THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF ILLINOIS 
 LIBRARY 
 
 From the collection of \ 
 Julius Doerner, Chicago 
 Purchased, 1918. 
 
 2.04 
 H Sit'S 
 
I 
 

Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/lecturesindivini01 heyj_0 
 
LECTURES IN DIVINITY 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN HEY, D.D., 
 
 AS NORRISIAN PROFESSOR, 
 FROM 1780 TO 1795. 
 
 THE THIRD EDITION REVISED, 
 IN TWO VOLUMES. 
 
 VOLUME I. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE; 
 
 PRINTED AT THE PITT PRESS, 
 
 BY JOHN W. PARKER, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY. 
 
 M.DCCC.XLI. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT TO THE THIRD EDITION 
 
 OF THE LECTURES IN DIVINITY. 
 
 The second edition of the Lectures was printed on account 
 of the University ; and had the advantage of numerous small 
 corrections, left by the Author, in a particular copy. , 
 
 In this third impression of the Lectures, the second edition 
 has been followed. 
 
 The second edition of the work was printed page for 
 page, and almost line for line, with the first. In the inner 
 margin of the present edition, the corresponding pages of 
 those editions are regularly given: — for example, the con- 
 tents of the 259th page of the fourth volume of either of 
 the former editions will be found in the 497th page of the 
 second volume of the present edition. 
 
 It may not be improper to add that the brief memoir 
 of Dr. John Hey, prefixed to the last as well as to the pre- 
 sent edition of the Lectures, was drawn up by his brother, 
 Dr. Richard Hey. 
 
 T. T. 
 
 Cambridge, October 1841. 
 
;.«i[*i -■i. 3»;:.iv» ia«iBP!illi't‘yfe‘t^ il- i - 
 
 •"* him, ■'- •, . vr AtaB ._• 
 
 'n/'; ‘!jK,ll|ilfU!lC% 'If 
 
 3' 
 
 
 j -J 
 
 l&ViitU-l; '(ri, ^ 'fiA ■ 
 
 
 
 
 IV^ 
 
 
 
 J. 
 
 .'■..L •. '>^ 
 
 i-tt. .f .«* -^‘U 
 
 ■ 4 . 
 
 
 s .V 
 
 
 imi ' 
 
 ii* iA'iX\ 
 
advertisi:ment, by the author, 
 
 TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 Some parts of the work now presented to the public may 
 seem to require an apology, as not being composed with that 
 formality, which may be thought requisite. The fact is, 
 * these Lectures were not written in order to be read ; the 
 writing was merely a preparation for speaking. To revise 
 them now, and give them an appearance fit to meet the eye of 
 a critical reader, would be a work of much time, and perhaps 
 of little utility. Writings have often been rendered obscure 
 by too laboured a correction, and by endeavours to reduce 
 matter into the least possible compass. This apology, it is 
 hoped, may suffice, if some expressions are found of rather a 
 familiar sort, and if some remain in the form of queries. 
 
 With respect to subject matter, every reader of Lectures 
 should be aware, that they do not pretend to be wholly 
 original. If the Lecturer compiles with judgment what will 
 be most useful to liis particular hearers, and sometimes 
 advances a step or two beyond his predecessors, he does all 
 that ought to be expected from him. In examining what has 
 been already said, he will naturally think for himself, from 
 whence something original will result ; and, if one man im- 
 proves one subject a little, and another another, there is an 
 advancement of knowledge upon the whole. 
 
 Where subjects have occasioned much dispute, and no 
 decision has been made upon them, in which the generality 
 have acquiesced, such as those relating to languages and 
 customs of remote antiquity, it may often be better to content 
 one’s self with giving clear accounts of old opinions, than to 
 aim at establishing some new one. 
 
VI 
 
 ADVEllTISEMENT TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 The Heads of these Lectures having been already printed, 
 it seems desirable, that the Lectures themselves should now 
 correspond to them ; even though, for that purpose, some 
 observations should be retained, which some readers may 
 think of inferior moment : especially as comparing the Lectures 
 with the Heads will always be useful towards gaining a right 
 notion of the subject under consideration. 
 
