Chriftians, .
■.j^who are affli(51:ed with evil and tempting-
'^jjjjjfthoughts which their Souls abhor ; for whatever .
^pjjipthe caufe of fuch thoughts be , whether a
udb^^ig^ted and difturbed imagination, or the fiig=
^ p^jreftion of wicked Spirits, they can no more -
the Soul, which abhors and rejects thern
rfli indignation , than they .can
t
A Sermon at White-Hall,
. ' . ^
the Paper , on which they are writ. |
Kay, hence we learn, that God many timespii
cxercifcs thoie with the greateft and moftdiffi--
cult Tryals and Temptations, who are moft dear.jc
to him. He had no fooner proclaimed Chrift/^
his beloved Son, in whom he was well pleafed,
but he leads him by the Spirit into the Wilder';:
nels, to be tempted of the Devil.
This Life is a State ofTryal and Probation
and Temptations,tholrgh they create fome trou-«i
. ble and difficulty to good men, yet do them ncj
hurt. If good Men Conquer, Temptations d(j
butexercife, encreafe, and confirm their Graces
and make them great and illuflrious examples t(.,
the World, glorify the Divine Power in the Vi"
(Stories and Triumphs of his Servants, over thi,,
World, the Flefli, and the Devil ^ give them j
fccure hope in God, and a tranfporting fenfe
his Love, and prepare great rewards for then,
in the next Life. And if they happen in anr
particular encounter to be overcome , as
Teter himfelf was, when he denied his Matter^'
yet they rile again with glory, and the fenfer
their fin, and thefliame of a defeat, fills therr
with forrow, indignation, felfrevenge, givj^l
them new fpirit, vigour, acStivity, refolutioL
makes rhem more patient of hardfhips and fu
feting
before Her Majesty.
ferings, more unwearied in doing good, more
' .humble and modeft, and more perfedily refign-
ed to the Will of God, to difpofe of them and
their Services to his own Glory, as he pleafes.
God does nor train up thofe whomhe Loves,
,f ■ and whorrli he- prepares for Glory, in eafe and
' foftnefs; Whom the Lord hyeth he chajlneth; and
fcourgeth eyery [on whom he receiyeth; And the
more difficult Temptations he expofes us to, the
'I" greater honour he does us; the more glorious
will our Triumphs, the richer and brighter will
'''R our Crowns be. Let us then behold our Saviour
in the Wildernefs, feparated from human con-
■f, verfation, and all the comforts of Life, in the
midftof wild Beafts and tempting Spirits, and
not think, that God ufes us hardly, if at any
time he lets loofe the Tempter upon us, and
losi* gives him power over all we have, as he did in
the Cafe of Joh^ to afflict us in our Relations,
ipffi* our Bodies, our Eftates, good Names, or what-
oiitf^ ever gives us the fliarpeft and keencft fenle.oF
fuffering; and is the moft difficult exercife of
ik^ our Faith.
i:,W 2. Let us confider the time, when our Savi=
rf our was tempted, immediately after his
rd('^ Baptifm, being full of the Holy Choft ^ 4. Luke. i.
\f<^'
B 1. As
6 • A Sermon at White-Hall,
I. As foon as our Saviour was baptized, he
was led by the Spirit into the Wildernefs. For
Then in my Text relates to the time of his Bap-
tifm j and St. Luke tells us, this was done in his
return from Jordan , where he was baptized by
John.
By this Religious Rite, our Saviour had de-
voted himfelf to the immediate fervice of God
in the Salvation of Mankind, and was inaugu»
rated into his Prophetick Office, by that Teftb *
mony which was given to him by a Voice from
Heaven,T/;h h my beloyed Son in whom I am well plea.- ,^
fed 5 and this was the Critical time, both, for the
Devil to tempt, and for our Saviour to baffle
all his temptations, and to triumph over him.
Could the Devil have conquered our Savb
our in this firft affault, there had been an. end of
this Glorious delign of mans Salvation, when
he had enflaved and captivated the Saviour him-
lelf j and therefore he began as eatly with the
fecond Jdam, as he did with the firll, though
not with the like fuccels. Had our firft Parents
refilled the firft temptation, we had been happy
for ever ^ but they yie.lded and brought death
upon themfelves and their Pofterity ; but the
feed of the Woman, whom God had promifed,
Ihould break the Serpents Head, who was made
fnanifejl
before Her M a j e s t y.
m^nifejl to deflroy the "toorks^ the Kingdom and the
power of the Vevifby God's order and appoint-
menc, firft encounters him in his own perfon,
refiits his moft furious affaults,makes him retreat
with jfihame and delpair, as forefeeing his own
deftiny, and the final deftrudtion of his King-
dom. As the old Serpent feduced our firll
Parents in Paradice, and brought fin and mile-
,ry, and death into the world, fo it was very fit-
ting that the Saviour of Mankind fihould give
the firft proof of his Divine Power in conquer-
ing the Tempter.
This gives us great encouragement to fight
under Chrift's Banners againft the World, the
Flelh, and the Devil; for the Captain of our
Salvation has already conquered, and if we are
not wanting to our felves, we /h^ll be more thm
Conquerors through Qhr 'tjl who ftrengthens us.
He knows what the power of temptations is,
and what meafures of Grace are neceflary to re='
fift them; and if we do not Forfake him, he will
not forfake us. He has conquered himfelf, and
knows how to conquer; and if we faithfully ad'
here to him, we fhall conquer too.
Nay, in cafe we fhould fbme time be .con-
quered, this has made him a merciful and compnf-
jionate High Triefl , being in ail things tempted like
B
8 A Sermon at W hite-Hall^
(vs we are : He knows the weaknefs of hunaane
nature, and the power and fubtilty of the Tem»
pter, and prays for us, as he did for St. Teter,
7hat our faith fail not; that if we fall, we may
rife again by Repentance : And this is a mighty
Confolation, That if any mm fin^ we haye an Ad*
Vocate 'With the Father^ Jefws Chrift the righteous
is not only a Propitiation for our Sins, but was
tempted alio, as we are.
ily. St. Luke obferves, that our Saviour was
full of the Holy Ghjl, (which he received without
meafure at his Baptifm, when the Holy Ghoft
defcended like a Dove, and refted on him) be-
' .fore he was led by the Spirit into the Wildernefs
to be tempted of the Devil.
For Human Nature (and it was the Hutiian
Nature of Chrift on which the Holy Ghoft de-
fcended ) cannot refift ftich powerful Aflaults
without Divine Affiftances. And the Example of
our Saviour aflures us, that God will not expofeus
to any Terhptations, without giving ns propor-
tionablemeafuresof Grace to refift them : That
if we are at any time conquered , it is not for
want of power, but for want of will to con-
quer: that is, the fault is wholly our own, and
we cannot blame God for it.
I doubt, there are few men in the World, but
the
before Her M
A J E S T Y.
' the Devii (had he chc full power of tempting)
could find out Ibme Temptations too hig for
I them; but the Divine Goodnefs is feeojaswell
in reftraining the power of the Devil, that we
fhall not be tempted above what we are able to
bear, as by the ftrengthning our minds by the
r internalAfliftances of his Gracejand therefore our
I Saviour has taught us to pray , Lead m not into
tem^tation^ but deltVef m from eVd ^ oTTra Ta Trwi^pS,
j from the wicked One, which does not fignify,
I that we may never be tempted ,* which is im-
pofhble, while we live in Bodies of Flefh and
Blood, and are incompafled with all the flat-
tering Objedts of FleBi and Senfe,- but that God
would not give us up into the power of the
Devil, to be tempted above what we are
able.
Some of the Ancients oblerve from this Sto-
ry, That when we devote and confecrate our
felves to,God, we mufi; expedf to be tempted as
our. Saviour was ; As for bad men, who are
the Slaves and ValTals of the Devil, he cannot
fo properly be Did to tempt,as to govern them;
for he is the Spirit that Ti^orketh in the Children of dif
obedience: but when men defert his Service, he
is very buBe to recover his Slaves again ,• but
then our comfort and fecurity too, is, That
when
lo .A Sermon at White-Hall,
when we give up our felves to the Service of
God, he cakes us into his protedioh; 'the wick-
ed One cannot touch us without his leave,
and he always proportions our Trals to our
Strength.
Confider the Place of our Saviour's
I'empcation : He jpos led by the Spirit into the
Wildernefsy where there were no tempting Qb-
jedts, but yet there the temping Spirit found
him.
' Some men'think, that the furefl: way to get
rid of Temptations, is to get out of the World;
to- withdraw themfelves from Human Convert
fation ; or to make a fhiew of doing it, without
doing it j as if the Devil could not follow them
into a Defect, or a Cell. While we live in Bo*
dies of Flefh and Blood, we may be tempted
where-ever we are : If we mortify our Senfual
Appetites, and our love to this World, we may
live very innocently in the World ; if we do
not, we can never get rid of the World ,
but where-ever we go, we carry it in our
- hearts. •
Do thefe men imagine, they can never be
tempted to luft, unlefs fhey daily fee and con-
verfe with beautiful Women ? or that they cannot
love the World without living in a Court,and en-
joying
before Her Majesty.
11
til:
litfe:
iCocfi:
\\\\k
loivtk.
iveiiil*.
itflUpE
rWtt
ircniJ'
■ ite
ToiU.
• in CIS
ei'Cf ^
id CO0'
canno'
tndef'
joying all the cafe and luxury of a plencikil For-
tune?orthat kis nocpoffible to defpife the World
with as much haughtinefs and vanity of mind,
as any Man has, who moft admires it ? That a
Monk can't be as proud as an Emperor, and
glory as much in a fullen Retirement, in
Voluntary Aufteritles, in an Affedted Poverty,
in a Vain Opinion of extraordinary SancSbity,
as;any Man can do in Wealth and Power?
Whence came all thofe Superftitioiis, which
have corrupted both the Faith and Worfliip
of Chriftianity, and done more mifchief to the
Church and Religion , than all the loofenefs
of a Secular Life, but from Defarts and
the Cells of Monks and Hermites ? Which
proves that the Devil has his Temptations for
the Wildernels, as well as for the Court ^ for
the moft Religious Devotees, and Melancholly
Enthuiiafts, as well as for the Men of this
World 5 and thofe the moft dangerous Temp-
tationstoo; which as experience tells us, open
a back door for Pride and Ambition,, and Sccu-
l.ar Power, and a general corruption of Mai>
ners to enter into the Church, and into the
Lives of Chriftians: And therefore we muft
guard our felves againft the Tempter as well
in our greateft folitudes and retirements from
the
12 A Sermon at W hite-Hallj
Oi
the World, as in a croud ol bufineis. We muft
have a care of the temptations of Devotion,
and Mortification, of Fallings and Penances, of
a fullen difcontent at this World, as well as of
the temptations of a bufie Life, and of an eafie
and prolperous Fortune.
'0
Cot
01
4thly, I obrerve, That Chrift trtis led hy the
Spirit into the Wildernefs, to be tempted of the
E5evil; that is, It was God's appointment, not iih
his own voluntary choice. And this Teaches
us manfully to refill Temptations, when the jfci
Providence of God , and the unavoidable cir- jLf
CLimllances of our Condition bring us into
Temptations, but not prefumptuoufly to thrufl:
our felves into them. jifc
There is always danger in Temptations,
efpecially when we rafhly venture upon them,
Let not him that putteth on his Armour, hoaji^ as
he that putteth it ojf^ is true in our Spiritual
Warfare. We have (een great Men conquered,
even St. ^eter himfelfi and therefore Let him
that thinketh he jlandeth, take heed lefi he fall^
and not unnecelfarily venture too near a i
Precipice, where he may be in danger of
falling.
:
'•ii
Our
I
.before Her M a j e s t y. 13
t. Our Saviour has taught us to pray, that God
would not lead us into Temptation , as l ob-
ferved before \ much Icfs then ought we to lead
our ifekes into Temptation. We may eafily
prefumetoo far upon the Strength of our Faith,
our Courage, our Refolution, as St. Feter did,
who had he been more diffident of himfelf, had
kept out of the High-Prieft's Hall, and efcaped
the Temptation, which he could not refift.
T We daily fee, that who prefume upon
the Strength of their Conftitution, and ufe their
Bodies ill, defiroy their Health, and fhorten
their Lives, while Mep who feel their own
weak and crazy Temper, live on with Care to a
good Old Age^ and thus it is with refpc£i: to -
the Mind, as well as to the Body : Prefumption
will deftroy thofe, whom Fear and Caution
\Vill fecure j and therefore, ht us not be high-
minded^ bnt fear.
There are a great many ways, whereby Men
expofe themfelves to Temptation, and tempt
even the Tempter *, fome of which are very
obviotw : As to keep III Company, whofe Con-
verfation is a daily Temptation : Sloth and Idle-
nefs, which betrays Men to any Wickednefs,
which offers itsfelf^i For it is an uneafie thing
to have nothing to do, and that itfelf is a Tem-
C ptation,
14- A Sermon at White-Hall,
ptation, afid the Devil never wants Buiinefs to
employ fiich Men in j and I know nothing
worfe than this, but when Men choofe fuch
Bulinels, as is nothing elfe but Idlcnels and Va*
niry, or can only minifter to their own, or to
other Mens Lufts.
But there are other ways, whereby Men
thrufi: themfelves into Temptations, without
confidcring what they do. I might name ma»
ny, but (hall content my (elf with fome few at
prefent, which are leaft obferved, and which
prove Snares to good Men j as for inftance :
To impofe upon our felves conftant Tasks of
Religion, that we will Read and Pray fo much,
and fo often every Day, and obferve volunta-
ry Fafts, and abftain from fuch innocent Di-
[ verfions, which Men commonly refolve i»
fome great Heats and Fits of Devotion, which
they fancy will continue in the lame fervour,
but never do j and then thefe Tasks grow very
uneafie, as every thing of Religion does, when
it grows a Task y and then they degenerate in-
to dulnels and formality, and then Men either
feave them olF, and with that are tempted to
leave off Religion itlelf; or they are lb very
cold, that they fancy themfelves fpiritualiy dead,
and fall into Melancholly, intoDefertions, into
Defpair itfeff It
/
before Her Majesty. i $ *
It is a dangerous thing for Men by ra(h and
arbitrary Vows, to tye themfelves up from do-
ing that, which otherwife they might very in- «
nocently do, and which they will be ftrongly
tempted to do, when they have vowed not to
do it. The Guides of Souls know, that this
is no imaginary Cafe, but what they fo often
meet with, and fee fuch ill efFe6:s of, that it is
very fit to warn Men of the fnare. Were there
no other reafon againft the MonkiOi Vows of
CelibacyPoverty, and Obedience, I Ihould
think this fufficient, that confidered only as per-
petual Vows, they are a dangerous State of
Temptation i and for my own part, I would
never advife any Man to make a perpetual Vow
to do, or not to do any thing, which it is
not perpetually his Duty to do, or not to
do.
Thus to marry with Perfons of a difagreeable
Age, or a difagreeable Humour, or a contrary
Religion, is to put our felves into a ftate of
Temptation j but fuch particular Inftances
would be endlefs, and therefore I forbear
If God lead us into Temptation, he will give
us fufficient ftrength to refift, if we improve
his Grace ; if we lead our felves into Tempta-
tion, and God leave us to the power and fub-
C 3 _ tilry
<•*
A Sermon at White-Hall,
tilty of the Tempter, the hn and the folly is
our own.'
tythly^ I obferve by what means our Saviour
conquer^ the Devil's Temptations, and that
was by the Authority , and by the Word of
God : It is written^ Man jhall not li've by bread
alone. It ii written^ Xhon fjalt not tempt the
Lord thy God. It is rvritten^ Jhon fljalt. worp?ip
the Lord thy God, and him only Jhalt thou fer've.
Thefe arc fuch Anfwers, as would admit of no
Reply ; for the Authority of God can never be
anfwered.
And thus we muft conquer alfo, if ev^r we
will conquer, by a firm Faith in God, and Be-
lief of his Word : Faith is our Shield, and the
Word of God is the Sword of the Spirit, and
we have no other fure Defence againft all Tern-
ptations.
This ruined our firfi: Parents in Paradife, when
their Reafon and Natural Powers, were in
their greateft Vigour, Perfedion, and Integrity,
that infiead of infixing on God's Authority,
they ventured to reafon the Cafe with the
Tempter. Set alide the Authority of God, and
the Devil will quickly out-wit, and out-reafon
us i he is skilled in all the Arts of Deceit, and
Me-
before HerM^JESTy. 17
Methods of Perfwaflons, and without God's
Authority, our Courage, our Refolution, our
Honour, out Reafon itfelf, even all the Rants
and triumphant Speculations of Philofophy, will
fail us in the Day of Trial : to Tempt, is ei-
ther to deceive, or to perfwade, and there is
no other fecure defence againft either, but the
Authority, and the Word of God. The wi-
• fell Reafoner may be impofed on by fo artificial
a Tempter i but God can neither deceive, nor
be deceived, and then while we believe God,,
and have regard to his Commands, we cannot
be deceived neither : And what is able to refill
all the Terrours and Flatteries of the World,
and the Flefii, but the Authority of that God,-
who is our Maker, and our Judge ? What in-
fignificant Names are Vertue and Vice, how.
weak and. feeble is the fence of Decency and
Honour, and the Dignity of Human Nature, and.,
of a Life of Realbn ("after we haveread-or writ
fo.many Volumes about itj when we feel the-
foft Charms.of Pleafure, and our Eyes are filled,
with vifible Glories ? ^ Who would not part.-
with a fine Thought or two, withTome pret-
ty Notions of Moral. Beauty, and rntelled:ual.
Pleafiires, for a Happinefs which may be feen
> and felt ? But th^ Authority of .GO-jD, the
firm '
18 A Sermon at White-Hali,
"firm belief of his Promifes and Threatnings,
the hopes and fears of another World, are be-
yond all other Perfwafions, unlefs any thing can
pcrfwade a Man to be eternally miferable.
This may fuffice to be fpoke in General,
concerning our Saviours Temptation 5 we come
now to confider,
11. The particular Temptation,wherewith our
Saviour was Aflaulted, and they are Three.
I. The Firft was to relieve his Hunger,after his
long fafting by working a Miracle: And when the
Tempter came to him^he jaid^ if thou be the Son of
God^ CO mmand that thefe jiones be made bread.
This was a very artificial Temptation, which
it may be, none but Chrift himfelf would have
been aware of: For what hurt was it, for the
Son of God to work a Miracle What hurt
was it for a Man, who was Hungry to relieve
his Hunger } For here was no Temptation to
excefs, but to fatisfie the necefiitics of Nature;
What hurt was it for him, who afterwards fed
fo many Thoufands by Miracles, in this great
Diftrefs, fo have wrought a Miracle to fatisfie
his own Hunger ? This was very Plaufible, and
looked like very charitable Advice , but yet
there was a fecret Snare in it.
if?, For this was made a Trial, whether he
were
before Her M A J E s T
I5>
were the Son of God or not, If iboa be the Son
of God^ command that tbefe Jiones he made bread:
Now had he complied with this, it had argued
a of his Relation to God, and of the
Love of his Father, and this w'as a Tempta-
tion to Sin. Thus the Tempter dealt with
our firft Parents, made them jealous of God s
good Intentions towards them, and by that
Tempted them to Difobedience. The Serpent
jaidnntothe Womanyj/e fhall not furely die. For
God hpowethy that in the day ye eat thereofy then
yoHr eyes fjall be apenedy and ye jhall be as Godsy
Iqwmng good and e'uiL That is, God envies your
Happuiefe, and therefore has forbid you to Eat
of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Thus the Devil fuggefted to our Saviour,
that he had great reafon to Qyeftion, whether
he were the Son of God, becaufe he was de-
ftitute of all the Comforts and Supports of
Life, and after forty Days Fafting, had nothing
in the Wildernefs to Eat, unlels he would turn
Stones into Bread.
And though this part of the Temptation
our Saviour takes no notice of in his Anfwer,
but fcorns it; yet we find it makes a very-
powerful Impreflion upon other Men, who
are apt to meafure God's Love or Hatred by
prcfent
20 A Sermon at White-Hall,
prefcnt things *, when they are Profperous, the'y
conclude they are the Favorites of Heaven V
when they are Afflided and meet with crofs
Event?, then God is angry with them knd hafe
forfaken them ; And though this'argues fuch a
ftupid Ignorance of Chriftianity , ' thkt one
would think, it could be no Temptation to a
Chriftian, yet it is too Notorious, that three
parts of the Melancholy^ the DefeVrions, nay
defpair of many Chriftians , is owing to no
other Caufe: they think their Condition fafe
for the next World, while they are Profperous
inthisjbut as foon as the World begins to Frown
they are irrecoverably Damned j but would
fuch men confider, that our Saviour himfelf
wanted Bread in the Wildernefs, and had- no
place, whereon to lay his Head j it would cure
thefe Defertions if there be no greater Guilty
which a ftrait Fortune awakens the fenle of,
which I doubt is too often the Cafe. ^
'idljfy There was another Snare in this, to if;
perfwade our Saviour, to fupply the necefli-
ties of Nature by extraordinary means, with-
out the immediate Diredion and Command of i|t^f
God j for this had been a diftrufl: of God's
Care and Providence, to have relieved his own
wants by preternatural and uncommanded -Me- ,>
thods
before Her Majesty. 2i
thods: And therefore to this he Anfwers, It h
ifjyfj' written^ vtan ^jall tiot live by bread alme^ but
itiuj, h ^ord that proceedeth out of the mouth of
Cod, That is, Bread indeed is the ordijiary
ssfijd, Providon God has made for the fupport of
ilijti Mans Life, but when thefe ordinary and natu-
itioBK. Provifions fail, he has other ways to lup-
lit^ port Life , as he fed the Ifraelites with Manna
ifliu iy and Quails in the Wilderncfs, and gave them
upu; Drink out of a Rock, but then we muft pati-
ently and fecurely expc6i: by what means God
'roljw: provide for us, and till the -word proceed
OHt of his mouthy till we have Ibme particular
iitiyjy; Command and Dirediion for it, we muft take
[[fllml no Extraordinary, LIncommanded, much lefs
Forbidden ways, to preferve our Lives: for
this is want of truft in God, or want of Sub-
iffCi miflion to his Will. Extream want and necef-
fciifcji fify is almoft aa. irrefiftible Temptation to
human Nature, to diftruft the ordinary Provi-
ty t lions of Providence, and to provide for our
iiecci ^^ves by what means we. can^ and to juftifie
ifit!; what we do by fuch necefilties: it requires a
0k great degree of Faith and Truft in God, when
"Goif We have no Profpeft of ordinary Succors, pati-
jjjotf! ently to expert God's Provifion, without going
(fMf out of Gods way ; But thus our Saviour was
iodsij D Tern-
22
A Sermon at White-Hall,
tempted, and has taught us how to conquer
this Temptation, Man fhall not live by bread
lone^ but by every word which proceedeth out of
the jnoHth of God: If Bread fail, we muft ex-
' pe£l: by what other means God will fupply our
Wants, and not tranfgrefs thofe Laws God hath
prefcribed us, how defperate foever our Condi- ^
tion feem to be.
I
'xdly^ The next Temptation is in the other
extreme, to prefume fo far upon his Intereft in
God's Favour and Protection, as to make dan- v
gerous and vain-glorious Experiments of God s ^
care : He fet him upon a pinacle of the temple, and -
faid unto him. If thou be the Son of God, caU thy
felf down : for it is written, He jhall give his an- c
gels charge concerning thee, and in their hands they
Jhall bear thee up, leH at any time, thou JhouldSi :
dajh thy foot againU theJione- ii
When the Tempter perceived, that Chrift ;
wholly relied on the Dire<^ions and Authority i
of Scripture, he inforces his Temptation with .r
Scripture too, mifunderftood and mifapplied.
And thefe are the moft dangerous Temptations
of all, which impofe upon Men with a (hew of
Religion, as our late Experience of a wild En-
thufiaftic Age will tell us j when nothing fo
bad
before Her Majesty.
23
bad could be thought of, but fome Men had
Scripture-Examples, or Precepts, or Prophefics,
^ ^il or Parables, to juftifie it; and therefore we muft
iiib be aware of this, as well as of all the ofher Arts
and Stratagems of the Tempter.
In ahfwer to this our Saviour proves, that
ifCoi this Text could not mean, that God would
command his Angels to bear him up in their
hands, if he Ihould fling himfelf from the Pina-
tkoik cle of the Temple, becaufe we are exprcfly for-
Dteitlii bid, to make fuch Experiments of God's Prote-
wki:. dion, as this: It is written, Thon fhalt not tempt
! of Go£ the Lord thy God.
To tempt is to try, and to tempt God is to
iIjjIii try what he will, or can do for us, beyond his
Promife, and beyond the ordinary Methods of
yiik his Providence ; efpecially when we either mur-
Dfjinii mur againft God, for not anfwering oyr unrea-
fonable demands, or prefume upon his favour
t CW *^0 do that, which he has forbid us to do, or
othorid exped his Protet^ion and Bleffing, when we
g[, ffio put our felves out of the ordinary Prote^ion of
■jppiki his Providence: it were eafle, had I time to
pfltioa give inflances, of all thefe ways of tempting
jlifwoi God j the Temptation of our Saviour concerns
the laft I mentioned, out of a vain-glorious hu-
jjflgfo- ^ D 2 mor,
bad
2^ A Sermon at White-Hall,
mour, and a prefumption of God's peculiar fa-
vour ro ns, voluntarily without any reafonable
pretence, much lefs neceffity, to thiuft ourfelves
into apparent and unavoidable Dangers, and
exped God (hoiild fave us by Miracles: for this
is what our Saviour was tempted to, io fling
himfelf down from the Pinacle of the Temple,
in a prefumptuous confidence of God's care of
him, that he would command his Angels to
bear him up in their hands,
This looks like Faith in Cod, a plerephory
of Hope, and full aflurance of his Love, but
indeed is Vanity, Pride, Infolence, Prefumpti-
on, and a tempting of Goct. It is fuch an Af-
front and Indignity, as wife Men will not bear
from their beft Friends, when they impofe up-
cin them, not to do them a real kindnefs, but
to gratifie their vanity and humour in fuch De-
mands, as a wife Man cannot honourably
grant.
And yet there is a more dangerous and fatal
Prefumption then this, when men have fuch a'
flrong Imagination of their being the Sons, the
Chofen and Ele6i: People of God, that they
think they cannot do any thing to forfeitGod's
Love: they may make more bold with- Cod's
Laws
before Her M a j e s t y. ^
Laws then other Men, for God fees no fin in his
people y nay indeed, that it is no Sin to advance
themfclves, and the Caufe they have Efpoufed,
which they call the Glory of God, by ex»
traordinary means, that is, by tranl^refling
all the known and ordinary R ules of Jufticeand
Charity.
Thefe are dangerous Temptations, and we
have feen the miferable EfFeds of them, and
therefore let no man think, that he is lo great
a favorite of Heaven, as to have God at his
beck to fave him by Miracles, when he wil-
fully expofes himfelf to fuch Dangers, as no-
thing but Miracles can Deliver him from j much
lefs to think, that God will alter the nature
of Good and Evil for his fake ; that he will
difpenfe with his Laws, (Laws which are as
Eternal and Unchangeable as his own Nature}
when ever fuch vain Enthufiafts pretend to ferve
themfelves, and his Glory by the breach of
them,' It is written^ Thon Jhalt not tempt the Lord
thy Cod.
9. Thefe two Temptations were managed
with great Art to deceive, the third is open
and bare-faced. The Devil in exprefs words
tempts him to Idolatry, with the Promife of all
the Kingdoms of the World, and the Glory of
them 9
W
■
26 A Sermon at White-Hall,
them s which he had drawn a beautiful Land-
skip of, and fhew'd him from a high Moun-
tain : All thefe things voill I gi'ue thee, if thon
milt fall down and worjhip me : Or' as St. Luke
relates it: All this power will I gi'ue thee, and
the glory of them *, for it is deli'uered unto me,
and to whomfoe'uer I will, I gi'ue it. Which in
feme fenfe was true at that time; not that the
Devil had the Supreme and Abfolute difpofal
of Kingdoms, for St. Paul aflures us, that
all the Powers even of the Pagan World,
15 Rom. were of God and ordained by God. But yet he
was at that time the God of this World, and
had a more vifible Kingdom than God himfelf.
The true Worlhippers of God were at that
time chiefly confined to Juded, a very little fpot
of Earth, but all the Power and Glory of the
World was in the hands of Idolaters, who
Worfhipped the Devil and wicked Spirits:
And the force of the Argument is, as if he had
faid to our Saviour, You call your felf the Son
of God, and Worfhip him, but will God do
that for you, which I can and will do, if you
Worlhip me: You your felf fee, that he has
no Kingdom but Jndea to beftow on you, and
that alfo is at prefent in the Hands of my
Worfliippers i but what is that to all the King-
doiiis
before Her Majesty;
doms of theWorldjwhich are at my difpofaljand
which you fee your felf are mine and under
my Government. But our Saviour without
difputing the value of this World, or what
Power the Devil had in the difpofal of it, chides
away the Tempter with Indignation, be gone
Satan, For it is tpritten, thou fhalt rporjhip the
Lord thy God, and him only fait thou [erve. But
tho' Chrift refufed this proffer, his pretended
Vicar has taken it, and revived the old Pagan
Idolatry for the Kingdoms of the World, and
the Glory of them.
This is the prevailing Temptation to this
day, to corrupt Religion , the Paith and Wor-
fhip of God for fome temporal Advantages:
too many Mep think that the bcft Religion,
which will beft ferve a fecular Intereff j And
we have reafon to think, that too many do this,
and know what they do; that their furious
Zeal for a falfe Reli^on is not all Ignorance
and Miftake, but an undifferabled Love of this
World : For can we think, that the Devil ne-
ver tempted any Man but Chrift, knowingly
and willingly to renounce the true Religion,
and the true Wor fhip of God for this World ?
No doubt he does, and very often prevails too;
and thefe knowing Idolaters who make a down-
28
A Sermon at White-Hall,
right bargain to Worfliip the Devil for the
Kingdoms of the World and the Glory of them,
are thole who abufe the Ignorant and Credu-
lous with a falfe and hypocritical Zeal.
But let us remember, that we muh: IVorPjip
the Lord our God, and him only mufl rpe fer've:
Let us remember what our Saviour tells us.
What Jhall it projit a man^ if he gain the whole
world and loofe his own foul? Or, PL hat Jhall a
man gi*ve in exchange for his foul? Let us re-
member, that the end of Religion is to pleafe
God, to Glorifie him, to be like him, and to
en)oy him for ever, and this will give us a fe-
cure Viflory over the World and the Devil,
Which God of his infinite Mercy grants through
our Lord Jefus Chriji, to whom with the Father
and the Holy Choji, be Honour , Glory, aud
Power, now and for e^ver. Amen,
FINIS
j;r!;
el:
ni
tli
iDiiel
eplffi
3ii(!!l
lUlk*'
Dcti'
/i
A
i/
tSERMON
Preached at the Funeral of
Dr. Meggot,
T>ecemk lo. l6$2.
i 11*-^' %-i
3BsMteMs!*SiW'5foil
SERMON
PREACHED
At the Funeral of the Reverend
RICHARD MEGGOT D D
AND LATE
Dean oiWINCHESTER,
Decemb. lo'\ i6^2*
TVVICKENHA M.
iy WILLIAM SHEKLOC K, D.D.
Dean of St. Pauls, MaRer of the Temple, and
Chaplain in Ordinary to their Majcfties.
I\I P R IM A T U R,
Geo. Rojje R. R"^"- in Chrifto Patri ac
Decemo. i8. Dom. YjOm. yohanm AxdlneTp. Cantuar.
1692. a Sacris Domeft.
London: Printed for at the Sun |
overagainR St.DunJlatis Church m Fleetfleet. 169 3
iT^
*» i I'll'l
A
f»'-
J-' •'',
• - L \(5pLv4|
lA P^4|
-------,i,,i,a^x«3i»*:
r
"•'"■■ 1,:^! t«534V^^^«CK>ofm£
:nl.s ' 'f'iK3.(li'"^^jR5l
;*"■
•'•» r
I P H I Li 23, 24..
For I nnr in a firdit hetmxt tm ^
; ^'Fdvjng d. deftre, to depart, and t6
he mth Chrijl, 'ttfhicPis far bet-'
ter. f
Neverthelef to abide in the ftejh u
" more needful for f '
t
T. Paul wrote! this E'piftle to
Fhilippi from Rome^ where he
was in Bonds for the Gofpel j
k ^ but though his Body was confined
to a Prifon, his Soul, his great
Divine Soul was at Liberty to vifit the
Churches he had planted, to advife
and counfel and comfort them, to en-
creafe their Knowledge, and to confirm
their Faith, to inflame their 2^al, and to
Ipur them forward to more perfed: Attain-
ments in all Piety and Vertue.
The
2 A Sermon preached at the
The Philtppians feem greatly concern-
ed leaft the Progrefs of the Gpfpel fhould
be hindred by St. /*hMT'snImpri£)nmenr,
and leaft they and the whole Church
{h(«ald iwvidtpnved,AOf ^^the' Labpu^
Miniftry of fo, great an Appftle, fliould
this Perfcciition 'extend to L&, they liad
reaTon to *fear It wodld. ^ ^
That his Bonds Wt€fe.^^^I^ ^e .ftlrthew
of the Gofpel j for his'Imptironment was
taken notice of both in the Court and
CkyjJ '^ich made Men cbridus. tb
wftat 'tftat Doiftrine was; which ^
preai^faefl ,jiiand^for which he Wfwfe
Bonds, and 'this puBIiflied the GofpaJ
ihoi^ efteddaJIy than his 'Pdeaching tomd
haW doaeVfe'. . \ . > { /
•?'ivb o- , by Jifq ,:\ ,
As«for the fecond, he tells them-), He
was no farther concerned either about
Life or E>eaidi,nbiir .that ChriftfhiighQibc
magtiified >m >iBody^ f)If he livcdi, his
Life was wholly ideVoiced to the Service of
Chrift,
Pmemi ^Meggot. 3
Gfeift', and of his Chiiroh ^ he diid, it
wodW be for bis oWA great Advafttagcr
me to live is Chrifl , and to die k gain \
vepC aarSf. and this rpade it a hard
choice to him V whether he iKouId defirc
io^live or die: whether he ihouFd get
rid of hii Bonds, and make his Efcape
(3>nt of a trouWefom World into the Re*
gi^s of Eafif and'Relf,^ to>reap the Fruit
®f his Laboe^rs here 4iO thO'i^fnal Enjoyi
ntcht 'of his Lordfy i whoitt j<^he had fo
faithfully ierved ; or whether he (hould
fiw to'Encouitter'with a fhoufand |Di^^
fiCrtkics''and Deaths^ klli'fhej Service' of
Ghttft, Und of 1'the Solib rrf" ^c^K^^< Whid
I flfoUfd chofi I rpot mt jy foir I am in a
fir ait betwixt two , loavi^g a defire to ofo-
part and to he wiih ChriHy wloich k far
better :• mverthtlefi y'to abide' inythe Flijhk
mdre needful for you, ^ ' b
i
Was there ever fuch a Difpute as this
before, That a Miartj'J^whd'' was^as;3C«rfc
rain to go to Heaven, as'^'he- "Was toLdiei
who had hinifelf heendhatch'd up into the
third
third :HcaV^sv Mind pqflbft
withilrong aad;^gorows and lively Ideas
of the Glories of that place, who had feen
and heard fiichfthiqg? as cpuld not be ex-
phefledV^who fslw a: CrowiJr^Va glcg-ioiis
immaroeflible CroWq, prepared, for hitn i I
fay^ that fuch a Man fliould make any
queftioih what he fl)ouId chofe , whether
inimediateJy tQ)ita^ke'pOlleffipiT of this
Crovi®'and Kingdpo^ fjiPt to., live longer
iij thid Wbrld to rfu^jtr) Bonds and Im-
prifonmchtsHunger,, ;and Cold, and
S«;tipc's,iand;4ll thq dJvMftgP) which he had
fo offefl jftiet rWithi fpla np other reaCqn
but^ftill to'preaehltjip (^/pel, land to eii-
large vth^ Borders of Chrift'^ Church.
What a Contempt is this, not only of
the little Pleafurea and .Satisfadions, but
eyav.of all.,the Miferies of. Life! what
a Triumph is this over the' World ,, o-
ver all the Frowns and Terrours of it!
what a Triumph is this over Self! fiich
a. degree 8 of Self denial as the Gofpel it
felf ;does not command, which is in fome
fenceito deny Heaven, to deny all the
M- Joys
Funeral of ©r- Meggdt-
Joys of Chrift's Prefence for the fake of
doing good ! for it is to delay to put
oflP'Heaven, to adjourn his own Jdappi-
nefs, that he may live the longer to fccve
his great Maftcr, though with great Dif-
ficulties. and Labours. What Love was
this to his Lord! what Love was this to
the Souls of Men ! it is certainly the
'perfe6i imitation <^f the ' Love of
Chrift, that is poflible to Manj Chrift fb
loved us as to come down from -Heaven
to live a laborious Lif6, rand to die .an
acciirfed Death for us^ this^^gpcat. Apd^-
ftle fo loved his Lord, and fo loved the
Souls of Men. that^he made it ; his choice
* »
to ftay fome time out of Heaven , and
to encounter all -the - Mifeirjcs and iTer-
rours of this Life , to'ferve Ghrift -and
his Church. Where is this Divine Spi-
fit now to be found I Let usmy be-
loved Brethren , who are entriifted aUb
with the Care of Souk'by
f)erd and Bijhop -of'\pHr' 5'o«)j'-p>bludf\to
think how far fliort we fall of this Ejt-
ample : let this infpire us with a flaming
B Love
I I 6 A Sermon preached at the
, !)
Love and Zeal ibr'lthe Souls of Men,
i i for whom Chrift died , and make us at
jf- ;
i leaft contented to deny our felvcs fome
^ i of the Eafe and Security and Pleafures
I of Life, to ferve the Church of Chrift,
i which he hath purchafed with his own
I blood. \
I But to keep my felf \vithin fome
Bounds , I fhall briefly Difcourfe on thefe
two Heads, which are very proper for
this Occafion, and verjr proper to my
j Text. Firfi , The great Rewards of
• faithful Paftors and Miniffers of Chrift ,
and how much it is for their advantage
to be removed out of this World. St.
Paul was very fenfible of this,which made
him dejire to depart^ and to be with Chriji^
which is far better. Secondly , How ne-
ceflary the Lives of fuch Men are to the
Church, and what a great lofs it is, when
God removes them out of it. 'Ne-verthe-
lef to abide in the flejh is more needful for
you. • , ;
.. )i \ S- '
I. Let
Funeral of T>r, MeggOt.
I. Let us then confider in the firft
place the 'great Rewards of the faithful
Minifters of Chrifi:, and how much it is
for their advantage lo depart , and to be
rvith ChriH, Now I do not here intend a
comparifon between Heaven and Earth:
Good God ! what different things are
thefe ? and what Chriftian doubts , whe-
ther Heaven be a happier Place than this
World ? Heaven ! whither no Troubles
or Sorrows can follow us ^ no perlecuting
Sword, no perfecuting Tongue; where
we iTiali be delivered from all the Wants,
I NecelliticSj^ and Infirmities of thfe Body ,
from Hunger and Cold and Nakednefi ,
O ^ *
from wracking Pains and languifhing Sick-
neffcs ; where there is eternal Eafe and
Reft and Joy , without labour , without
difcontents, without quarrels j where our
Souls ftiall be perfe^ed in knowledge and
in love ^ where we fliall dwell in the
Prefence of God , fee him as he is, and
know him cVen as vce are known j where
we (hall dwell with Chdlft: ', adore his
Love, behold his Glory , and be tranf-
B 2 formed
^ -I
■■ ' ■ ;> " — — ^
' 8 A Sermon preached at the
' formed qur felves into the likenefs and
, imagq of In? Gior)^. We have but ob-
i fcure imperfe^i: Conceptions of thefe
things now i Heaven wiil qut-do our
^igia^eft^xpecl-i^tionsi, as .much as the iijoft
I qf, Happinefs in. this VVorld ,
;fclvyays fsljs ihorcfpf wfif C w(f expedled j
and it his is tin? cafe of ail^ood Men, it is
a: qiighty happy Qliajage they make, when
thc-y,<i:Qipo^q feom Ejuth to Heavenj,: j
' I- Y P 1 '• 5 ■'
. >But there are diffiftent Degrees of Glo-
ry in the next VVorld , proportioned not
only to our different attainments in Ver-
I tue^tbut to thofe different Triifts and
' Services which we have been employed in,
and have faithfully difcharged here. We
read of the Reward of a Prophet , that
he w ha gives a Cup of cold Water to a
Prophet in the name of a Prophet, fhall
have a Prophets Reward, which muff fig-
nifie fome peculiar Reward that fliall be
beftowed on Prophets : We know lo
Jittle of the qthpr World , that we can-
mot. conceive , what thefe different Re-
wards
Funeral of Dr. MeggOt. ^
wards (liall be: The Prophet Daniel repre-
fcnrs it by an external Glory, 12 Dan.