 It may be right to add, for the sake of those diligent and 
 attentive hearers who took Notes during the delivery of the 
 Lectures, that they need not suspect their own accuracy, if 
 they find some remarks in their papers which are not here; 
 and some here, which they have not. Such differences are 
 thus to be accounted for : if, in the delivering of a Lecture, 
 something seemingly useful occurred, which had not occurred 
 in the preparation, it was not always rejected, nor always 
 written down afterwards ; and if, on the other hand, there 
 seemed to be occasion to finish any subject or chapter at 
 any particular Lecture, that could not, in some cases be done, 
 without omitting something, which had been prepared. 
 
 Had Mr. Malone’s Inquiry concerning the genuineness of 
 the Shakspeare papers been published, when Book I. Chap, 
 xiii. Sect. 4 , was delivered, it would have been mentioned, 
 as containing striking examples of what is there laid down. 
 
 July 23 , 1796 . 
 
 P. S. Passages which in the Notes are only referred to 
 were at the Lectures read to the auditors. 
 

 H SlJls 
 
 V,1 
 
 MEMOIR 
 
 OF 
 
 The Rev. JOHN HEY, D.D. 
 
 {Originally published in the Gentlemans Magazine, /oi- April 1815 .) 
 
 • 
 
 Died, March 17 , John Hey, D.D. ; aged eighty. He was 
 born in July 1734 . In 1751 he was admitted of Catharine 
 Hall, in the University of Cambridge; and he continued a 
 Member of that College till 1758 : when he removed to a 
 Fellowship in Sidney Sussex College; of which College he 
 continued a Member till he quitted the University in 1795 . 
 He took the following degrees: B.A. in January 1755 , of 
 Catharine Hall ; M.A. in 1758 , of Sidney ; B.D. in 1765 ;’ 
 D.D. in 1780 . But in 1775 he performed his exercise for his 
 Doctor’s degree : in which he gave an instance of that mode 
 of disputation which is not usual, and is called a Public Act, 
 He was a Tutor of Sidney College from 1760 to 1779 ; and 
 was one of the Preachers of his Majesty’s Chapel at Whitehall. 
 
 His Fellowship in Sidney College became vacant by his 
 accepting, from Lord Maynard, the Rectory of Passenham in 
 Northamptonshire, near Stony Stratford. Not long afterwards 
 he obtained the adjoining Rectory of Calverton, by exchange 
 for a distant living offered to him by the late Earl of Claren- 
 don, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. On these two 
 •livings he bestowed assiduous pastoral care : the small extent 
 of the whole, and the thin population, enabling him to attend 
 to every distinct family in both parishes. From the time of his 
 obtaining Passenham till about live months before his death, 
 his ordinary residence was there ; except the time which the 
 duties of his professorship required him to spend at Cambridge. 
 
 In 1780 he was elected the first Norrisian Professor, of 
 Divinity, in the University. In 1785 , and again in 1790 , the 
 professorship became vacant, by the Will of Mr. Norris the 
 
 \ 
 
 i 
 
 800108 
 
vm 
 
 MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. 
 
 founder: and he was, each time, re-elected. In 1795, he ceased 
 to be Professor : being too old, by the Will, to be re-elected, 
 and having declined to vacate the professorship, in 1794, in 
 order to be re-elected within the prescribed age. 
 
 When Tutor, in Sidney College, he gave Lectures in Mo- 
 rality : which were attended by several persons voluntarily 
 (amongst whom were the late Mr. Pitt and other persons of 
 rank), besides those pupils whose attendance was required. 
 These Lectures have not been printed. His Lectures in Divi- 
 nity are before the public ; having been printed at the Univer- 
 sity Press, 1796 — 1798, and published in four volumes octavo. 
 He also published seven Sermons, at different times ; and a 
 Poem on the Redemption, which gained Seaton’s Prize in the 
 University in 1763; and Discourses on the Malevolent Sen- 
 timents, in one volume, in 1801. And in 1811 he printed, without 
 publishing, General Observations on the Writings of St. Paul. 
 