And they that be rvife jhall fhine ca the bright-
nej^ of the Firinament^ and they that turn
many to rightedHfneJJ.f as the jiars for ever
and ever. But our Saviour reprefents this
by a different degree of Rule and (Empire,
12 Lnk^ 42.4^,44. And the Lord faidy mho
then is that fait hful and wife fiewardywhom his
Lord /hall make ruler oi/er lAs houjholdy to
give them their meat in due feafon- This is
the honourable Chara6ter of Gofpel Mini-
fters in this World, that they are Rulerf
in God's hdujholdy to inftruct and feed them
with the Word of Life j and their Reward
is proportioned to their Work: Blejfed is
that fervanty whom his Lord, when he com-
eth fljall fnd fo doing. Of a, truth I
fay unto yoUy that he will makg him ruler 0-
vet all that he hat h.Whdit this Rule fignifles
in the other World is a Myftery to us, c-
fpecially fince we have fancied the other
World to be only a State of Contemplati-
on, not of A£l:ion, where we fliall have
nothing to do but to fee God, and to love
lo A Sermon
aad CO praife him, but no fervice to do for
him •, but we know there, are different or-
dcr5 of Angels, who arc iinployed in great
Trufts and Ofnces, Aich-Angels, Angels,
Thrones, Dominions, Piiiicipalities and
Powers, which are names of Rule and
• *
Government, though we know not what
their Power and Authority is,nor how they
Govern i in like manner our Saviour pro-
mifes his Apofilcs, i>erily I fay unto ym-, that
ye n^hich hapc, followi;d me in the regenirati-
vn^ when lbs fun of man fjall Jn on the
throne of hk glory^ ye alfo JImll fit upon
twelve thrones^ judging t.he twelve tr.hes of
Jfraeh Matth. - The like we may
fee in the Parable of the Pounds and Ta-
lenfs j He who had gained ten Pounds had
Rule over, ten Cities j and he who gained
five Pounds had Rule over five Cities : for
thete Servants to whom the Lord gave
thefe Pounds and Talents to improve,
plainly dgnifie his Stewards , and the
iVlinificrs of his fpiritual Kingdom: for
no other Pcrfops have in fo peculiar a
manner, this honourable Character of the
Servants of Chrift throughout the Gof-
pel_
Funeral of T>r. MeggOt. 11
pel. And if there be Order and Govern-
ment among the Angels themfelves, Why
fhould we think that there is nothing like
this among glorified Saints ? if Angels are
the Minifters of God, there is no reafbn
to think that Heaven is a State of meet
Refl and Contemplation, efpecially when
Happinefs confiffs in Adion. And if Chrift
have any Minifters of his fpiritual King-
dom in the next World, it is moft reafon-
able to think, that thofe fliall have the
greateft Authority, and be employed in the
noblefi Services, who have been his faith-
ful Stewards and Minifters in this World.
For the Church on Earth and in Heaven is
the fame Church, though their State be ve-
ry different; and therefore they do not
lofe their relation to Chrift, nor their fta-
tion in his Church by removing to Heaven.
It is a facerdotal Kingdom, our High frieU
is KitJg^ and therefore a PrieH of
how mean foever this bethought now,will
be one of the higheft Charaders in Heaven.
What the Happinefs of this is we cannot
tell i but we know that there are no emp-
ty
12 A Sermon preached at the
ty Titles in Heaven, but every degree-of
Dignity there fignifies a peculiar degree of
Happinefsj^ and what an advantageous ex-
change then is it for a faithful Minifter of
Jefus to be removed from Earth to Hea-
yen.
For let us confider what the State of
"Chrift's Minifters is in this World, what
it was in St. Panics days he tells us, 2 Cor,
6.4—lo» In all things appro'Z/ing our
fel<ves as the Minijiers of God^ in much
patience , in affliSiions , in neceffities ,
in dijirejfes , in Stripes , in imprifon-
^ments , in tumults , in labours, in
'watchingsin fajiing ; by purenefi^ by
knowledge , by long fuf^ering , by kind-
nejfes , by the Holy GhoJi , by love
ttnfeigned ^ by the rr^otd of tnttb ^ by
the power of God , by the Armour of
righteoufnejl on the right hand and on
the left 5 by honour and difljonour , by
evil report and good report , a/s deceiv-
ers and yet true j as unknown and yet
well known ■, as dying and behold we
live
Funeral of T>r, 'MeggOt. 13
Ui/e^ as cbajiened and not hilled ^ as for-
rovpfnl^ yet always rejoycing ; as poor, yet
making many rich ; as hai/ing nothwg^andyet
poffejjtng all things. Which defcribes a
moft laborious Life, a Scene of Wants,
of Difficulties, of Sufferings; a perpetu-
a! exercife of paffive Vertues, to rccon-
cile the moff appearing Contradictions,
to live and (fruggle and contend in this
World, and to fetch their Comforts and
Supports from Heaven.
This indeed is not always the State
of the Chriftian Church, nor of the
Miniffers of it; but yet in the great-
eft external Profperity of the Church,
the Minifters of Religion, who difcharg-
ed their Truff with Diligence and Faith-
fulnefs, find many difficulties to encoun-
ter.
The care of Mens Souls is itfelf a migh-
ty Truff, and Who is fufficient for thefe
things P confider but the Charge St. Panl
gives to Timothy t Epiff. i i,
C Let
A Sermon preached at the
Let no man thy youth ^ hut he
thou an example of the belie'ven^ in word^
in con'verfatten^ in charity , in Jpirit , jn
faithy in purity j gi^ie attendance to read-
tng^ to exhortation^ to doSirine^ ncgleSl not
the gift that is in thee^ which was gi'ven
thee by Prophefit , hy laying on of the
hands of the Presbytery : "Meditate upon
thefe lhingSy,.gi'L>e thy felf wholly to tljem^
that thy prpfitirtg may appear to 'all j
tahg heed to thy felf and to thy doSirine j
continue in them , for in doing this thou jhalt
both fa'i^e thy felf and them that hearthee.
Here is work enough to employ the whole
Man, and our iitmbft care and diligence
and prudence ; work for the Study , for
theCIofet, for the Pulpit, as the fame A-
poftle exhorts and charges Timothyyo preach
the word^ to be infant in feafon, out of feajon^
to reproi/eyebuhg^ exhort^ with all long-fufer-
ing and DoSirine , 2 Tim 4. 2. But yet
though there be labour and diligence in
this , it would be a delightful work, were
our Labours always blclfed with fucccis ;
could we refcue the Souls of Men
from
Id,
Funeral of T>r' MeggOt
from the • Dominion of their LuftSj and
from tlie Power of; the Devil , could
we turn them from Darknefs to Light,
and from the power of Satan unto God,
but We muft oftent exped to labour all
mght and catch nothing , we muff
contend with the Luffs and Vices of
Men, muff bear their FolJy, their Fro-
wardnefs , their Reproaches , and Cen-
fures, and tnjuries, be thought Trouble
feme, Pfagmatical, a'nd Bufie-bodies, for
our charitable Exhortations and Reproofs,
and watchfulnefs over their Souls. And
when the Chiirc.b is^ at cafe, and ^reft
from wkhoutjt-how often; i^ it rent and
torn in Pieces with SchfftSs and Herefres
as So Faitl fore-warned Timothy the
time vPiU come when they will not endure
jonnd DoSirine-, but after their own lups^
PjuU they heap to themselves Teachers ,
having itching ears , and they Jhall turn
away their ears from the truth , and
he turned unto fables^^^ vert and
what infinite Labours and Difficulties
docs this create to the Miniffers bf the
C 2 Gof.
16^ A sermon preached at, the-
fjofpeljto heal the Breaches of the Church,
ro confute Herefies, Atheifm, Infideli-
ty, and to be (corned aivi perfecured
for it with a bitter Rage and Zeal.
That St. Faul might well add, Bnt watch
than in all things^ endure affiiSlions^ do
the worh^of an BifangehU^ mahg full proof
of thy m'inifiry^ ^ verfe. We ought not
indeed to be difcouraged by fuch difficul-
ties as thefe, becaufc our Reward will
be great in Heaven, but it will be a
happy Day, when Our warfare fhall he
acconiplijhed -i when we (hall ceafe front
our labours^ and our worhy fjall follow m:
when we can fay with St. FauL, I ha've
fought a good fight, I fitufhed my courfe^
I have kept the faithy henceforth there h
laid up fir me a Crown of righteoufi
neC.
I ^
2. Thus tu die is their gain^ Never-
thelefiy it is more needful for the Church,
that they jhould abide in the fiejh : And a
great lofs it is to the Church, when they
die. I need not ufe many words about
this
^:
Funeral of ®r. MeggOt. 17
this, for the ca/e is plain. The Death
of every good Man who is very ufeful
to the World, in what way foever he
be ufeful , is a very great lofs , for
Death puts an end to his doing any
more good in this World: but as to
take care of the Souls of Men, is to
do the greateft good to Mankind, be-
caufe the Happinels of oiEr Souls is of
the greateft concernment to us, fo to lole
a faithful and a prudent Guide muff be
the greatcfl lofs.
We indeed of this Church, have great
reafon to blefs God , that he has fent
forth fo many aWe and- painful Labou-
rers into his Harvefl, that it is not the
lofs of every good Man that can much
a^^f us at ordinary times: For there
are great numbers of wife and good
Men to perpetuate a Succefllon of able
a-fid faithfol Guides r but a St. Yatd is at
anytime, and in any Age of the Chnrcli
a great lofs; Nay, Men who arc much
htferibur to St. I'anl^ hut yet hrtcd with
pecu-
t
1 !
I
i8
J Sermon preached at the
peculiar Abilities to ferve the Church at
ibme certain Seafons, and in feme difficult
Circumfiances, are a very fenlible lofs at
fuch a time, when their fervice is nioft
needful.
A Man of Council and Condud,
who is fit to fit at the Helm, and knows
how to fteer in a Storm, is a great lofs,
in times of Difficulty and Trouble, when
the Church is aflaulted on all hands,
and it is hard to avoid one Mifchief or
Inconvenience without running into ano-
ther.
A Man of Goodnels and Temper,
who knows how to govern his own
Pafllons, and how to foften an,d manage
the Paffions of other Men, is a very
fenfible lofi, when the Paffions of Men
are broke loofe, and difturb the Peace
of the Church, and even threaten the ru-
ine of it.
A Man
-44+-
Funeral of T>r. MeggOt
A Man of Learning and found Judg-
ment, who can diftinguilli between Truth
and Errour in all its moft artificiaJ and
flattering Difguifes, is a great loft, when
old Errours are revived, and new ones
broached j when we muft difpute over
again the very Being of a God, the truth
of the Scriptures, and Articles of the Chri-
ftian Faith.
A Man of great Diligence and Fndu-
ftry. Courage and Refolution, to defend
the Truth, to oppofe Herefies and Schifms,
to preferve the Unity of the Church, and
the fntegrrty of the Chriftian Faith, is a
very great lofs, when the Church is en-
compafled and aflaulted with bufie and reft-
lefs Enemies.
19 8
fJM
m
A Man of an exemplary Life, and un-
tainted Vertue, who fliines like a Light in
the mid ft of a crooked and perverfe Ce-
neration, who maintains the declining Ho-
nour and Reputation of Religion and
true
W"-'-
m
20
5
A Sermon preached at the
true Vcrtue, is a mighty lofs iii a profli-
gate Age, when men arc grown fuch Scran-
gers to the fincere Prafiice of Vertue and
Religion, that they begin to think there is
no fuch thing.
But lean go on no farther,thc very men-
tioning of thefe things brings the freih Idea
of our deceafed Brother to mind, and the
affliding Seafe of that great lofs, which
we fuflfer by his Death. It becomes us
to Reverence and Adore the Wifdom of
the divine Providence, even when we can-
not underftand the Reafons of it. We
are certain God is never wanting in his
Care of his Church, and yet had we been
made Judges of this Cafe, we fhould have
thought it a very ill time to have fpared
him.
He was abundantly furnifhed with all
good Learning, both for life and Orna-
mentj he was an accomplifhed Scholar,
and a well ftudied Divine *, he knew
Books and read them, and judged of them :
He
Funeral of Dr. MeggOt- 21
I.Ie,w3s a Scrib^ ii)fti:U£^ed unto the King-
domof Heaven; ,; wfio like a HQiifliolder
could bring forth out of his treafurc tilings
New ajiid Qld, 13Mstth.^2. He had carefully
pcriis'd tb,e;ant:ientPhilofopherSjOrators and
Poets,toldii?(>ve«, wbiat Nature taught, wfuch
gave him'^a tfyer Knowledge and greater
Value for ,theiExcellency and Perfeftion of
th e ■ G^qipe^^'R ey ela t io B.
8!:.' i % ' ■ Jii
Hcihad pue^and clear No^ioins of Reli-
gion^c^and jie was Mafter of them ; he
kncJv w}^^ bcljeyed any thing, and was
jpCftthepjip^judiced nor impofed on by^ po-
pujar J(f7pdgjp^ 5 die was a hearty and zea-
loufly A^fc^rtor of the Do£l;rine, Worfliip,
Govcrprnent and Difcipline of the Church
/he ,faw nothing naaterial,
which'Gopid changed for the better,
l^'hich m^e him jealous of Innovations, as
not kno^yipg wliere they would end. He
was a Friend to all llnccre Chrifiians, pit-
tied (;heir Mifiakes, and, bore .with their
Frowardnels, bur did not think that Clxri-
Aiati Charity reqtwred him to d^crihcc
' ' D " ' truth
^0 A Sermon preached at
Truthj or good Order and GoVerntiiieiiC to
tHe''pretences of Peace and IPnity.
He was for feveral Years a very diligent
^i\d cBiiiflVrnt'Preacher to a'Jnu-inerous Au^
'ditory, till' his own DiocefatV who knew
fiis Worth, and the wdakn'ef^ of his Con-
^ftitufion^ and 'was defirous to preferve him
for the Service of the ChiTFch, provided
this place where we now are, for his Eafe
'and Health, and Retirement \ where he
lived many Years a conftant Preacher,
though his Labours were then divided be^
tween his two Cures, which did not leflen
Ilis Preaching, but made the Beilefk of k
the more diffufive. For indeed he was an
admirable Preacher, not for Noife and
Lungs, but for well digefted ufeful pious
Difconrfes, delivered with al( that becorri-
ing Gravity, Serioufnefs, and a command-
ing Elocution, as made them fink deep in-
to the Minds of his Hearers, and made
them hear. This I fpeak with Aflurance
and Confidence in this place, which was
fo long blefled with his Labours, with
what
Funeral of T>r, MeggOt. 23
what finenefs of Thought, perfpicuity.
eafinefs of Expreffion, inftriic^ing and cn-
tertaining Images of Things, he expound-
ed the Do£i:rines, and inculcated the Laws
of our Saviour ; how plainly he Tapght,
with what Vehemence and Paflion he Ex-
horted, with what tender Sharpnefs he Re-
proved : remember how he ufed both to
Pleafe and Inftfu£l:, to Chide and Shame
you without making you ho\y he
has warmed and chaffed your Minds into
the moft pious and ferious Refolutions,
and fent you home from this place wjfer
and better then you came ; and if you grew
.cold, and fuffered your good,RefoJutions
to die again, confidcr I befeech yog, M^hac
Account you have to give.,
As. he grew in Years, it ^ya^ necei]ajry
by degrees to cafe his Labours, he cpuld
not Preach fo 'oftens but yet C9ntinued to
Preach. And yet had he not Preached at
all, or much lefs .then he did, hp J[\ad not
ceafed to be a very ufefplj^aftor ^ t;he
Church; for he was^ qfgreatExpe-
D 2 rience,
A Sermon preached at the
rience, and great PrudaTce and Fore-f7'iht 5
fit for Governinenc abd ^ Counfel *, who
knew Men and Things i was dexterous in
hi? Applications, zealous without Paflion
or Peevininefs, fteady and refolved with-
out violent Oppofitions, and needlefs Pro-
vocations i who fervH the Church add
the Truth with little Noife, and with-
out making many Enemies: And I am
fure at fuch a time as this, there is more
need of fuch Men , and a much grea-
ter fcarcity of them, than of good Preach-
ers
But he was not only a good Preacher
and a prudent Guide, but a very good
Man : he Preached continually by his Life
and Example : his Converfation was Inno-
cent. Entertaining, and UfefuU he was a
true fincere Friend, very Courteous, Af-
fable. Civil to all Men, but never pre-
tend Friendfhip where he had none •. he
was ready to do all good Ofiices, was Li-
"beral, 'Generous, and Charitable; a Man
of a true publick Spirit, who fcorned to
ferve
/
Funeral of T>r. McQ^aot
J c50
fervc himrdf to'the Injury of others, who
hated litt!^. Arts and Tricks, meari and'
fervile Complianceshe was an open and
generous Enemy, if we may ever call him
an Enemy, who never willied, never in-
tended any hurt to any Man ; but my
meaning is, that when any Difpute and
Quarrel happened, as fuch things will
fomerimcs happen , he was open and
undifguifcd, any Man might know what
he difliked, and had no reafon to fear
any thing worfe from him, than what
he would tell them. In a Word, he
was a very good Chrifiian, and that
made him good in all Relations, and
that Crowned all his other Labours j
he took care as St. did, Le§i while
he preached to others^ he himfelf Jhouid
become a caU-away. And now he is
gone to reft, and we muft all (hortly
follow him ; God grant that we may
all fo run our Race, and finifli our
Courfe , that when we depart this
Life we may reft in Him, as our hope
15
26 A Sermon f reached at the
is this our Brother doth , and may re-
ceive that Crown of Righteoufnefs, which
God the Righteous Judge, will at that
Day beftow on all his faithful Servants,
and on all thofe who love his Appear-
iiig-
FINIS.
Books Fnhlijhed by the Ke'verend Dr, Sher-
lock, Dean of St, Pauls, Mafler of the
Temple, and Chaplain in Ordinary to Their
MajeJiiej.
An Anfwer to a Difcourfe, entituled, Papifis protejting
againfi Protefiant Popery. Second Edition, 4^0.
An Anfwer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Dif-
ferences between the Reprefenter and Anfwerer. ^to.
A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend B.
Calamy, D. D. ^to.
AVindication of fome Proteftant Principles of Church-
Unity and Catholick Communion from the Charge of A-
greement with the Church of Rome. ^to.
A Prefervative againfi: Popery j being (bme plain Dire-
(fiions to unlearned Protefiants how to dilpute with Romtjh
Priefis. In Two Parts with the Vindication, in Anfwer to
the Cavils of Lewis Sabran, Jefuit. 4ft>.
ADilcourfe concerning the Nature, Unity, and Com-
munion of the Catholick Church. Firfi Part. 4^0.
A Sermon Preach'd before the Right Honourable the
Lord Mayor, and Aldermen of the City of London, on Sun-
day Nov. 4th. i688. 4fc.
A Vindication of the Dotfirine of the Holy and Ever
Blefled Trinity,and the Incarnation of the Son of Godjd^r.
The Second Edition. 4(0.
The Cafe of the Allegiance due to Soveraign Powers fta-
ted and refolved according to Scripture, Reafen, and the
Principles of the Church of Rngland. Sixth Edition. 4^0.
A
A Vindication of the Cafe of AUeglance due to^oyc-
raign Powers, &c. '^to. - . • - ''i
' ' i • •'
A Sermon Pxeach'd before the, Qoeen, on
the lyr/b of the r^ft-D^yc'^
A Pra^ical pifcourfe concerning Death. Tlte
Edition. 8m. - .li . ' " '
A Pradical Difcourfe concerning a Future
Third Edition,, Svo. ioii:
. * ■ i
A Sermon Preached before the Honourabre Houfe of
•Commons at St. MargaretslWefiminJ^er/j^anu^ry goth. 169'
4ff. .
■ A 'iSertfion Preached before tlte.: Queen- af Whiteh.-iU,
Febr. ^to.> if O ,
The Charity of Tending withoiu Uliiry, and the true
.Noti6n of U'ia^Jiffiiwddij ,in ^.Seiinon preacbd bftbre the
Rfght^ HoriduwHlt?rte'LoTd Mayor a? Ct]L(rcij,
on Ttrefoay in 1(592,. 4fo, ,r . " ^.f) • ,
'..y'-f
, t
A Sermon Preach'd at the 7'emp!e-Chuvch,May 29.1^91.
and-Pf'inted at the Defire of the Bench-Table of the Ho-
nourable Society-of theTewf/e. ' ,
A Sermon Preacbed before the Queen at White-Hall,
■"^ttne 26th. 1692. 4/0
, ^ > .-C-i -.-h
Printed for W. Rogers.
The Dean of St. P AV Us
E R M O N
AT THE
IE MPLE-CHURCH,
D E C E M B E R 30. 1694.
I
if B
" I - .-i
SERMON
Preach'd at the
TEMPLE-CHURCH,
December 50. 1694.
Upon the Sad Occasion of the
DEATH
O F O U R
tteen^
' And Publiflied at the Earneft Requeft of Several j
M ASTERS of the Bench of Both Societies.
By Wi L L 1 A M Sherlock, D. D. Dean off
St. Vauh^ Mafter of the Temple y and Chaplain iflj
Ordinary to His Majefty.
LONDON:
Printed for BOgCtSl, at the Sun over-againft
m ^t. Dunjlarh Church in Tleetftreet. M DC XCIV,
r'f
3!i!l
1
t: i
'I •
Hi
i O.
mi;
XXXIX. Psalm 9.
I IPOS dumb y and opened'not my mouthy, hc-^
caufe then didfl it,
HIS may be thought a
very improper Text for
the Feafi: of our Savi-
our s Birth , when our
Mourhs ought to be fib
led with the Praifes of
Godj and fing with the whole Quire of
Angelsj. Glory be to God in the highejl^
on earth feace ^ good mill tomards men. .
This indeed is that Peacewhich the
World cannot give , and which the
World cannot take away; whatever the
External. Appearances ot Providence arC;,
A here..-
2
A Sermon FreacFd at
here we find a fafe retreat^ and a never-
failing Spring of Joy; For he that Jpa-
red 7wt his own SoUy hut delivered him
nf for us allhow Jhall he not with him
aljo freely give us all things ? Who then
fhall feparate us from the love of Chrijl ?
Shall Tribulation ^ or Dijlrejs ^ or Perje-
anion ^ or Famine y or Nal^dnefs y or Pe-
rily or Sword? Nayy in all theje
we are more than Conquerors through him
that loved us. For 1 am perfwaded y
that tieither death y nor life, nor angelsy
nor principalities y nor powers y nor things
prefent y nor things to come y nor height,
nor depth y nor any other creature y Jhall
be able to feparate us from the love of
God y which is in Chriji Jefus our Lordy
8. Rom. 32, 35, 37, S-c, While our
minds are warmed with fuch thoughts
as thefe , we fliall be able to bear up
under the greateft Trials , if not with
Chearfulnefs yet at leafl with Pati-
ence
the Temple-Ghurch.
enceand a quiet Submiffion to the W ill of
God. And if ever there were occafion
for fuch Comfortable and Supporting
Thoughts^ the Divine Providence has
made it too neceflary at this time, to bear
the Lofs of an Incomparable Lady, our
mod Gracious Queen, whofe Death all
good Subjeds muft Lament, and 1 pray
God forgive thofe that do not. Such fe-
vere Providences as thefe, will teach the
greateft and mod unbroken Minds, to
ferve the Lord mth fearand to rejoice -with
trembling. But how fevere foever Provi-
dence is in fome particular indances, the
fenfeof the Divine Goodnels in the Re-
demption of Mankind by the Incarnation
and Death of his own Son, fliould teach
us to be dumby and not o^en our mouthsbe-
caufe it is bis doings.
In fpeaking to v/hich words, I diail
I. Inquire, What may be called the
doings-
A Sermon Preach'd at
doings of the Lord ? 2. What it is to
be dumb, and not to open our Mouths?
3. The force of this Argument-to ob-
lige us to a quiet and patient Submiffion
under the greatefl: fufferings. That it is
God's doing.
I. What may be called the doing of
the Lord ? This may be thought a very
needlefe queftion; for are there any
Events, Good or Evil, which are not
God s doing ? If we believe a particular
Providence, we muft anfwer. No; and
yet fome things are more peculiarly God s
doings, than others are, with refped to
this prefent Argument, as God s doing
it, is a reafon for a quiet and patient
Submiflion to the Divine Will.
Jn many cafes men bring Rube and
Mifery upon themfelves by their own (in
and folly, and then they may thank
themfelves for it; but have no reafon
to
the Temple-Church.
to complain of Providence; and when
they cannot charge Providence with their
misfortunes, patience it lelf is not pro-
perlya Submiffion to God,; becaufe thek
liifferings are no more God's wilh than
their fin and folly is.
If men deftroy their Eftates by pro-
fufenefs and prodigality, and their Bo-
dies by internperance and lufl:; if ill-con-
traded Friendfhips, indifcreet Bargains,
or an ungovernable Tongue, perplex their
Affairs, and prove very rroublefome or
dangerous, all this is owing not merely to
Providence, but to themfelves; and they
muff be contented to reap the fruit of their
own doings , and to implore the Db
vine Goodnefs and Providence to de-
liver them from the evil confequences
of their own fin and folly.
Whatever evils we fuffer, which are
not the natural or moral effeds of our o wn
fin or folly, they are properly God's do-
• B ings,
6 A Sermon Prcach'd at
ingS;, as inflided by God^ either for the
punifliment of our finsa or for the trial
and cxercife of our virtues^, or to ferve
the wife ends of his Providence in the
world.
Thofe Evils which we do not imme-
diately bring upon our felveS;, God in-
flidls on us 5 either by the miniftry of
wicked and injurious men;, or by the
diforders of Natural Caufes;, or by fome
feeniing cafual and fortuitous Events j for
the Adions of Meti;, the Powers of Na-
ture and what we call Chance and
Fortune:, are all in the hands of God;,
and therefore are more or lefs his do-
ings.
But if we may fay, that fome things
are more peculiarly the care of Provi-
dence, than others. Life and Death are
certainly fo • no man can be Born or
Die, without the particular Order and
Appointment of God: Our Saviour
tells
the Temple-Church.
tells us, not a ffarron^ falU to the ground
without our Father:, much lefi men; and
afllires his Difciples, that all the hairs of
their head are numbred^ and their Lives
are more facred than their Hairs. Some
men are of opinion , That God has ab-
folutely Decreed the certain term and pe-
riod of every man s life; But I know no
foundation for this, neither in Scripture
nor Reafon ; nor does any man believe
it, but thofe who fubjed all Mankind,
and all the Things of this world, to irre-
verfible Neceffity and Fate, which is the
I ftrength of the Atheiftick Hypothefis;
though incautioudy efpoufed by fome
men, who are fo far from being Atheifls,
that 1 hope they are very good Chriftians.
And therefore, 1 fuppofe, thefe Chriftian
Fatalifls, if I may fo call them, mean no
more than what we all own. That no
Sparrow, much lefs a Man, falls to the
ground without our Father ; that God
B 2 not
8 A Sermon PreacFd at
not only foreknows the period oi eve-
ry man's Life^ and by what means he
fliall Die but with infinite Wildom
and Juftice;, Orders and Appoints it ;
not by an abfolute and unconditiona}
Decreej but as the Wife Determi-
nation of a Free and Jull: Provi-
dence.
And if God have any more con-
cernment for Nations and Common-
wealths, than he has for particular men
(as we, Vv^ho can attend but a few
things at once, and therefore make the
matters of greatefi: importance our more
particular care, are apt to conceive)
then the Lives and Deaths of Prin-
ces mufl: be more particularly Ordered
and^Determined by God; becaufe Na-
tions, it may be many Nations and
Countries, more than their own, are
concerned in the confequence of it;
and. of the more univerfal concernment
any
the Temple-Church. 9
any thing is the more we are apt
to think it belongs to the Care of
Cod.
bor this reafon fome Philofophers have
confined the Providence of God to the
Heavens, and Heavenly Bodies, which
have fuch a univerfal influence on things
below; or to Nations and Publick Socie-
ties, and to the feveral kinds and ipecies
of Beings, not to particular Men or
Creatures.
And fo far they were in the right,
that if the Divine Providence could not
equally take care of the whole World ,
and of every particular Creature in it,
it would certainly in the firfl: place
take care of the great Springs of moti-
on. But though this be no reafon for
Gods peculiar care of one thing more
than another, becaufe his A11-feeing
Eye, and Almighty Arm, can equally
take care of all; yet our Saviour has.
taught
lO
A Sermon Preached at
taught us from the worth and value
of things 5 that God will certainly
take the more care of them, and in cale
of any Competition give the preference
to things of the greateft moment. Be-
hold the fowh of the air ^ for they foir
noty neither do they reaf, nor gather into
barns, yet your heavenly Father feedeth
them-y are ye not much better than they?
And if God fo clothe the grafs of the fields
which to day iSy and to morrow is caji into
the qveuy fhall he not much more clothe you,
0 ye of little faith ? 6. Matth. 26, 30.
Where from Gods care of mean Infe-
rior Creatures, the Fowls of the Air,
and the Grafs of the Field, he more
ftrongly concludes his care of jMen; and
by the fame reafon from his care of par-
ticular men, we may more ftrongly con-
elude his care of Kingdoms and Nati-
ons, and therefore of the Lives of Prin-
ces, who are the great Minifters of his
Government
Temple-Church. n
Government and Providence^ and whofe
Lives or Deaths make fuch a mighty
Change in the Affairs of the world.
So that -when, or by what means foe-
ver Princes dye , this is God s doings
and how fevere foever we may feel it;,
We mu^i he dumb ^ and not open our
mouthf) becauje he has done it i which is
the
2. Thing to be explained;, What is
meant by being dumb:, ^^d not opening out
mouths. For this feems a very hard fay-
ing in the ftrid literal fenfe;, that we muft
not complain of our Sufferingswhen
we feel em fmart * Humane-Nature
caift bear this, we muft feel our Suffer-
ings 5 and when we feel them, we muff
complain : To have no fenfe of what
we fuffer, is Stupidity, not Submiffion;
it is irreverence for the Judgments of
God , and in fome cafes the moft un-
pardonable
w
12 A Sermon Preach'd at
pardonable bafenefs and ingratitude to
'Men. To be unconcerned for the Death
of our deareft Friends, or greatefl: Pa-
trons and Benefadors^ not to pay Na-
tures Tribute to their Memories in a
Sigh and a Tear; not to long after
them,^ and lend fome vain Wiflies to call
them back ; not to preferve their Idea
frefli in our minds, and to think with
fome uneafinefs of thofe happy hours
which their Converfation fweetned; to
part with our Friends, as if we fuffer-
ed nothing by their lofs, and were as
well without them, is io far from be-
ing a Virtue, that fuch a man is unca-
pable of ever being a Friend, and ne-
ver deferves to have any; much more
then , when we lofe a Publick Friend
and Benefador, the greatefl: of Friends
and Benefadors, which is a good
Prince.
Let
at the Temple-Church.
Let us briefly confider, what we have
loft in the Ids of our Gracious Queen^ and
try if we can bear the thoughts of it with-
out complaining. She was the Glory of
her Sex^ and an Ornament to the Crown
(lie wore ; made truly Great by Nature,
Birth, and Education. She had a large
and capacious Mind, a quick and lively
Apprehenfion, and a piercing and folid
Judgment: She had a ftrength and firm-
nefs of Mind beyond her Sex, and fuch a
dexterity in managing the greateft Affairs,
as would have become the greateft and moft
experienced Minifters. Never was there
greater skill in Government withlefi fond-
nefs for it, which fhe could take up and lay
down, with the fame equality and iiidif-
fercncy of Mind: Though, I doubt, I muft
unfay that; for flie was always grieved at
the occafion of taking the Government,
and as glad to refign it.
C Never
14 A Sermon Preacifd
Never was Majefty better tempered
with eafiiieis and fweetnefi. She knew
how to be familiar J without making her
felf cheap, and to condefcend without
meannefs. She had all the Greatnels of
Majefty, with all the Vertuesof Conver-
fation; and knew very well, what became
her Table, and what became the Council-
Board.
She underftood her Religion, and lo-
Ved it, and pradlifed it j and was the
greatefl: Example of the Age, of a con-
ftant, regular, unaffeded Devotion, and of
all the eminent Vertues of a Cbriflim Life,
In the midfi: of all the great Affairs of
State^ flie would rather fpare time from her
fleep, than from her Prayers, where fhe al-
wa5^s appeared with that great compoiure
and ferioufnefs of Mind, as if her Court
had been a Nunnery, and (he had had no-
thing elfe to do in the World
In
Temple-Church.
In all the Eafe and Profperity of For-
tune fhe had that tendernefs and compaf-
fion for thole, who fuffered, which fuifer-
ings themlelves cannot teach meaner Per-
fons. She was Charitable to the utmpft '
of her Power, amidfl all the Expences of
War and Government, and when a pro- .
per Objed was prefented to her, was al-
ways pleafed, when fhe could grant their
requefts, and very uneafic to deny.
In (hort, her greateft and mofl: implaca-
ble Enemies, (for Vertue it felf will meet
with Enemies in this Worjd) had nop-
ther Fault to charge her with, but her
Throne; which is the only thing,for which
mofl other Princes are valuable. She af
cended the Throne indeed before fhe de-
fired it, but was thrufl into it, not by an
hafty Ambition, but to fave a finking
Church and Kingdom: And I hope En-
gland will always have reafon to fay. That
C 2 an
6 A Sermon Preach d
an empty Throne could never have been
filled with a nobler Pair.
But though the necefTary ablence of the
King^' to give check to the Progrefs of a
powerful and infulting Monarchy engaged
her more than llie defired in State Affairs^
yet the promoting of true Religion, and
the fervjce of the Church of England^ [^the
greateft and beft Nurfery of it, fince the
Apoftolick Age,] was her conftant and na-
tural Care. This her Thoughts were full
of, and fhe had formed great and noble ^
Defigns, had llie out-lived the Difficul-
ties and Expences of War, and been
at leifure to attend the peaceful Arts of
Government.
i have reafon' to fay this, from
thofe frequent Intimations I have had
from our late admirable Primate, who
had great Defigns Himfelf to ferve the
Chrijiian Religion, and the Church of
England, in its truefl Interefts , and
at the Temple-Church 17
had infpired Their Majcfties; and par-
ticularly the Queen, who had more lei-
fure for luch Thoughts, with the fame
great and pious Defigns: It ma.y be no
Church-man ever had, I am fure not more
defervedly, a greater Intereft in his Prin-
ce's Favour; and the great Ufe he made
of it, was to do publick lervice to Reli-
ligionj and, whatever Ibme Men might
fufped:, to the Church o{ England^ though
it may be not perfedly in their Way: And
the greateft Fault I know he had, was. That
fome envious and ambitious Men could
not bear his Greatnefi, which he himlelf
never courted, nay, which he induftri-
oufly avoided.
. Before this, all England knew and
owned his Worth ; and had it been put
to the Poll, there had been vaft Odds
on his fide, that he would have been vo-
ted into the See of Canterbury; for no
Man had ever a clearer and brighter Rea-
fon.
18 ^ Sermon Preached
Ton ^ a truer Judgment, a more eafie and
happy Expreffion, nor a more inflexible,
fearlels Honefty : He was a true and
hearty Friend, and was a true Friend
where-ever he profefled to be fo; Though
he had many Enemies at laft, he took
care to make none. He was obliging to
all Men; and though he could not eafily
part with a Friend, he could eafily for-
give an Enemy, as that Bundel of Libels
witnefles, which was found among his
other Papers, with this Infcription: Phefe
are LibelsI fray God forgive them y I
do. '
. But Icannot give you the jufl: Charader
of this Great Man now j what I have ah
ready faid , I'confels, is an Excurfion,
which I hope you will pardon to the
Pafiion of an old Friend; and learn from
Two great Examples , that neither the
greateft Innocence, Vertue, or Merit,
can defend, either Crowned of Mitred
Heads,
mi l iiiiin ] ■ - I
at the Temple-Church,
Heads, from the lafh of Ipiteful and enve-
nomed Tongues. But what a Lofs has
Religion and the Church of England^ in
luch a critical Time^ in the Death of
fuch a Queen^ and fuch a Frelate ! I pray
God make up this Lois.
In a word. That great Pallion which
afflids and oppreffes our good King, gives
an unexceptionable Teftimony to the in-
comparable Worth of our deceafed
Queen : The too fevere and vifible ElFcds
of it, ihew, that it is not an ordinary,
nor a dilTembled Paffion; Nor is it an or-
dinary thing, for a Prince of fo great a
Mind, who can look the moft formidable
Dangers, and Death it lelf, in the face,
without fear ; whom all the Powers of
France cannot make look pale or tremble,
to fink and faint, and to feel all the Ago-
nies of Death in the dying Looks of a Be-
loved Conlbrt. All Story cannot furnifii:
us with many Examples of fuch loft and,
ten-
20
A Sermon Preach d
tender Paffions, in fuch a warlike and
fearlefs Mind; and what but a mighty
Vertue could fb charm a Prince^ as to
forget his natural Conftancy and Refolu-
tion? I'm fure, though we pay very dear
for the Experiment in the lols of an ex-
cellent Queen^ we have fo much the more
reafon to think our felves happy in a
King j for a due mixture and tempera-
ment of fuch fearlefi Courage and Bra-
very, and fuch tender Paffions ^ is the
mofl: perfe<fi: Compofition of an excellent
Prince.
And now it may be, you will tell me,
that 1 have taken great Pains to confute
my Text, and that I have done it effedu-
ally 5 for we ought not to be dumb, but
may very juftly complain of fuch a iols as
this.
This I readily grant, That we may com-
plain of fuch a Ids i but this is no confu-
tationof my Text. We may complain,
and
at the Temple-Ghurch.
and give Eafe and V ent to our Sorrows
by fuch Complaints^ while we do not
complain againft God^and acculehim fool-
iflhly. To fubmit to the Will of God,
which is here expreft by being Dumb^ and
not opening our Mouths^ does not fignifie,
not to feel our Lolfes and Sufferings, or not
to complain of them, but not to reproach
the Divine Providence, nor to cafl: off
our Hope and Truft in God. Job folt
his Sufferings, and complained of them
in as moving and tragical Exprcdions, as
any other Man could, and yet is propo-
fed to us, as an Example of admira-
ble Patience, becaufe he did not charge
God foolifloly, nor caft off his Hope ia
him.
This we never can have any reafbnfor,-
for whatever we fuffer, it is a wife and
merciful Providence which inflidls it: But
yet Mankind are very apt, when they
fuffer hard things, either to deny a Pro-
D vidence.
f
22 A Sermon Preach'd
vidence^ or which is more abfurd, and un-
reaionable^ to reproach it; for if there be
a God, he is Wife^ and Good^ and Mer-
cifulj and Juft^ which is the Notion all
Mankind have of God , and if this God
governs the World^ all Events are order-
ed with Wifdom, Juftice, and Goodnefsj
and all thinking Men, in cool and fbber
Thoughts, will be afhamed to quarrel
with fuch a Providence.
But yet we are very apt to ask Que-
ftions, which we cannot eafily anfwer, and
then to make our own Ignorance an Ob-
jedion againfl: the Divine Providence.
As in the Gale before us, the fudden
and untimely Death of an excellent Priiv
cefs, who had Strength and Vigour of
Age, which promiftd a much longer Life,
and who would certainly have done great
Good to the World, as long as fhe had
lived 'j but is cut off in the Vigour and
Strength of Age, and all her Thoughts,
even
at the Temple-Church.
even all her great and excellent Defigns
.of doing Good to the World^ perifh with
her; while Tyrants and Oppreflbrs live
to be the Plagues and Scourges of Man-
kind.
Now though we do not know the par-
ticular Reafons of fuch Providences, yet
it is eafie to frame fome general Anlwers,
which may latisfie all the Friends of Pro-
vidence.
If the Objedion relates to our felves,
who fuffer by this lofs, there is a very plain
Anfwer to it, but a very terrible one
That God is Angry with us, and by the
untimely Death of an excellent Princefi,
who made it her whole Study and De-
fign to do us Good, threatens his Judg-
ments againft us, if we do not take Care
to prevent them by a timely Repen-
tance.
If the Objedion relates only to the
untimely Death of an excellent Princefs,
D 2 that
24. A Sermon Preach'd
that fhe ihould fo fuddenly be fnatched
away from the Joys and Pleaiures of a
Throne; this is no ObjeCHon at all, at
lead not an Objedliom fit for Chrillians
to make; For can we think, that the grea-
tefi: and mod happy Monarch, lofes any
thing by the Exchange, if he be tranfla-
ted from Earth to Heaven ? That the
Joys of Paradifr are not greater than a
Crown ? Our good Queen did not think
ib, who knew what an Earthly Crown
meant, but was willing to part with it
for Heaven • who few Death approach-
ing without fear, and prepared to receive
its Stroke with that calmneis and fedate-
nefr of Mind, as nothing could give but
an innocent Confrience, and much grea-
ter Hopes
But as for our felves, though we mud
acknowledge that we have received a ver}^
great Lofs, in the Death of an excellent
Queen^ yet we have no reafon to quar-
rel
at the Temple-Church 25
rel at Providence^ while God prefervcs
our King to go in and out before us. W e
had indeed perpetual Day • and no fooner
was one Sun withdrawn^ but another af-
cended our Horizon, with equal Luftre
and Brightnels : This was a peculiar
Happineis which we never had before,
and which the Neceffity of our Affairs
required now •, but though God has cut
us fhort in this, we have a King ftiil,
the Terror of France^ and the Protedor
o{ Europe'j a King, whom Affedion as
well as Blood has Naturalized to us;
who loves our Nation and our Church,
which he has once delivered, and God
grant he may live long to fettle and pro-
ted both. We have no reafon to fear
our Enemies, either at home or abroad,
while a Prince is at the Helm, who wants
neither Counfel nor Courage; efpecially
if we follow that noble Example, which
the Two Houfes of Parliament-have fet
us,
i6 A Sermon Preached
VIS, to give him fuch frefh Aflurances of
our Fidelity, as may ftrengthen his Hands
againft his and our Enemies Abroad, and
make him eafie and fafe at Home.