 In 1814 he divested himself of the whole of his ecclesiastical 
 preferment ; which was merely the two livings mentioned 
 above. And he removed to London in October : having 
 resigned Calverton at Lady-day, and Passenham on the 10th of 
 October. From that time he continued in London to his death : 
 growing feeble in body, till, without painful disease, he sunk 
 under that feebleness ; retaining to the last a soundness of 
 mind, and giving, to every business that came before him, a 
 remarkable degree of that persevering attention which had 
 evidently been, with him, a matter of strict duty through a 
 long course of years. Flad a mitre been placed on his head 
 (which was at least once, from good authority, understood to 
 be highly probable), he appears likely to have discharged the 
 duties imposed by it with the same steady and principled 
 perseverance. 
 
 He is buried in the burying-ground of St. John’s Chapel, 
 St. John’s Wood, in the parish of Marylebone : in which 
 parish he died. 
 
BOOK I. 
 
 OF DIVINITY, AS COMMON TO ALL SECTS 
 OF CHRISTIANS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 
 
 1. In undertaking a large work, it must be useful to have 
 right views of the nature of it ; — without these, the work can 
 neither be so improving, nor so pleasing and interesting, as it 
 might be. He, who has too high notions of the task before 
 him, will be deterred from attempting it ; he, who has too low 
 notions of it, will begin it too lightly, and will be disgusted 
 when reality does not answer to his sanguine and visionary 
 expectations k 
 
 2. If right views are so useful, in what do they consist ? — 
 In seeing the extent of the whole work ; the degree of perfec- 
 tion which it admits of ; the connexion^ which the several parts 
 have with each other, so as to judge whether a part can be 
 studied separately ; the necessary difficulty of studying any 
 part ; and the degree of present pleasure^ which may be ex- 
 pected to arise from the study rightly pursued. 
 
 2 3. The extent of our undertaking will appear by and by. 
 
 Let us, then, take notice of the degree of perfection, which 
 seems to be attainable in pursuing it. The chief thing here 
 to be observed is, that arguments and doctrines, tenets, opi- 
 nions, are formed by the human mind gradually. At first, a 
 man has a glimpse of something : he examines it, sees w^hat is 
 for and what against it ; collects matter, which at first is a 
 sort of chaos ; arranges ; sees new supports, new objections ; 
 works his thought into some form ; surmounts difficulties ; re- 
 views his train of ideas, ere long, with ease and satisfaction ; 
 confirms his notion by experience, establishes it finally k The 
 whole course of his operation resembles that of an artist, who 
 gradually brings a rude block of marble into a pleasing form. 
 We must not think, when a philosopher or a divine is so en- 
 raptured with a new discovery as to sacrifice to the muses, or 
 
 * Luke xiv. 25—33. - Acts xvii. 2/. 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 1 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 
 
 [I. i. 4, 5. 
 
 2 
 
 leap out of a bath and run about the streets crying evptjKa, !• 
 that his idea has acquired all that regularity and neatness, 
 with which it afterwards appears in well -written books ; in 
 such elements as those of Euclid, It often happens, that an 
 opinion does not come to maturity in a single age. Therefore 
 it is always right to ask, in what state of philosophy or the- 
 ology (for the case is the same with both) we are at present: 
 this must promote modesty in the teacher, and patience in the 
 learner. And, if a teacher offers any notion of his own, as 
 newly conceived, allowances should be made accordingly : if an 
 opinion is old, it may be expected to be the more definite. 
 
 4. Learning too has its variations. It is in some respects 
 
 ‘progressive, but in others it is retrograde. A man may pass a 
 long time in the invention of that, which he can explain to 
 others in a very short time : this causes an increase of know- 
 ledge ; but the subjects of inquiry multiply, and this may 3 
 cause a decrease of knowledge in particular subjects. When 
 there are few things to know, a man may know every thing, 
 as far as others know : but, when there are a great number of 
 things to study, a man must either be wholly ignorant of some 
 things, or know but little of any. Sometimes, new sources 
 of knowledge are opened ; as when Herculaneum was disco- 
 vered : — sometimes, old sources are stopped up ; as by the 
 irruptions of Barbarians^ into an improved country Some- 
 
 times, learning lies unnoticed in libraries ; those, who read and 
 think, fancy they are discovering something new, and then 
 find, that their discoveries have been made long ago. 
 