To conclude. This is God's doing, and
it becomes us to be dumb, and not to o-
pen our Mouthes, becaufe he has done it:
He is the Sovereign and Unaccountable
Lord of the World, who fliall lay unto
him. What doft thou ? Life and Death
are in his Hands, the Fates of Princes
and Kingdoms. That he has done it,
ihould be a fufficient reafon to us to fub-
mit, becaufe though he does things great
and wonderful, and beyond our Under-
ftanding, yet he never does any thing but
what is wile and good : This I'm lure
is the moft elFedual way to turn even the
fevereft Judgments into Blellings, to re-
verence God, and to^ humble our felves
under his mighty Hand, and to implore
his
at the Temple-Church.
his Mercy, to repair thofe Breaches he has
made upon us. We muft not complain
of Providence; but we may make our
Complaints to God, and be the more im^
' portunate in our Prayers for the Prelerva-
tion of our King. The Death of our
excellent Queen both calls for, and will
;uftifie and recommend fuch humble Im-
portunities; and the Prelervation of our
King, will, in a great meafure, make up
this Lois to us; Which God of his infinite
Mercy grant ^ through our Lord Jefus
Chrifl; to tphom n^ith the Father^ and the
Holy Ghofi^ he Honour^ Glory^ and Power^
now and for ever^ Amen.
FINIS.
!B 0 0 I^S Lately printed for William Rogers.
SErmons and Dtfcourfes in four Volumes. Svo.
Sermons concerning the Divinity of our Bleffed Saviour. Svo.
Six Sermons: I. Of Scedfaftnefs in Religion. 2. Of Family-
Religion, ?, 4) 5. Of the Education of Children. 6. Of the
Advantages of an Early Piety. Preached in the Church of
St. Lawrence yury. Svo.
Tbe/e by His Grace ]ohn Lord Arcb-Bijhop o/" Canterbury.
A Commentary on the Five Books of Mofety with a Differ-
tation concerning the Author or Writer of the faid Books, with
a general Argument to each of them : By Richard Lord Biftiop of
Bath and Wells* In 2 vol. Svo.
A Practical Difcourfe concerning Death, Svo. Eighth Edition,
price ; s. in i2mo. price i s.
A Pradical Difcourfe concerning a Future Judgment. Third
Edition. Svo.
A Difcourfe concerning the Divine Providence : Second Edi-
tion. ^to.
Tbefe by the Reverend Dr. Sherlock "Dean of St. Pauls.
A Defence of Dr. Sherlock^ Notion of a Trinity in Unity, in
anfwer to the Animadverhons upon his Vindication of the Do-
drine of the holy and ever bleffed Trinity. ,^to.
A Defence of^ the Dean of St. FauVs Apology for writing a*
gainft the Socinians^ in anfwer to the Antapologift. ^to.
A Difcourfe of Religion, (hewing its Truth and Reality; or
the fiiitablenefs of Religion to Humane Nature. Svo.
A Difcourfe of the Refurrcdion, (hewing the Import and
Certainty of it. Svo.
Tbefe Two by the Reverend Mr. Wilfbn KeBor of Morly
tn Derbylhire.
The Dean of St. ^ A U L '$
FAST-SERMON
at the
Cathedral Church of St, Paul's,
S EfTEWB E'K.
CHILD Mayor.
fovis xiv die Sepemhris^ 1^99,
Annoqm Regni Regis Wil-
helmi Tenii, Anglias,
Vndecimo^
\ f
.Q-r
This Court doth defire Dr. Sherlock^, Dean
of St. Tauhj to Print his Sermon Preach'd
on the Second of this Inftant September, at the
Cathedral Church of St. Tauts, before the Lord-
Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of this City.
Goodfellow.
A
SERMON
Preach'd on the
StconAoi SEFTEMBEK,
BEING THE
Fall for the Fire of London,
A T T H E
Othedral Church of St. FA V L \
Before the Right Honourable tlie
LORD-MAYOR,
Aldermen, and Citizens of London.
-
By W. SHERLOCK, D.D. Dean of Sc. Pauts, Mailer
of the Tern fie, and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majefty.
L O'N D 0 M:
Printed for Wi. lEOgerjS, at the Sun againll St. Dunfians
Church in Fleetflreet. MDCXCIX.
d.i
1
i
i ^■'•-
1 3;
t
k
*
4--
■
=p
iT"'
■
i i' 4
•. 4 .
i ^
'4
Sjji .1191 DlM'f' ■■
4
JivX.ti?-1...., ^<,j-.
' ' A» ■'#'»* '*- L.VsClL
• T,
■T-"
» T ' ' * ^1.
V.
'■tr »
iU
ik<
Ik
flit
1 t
^ i-3 BV'A _" '
y T'I.:'V Q'*i^''-r- i .' ■„ ,*-Vjm
^7y4f^j§h *> ,4^
i p /j
i^fnioi r>ii£ -- - -r* r> Jn
^ 5. 't, f ' ■ ■- jr *- '♦^«i^^-<. 3r^'
'mv so IQ
■'tXl- _-XJ!__J_._:£ J--'-f'•'> o-yf JO.ivsb
Xijchi
J - - 4 •'—■% '
iiuiml Id
y i ■ oi T5 f ■ - .p ^ . *•■ '~' *^:: (rV } ■
' ■■'%. ,^- r
; , • .^\.- ■■•■' •■«'^-^jT » f' ■ ; v ,rrrf •:;
'aitii
Vfll
IdKf
wK
1
; ; . .--■' •" ., -■ ■■•■' "■«'' '' - ; v r- ,irrt ■^■:
4w.
'fail
i^a
3tT{
atss
JtStJ
MIC AH VL 9.
The Lord's yoke crieth unto the city^ and
the man of wifdom Jhall fee thy name.
Hear ye the rod, and tpho hath appoint-
ed it,
>
HEN the State of this World is
happy and profperous, it is no
wonder to fee men indulge them-
felves in Eafe and Luxury, forget
God, or grow carelefs and formal
in Religion. For though it might
reafonably be expeded that happy Creatures, who
rejoice in the Bleflings of Heaven, fhouldbevery
devout Worfliippers of that God from whofe
Bounty and Goodnefs they receive all 5 yet Hu-
man Nature in this ^degenerate ftate is very fond
of fenfual Pleafures : And when an eafy and
plentiful Fortune puts it into mens power to en-
joy as much of this World as they will, there are
but very few who can fet bounds to their Enjoy-
ments, and tafte the Pleaiures of this Life, with-
out taking large and intoxicating Draughts of it 3
A3 and.
3
A Sermon preacb*d at St. Paul
and this fenfualizes mens mindsj and a carnal mind
is emnity againjl God 5 faith unto God, Depart from
us, for we deftre not the fqiowledge of thy ways.
Never any People had more fenfible demon-
ftrations of the Power and Prefence of God
amongft them, and his particular Care of them,
than the Ifraelites had, and yet 'Mojes tells us in
his Prophetick Hymn, Jefurun waxed fat, and kickr
ed 5 thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thicks, thou
art cohered with fatnefs 3 then he forfook^ God ivhich
made him, and lightly efteemed the rock^ of his faha'
tion, 3 2. Deut. 1 y. And thus God complains,
I. Ifa. 2, 3. Hear, 0 hea'Vens, andgiVe ear, 0 earth,
for the Lord hath fpoken 3 I ha'Ve ?iouriJhed and
brought up childrem, and they ha'Ve rebelled againjljnei
The ox kpoweth his owner, and the afs his mafters
crib 5 hut ijrael doth not know, my people doth not
conjider. And as much as we may defpife and
abhor the Ingratitude of the Jews, this is the ge-
neral Hate of Mankind 5 and we may find too
many Examples of it in all Times and Nations;
But it feems much more unaccountable, That
when the judgments of God are abroad in the world,
the inhabitants thereof p?ould not learn righteoufnefs:
Becaufe Judgments are apt to awaken men, and
make them confider. When God fpeaks in
Thunder and Lightning, thofe mufl be deaf in-
deed, who will not hear. This is the merciful
defign
on the id of September, 1699,
defign of Providence in fending fuch terrible
Judgments on the Worid, To make men confi-
der their 'ways and their doings, and to convince
them that there is a God that judgeth in the earth.
For Judgments have a Voice, had we but Ears to
hear: They proclaim the Power and the Majefty
of God 5 a terrible Majefty, and irrefiftible Pow-
er 5 they fcourge and they threaten Sinners, and
call for Weeping, and Mourning , and Faffing :
And how unthankful foever ihtfws were to God
for his great Mercies and Deliverances, yet they
Vv'ere not fo infenfible of his Judgments: When he
flew them, then they fought hhn, and returned and en-
quired early after God, and rememhred that God wcvs
their rock^, and the high God their Redeemer, 78. Plal.
34.3 5- . .
This we^ are exhorted to in my Text, To hear.
the rod, aud who hath appointed it: To confider for
what reafon thofe Evils which we at any time fuf-
fetj are come upon us, and Vv'hat God intends by
the Rod 5 whicbistheonly w^ay to grow better by
our Affli6tions, and to prevail with God in.great
Pity and Compaflion to remove them.
But this is the great difficulty. Who fhall re-t
veal this Secret to us ? How fball we diftinguifh
between the Corrections of God, and the W ick-
ednefs of Men ? How fliall we underftand the
Lanauaaerof the Rod, and to whom it fpeaksj
V for
4 A Sermon freach*d at St. PaulVj
for what Sins it ftrikes, and who are thofe Jchans.
that are the Troublers of our Ifrael^ and what
God expe(5ts from us in fuch Cafes ?
I fhall briefly explain thefe things to you, and
Apply it to the prefent Occafion.
But I mufl: premife, That I only addrefs my
felf now to thofe who believe a God and a Provi-
dence 5 and that God hath revealed his Will and
the Rule of his Providence in the Holy Scriptures.
As for Atheifts and Infidels, who have neither
Eyes nor Ears, they can only feel the Rod like
Bruits , not hear its Voice like Men: Though
the Lord's yoke crieth unto the city, it is only the meri
of wifdom that fee his name.
- Now as for thofe who believe a God and the
Holy Scriptures, there are two very plain Interpre-
ters of God's Judgments 5 Hatural Confcience^ and
the Word of God. For the Judgments of God have
not an Articulate Voice to acquaint us in plain
and exprefs words, upon what Errand they come 5
but they are Signs which fpeak by an Interpreter 3
and if we carefully attend to the Dictates of Na-
tural Confcience, and to the Word of God, we
cannot miftake their meaning,
1. As firfi:. No man who attends either to the
Dictates of Natural Confcience, or to the Word
of God, can doubt tvho it is that hath appointed the
rod: This is the firfl: and mofl: natural queflionof
all 5
on the 2d of September, 1^99. 5
all 5 and yet a great many who profefs to believe
a God and a Providence, feem not well fatished in
this Point : They allow that fome Judgments are
the Hand of God, but are not willing to grant
this of all 5 efpecially when they fee what the im-
mediate and vifible Caufes of fuch Sufferings are.
Some of the greateft Evils which either Pri-
vate Men or Publick Societies fuifer, are mani-
feflly owing to the Injuffice and Wickednefs of
men 5 and they can no more believe that it is
the Will and Appointment of God, that they
fhoiild fuffer fuch Evils, than that it is the Will
of God that others fliould do them: And ail
fuch Rods as are not appointed by God, can
teach us nothing but the Wickednefs of thofe by
ivhom we fuffer 3 for if God has not fent them,
they can bring us no Meffage from God. And
yet mo'ft men are in fome degree infe^ed wicj:^
this difeafe': We fuffer many Evils which we are
not willing to afcribeto God, and then wp learri
riothing from them but a little Worldly Policy
and Prudence, to take better care of our.felves
and out Affairs, to be jealous and diflriiftful of
fnen 3 o'r it may be, to watch our Opportuni-
ties to reyenge the Injuries^we fuffer, and to re-
turn' them-wuth Intereif: And .yet w^e profefs to hc:^
lieve a.Prpvidence 3 though it were as honoura-
ble to God to deny his Providence, as to deny
B his
A Sermon freacFd at St, PauIV,
his Sovereign Difpofal and Government of all
Events 5 or rather, they are both an equal Re-
proach to him. For a Providence which does
not take care of Creatures, is little worth 5 and
we cannot fay that God takes care of his Crea-
tiires, if any Evil befals them without his Will
and Appointment.
But Natural Confcience fees the Hand of God
in all the Evils we fulfer : Whatever the vifible
and immediate Caufes and Inftruments of our
Sufferings are, a guilty Confcience takes notice
of the Divine Vengeance 5 the Terrors of God
take hold upon him, and he trembles before his
Judge, though he do not fee him j he is afraid of
God, when he feels only the Hands of men.
And what is the meaning of this ? What is the
Language of thefe guilty Fears, but that what-
ever the Rod be that ftrikes, it is moved and di-
rented by a Divine Hand 5 that the Wickednefs
and Injuftice, the Wrath and Fur)" of Men, is no
other than the Vengeance of God ? For why
fhould the Evils we luffer from men fo terrify a
guilty Confcience, had we not a Natural Perfua-
non, That all thefe Evils are fent by God, who-
ever are the Inftruments of them ?
Thus it is natural in all fuch cafes to fly to God
for help. Atheifts themfelves cannot wholly pre-
vent this5 but when they are furprized with any
fudden
on the 2d of September 1699.
fudden Dangers, Nature is too quick and too
powerful for their Philofophy, and iurprizes them
into an acknowledgment of God and a Provi-
deuce, which they mull do Penance for when
their Fright is over. Sinners who forget God in
Profpericy, fly to him in their Diftrefsj remember
that God is their rock^, and the hi^h God their
deemer. And if this be a Natural Acknowledg-
ment of Providence, as it certainly is, it owns
the Hand of God in our Sufferings, as well as
his Power to fave 5 for both equally belong to
the Supreme and Sovereign Lord of the World 5
and it is not merely his Power to help, which
makes Sinners fly to God in their diftrefs, but a
fenfe of his Anger in what they fuffer : They do
not fly to God as men do to a powerful Patron,
but as Criminals do to the Mercy of a provok'd
Father or Prince: When they fly to God, it is to
implore his Mercy as humble Penitents, to ap-
peafe his Anger, that he may remove his Judg-
ments 5 and when we fly to the Mercies of God
to remove the Rod, it is an acknowledgment
that it is he that flrikes, as well as he alone that
can fave.
And that Confcience judges right in all this,
however fome men may attribute it to a Super-
ftitious Education, is evident from Scripture,
which exprefly tells us, That God doth whatfoeyer
B 1 pled'
8 A Sermon preach'd at St. PaulV, ^
picafeth hi??! both in heayen and in earth. That none
can flay his hand., or reflfl his will, or fay unto hhn,
What dcefl thou ? That there is no evil in the city,":
tphich the Lord hath not done. If Job be ftripc-of •5''"
all his large PoflefTions in a day, it is the Lord that
^aye, and the Lord that taketh away. If the mighty
King of Jffyria invade Ifrael, and lay wafte their
Cities and Countrey, he is the rod of Cods a?iger^
and the flaff in his hand is his indignation, i o. Ifa.
5, 6. JffitBion cometh ?iot forth of the dufl, neither-
doth trouble fpLiri^ out of the ground, but God is the slio
judge, he putteth down o?ie, and fetteth up another, xoui
75. L^fal. y, 8. This fliews us, that whatever
our Sufferings are, it is God that appoints the &
Rod, and then it muff nearly concern us, iia
idly. To hear the Rod, what and to whom it
fpeaks. Now in this cafe alfo, Confcience and ?nu'
the Word of God are the befl Interpreters of lal,
God's Judgments. The Rod teacheth another
way, but teacheth the fame thing that Confcience
and Scripture teach us 5 that is , it proclaims ;;;iln
aloud the Evil of Sin, and God's Anger and Dif- ^iicjp
pleafure againft it, and calls us to Repentance,
and Reformation of our Lives.
When the Judgments of God are upon -us,
Confcience knows their Errand, and calls all our 4
iins to remembrance, and fets them in order be-
fore us. Nothing but Guilt makes us afraid of
Cod\ '■
%
on the 2d of September^ 1699.
God 5 and how quieL and fecure foever Sinners
are ac other times, the Judgments of God will
awaken their guilty Fears 3 and if men willheark-
en to the Voice of an awaken'd Confcience, it
will certainly tell them why God ftrikes 3 and we
cannot take a fafer courfe, than to reform thofe
Sins of which our Confciences then accufe us.
All the Threatnings of Scripture are againft
Sin, and all the Judgments there recorded, efpe-
cially Piiblick and National Judgments, were in-
Aided for the Punifhment of Sin 3 and thefe are
to be our Examples, as they are the ftanding
Rules and Meafures of Providence. God never
puniflies but for Sin, though he may exercifq par-
ticLilar good men with difficult Trials3 andthere^
fore when bad men and a wicked Nation fuffer,
they may certainly know the Caufe 3 they have
finned , and God is angry, and fummons them
to Repentance 3 for this is the fruit of all^ to take
away fiiu The Voice of Judgments is the fame
with the Voice of Confcience, and the Voice of
God's Prophets 3 Waf? yc, make ye clean, put away
the eVtl of your doings from before mine eyes : Ceafe to
do eVil, learn to do well 3 feek, judgment, relieve the
opp-efjed , judge the fatherlefs, plead for the widow,
I. Ifa. 16, 17-
This is plain enough, and fufficiently known,
^ it were but fufficiently laid to heart 3 and this
. is
i
I
X
4
lo A Sermon f reached at St. Paul /,
—-— ^—— —— ^.,
is all" tfiat we are concerned to know of the Judg-
inenrs of God. The fecrec and hidden Defigns
of Providence , which many times fiirprize the
World with unexpedfed Events, are the Care of
God, and belong not to us, till the Scene opens,
and we fee what part is allotted us in it. What-
ever God be a-doing, we have nothing to do but
to amend our .Lives, which will remove the
Scourge from irs] -i^d entitle us to the Care and
Prote(5tion of Providence. Whereas to bufyour
felves with Politick or Prophetick GuelTes at un-
known Events, to paint our Imaginations with
black and frightful , or with gay and charming ha t
Scenes of things, as defponding Fears, or fan-
guine Hopes infpire the Prophet, can do us no
good, but may do a great deal of hurt to our «Stii
felves and the World. This is not the Voice of ^fo
the Rod, which makes no new Revelations to us, a«k
but only awakens the Convictions of Confci- iife
ence, and enforces the Reproofs and Threatnings W
of the Word , with fuch fenfible and fmarting
Proofs of the Evil of Sin , and God's Anger iMs
againft it, as will make all men confider, who
have not loft their Senfesj and many times re- hi
ftore Senfe and Underftanding to thofe who haci iiiinji
loft them. JjjJi
But this to fome men will feem a very dull
Account of God's Judgments, which will neithdi) '
gratify
f).
JeH
Caicj
Mi
'MIIUII;*
, *;
otl&
}ii)i
tiooc
fei!
litoa
Conk'
Aiii?
, sic
iSIl'
iiti:
iiifi'
on the of September, 1^99.
gratify their Curiofity nor 111 Nature 5 nor, which
they think worfe, leave them any excufe to pal-
liate their Hypocrify.
-TheJudgments of God declare God's Anger
againft Sin , and call us to Repentance : This
men will own, but do not like to hear it expreis'd
in fuch general Terms, as if when God fends his
Judgments amongft us, he were angry with us
for all our fins, and called us to repent of them
all; This they think hard, that they mufi: part
with all their Sins, to remove thefe Judgments j
nay, this they think can't be the Truth of the
Cafe, becaufe the World is always very wicked,
and yet the Judgments of God are not always
abroad in the World : And therefore they fup-
pofe, that when God does execute Judgments, it
is not Sin in general, but fome particular Sins,
which fo highly provoke him 3 and could they
learn what they are , and reform them , they
might fee happy Days again : And this fets men
at liberty to favour what Sins they pleafe, to re-
preach and accufe each other, and to^ charge all
the Evils and Calamities they fufFer upon one ano-
ther, without thinking of reforming themfelves.
Thus to be fure it always is, when there are
differing Parties and Factions in a Nation, who
judge very differently of Good and Evil: They
will all confefsthey are great Sinners, and, it may
• be.
12 A Sermon ^reacFd at St. PaulVj si
be, too many of all Parties are guilty of the fame ^
Sins3 but thofc Sins which are common to them iciep
all, mufl pafs for nothing, becaufe fo far they are "iofs
all agreed. Bur then there are peculiar Party- ;Jii^g
Sins, which every Party diOikes in each other 5 iVer
and what they didike, they conclude God diflikes ;!lcfo
too 5 and to thefe they attribute all the'Evils they jkids,
fuffer: As if the Judgments of God were not to
reform the World, but to decide fome Party- t.T
Quarrels, which will never be decided this way, nsys
when every Party will expound Judgments in fa-
vour of themfelves. 'aj;
But all men fee that this is to judge by a falfe
and partial Rule: This is neither Confcience nor
Scripture 5 for Confcience equally condemns all
Sin, and fo does the Scripture too. I grant, tho
there is, always a great deal of Wickedhefs com-
mitted in the World, God does not always inflidt |
Publick Judgments, which are commonly execu-
ted'wheii^Wickedners and Impiety is grown pub-
Tjek too 3 when publick Government is remifs in
punifhing Wicllednefs, or the Numbers and Pow^- ^
er of Sinners' are grown too great fortheCorred:i- ^ ►
on of Publick Juftice; But we fhall always find
in .Scripture', that when God did inflid Publick
Judgmentshe called for a general Repentance
^and keformation5 and if this were not fo , no
man could iinderftand the Voice of the Rod with%
out
on the 2d of September, 1699.