 All this is as applicable to theological learning as to any 
 other kind. W^e should therefore ask in what state of its 
 progress or regress our learning or knowledge is, in any point, 
 and let that regulate our feelings and expectations. There 
 have been times, when the Hebrew language was more culti- 
 vated than it is at present : the solidity of interpretations must 
 always be expected to be proportioned to the prevailing know- 
 ledge of original languages. 
 
 5. It may be proper, before we proceed, to deduce some 
 particular consequences from what has been already remarked. 
 And first, increase of true judgment and rational knowledge is 
 always productive of an increase of candor and modesty ; as 
 increase of false judgment and ill directed knowledge is of 
 
 * Hume’s Posthumous Dialogues, p. | andria, a.u. (540; and the sacking of Con- 
 lilt — The burning of the library at Alex- j stantinople, a. d. 1204. Harris, vol. iv. 
 
I. i. 6.] 
 
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 
 
 3 
 
 I. pedantry and mystery. When we undertake any thing in an 
 improved age, we may have confidence consistently with mo- 
 desty ; because our confidence is not in ourselves, but in the 
 
 4 candor and indulgence of others. This decrease of pedantry 
 is remarkable in lawyers and physicians, at present. 
 
 6. Again, it follows, from the gradual improvement of 
 judgment and knowledge, that we need not be ashamed at 
 any time to declare, that our judgment is in suspense; or to 
 retract an opinion which we have once professed. From the 
 progressive nature of mental acquirements, nothing is more 
 probable, than that we should see arguments on different sides 
 of a question, whose comparative weights we cannot immedi- 
 ately determine ; or that, on farther examination, we should 
 discern truth where we had not discerned it before. Improve- 
 ment cannot be made but by bringing to light error and im- 
 perfection ; it is very idle therefore to praise improvement, 
 and at the same time to annex any disgrace to acknov/ledging 
 error. Men do so without reflecting. They naturally dislike 
 error, and in a degree despise those who err, which indeed 
 often deters men from owning their mistakes. The unthink- 
 ing flatter themselves with the expectation of an infallible 
 guide ; in law and physic they are impatient if they have not 
 one ; and they cannot easily respect a guide in religious mat- 
 ters, who disclaims infallibility. Besides, they say, he has the 
 sure word of God : — no doubt the scripture is true, but it may 
 be falsely interpreted ; and all that any man should really be 
 understood to mean, when he speaks of the word of God,” is 
 human interpretation of it. — Natural religion they will allow 
 to be in some sense uncertain : yet sometimes it is by notions 
 of natural religion, by our conceptions of the wisdom and good- 
 ness of God, that we explore the sense of his written word. 
 
 AVe have several instances of the ingenuousness here spoken 
 
 5 of, in men remarkable for their abilities and knowledge’'^. These 
 consequences being noted, we will proceed. 
 
 ^ The modesty and diffidence of the great 
 Origen are much celebrated. See Lard. 
 Works, vol. IT. under Origen, Sect. 2. and 
 Cave's Hist. Lit. vol. i. p. 115. col. 1. 
 
 Cranmer's retracting, is worthy of 
 mention, as given by Gilpin. See his 
 Life of Cranmer, p. 222. 
 
 The learned William Wotton retracts, 
 vol. I. Misna; p. 314. has pub- 
 
 lished two books of retractations. Arch= 
 
 bishop Usher retracts an opinion ; see de 
 Symb. p. 17. Michaelis Introd. Lec- 
 tures, Sect. 08, quarto, does the same, 
 about the Codex Argenteus. Mr Hume's 
 note at the beginning of his Essay on the 
 Populousness of Ancient Nations might 
 be mentioned, as also Locke's confessing 
 he did not understand 1 Cor. xi. 10. And 
 Cicero's passage, which is the motto to 
 Locke’s Essay on the Understanding. 
 
 \— 9 , 
 
4 
 
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 
 
 [I. i. 7-9. 
 
 7 . After seeing what kind and degree of perfection we I. 
 may hope to attain, let us observe how the several parts of 
 our undertaking are connected together; there is, doubtless, 
 some conneccion between them all ; but it must not be thought 
 like that which we find in mathematics. Our work might be 
 divided into several parts, each of which might be studied pro- 
 fitably ; — when subjects occur in different parts, it is natural 
 
 to say, that they have been before explained ; but yet the want 
 of the explanation of what is past will seldom make the present 
 unintelligible. As a man may read the odes of Horace sepa- 
 rately from the epistles, or vice versa, though it is better he 
 should read both, so may he take separately almost any parts 
 of a system of divinity. 
 
 8. The difficulty of our study is such as rather to require 
 patience and simplicity, than depth or acuteness of judgment: 
 the languages which divines want, may be learnt gradually, 
 without any great exertions in any one part ; the chief diffi- 
 culties, as to expressions in divinity, arise from not considering 
 them as popular. And though something must be said con- 
 cerning our motives, and our voluntary actions, as well as 6 
 concerning the nature of God, and the part which he acts in 
 the salvation of mankind, and the divine decrees, yet it seems 
 as if nothing more were wanting, I do not say to make them 
 perfectly clear, but to prevent all dissension about them, than 
 simplicity^: — men may be said to understand any subject, 
 when they agree, that they see all that can be seen of it at 
 present by man. 
 
 9 . Lastly, men are apt to have wrong views of the kind of 
 task on which we now enter, in respect of the present pleasure 
 which it may afford. There is nothing more interesting and 
 affecting to man, than religion, when he is free from prejudices 
 against it, and is rightly disposed^. Men who affect to be 
 philosophers, hear the vulgar speak of things as known, which 
 are not thoroughly understood ; and, in order to avoid this, 
 they run into notions ten times more unphilosophical, than 
 any popular superstition^. In order to be philosophers, they 
 
 ' Dr Balguy, p. 193. But his whole 8th 
 Discourse is on Difficulties in Religion. 
 
 ^ See Dr Powell’s 3d Discourse; p. 44. 
 and 45. whither the pursuit itself tend- 
 ed, to virtue and to happiness.” 
 
 ^ For instance, they hear men talk weak- 
 ly about particular instances of and 
 
 thence very unphilosophically conclude, 
 that there are no intelligences between 
 man and God, or none which influence the 
 happiness of their fellow-creatures. A 
 notion more unworthy of a true philoso- 
 pher, than the most childish or the most 
 anile superstition that ever was professed. 
 
I. ii, iii. I.] 
 
 REASONING A PRIORI. 
 
 5 
 
 I. cease to be men : they lose the pleasure of the devout affec- 
 tions, and stop their ears to the voice of both reason and 
 experience : ecclesiastical history does, to be sure, tell us of 
 some who have made religion an instrument of ambition ; but 
 it seems to me to give us events and characters more interest- 
 ing than profane, when seen with proper allowances ; nav it 
 sometimes describes actions so great, noble, and affecting, that 
 it might supply the place even of romance and fiction itself. 
 
 7 It is true indeed, that every pursuit, though undertaken 
 merely for pleasure, will bring on disgust sometimes ; and if 
 we are so capricious as to desist, the moment we cease to be 
 entertained and attracted, we can succeed in nothing; not 
 even in painting, music, or games of skill. Principles of duty, 
 and regard to plan and uniformity, must do their part now 
 and then, even in attaining a pleasurable accomplishment : but, 
 when we have acted a while from duty, pleasure will return. 
 
 With these views of the work before us, we may venture to 
 undertake it. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 OF THE EXTENT OF THE STUDY OF RELIGIOUS TRUTH; 
 
 AND FIRST, OF ITS TWO PRINCIPAL SOURCES. 
 
 The first source of religious truth is reasoning on the na- 
 ture of God; the second is, studying the scriptures. How 
 far the streams derived from these sources extend, it must be 
 our next business to examine. 
 
 CHAPTER HI. 
 
 OF THE MANNER OF ACQUIRING RIGHT NOTIONS OF THE 
 NATURE OF GOD; AND FIRST, OF REASONING A PRIORI. 
 