6nt a Spirit- of Prophecy. But this deferv^es a
more particular Confideration, both with refpe(5t
to thofe S/ns for which God moft commonly fends
his Judgmet^ts, when he fees fit to execute a Pub-
lick Vengeance 3 and the neceffity of an uiiiver-
fal Reformation, 'when the Judgments of God are
upon us.
1. The moft general account the Scripture
gives us of Publick Judgments, is an univerfal
Corruption of Manners. Thus the Prophet de-
f :.ib?s the ftate of the Jewljh Church, when God
th-'irned his Judgments againft them: Ah finful
people hden with iniquity^ a feed of eVtl
doersf' :: thai are corrupters 3 they ha^e forfak^n
the Lordy. -Vt-'v aaaeprovoked the Holy One of Ifrael,
they are gone aiaay haciqvard. And the whole head is
Jic\y and the whole hedrP faint. From the fole of the
foot unto the headj there is no foundnefs in itj but
wounds J and hrwjes^ and putrifying fores: they haye
not heat clofed, nor hound up, nor mollified with oiht-
ment, 1. Ifa. 4, 5,6. And in verfe 10. he calls
them, Tloe rulers of Sodom, and people of Gomorrah.
When Wickednels is gro vn univerfal, and hath
infeded all Ranks arid C:ders of men, fuch a
Nation is ripe for Judgment , ' "it it adds greatly
to the Guilt and Provocation, v h.m men are not
contented to be wicked, without bidding open
C defiance
^ A Sermon freached at St, PaulV^
defiance to God and to all Religion. Wo unto them
jphd draw iniquity with cords of yanity^ and Jtn as it
were with cart^ro^es. Who deride all the Threat-
nings of God, and even dare his Power andju-
jfiice: That fay, Let him inake fpeed, and haften his
work., f^^ 3 counfel of the
Holy One of Ifrael draw nigh, and come, that we may
Iqiow it. Who mock at the differences of Good
and Evil, and value the Reputation of their Wit
and Philofophy too much to be cheated with fuch
empty Names. Wo unto them that call eVil good,
and good eVd, that q>ut darknefs for light, and light for
darlqiefs, that put hitter for fweet, and fweet for hit-
ter. Wo unto the?n that are wife m their eyes, and
prudent in their ownjight: Who having firft deftroy-
ed the eternal and eftential differences of Good
and Evil, change their Names too at pleafiire,
and think themfelves the only Wife Men in the
world for doing fo. This takes off all Reftraints,
and gives the Reins to their Lufts, and they live
juft as they believe, without making any differ-
ence between Good and Evil. Wo unto them that
are mighty to drinks wine, and men of flrength to min-
gle ftrong drinks tpho jujiify the wicked for a reward,
and take away the righteoufnefs of the righteous from
him. Therefore as the fire de^oureth the ftuhhle, and
the flame confumetfj the chaff, fo their root fl)all he as
rottennefs, and their hloffom fl?all go up as the duft, he^
caufe
on the 2d of September, 1699.
caufe they hnVe caji away the law of the Lord of hofts^
and defpifed the word of the Holy One of ifrael^ y, Ifa.
1 8, 'Isrc. The like account we find in the oth?r
Prophets. And when the ftate of a Church and
Nation is fo corrupt, we need not enquire for
what particular Sins God ftrikes 3 but yet there
were fome Sins which God exprelTed a feverer In-
dignation againft, and feldom delayed to puniUij
fuch as their Idolatry, and Contempt of the God
of Ifraelj of his Word and Prophets 3 a Propha-
nation of his Worfliip3 Atheiilical Notions of
Providence, and of Good and Evil 3 or their
abominable Hypocrily, in committing ail the
"Lewdnefs and Villanies which men could com-
mit, and flieltering themfelvesin an external Form
* and appearance of Religion, which the Prophets
every where complain of.' To thefe Caufes is
owdng the univerfal Corruption of Manners 3 for
it is impolTible any Nation fhould fo univerially
degenerate, till they have either corrupted their
Religion by Superftition and Hypocrify, or loft
ail fenfe of it 3 and therefore this calls for a fpee-
dy Vengeance.
As for what more particularly concerns the
"Chriftian Church , we may learn, from the Epi-
; ftles to the Seven Churches of Jjtay what it is pro-
vokes our Lord either feverely to punifh us, or
to remove the Golpel from us. The Church of
C 2 Ephc"
16 A Sermon f reached at St, PaulV,
EphefuSy though flie had acquitted her felf well in
many things, yet had left her firjl loVCy had abated
Very much of her Zeal and Fervour for the Name
and Religion of Chriif. The Church of Terga'
7nus is threatned for fuffering thofe among her who
caught Idolatrous Worlliip, and fleflily Lufts:
And the Church of Thyatira likewife for fuffering
the Je:^ahel to commit Fornication, and
to eat things facrificed to Idols. The Church of
Sard'ts made a glorious and pompous Profeflion
of Religion, but without the true Life and Spirit
of it; jhe had a name to ItVCy hut was dead: And
the Church of Laodtcea grew very cold and indif-
ferent even in the Profeffion of Religion, as well
as in the Prad:ice of it 3 fiie was neither hot nor
coldy hut lukewarm. All thefe our Saviour fum-
mons to Repentance,' and threatens to punifii or
deflroy them if they did not, Chap. 2, and 3. of
the ^yelations.
The Application of all this to our felves is fo
obvious, that I need not multiply words about
it: We are that very Nation wherein all thefe
Evils meet 3 it is hard to name any Vice which is
not openly committed amongft us without Fear
or Shame : Nay, things are come to chat pafs,
that to be a modell Sinner, to boggle at any
Wickednefs, or to blufh at it, is as great a Re-
proach as to be Virtuous: And thoughLome men
are
on tbe 7d of Scpttmbtr, 1699. 1
arc aihamed to own themfelves Atheifts, yet to
believe in Chrift, and to own any Reveal'd Reli-
gion, or to talk feriouOy of Providence, of God's
^ governing he World , and punifhing Cities and
j Nations tor their- Wickednefs, is thought a Jefl: 5
j and I wifli it were a Jeft only among vile and
mean People , of no Fortune or Education ,
I whereas we often fee that their Condition makes
them modeft, and untaught Nature teaches them
better, till they are corrupted by the Examples
of Men of Wit and Figure in the World. And
as for thofe who pretend to Religion, it is a very
melancholy Profpedt, to obferve how little of the
true Life and Spirit of Chriftianity there is among
them. There is indeed Noife, and Zeal, and
Fadtion enough among fome People, and that
makes others as cold and indifferent : The Tern-
pers of the Church of Sardis and Laodicea^ the one
that had a Name to live, but was dead, the other
that was lukewarm, make much the greateft Par-
ties among us 3 and the very befl men, I fear, are
too much inclined to the ftate of EphefuSy which
had left her fir ft Love , thofe great Paflions and
Ardors of Devotion which ought, to infpire the
Minds of Chriftians.
Let us then hear the Rod arid tremble: See
how God dealt with t\\c Jewift? Church for thefe
Sins -J fee what our Lord hath done to the
' Churches,.
18 A Sermon f reached at St. Paul /";,
Churches of Jjia j and though we cannot fay If:'
what God will do to us, becaufe we know not ;:Cot
what wonderful Defigns are in the Womb of Pro- cocc'
vidence, yet we know what we do, and how God jifcnn:
hath dealt with thofe who have done as we do 5 impai
which is too juft reafon to fear that he will deal fo -ad
by us too, unlefs we repent and reform, which Tb
they did not. For, Piibl
idly. When the Judgments of God are upon liflit
us, the Reformation miift be univerbal too: It ielC
concerns every man to reform himfelf3 for a Na- ulefi
tion can never be reformed, but by the Reforma- ;
tion of particular men, who make up the Na-
tion 5 and therefore when we are fummoned to
Repentance, as the Judgments of God fummon
us all, every man muft examine Jiimfelf what he
has to repent of, and reform himfelf. But yet
there is great difference between a National and
Perfonal Repentance and Reformation, and they ;,4
ferve very different Ends.
A Nation may be faid to be reformed, and God
may in great Mercy remove his Judgments, tho
( what is never to be expedted ) every particular 4^
man do not repent and reform himfelf: But then
fuch a National Reformation requires the Execu- , 1
tion of Publick Juftice againft Publick Wicked-
nefs, to make Sin publickly infamous, and to ^
teach the greateft and moft powerful Sinners Mo-
deffy :
on the 2d September, 1699. i
defty: To banifii, if not Sinners, yet Sin out of
our Courts, and out of our Streets, and to make
it once more feek for Night and Darknefs for a
Covering; that Virtue may no longer blufli in
Company, or need Apologies 3 nor Vice dare to
I brave it at Noon-day. *
There has indeed of late been fome Care taken
by Publick Laws and Royal Proclamations, to
punifli the Prophanation of God's Name by ac-
ciirfed Oaths 3 but yet in moll cafes men may be
as vile fs they pleafe, and as publickiy fo as they
pleafe, and little or no notice taken of them 3
nay, they may talk and write what they pleale
againft God and Religion , ridicule the Hiftory
of Mo/es, and the Golpel of our Saviour, and
the Myfteries of the Chriftian Faith , and gain
Credit and Reputation by it. I hope there are not
m4ny Chriftian Nations in the World, which in.
fo publick a manner permit thefe things. We
have talk'd of Liberty of Confcience, and Re-
formation, to good purpofe, if the only effect of
it be a liberty of ridiculing the Chriftian Faith 3
which might make one fufpe6t that all the Xeal
fome men have exprefs'd againft Popery, was at
the bottom of it a Z-eal for Atheifm and Irreli-
gion; which the Difcipline of Popery , as bad a
Relif^ion as it is, would not endure 3 it is indeed
well^fitted CO make Athcifts and Infidels, but
20 A Sermon preach'd at St. PaulV,
will make men have a care how they profefs it.
And it is to be feared, that this Scepticifm, and In-
fidelity, and Contempt of Religion, will prove
a Back-door to let in Popery again upon us.
But to leave thefe Thoughts with thofe whofe
proper Care and Bufinefs it is j whether a Nation
will be reformed or not, it concerns every parti-
cular man to hear the Rod: The Judgments of
God warn us of his Anger and Difpleafure againft
Sin, that we may fly from the Wrath to^come 5
and we do not hear the Voice of the Rod, nor
improve Judgments to their true end, if we do
not fo repent and reform, as to fave our Souls 5
and this. to be fure mufl: be a Perfonal and an
Univerfal Reformation. And yet even with re-
fpe6l to prefent Judgments, a Perfonal Repentance
and Reformation is of great ufe 5 for when the
Judgment is Publick and National, God many
times makes arernarkable diftindtion between per-
fons : Say ye to the righteous, it pall he well'tviththeniy
for they'pall reap the fruit of their doings: Wo unto
the wicked^ itp?all be ill with him, for the reward of
his hands p?all hegiVen to htm: Which is fpoke with
refped: to Publick Judgments, Jfa. 10, 11.
Which is a fufficient Encouragement for particu-
lar men to repent, and reform their Lives, what-
ever others do.
itmnit;
■it beer,
■fears
iof
aiany
al I
id
This
ml
'.teoi
it lit
;T1
as to
on the 2d of September, 1699..
Buc it is time to apply what I have now dif-
courfed, to the Particular (5ccafion of this Day s
Solemnity 5 though pofTibly fome may think
that this Application comes too late 5 it might
have been very feafonable One or Two and thir-
cy Years ago, while the Marks of this Terrible
Vengeance were frefii and vifible 5 when the
Ruins of our Houfes and Churches could only
tell us where London flood, and fhew us its Fu-
neral Pile, where its Glory lay in the Diift ; When
fo many Thoufand Families felt the fmarcof their
Ruined Fortunes , and were either forc'd to be-
gin the World again, or funk irrecoverably under
it. This Fiery Vengeance had a Voice then, and
a very Terrible Voice, enotrgh to awaken the
moft flupid and Lethargick Sinners. But when
we fee our City rebuilt more beautiful than ever,
as the little poor Remains of the Old one wit-
nefs: When our Riches and Glory are increafed
beyond the Example of mofl: former Ages, it
feems too late to lament over the Afhes and Rub-
bidi of our Fired City, when there are no vifible
Remains of thefe Ruins to move our Pity or Sor-
row: And indeed were this the only defign of
this Annual Faft, it were high time to put an
ei)d to it, or to turn it into aThankfgiving Fefti-
val: For it is in vain to expe(5l, that after Three
and thirty Years, the return of this Day fhould
D revive
A Sermon freacb d at bt, Paul'/;,
revive and renew our Sorrows and Lamenta'ions,
when our Ruins are removed, our Lofles repair-
ed , and thofe frightful ImprefTions which the
fight of that devouring Fire made on us, forgot 3
and little left to put us in mind that ourCit) was
burnt, but the Infcription upon the Monument^
and the fight of a New City , with the feveral
Dates of its Refurredfion; which rru;!^ needs
qualify all melancholy and forrowtul Reflections
on what is fo long pafl.
. But though the Delign of thii) Solemnity is not
to reprefent and adt over again a new doleful
Scene of Horror, Confufion , and Amazement,
which neither Nature nor Art can imitate, as w^e
faw it once on this day , without fuch another
amazing Sight, which God grant we may never
fee again till the General Conflagration 3 yet it
is of great ufe to keep up a lively fenfe of fuch
Judgments upon our Minds, which become the
fubjedt of Reafon, of cool Thoughts, and wife
Confideration, when the Terror and Frightfulneis
of them is over.
Judgments could never make a lafting Refor-
mation in the World, were we concerned to re-
member them no longer than we feel their fmart 3
but they are intended both- for Punifliment .a,nd
Inftru^tion 3 the Punifliment ends with the fmart,
and that puts an end to all whining and tragical
Com-
on the 26. af September,. 1699.
Complaints 5 but this alone is the dircipline of
Fools or Bruits : The Inftru(51:ion is for Men, and
this istolaftas long as Memory, and Thought,
and Reafon laft. What could the Fire of London
teach us Thirty three Years ago, which it does
not teach a wife man ftill ? And what Thoughts
and de.vout Paflions became us then, which a,re
not ftill on this Day the proper Exercife of our
Devotion ? . ,
When we faw our Churches and Ffoufes in
Flames, when we faw thofe furious Torrents of
Fire rowling down our Streets, and defpifing all
the Oppofition that Fluman Art or Strength could
make, as if they had known by what a Divine
and Irrefiftible Commi/fion they acfted 5 there
were few men to be found, who did not exprefs a
great Fear and Reverence of the Power, and Ju-
ftice, and terrible Majefty of God 5 who did not
fee and own the Hand of God , and the vifible
Tokens of his Difpleafure, and begin in good
earneft to think of reforming their Lives, and
making their Peace with God , who had now ca-
ken the Rod into his own hand.
When we faw our Riches make to themfelves
Wings and fly away as an Eagle towards Hea-
venj when we law all our Pride and Glory, the
Toil and Labour of our whole Lives, the Food
and the Inftruments of our Lufts, vaniCh into
Da Smoke
A Sermon freach'd at St. Paul/,
Smoke and Duft, this effedtually taught us the
Uncertainty of all prefent things, and made us
ferioufly confider what an ill flate thofe were, in,
who had nothing to truft to but fuch vanifhing
Treafiires 3 and how reafonable our Saviour's
Command is, ISlot to lay up for our fehes treafures
on earthy where moth and ruft do corrupt, and ivhere
thieves breaks through and fteal 3 but to lay up for our
fehes treajures m heaVen, which are not fubje^l: to
fuch Calualties3 which will make us bear fuch
Lofles better when they come , and fecure our
eternal Intereft.
When men faw their Riches and Treafures va-
nifli in a Cloud, it naturally made them confider
how much of this they owed to the Poor, how
much they had fpent upon their Lufts, and how
much they had unjuftly got3 that is, how much
of what God had taken from them was not their
own, and how much they had abufed the Gifts of
God : Very Wife and Pious Thoughts, had they
lafled 3 and yet too plain to be miffed by thofe
who thought at all, when they faw thefe Leffons
written in bright Charadfers of Fire.
Now was all this, do you think , calculated
only for Sixty fix ? Is not God the fame ftill ? A
Juft and Righteous Judge , Vv^ho is angry with the
wicked eVery day, though he do not every day bend
his bow, and let fly his Arrows 5 though he do
c not
on the ad of September, 25
not every make the earth tremble andc^uake, and
the Very foundations of the hills to fhake ^ he'caufe he
is angry 5 though we do not every day fee a fmoke
go out of his prefence, and a confuming fire out of his
vjouth-j though he do not upon every Provoca-
tion appear in his Terrible Majefty, riding upon
the CheruhinSy and flying upon the tvings of the wind.
Methinks one fuch Example might ferve us for
fome Ages , without expecting or defiring to
befummoned again to Repentance by new Ter-
rors. God is gracious and mercifuly flow to anger ,
and p/ great kindnefs: He delights rnore to di^lay
his Glory in adts of Gpodnpfs aq^d Bouncy to
.his Creatures 5 .but Jqdgnienfs are^ his flran^e
woify which makes the fignal ^xep,utibn.of them
fo very rare 5 and the way to have them rare, is
not to forget them, to learn Righteoufnefs by the
things which we have fulFer'd 3 to fear and trem-
ble before that God who is fo terrible in his doings
towards the children of men.
But if the Fire of London was too long fince to
work upon our Fears at this diftance, ( though I
confefs I wonder how any man who faw that Sight,
fliould ever forget it, or remember it without a
juft Awe and Reverence of God ) 5 but I fay, if
thefe Imprelfions of Fear and Terror are loil, let
the Beauty and Glory of our New City, our In-
creafing Riches, our Flourifhing Trade, our Eafe-
26 ASemon freach'ci at_ St, ^ulj, .
. (St f
and Plenty, teach ns to Love and Reverence,'^
and Worfliip and Praife that God, who in the
midfl of judgment hath rememhred mercy 5 who hath ijgainft
plucl(d us as a frehrand out of the firCy and hath not
fuffered our Enemies to triumph over us, who ^scrmc
faid, Vown with it^ down with it, eyen to the ground,
This is the way to perpetuate our Profperity and
- - _ - -
Glory, if the Remembrance of paft Judgments jetvaw
teaches us to Fear God, the fenfe of his prefent
Mercies to Love him, and both to Obey him.
Which God of his Infinite Mercy grant, through ?
,aa
our Lordjefus ChriJI: To Whom, with the Father and
the Holy Ghojl, M Honour, Glory, and Tower, now.
and ever, , Amen.
■Hatii
'J (
F L N I S;
'tiari
ffiibji
iMaice
ilin
ihtb
tOD. I
iftE
m
fiitt
iBooks
m
Wi
m
'Books Tuhl'tjhed hy the ^e')>erend Dr. Sherlock, Dean
of St. Paul s, Mafter Temple, and Chaplain
^ in Ordinary to His Majefty.
An Anfwer to a Difcourfe, entituled, Papifts protefting
againft Proteftant Popery, ad Edit. Quarto.
An Anfwer to the Amicable Accommodation of the DilFeren-
ces between the Reprefenter and the Anfwerer. Quarto.
' Eleven Sermons preach d on feveral Occafions. Quarto.
A Vindication of fome Proteftant Principles of Church-Unity
and Catholick Communion, from the Charge of Agreement
with the Church of Rome. Quarto.
A Prefervative againft Popery, in Two Parts; with the Vindi-
cation, in Anfwer to the Cavils of Lewis Sabran, Jefuit. ^to.
A Difcourfe of the Nature, Unity, and Communion of the
Catholick Church. Firft Part. ^nrto.
Cafe of Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers, Stated and Re-
folved, according to Scripture and Reafon, and the Princi-
pies of the Church of England. Quarto.
A Vindication of the Cafe of Allegiance due to Sovereign
Powers. Quarto.
A Difcourfe concerning the Divine Providence. Quarto. Second
Edition. Price 5 s.
A Vindication of the Do<ftrineof the Trinity. 3d Edit. 0^0.
Apology for Writing againft Quarto.
A Vindication of the Sermon of the Danger of corrupting the
Faith by Philofophy; in Anfwer to fome Remarks. /\.to.
A Defence of Dr. Sherlock's Notion of the Trinity. Quarto.
The Diftindlion between the Real and Nominal exa-
mined, in Anfwer to a Socman Pamphlet. Quarto.
A Pradtical Difcourfe concerning Death. In OBauo. Tenth Edi-
tion. Price 3 s.
A Praiftical Difcourfe concerning a Future Judgment. The
Fifth Edition. OSlavo. Price ^ s. 6 d.
The Prefent State of the Soc;»r^»Controverfy, and the Doiftrine
of the Catholick Fathers concerning a Trinity in Unity. 4r(r.
Price f s.
An Anfwer to the Animadverfions on the Dean of St. Taul's
Vindication of the Trinity. By y. B. A. M. Quarto.
A Defence of the Dean of St. Vaul's Apology for Writing
againft Socinians. Quarto.
>■
' 2 .. '
^r ■- ■ ' ' ~' i'Ci 9 \
-A^
\ -f
■ '■ ' ?v..'rn -
I -i
Li
^ '.T.r
• . rr * F •
-O'waa h s • ,
•; fv : &;;j rj?.- --«>•
•-A jgiwl,.. 3r'_'V,7C. > n'l ■-»5^ ' ■ - ) -: "v^. "*
'i^xVj^piJlh/ i 23lj;<J.fij f?'Ah'--' " "■ '3" ^
.^^.3tL:at •
v.fl r-.,- -..w:/-!.: .^.'bi:, ,
il
. . , ■ ■■-. -.an-c'.'-i r'.L.'pvr? .-.
&acipc3 An^Bivci^B^fiyK".: 'i -
A -i ^ 1 ^
.- 3 -■::.} • -
. ■Vic?- -:
^i'.J t '■ ia
cl'ij' bni!
K T' ''••■ %' .. - • - "T-* f -* <> «. • V
•^ 1 r .'.-v'lA •■,'^■,^7
fl'
I
ta_.
.- -A ? '-no- •' >
'■■•ix tit.4 Ji" 3. . :r.;-7T - •;, 1-, . •
>■,--. 4.'\ ■'■ > A * V- -W A , A . 4
V. -n-tn-roo io-^;:n:{Ic^3^o .'•"
.tVh, A:' -rn- 'f ^ ^O rti'ir.:
-;■. .t\"s, ■ ''.ru'-iiT ■■ .'v ' •-- rv- ., '' ' - {_-■■-■! --
,■ .^n.7,a ... .r j;7-7>4^%-,v'-rrA ,:.;7
r^Ui.T.niVl:Ji ■ >-
.„■ • aV../ ' „
-iT' .3«33Jn..-:;.T f uJnT ■• rt:.-. . . ' -> '^1^.3'"'^ .r-'OiJ
•: " r -J' •.,./3 tn-;:to^.a lAv-fbw^ \.
'Tf^ -ncn-i?;! H•^:j
.v; .vimuMx;;Li,T:t A-- Mi
., V • ~ -iv... rj .rt3; :x;?-
fe! \r-d'- '.'j^ , ,v. v-;:
;, W'r' ■ ' " ^ 3nu:.c -
i; T'A •
If m, -. . , ;
:x<
->s
.7^-
'^3.
.-aI> -.0 i ■■ f ^ Vl . /y , 'Ai, w. :
. *,• ■ * ' •'' ^ ' •Ab'iAj . s ': ■' , - . ■-
.3,^ v»-^r£5t;.'2>h'• ''"■ '■■■
ItHUOI.
THE
Mafterof theTempIe'l
REASONS?
FOR
His Late Taking the OATH i
To Their Majefties, '
A N S W E R E D i
B Y T H E I,'
Redtor of St. George Botolph-Lane. f.
W I T H
Modeft Remarks I
Q N T H E
/;
feottois Celeb,zatetj Jg-ottonil
O F I
Allegiance to Soveraign Powers.
'Quantum Mutatv.s ah illo^
Turpe ejl Dodiori, cum culpa redar^uit Ipfum.
f nndiin—printed for Ednpard Coldm^y 16^0,
. ?
THE
PREFACE
/ k
I
^ B' HE Church of 'R.om^s,Pretence to Infallibility, has leen
■ decryed hy not a feWj ivho, at the fame t'me^ have leen as I
H Dogmatical in every Punctilio, or things ivholly Ex- )j
trinfick to the Chrijlian Religion^ as if the fingular Privi-
ledge of the Church had leen tranfplanted from Rome, to a Peo-
pie that would bring forth better Fruits thereof: Nor has this Im- 'j
perious Principle confined it felf to thofe things ivhich feem more with- ,
in its Sphere (which^ if done in Moderation, would never have leen k
htamed Ly the Soher part of Matilein/f) lut hui emioa<;ht upon Po- -*j
liticians, on a Pretence of reSiifying the Vnchrifiian Principles they
had infeSled the World with : As if there was to he no manner of l<
Knowledge in the Z/niverfe^ lut what Ihould proceed from the a
Priefts Lips: And the Urim and Thummim of thefe Holy Ones
hath contributed not a little (ly ruhlingoff the Laodicean Temper) }}
to inflame the World with a Blind ^eal and Virulent Hatred', arid I
to fet a Man and his Friends at variance together: And all this is
propagated hy means of a foolifh belief in the more fimple People, j
of the Infallibility of thofe Perfons, from a Blind Reverence given ^
to them, on the Account of their Fundfion. ^
That this is no fill ion, will appear beyond all ContradiHion, if we Jj
lut cnjider what hath been thrown out of Pulpits, and not long ago |i
dropt from the Pens of not a few, who have been accounted the great- 4
efl Proficients in Rcafon, and meerly upon the forefaid account, gree- ^
dily fvallowed up by the more Inconf derate', thd the more knowing of ;
that fide, efpoufed thofe Tenets, from a more pernicious Principle,
that they might the eafier, like the great Fijhes, domineer over, and ^
A ^ devour
(.
[le r R E F A c
devour others; and he has wholly abandoned his Reafon^ to whatever
their Caprice fug^efls^ who hds the Face to deny it.
Among all other s^ none has appeared a ft outer Champion for thofe
Tenets in general.^ than this Learned Dod:or: And^ for fught I know^
none has contributed more to encreafe thentumher of ^2\c-contQnxSj to
Their prefent Majejlies., frem thofe Principles^ than He has; Andyet.^
we fee^ how., of a fudden., He has been pleafed to All Diametrically.^
contrary to them • tho\ at the fame time., in his Vindication, He
feems flill to own them: VPhich, in the Eyes of all underflanding Men,
is no better than for a Perfon to Inveigh loudly againfl all manner of
Debauchery, and yet, at the fame time, to be guilty of fame noto-
rious Ads of it.
I am glad, that this Learned Perfon has Taken the Oaths, (ivhat-
ever was his Motive in Jo doing ^ as St. Paul was glad that Chrift
was Preached', tho' feme did it out of Envy, and others, from fime
other ftnijler Principle; But that the Dodtor fhould vindicate his
Taking the Oaths, and yet retain his former Principles, is, I con-
fefs, a Riddle heymd my Capacity to unfold. I have therefore brief-
ly, prepofid in puLlirh-. Conjlderation, ivhat the Dodfor has formerly
propojed as Matters of bighejt Importance, which feem, with a Wit-
nefs, to coHtradid fome Pajfages in his Vindication, (tho' He, at the
fame time, fuggejls. That he is the fame Man as formerly,) that
He may Qfor the ptisfadion of a great many Perfons, that are not
a little concerned for it) either pleafe to reconcile thofe Pajfages
with what He has formerly fo hdujlrioufy^ Preached and Written;
or formally re trad his former Principles on this point, as pernici-
OHS to Til {^aiukint): By doing whereof Qfor ought I know) he may
more advantage the Publick, than He has hitherto done by all his
Learned Writings.
/ migjot mind him, Th.it in Vindicating himfelf. He fas his hejl
Topick) mifot have faid fomething in VindicationTheir Ma-
jeflies Government: But my Defign being chiefly to Jhew Him, where-
in He is at I Vrr with Himfelf, I wave it • not doubting hit this Cafe
voill, by fome other- Hand, be prejented to this Learned Cafuifl.
The
I
The Mafter of the
TEMPLE.
In his Cafe of Jllegiance,
^Affirms^ y
'Hat all Soveraign
Princes, who are
fettled in their
Thrones, are placed
there by God, and inve-
fted with his Authority,
and therefore maft he obeyed
by all Subjefts, as the
Minifters of God,mthout
enquiring into their Legal
Right and Litle to the
Throne. Alkg.pag.io.
That' the Scripture
has given us no Dire£ti-
ons in this Cafe, but to
fubmit
The Redor of Saint
George Botolph^Lane.
In his Cafe of Keftfiance*
THere is another Oh-^
jiSion againfl ndmt
the Apofile affirms. That
there is no Power buf: of
God: The Powers that
be, are ordained of God.
Lor, is the Power of Victoria
ous Rekls and Vfarpers
from Gad? Lid O. C.
ceive his Power from God?
then it feems, it was
fill to Kefifi him too, of to
*Confpm againff him.
To Wis I anjwer. That
the mojtVrofperops KelO
I g not
" of IDs temple.
fiibmit, and pay all the
Obedience of Subjedts
to the prefent Powers.
It makes no dijlintlion, that
ever I could find, letween
Rightful Kings, andZJfur'^
pers • between Kings
we muft, and whom we
muft not obey; but the
General Rule is, ht every
Soul be fubjedl to the higher
VotS'ers^ for all Vomr is of
Gtfi, Ibid. p. i8. i
The Englijh Monarchy is
riereditary, and the Line-
al Heir has the Legal
Right to the Crown:
Grant this; But ftill we
niuft conlider, how far
this is a Law to all pri-1
vateSubjects,- hpw far!
every Subjc6f is Bound
jn Confcience by this
Con-
ntaot of at' i o x o l p h.
not the Higher Towers, while
our Natural Prince, to ^
I whom we owe Obedience and
Subjediion, is in Being.
And therefore, tho' f uh Men
may get the Tower into their fe i
hand by God'j Termifiion,
yet not by God's Ordi-
nance; and he who Re-
lifts them, does not Re- dd
lift the Ordinance of it
G o D, but the Ufurpa-
tions of Men. In Here- irfe
ditary Kingdoms(which '5 ol
is England) the King ne- ivat
ver Dies j but the fame mi^ ^?for
nute that the natural Terfon li 1
of one King Dies, the Crown iof
defcends upon the next Blood- ling
and therefore he who Rebels'
leth againfi the father, con^ iSoi
tinues a Rebel in the Reign 4l)(
of the Son, which commences
mtb
chatter of m temple.
lili Conftitution, to give
fj the Poflejflion of the
iii Crown to the Right Heir,
iDg, and not to fuSer any
one elfe to take it ,• or if
fc he do, not to pay
l%pance to him, or own him
[|. for his King. What Law
8e- is there that fays this ?
And I think the reafon
the thing doth not
pj. prove it. The Law doth
jt-not refer the Cogni-
il zance of fuch Matters
iie«,toprivate Subjects j and
therefore they are not
ffjii Bound by Law to take
fill care of itj and I know
y, nothing but Law can
y.'Bind us to a legal Con-
Iff ftituinon. Legal Rights
muft be determined by
0 a legal Authority j and
[j,' there
Utao? of ©t. BOTOLPH.
nnth his Father s Death}
It is other wife in dee
where none can pretend
greater Kigbt to theCrot§
than the Vfurper ^ for the\
Po(fefion of Power feems ,
give a Right. Thus ma\
of the Roman Emperoi
came to the Crown hy very v
means, hut when they wei
Poffefi of it, they were tt
Higher Powers ^ for th
Grown did not defcenf
by Inheritance, but fom^.
times by the Elediion of tl
Senate, fometimes the Arm^
which always draws a confer
after it: And therefore tl)
Apoftle does nof dire hi th^
Chrifiians to enquire hy whi
Title the Emperors helc;
their Crowns ^ hut Com\
mands them to fuhmit i,
B 2 thol%
1
of tUc T E M P L E. ■ RtSor of «t. B O T O L P H.
lere is no Authority who bad the Power
an take Cognizance of hands ^ for the Pof^ ^
ae Titles and Claim of fejfon of Supream and
veraign Power is Title ^
nough, when there is no''"n
better Title to oppofe
; fl Ij. i'thC
gat nit
rinces, and the diipolal
f the Crown, but the
ftates of the Realm:
hey indeed are obli-
ed to take Notice of
le legal Defcent of the
'rown j and if through
liftake, or any other
laufe , they fet the
'rown upon a wfoftg
lead, they muft ailfwer
It.
There are Two Example
tn Scripture, which mAni
felily confirm what I have now ^^^
fail "
^ The frfl in the '¥jngdom%
of Ifrael, after the 'Ten '
Trihes had divided from
Dt it; but private Sub- Houfe ef judah, and ther
;(3:s, who have no legal family of 'Do.v'y^, God *"
'osnizance df the mat-
bad not entailed the?!
are Rohnd by no Kingdom upon any cer-'
littl)
,aw, that'I know of, to
ifovvn a King, whom
he Ellates have owned,
ho' they flhould think
he Right is in the other.
If
tain Family J He bad in-^-
deed, by hh\]2ihtbeProphetf^^
promifed, after Solomon'^®'
Death, Ten Tribes to Jero-^''-^^
boam, the Son of 'NehatJ^^
I Kings'''t
tf
Sherlock againfl; Sherlock.
Ji
i}(
r
[
of t\)t TEMPLE.
If Authority may not
over-rule private Sub-
jefts in thefe Gafes, even
againft their own pri-
yate Opinions, and Jufti-
fie their Obedience to
a King, who is placed in
theThrone,Subje(9:s are
in a very ill Cafe, who
have no Authority to
Judge, and no Power to
ft Refift: There are nu-
merous Cafes, wherein
Subjed:s muft acquiefce
. in the determinations of
jlalegal againft
what thev think a legal
itttp' • ^
;r R/gk: The reafon and
" j^necellities of Govern-
^^^menc require it ^ and
^^^heLaw, which gives a
PRight, will not allow us
®''to vindicate our
a-
EtSor of BOTOLPH
I Kings II, 29, &c. I
bad afterwardsi bj the fa
Rrophet, threatened Jen
boam to defro) his wh\
Famllj, Chap. 15. lo, i
Baafha falfils this Froph
fie, by the Tralterous Mii\
ther of Nadab ( who fa.
ceeded his Father Jerobc
am in the Kingdom) a?i
Vfiirpt the Government him
felfi and flew ^//Jerobc
amV Hoafe, ver. 28, 2<
This Murther and Trea
fon is nambred among tl
Sins of Baalha ,• for whic
God afterwards threatei
ed to defiroy his Houfe, 0
he had done the Hoafe 0
Jeroboam, chap. 16. vet
7. Ela fucceededRoidSh, wh
had no better Title than hi
Father, and yet Zimri, nit
C - Sin
b .
W'
z
(ft
Sherlock agaiiift Sherfock.'
ipaCtec of tlje temple.
ainft a legal Authority:
id therefore, it doth
it follow meerly from the
!W of Succejfion^ that Sab-
h are Bound in Confcienee
own no King, who is not the
rhtfal Heir, Ibid. 52.53.
The Queftion is not,
hether the Monarchy
i Hereditary, that is a-
reed, but whether in an
hereditary Monarchy
e muft pay Allegiance
) no Prince who is not
le legal Heir, tho' pof-
;lled of the Throne;
lis the Lawyers deny,
id produce Law for it;
ad if there be fuch
|aws, It is certain by Law,
je may pay Allegiance to a
Yng in Bofe(^ton, notwith-
:anding the fund amen-
tal
Etacr of BOTOLPH.
Slew him, is accufed ofTrea*
foil for it, ver. 20. Zimri
Vfurpt the Kingdom when he
had Slew his Mafler, but he
was only a vainVretender to
it, when he wanted Bower;
for when the Beople who were
Encamped againfi Gibbe-
thon, beard that Zimri
had Killed the King, they
made OmriKing, and went
immediately and Befieged
Tizzah, where Zimri had
taken Boffefon of the Kings
Balace-, who, finding no way
to Efcape,fet Fire to it him-
felf and died in the Flames
of it. And now Iffael was
divided between Omri and
Tibri; hut thofe who fel"
lowed Omri, prevailed a-
gainfl thofe who followed Th
Sri; and Tibri died, and
Omri
jlC
Icrec
jthf
,iie,'
jindf
ttve,
Icir
to
iveri
(tic
10 It
liisl
Esp'
p
not
of tUC TEMPLE.
tal Conftitution of an
Hereditary Monarchy;
for the L^q), which makes
one, allows and com-
mands the other; and
then it is an Hereditary
Monarchy, with this re-
ferve, of paying Allegi-
ance to the King in Pof-
feffion, when the legal
Heir cannot obtain his
Right.
And this I take to be
a very wifeConftitution,
which fecures the Kings
Right, as far as Law can
do it J but if the King
foonld be deprived of
his Right, {which the
Experience of all Ages
proves he may be) doth
not think fit that the
Government fhould fink
with
BtSOJ of BOTOLPH.
OmviKetgned, ver. 21.S
All which plainly JIjcws, tt
where there is no reg
lar Succelfion to t-
Kingdom, there foffej,
of Power makes a King, t
cannot afterwards he refij
andoppofed without thegi
of Treafon.
But it was otherwife in
Kiingdom of wh;
GOD himfelf had (
tailed on David's Fam:
as appears from the Exi
pie of Joaflh, who was i
cealed by his Aunt Jel
Iheba, and hid in the H
of the Lord for Six Ye
During thisLime, At
liah Keigned, and haa
whole Power of Govern'^ }
in her hands-, but yet |
did not make her a
C 2 ver^
^2. OliCI
of tl)e temple.
ith him, and therefore
'akes provilion for the
^curity of the G<7z;^r;^-
\nt, and of the Sufajedls
1 ider xh^Keffnant Vrince.,
o ^
lich the Reafons and
eceffities of Govern-
?nt require and jufti-
, tho' there had been
1 Law for it.
Now it is enough to
^ I
pve, that Allegiance is I
; Law due to a King
^atio, if Treafonmay
committed againft
for no Treafon can
committed where no
j giance is due.
This is confefled.that
(iich Ails as are
j gainft a King de jtire,
^Treafon, when com-
I'ed agaioft a King de
Rtaorofftt.BOTOLPH.
veraign and irrefiftable
Prince, the right Heir
of the Grown was yet
alive: Afid therefore in the
Sevefitb Thar, Jehojada^^^
Vrief fet Joafh upon the
■Throne, 'and'S lew Atnaliah,
and was guilty.of no Treafon
or Keiellion in doing fo, 2
Kings II. abicb Jbtm,
That no Ufurpations
canextinguifl] theRight
jand Title of a natural
Prince. Such Ufurpers,
though they have the
Politdlion of the Su-
qream Power, yet they
lave no right to it j and
though GOD, for wife
Reafons, i may fome-
times permit fuch Ufur-
pations,: yet while his
Providence Xecures the
Per-
c^ailer of tu temple.
faSo, but not, fay they,
becaufe Alkgiance is due
to him,but becaufe they
are againft the order of
Governmentgind therefore
are Treafon by the pre-
fumed confent of the
King de jure. In Anfwer.
That fuch are a-
gainft the Order of Go-
vernvient^ and very de-
ftrudlive to it, is the on-
ly reafon why they are
made Treafon by Law j
and this is a good reafon
why the Law ihould
make them Treafon a-
gainft de fallo, as
againft a King de jure.
Bid.
Yet one may reafon-
ably prefume,that a King
who forfakes his
dom.
Ettov 0£ ©t. BOTOLPl
Perfons of fuch De|
fed andBaniChed Pr
ces from Violence,
fecures their Title t<
As it was in Nebuchs
nezzarV Vifion, Dan. 4.
Tbe Tree is cut dom, but
Stump of the Roots is
in the Earth. The Ki
dom Jhall be fure to th
after that they Jhall k
that the Heavens do Ru,
Cafe of Refiftance of Supream Po^
Pages 1x7,128, 119,130, 131,
Self-Defence was i
ver allowed by GUl
Nature, againft Publi
Authority, but only aga
Vrivate Violence.
There was a Time, w
Fathers had the Power
Life and Death over ti
own Children: Now, I wo
D
vjiiuiiuuis. ci^cUiiLL
of i\}Z TEMPLE.
to confult his own
.ecy, will give h\sSd-
; leave to confult
,'irs; If this will jufti-
a King to lave hi mlelf,
leaving hisKingdom,
ly will it not juftifie
■jecis, when their Ki?ig
i left them, to fubmit
d comply with the
■wailing Powers, as far
;is neceflary to pre-
ye themfelves? That
bven by Oaths of Al-
iance ,• Self-^Vreferva-
; is as much aLaw to Sub-
(f, as to the Vrince ^ and
f cts much Sroorn to Go'vern
Vrotedi his Subjedls, as
, are to Obej and Defend
and if the necefities of
'^frefervation^ Abfolve
from his Oath of Govern-
• '"i
EfSor of 0t. BOTOLPH.
only ask thefe Men, if a Son,,
at that time, faw his Father
coming to Kill him, and that,
as he thought, very u?ijuflly,he
might Kill his Father to de^
fend himfelf This never
was allowed by ^ the mo ft Bar-'
barous Natiotis in the ^orld':
and yet it may he juftified by
this Frinciple of Self-De^
fence, as it is urged by thofe
Men; which is a plain Ai'"
gument that it is falfe. It
is an exprefs Law, That
he that Smiteth his Fa-
ther or his Mother, ihall
be furely put to Death,
Exod. 21. 15. and yet then'
the Power of Parents was-
reftrained by Publick Laws,
And the Authoritj of a Prince
is not Icfs Sacred than of a
Parent; He's GodV Mi-
i nifler
fit
'del
iefi
kit
^aUec of toe temple.
ing and^roteUinghis Veople,
I delire to know, why
the fame nece/Iity will
not abfolve Sdjecis from
their Oaths to their
Prince. A. Vrince may Go--
vern hy Law, and Vrotecl his
Siibjedts, andyet in Fact they
deny their Allegiance to him.
Aiieg.p.42.
It is true, we muft in
all Cafes be contented
to fuffer in doing our
Duty j for we mufl chufe
r.ather to Suffer, than to
Sin i and it is no Argu-
ment, that any thing
ceafes to be my Duty,
becaufe it expoiesme to
Suffering : Fut then we
mnjl h very fare that it is
our Daty ^ that it is exprefy '
enjoyned as by the Laws of
God
Eeao; of BOTOLPH.
?iilier and Vicegerent, a
SabjeSs are exprefy fort
to refifi 9 and it is a vi
thing to pretend a natin
Kight, againft the expi'i
Law of God.-
2. For the Sole Power
the Sword is in the Kin
^ and therefore r
Private Man cart tal
the Sword in his o\^
Defence, but by the Kin
Authority-, and certainly
cai.xotwe prefumed to gi
any Man Authority to u
the Sword againft himfe
And. therefore, as Chri
Peter, He that tak
the Sword, fhall Peri
by the Sword; He w
draws the Sword againfl t
lawful Powers, dcferves
dye by it.
D 2. 3,i(
'2 r/
"STTsnncT
. M
: of tljetemple.
[d and Nature, before we
nture to fujfer for it. But
^en we are to learn our
'Uty, not from any ex-
*efs Law of God or
ature, but from the
safon and Nature of
dngs. It is a fufficient
\gument, that it is not my
Hty, which will expofe me to
'eatfufferings, without fer^
hg any Good end-, nay,
aich expofes me to
tfferings, for contra-
fting the natural end
'd intention of that
lity, for which I pre-
hd to Suiter.
But let us grant, that
is Principle is the beft
.curity to the Rights
(TrinceSi is the Right
[•any Prince fo Sacred,
^ V. XV.1
Eeacr Of BOTOLPH.
3, We may confider alfo,
That tt is an external Law,
That private Defence
muft give place to pub-
lick Good. Now, he
that takes Arms to de-
fend his own Life, and
fome few others, in-
volves a whole Nation
in Blood and Confufion,
and occafions the mife-
table Slaughter of more
Men, than a long Sue-
ceffion of Tyrants could
deftroy. Sac/j Men Sa-
orifice many Thoufand Lives,
both of Friends and Enemies,
to a private Self-^Defence;
and if this be the Law of
Nature, we may well call
Nature a Step - Mother,
_ that has Armed us to our own
IKuine and Confufion,
!StC
lion'
ifHi
fjtlOi
U
iitlit
iini
tor
all
W
m
I Cafe of Refinance, Pag, 203, 204,105-.
r AiieiiuiJK.' agdlnlt Sherlock.
of t!)e temple.
as to ftand in competi-
tion with the very being
of Human Societies, and
the Safety and Prefer-
vation of all his Sdje^s?
and mufl: we then de-
fend a Princes Right,
with the Deftru£tion of ■
the Nation, and the
Ruin of all his Subjects ?
Which is moft neceffary.
That the Nation Ihould
be, or. That fuch a Vrince
Ihould Govern it. P. 45.
Confderations and Kep^ions upon feme of DoBor
SherlockV Celebrated Pofitions, concerning
Vajfve Obedience^ and Non-'Kefifiance, ,
WE fhall now confider the Do(aors Reafons, why the King is
Irrefiflahle in all Cafes, which are thcfe:
I, That the Ting has a Perfonal Authority^ antecedent to all
the Laws of the Land^ independent on thenty and fuperior to them. Cafe
of Refiftance, pag. 196.
Now, This is not true, for the King is King by LaWy and has his
Authority from the Law. Indeed, our Author fays, (in the fame Page)
B That
14. Lonjiaerarions on urr^neriDCK^
G
n
It
1]
t
a
o
1
'/
I
0
1
I
d
}
(
13
h
1
i:
C
That the great Laivyer, Bradon (by thofe very words of his, Lex facit
Rejem} was far enough from underflanding^ that the King receives his
Soveraign Power from the Law. I confefs, I never was fo well acquain
ted widi Brahion^ as to know what fecret Meanings he had, contrary to
the Senfeof his Words; and therefore cannot tell how far he was from
underflanding, • That the King receives his Soveraign Power from the
Law; but I am fure he was not far from faying fo; for he fays it in
the very next words; Attrihuat igitur Rex quod Lex attrihuit e/, vide-
licet^ Dominationem tS Poteftatem. He proves. That the King is under
the Law^ and ought to Govern by the Law^ becaufe he is made King
by the Lan\ and receives his Power and Authority from the Law; and
then adds, what the Dodbor is plcafed to cite, Non eji enim Rex^ uhi
dominatur Voluntas^ tS non Lex: He is no King who Governs ly Arhi"
trary Will^ and not hy Law; that is, no lawful Englijh King, Bradon
muft mean; for ftill he may be a good Outlandifh and Affyrian King^
and no Tyrant^ though his Arbitrary Will does all : For the Dodbor
QCafeof Rejifi. pag. 41.) quotes out of Dan. y. 18,19. That God gave
ilehuchadnexxar fuch an Ahfolute Kingdom.^ that whom he would he Slew^
and' whom he would he made Aliveand whom he would he fet up^ and
whom he would he pulled down. And I hope no Man Tyrannizes over
his People, who ufes the Prerogatives which God has given him; there-
fore the Dodbor rendring Lex facit Regem. To Govern hy Law.^ makes a
Soveraign Prince a King., and dijlinguijhes him from a Tyrant., will pafs
with none but fuch ordinary Readers as he writ his Book for, and who
never faw Bradon.
Chancellor Fortefcue likewife fays, That a limitted Monarch receives
his Power, a Populo efiuxam, which unriddles the Dodbors Riddle in
the fame place, How the LaW can make the King, when the King makes
the LdW ? But it is fuch a wonderful thing. That there fhould be a
"Law to xreate- a King, and to enable Him fo far in the making of
Lam-yics t0;mike his confcnt neceOary to the Being of all future ?
Was it not thus when the Two Houfes were Eredbed, and endowed with
the like Power, notwithflanding the Dodbor fays, (^pag. 196.3 That the
Law has no Authority, nor can give any, hut what it receives from the
King; For the Laws are made Authoritate Parliamenti^ which is by the
Authority of the Ting, Lords and Commons,
But
vr. onerloclf, 1,5
But, to lay afide Bra^on and Fortefcue^ let us a little rcafon the
Matter; This Perfonal Authority of the Fittg^ antecedent to all tlie
Lam of the Land independent on them, and fuperior to them : whence
is it? Has he ^Throne like God? Is he of Himfelf and for Himfelf? Or
has he a Perfonal Authority from God^ antecedent to Laurs^ to be a
King ? Then fliew a Revelation from God where he is named. Or has
he the Natural Authority of a Father to Govern his Children ? Then
it muft be proved. That he has Begotten his Three Kingdoms, and all
the People, in all other His Majefties Dominions ? Or has he a Perfo-
nal Patriarchal Authority, which is fet up as a fliadow of the Authority
of a Father, whereby the Eldefl Son is his Father by Reprefentation ?
Then it muft be proved. That the King is the Eldejl Son of the Eldefi
Houfe of all the Famiks of the Earth. Or were Mankind made in
the day of their Creation, by Nations^ and created Prince and People^
as they were created Male and Female ? But if none of thefe things
can be faid, then it remains. That a Civil Authority, that is, a mutual
Confent and Contrad: of the Parties^ firft Founded this Civil Relation
of King and SuhjeB:^ as we fee it every day does of Majler and Servant^
which is another Civil Relation'^ and that the confent of a Community
or Society, is a Law, and the Foundation of all Civil Laws whatfoever,
is. proved beyond all Contradidion, by Mr. Hooker. Eccl. Pol. lib.
1. chapH 10.
- Another Reafon which the Dodor gives, why the King is Irrefijlahle
in all Cafes, is, Becaufe- he is a Soveraign -, and it is efential to Sove-
raignty^ to he Irrefiftalle in all Cafes. Which is falle: For the King of
Poland is a Soveraign, he Coins Money with his own Image and Su-
perfcription upon it, which, according to the Dodor, pag. 5-0. Is a
certain Mark of Soveraignty •, and pag. $1. By the very Imprejfton on
their Money, it is evident. That he is their Soveraign Lord: He Riles
himfelf by the fame Grace of God with any King in Chriftendom, and
wears the like Crown: He aflembles Diets; he difpofes of all Offices',
he judges the Palatines themfelves, and is full of the Marks of Sove-
raignty. And yet he that lliall take a Polijh Penny, and make fuch
work with it, as the Dodor does with tlie Roman Tribute Money, and
cut of it read Ledures, either of Atlive or Paffive Obedience in all
Cafes will read amifs : For in cafe he break his Coronation Oath,
. E z they
m
i6
^onRderations on vr.
!,i
1
n
e
r
1"
i 2
o
I
:«
fl',
.C
1
I
(J
li
1
ti
I
I
C
n1
I:M
they o^^'e him no Ohedience at all, of any kind; for this is one Claufe
in it: Qj^d fi Sacramentum meum violavero^ tncolce Regni nullam nohis
ohedientiam pr(Stare tenehuntur. So that in cafe he violate his Oath,
ins Irrefiftihility departs from him, and he becomes like other Men.
I come now to the Dodor's Second Cafe; which is refolv'd under
the covert and countenance of the former. That as well inferior Ma-
giflrates, as others imployed hy a Popifli Tyrannical Prince, in the mofi
Tlleial and Outragious Alls of Tiolence Qfuch as Cutting of Throats, &c.)
are'as Irrefflable as the Prince himfelfpretence of having the
Prince s Authority to do thefe AcSts ) and mujl he fuhmitted to, under
pain of Plell and pJernal Damnation. Now, to Ihew the Authority
which we are bound to fubmit to, not in Laws, hut in Perfens who
ad: contrary to Law, he has brought the following Argument, which
is the moll laboured of any in his Book: May, it is very falfe and
ahfurd to fay. That every Illegal, is an Vnauthoritative AH, which car-
ties no OhjeHion with it. This is contrary to the Pratlice of all Human
Judicatures, and the daily Experience of Men, who fuffer in their Lives,
Bodies and EJlates, hy an unjufi and illegal Sentence : For the mofi Hie- »
gal Judgment is Valid, till it he revers'd hy fame Superior Court; which
mofi Illegal, hut Authoritative Judgment, derives its Authority, not from
the Law, hut the Perfon of him ivhofe Judgment it is. Cafe of Oted.
Pag. 193, 194, 195".
Now, to uie his own words, this is very falfe and abfurd all over.
For Firfl, Legal and Authoritative are all one; and Illegal Authority
is in England, unlawful lawful Power. Secondly, It is not true. That
an Illegal Judgment is valid, till it be revers'd : For the Judgment of a
Man to Death, in an Arbitrary way, either contrary to the Verdid of
his Jury, or without a Jury, is not Authoritative nor Valid at all, no
not for an hour. But, I fuppofe, by illegal Judgments, the Dodor
means legal Judgments, which have Error in them; and if thefe lliould
not be Valid, and Hand .good, till that Error be found in fome Higher
Court, there could not be legal nor illegal, nor any Judgments at all;
but ail human Judicatures muft come to an end: For if Judgment
cannot be given, till we have Judges who are not fubjed to Error,
the Laws muft lye by and ruft, and there can be no adminiflration of
Juflice. Thirdly, The Authority of a Judgment which is Erroneous,
is
\1
is not from the Judges Perfonal Authority above tlie Law, nor from
his Miibakes beiide the Law; but from that jurifdibtion and Au-
thority which the Law has given to Cout is and Judicial Proceed-
ings, whicii, if they be in due courfe of Law, are legal, and are
prefumed to be every way right, and as they lliould be, and free
from Error, till the contrary appears in fome Higher Court. But
if the Judges in V/eflminfler-Hall lliould ufe a Perfonal Author"ty,
fuperior to Law, in judging Men to Death without a Jury, or in
condemning a Man when his Jury accjuit him, or the like, the Law
having given no Authority to any fuch Proceedings, thefe Judgments
would be illegal and void, and have no Authority at all.
Secondly^ Another Reafon why we muft fubmit to Illegal Fio-
lence is this: Becaufe though they have no legal Authority for it^ yet
tve have no legal Authority to defend our felves againfi it, pag. 192,
But he himfelf has given as full an Anfwer to this as can be defired,
in thefe words. For no Man can want Authority to defend his Life a-
gainfi him that has no Authority to take it away, pag. 5'9.
Thirdly, We muft fubmit to Illegal Violence, becaufe the People
cannot call inferior Magijlrates to art Account, pag. 191. But fure the
People may defend themfelves againft the Murderous Attempts of
inferior Magiftrates, without pretending to call them to an account,
or fitting in Judgment upon them: And when they themfelves are
called to an account for this Defence, they may give a very good
account of it, by the ^4 //. 8. cap. y.
Fourthly, iVe mujl not defend our felves when we are Perfecuted to
Death for our Religion, contrary to the Laws c/England, becaufe we
muli not defend our felves, when tve are thiu Perfecuted, contrary to
the Laws of God and Nature, which are as Sacred and inviolable as
the Laws of our Country. Cafe of Alleg. p. xoo.
Anfwer. I grant, That the Laws of God and Nature are more fa-
credand inviolable than the Laws of our Country; but they give
us no Civil Rights and Liberties, as the Laws of have done.
Every Liege Subjed: of England has a legal Property in his Life, Li-
berty and Eftate, in the free Exercife of the Protejlant Religion efta-
bliflied amongft us; and a legal PofTeffion may be legally defended:
Now, the Laws of England, in Qiieen Marys Time were againft tiie
Proteflants, and ftript them of this unvaluable Blelfiog; and there-
F fore
A
n
V
1"
X
a
'/
I
'e
.c
1
i;
d
I
(
u
b
1
I
I
c
[]
K
I
1
fore, tlio' they chofe I'ather to obferve the Laws of Go J and Nature,
than thofe of their Country, which at that time violated both the
other; yet, withal, they fubmitted to the Laws of their Country,
which alone give and take away all legal Rights and Titles, and,
when all is fald, arc the only Meafures of Civil Obedience.
Fifthly, /!/<?« »?«/? »ot defend their Lives againfi a lawlefs Popilli
Terfecution^ when they are Condemned hy no Law^ hecaufe they mujl not
defend their Li ves^ when they are Condemned hy a Wicked^ Perfecuting^
Popifh Law: For fuch a lawlefs Perfecution^ has as much Authority as
fuch a Wicked Perfecuting Law. pag. ^o^. This is manifeftly falfe:
For a lawlefs Popijh Perfecution has no Authority at all, but has all
the Authority of Heaven and Earth againft it; whereas a wicked
'Popifh., Perfecuting Law, tho', as it is wicked, it cannot Command
our Obedience; yet, as it is a Law, it may difpofe of our Civil
Rights. If Qtieen Mary*s Laws were no Laws, becaufe they were
wicked Perfecuting Laws, why were they Repealed^? why were they
not declared to be null from the beginning ?
Sixthly, Lhat Non-Rejijlance of Illegal Violence., is the leH way to
fecure the puhlick Peace aud Tranj[uility, and the hePt way for every
Mans private Defence ; for felf-defence may involve many others in
Blood, and hefides, expofes a Mans felf pag;ao5',ao6. That is to
fey, when the publick Peace is violated in an high manner, the bell:
way to fecure it, is quietly tofufFer it ftill to be broken ftirther- a
Man s beft defence is to Die patiently, for fear of being Killed: ^id
when Murtherers are broke loofe, the only way to prevent the effii-
fion of more Cliriflian Blood, is-to let them alone. Now, in oppc-
fition to this Dodrine, I (hall only remember the Dodor, That if
there had not been a Defence made againft the Irifh Cut'Throats in
Forty One, though they liad the Impudence to pretend the King's
Commiffion, there had hardly been a Protejiant left, but the Peiti-
lent Northern FJerefie had been throughly extirpated in that Kingdom.
Seventhly. Another Reafon is, Becaufe Non-Kefiflance is certainly
the hefi way to prevent the change of a Limited, into an Ahfolute Mo-
narchy, pag. ziz. Now, this is fo far from being, true, that on the
other hand, ahfolute Non-ReJiJlance, even of the moft illegal Violence,
does adually change the Government, and fets up an Ahfolute and
Arlityary Power in the fliortcB; way, and by the furer fide. For a
Prince^
Prince, v/hom the Laws themfeh/cs have made Alfolute^ lias thereby
no more than a Right and Title to an Al'olute SuljeUion; but Non-
Refiflance puts him into the adual PoiTcffion of it. The Dodor
himfelf has made this out beyond all contradiction j for, lie fays,
That Non-Refinance is as perfect Suhje^ton^ as can be paid to Sove-
raign Princes, /'jg-44- ^tnd iiy. he calls it, the only perfect and al-
folute Suhjehtion ive owe to Princes. Now, the mot perfect and ab-
folute Subjection that can be paid, erects the mot abfoiute Govern-
ment that can be devifed. For thefe words are of Eternal Truth,
which we read in pag. 64. of this Book; For Authority and Suljehtion
are Correlates.^ they have a mutual refpeht to each other^ and therefore
they mujl fl and and fall together: There is no Authority.^ where there
is no Suhjehtion due • and there is no Suhjehlion due.^ where there is no
Authority. And is not this as bright and as evident a Truth : There
is no abfoiute Autliority, where there is no abfoiute Subjection due;
and there can be no abfoiute Subjection due, where there is no ab-
folute Authority ?
I lhall now produce fome Reafons, to prove the Lawfulnefs of De-
fending our felves againft Illegal Violence; which is a Truth fo ob-
vious, and fo agreeable to the common fenfe of Mankind, that even
thofe Men, who fet themfelves to oppofe it, do often times aflert it
unawares, and give unanfwerable Reafons for it; I lhall therefore,
firftfet down thofe Conceffions which the force of Truth hath Ex-
torted from the Doctor, and fecondly, add fome other Arguments to
them.
Firft, No Man wants Authority to defend his Life againfl him who
has no Authority to take it away.^ pag. 69, But no Man whatfoever has
any jufl and legal Authority.^ (that is, any Authority at all,) te take it
away contrary to /.«HJ,pag. 191. And from thefe Premifes, it is eafie
for any Man to infer the Conclufion.
Secondly, He that Refijis the Vft fattens of Men.^ does not Refifl the
Ordinance of God.^ which alone is forbidden to he Refifled. But Ahls of
Arbitrary and Illegal Violenceare the Ztfurpations of Men. Theie
again are the Dodors Doctrines, the former,the other,
pag.xw.rLW. he acknowledges, that the affuming of an Ablblutc
and Arbitrary Power in this Ringdom, would be Ulurpation; though,
he fays at the fame time, That no Prince -in this Kingdom ever Vjur-
F 1
%
'9
Ji
/>
n
\
h,
JIB
o
'1:^1
\i ■
fe
'/
fit
, c
I
'.V ^
j x
■, .1'
jl
lb
1
I
c
20 UonfdTranon^n
/
fedfiich a Fowe)\ which is notorioufly {ot Richard the Second
by Name did, not to mention any otlier.
Thirdly, The DocStor, pag.iz6. has thefe words, Every Man has
the Right of Self-Prefervation^ as bit ire under Civil Government^ as he
had in a State of Nature: Vnder what Government foever I live ^ I
may Jlill kill another Man, when I have no other way to preferve my life
from unjufl Violence hy private Hands. Now the Hands of Subor-
dinate Magi Urates, Imploy'd in Ads of Illegal Violence, are private
Hands, and Armed with no manner of Authority at all ,• of which
this is a moft convincing Proof, that they may he Hanged hy Law
for fuch Ads, which no Man can or ought to Suffer for what he doth ly
Authority. They are no Officers at all in fuch Ads, for Illegal Vio-
lence is no part of their Office. Now, after the Dodor has anfwer-
cd his own Arguments, I ffiall defire him to do as much for thele
which follow.
Firjl, No Man can Authorize himfclf: But in Ads of Illegal
Violence is a Subordinate Magiftrate have any Aiithority at all, he
mufl; Authorize himfelf: For it is a contradidion to fay, The Law
Authorizes him to do an Illegal Ad, as the Dodor well obferves,
pag. 195-. And it is as falfeto fay, That the King, who can do no wrong,-
can Authorize another to do it. In the great Conference'of the Lords
and Commons, 3 Caroli, concerning the Contents of the Petition of
Right, the Law was held to be. That if the King Command a Man to do
Injury to another, the Command is void, and the Ad or of it Author, and
the Ador heccmes the Wrong doer j that is, he Ads of his qivn Head,
and Authorizes himfelf.
Secondly, The Illegal Violence of Subordinate Magiflrates cannot
be more Irrefiftible, only by being more Criminal than it is in other
Men; for that would be to make a Mans Crime to be his Protedion.
But Illegal Violence done by fubordinate Magiflrates, is not only as
in Authoritative, as if it were committed by private Perfons, but
likewife more Criminal, as being done with a face and colour of Au-
thority, and under pretence of Law, making that partaker of their
Crime, violating and blemifliing the Law at once.
FINIS.
S'