 1. If any one required a brief account of what is meant 
 by natural theology, and of the manner in which we actually 
 acquire our ideas of the Supreme Being, some such answer as 
 the following might be given. 
 
 We are so accustomed to cause and effect, that when we 
 see an event, we cannot rest without ascribing it to some cause; 
 
6 
 
 31EAS0XING A PRIORI, 
 
 [I. iii, 2, 3 , 
 
 and the more important the event, the more anxious are we to I. 
 account for it. 
 
 As the most important events are usually produced by 
 intelligent beings within our knowledge, we are inclined to 
 ascribe all important events to such beings, when their causes 
 are unknown : and if the events are too difficult for man^ we 
 rise higher in the scale of intelligent causes. We feel our own 
 impotence at every moment : we can provide nothing, we can 
 hinder nothing: the united powers of man cannot stop a shower 
 of rain, or raise a blade of grass. When we come to compare 
 events, and to take them all into our minds at once, when we 
 observe that there is an unity of design in them all, considered 
 collectively, we ascribe them all ultimately to one great intel- 
 ligence, and consider him as a person. We next set about 
 conceiving the particular qualities of this person; and, when 
 we have combined them into one character, we trace out the 9 
 marks of them ; of wisdom, benevolence, power : thus familiar- 
 ized, as it were, to this august person, we consider in what he 
 is to be distinguished from man. We find ourselves under a 
 necessity of giving his qualities human names : as these quali- 
 ties are causes of similar effects with those of human qualities, 
 and as man knows no others, all we can do is, to acknowledge 
 that his qualities may in reality be very different in kind from 
 those which are called by the same names in man. Sometimes, 
 we think how things could possibly be, without supposing a 
 God always existing; and we find ourselves wholly at a loss 
 to conceive a time when no Deity existed. This seems to con- 
 tain every part of natural theology, 
 
 2. When we reason from cause to effect, we are said to 
 reason a priori; when from effect to cause, a posteriori: it 
 seems probable, that men have begun with the latter; never- 
 theless we will follow the customary order, which indeed is the 
 most natural after the first analytical train of arguing has been 
 pursued. 
 
 3. We are said to prove the existence of God a priori, when 
 we shut our eyes to all the effects of his power, and consider 
 only whether it is possible, in the nature of things, that there 
 should not have existed from all eternity an independent being. 
 
 We reason in like manner concerning any particular attri- 
 hute; as, whether from eternal existence and power, benevo- 
 lence can be inferred, without our knowing any instances of 
 benevolence ? 
 
I. iv. 1, 2.] 
 
 REASONING A POSTERIORI. 
 
 7 
 
 I. It may, perhaps, be doubted, whether this argument is 
 strictly of the sort to which it pretends. We seem obliged to 
 lay the foundation of it in our own existence ; which seems to 
 be an effect; and we seem obliged to mount upwards to see 
 10 how our own existence is reconcileable with the idea of there 
 having been at any time no God. This remark, though ad- 
 mitted, can only affect the form, and not the validity of the 
 argument. 
 
 Dr. Samuel Clarke is the principal supporter of the argu- 
 ment d priori; how extensive the study of it may be made, 
 will appear best from a perusal of his work and the contro- 
 versies arising out of it. It seems as if Dr. Clarke might as 
 well not have called his argument a demonstration ; it has been 
 observed^ that a matter of fact cannot be demonstrated, be- 
 cause it does not imply a contradiction to suppose a fact to 
 have happened otherwise : also, that an infinite series of causes 
 can have no prior cause. But supposing both these remarks 
 to have weight, yet Dr. Clarke'^s argument may prevail, as to 
 the conclusion aimed at ; because the difficulties are less on his 
 side than the opposite. 
 
 Dr. Kippis, in his life of Gardner, mentions a work of 
 Lowman, drawn up in the mathematical form, to prove the 
 being and perfections of God d priori — which he does not 
 allow to be convincing, though he thinks it as near demonstra- 
 tion as any thing of the kind. 
 
 11 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 OF REASONING A POSTERIORI. 
 
 1. We reason d posteriori on the being of God, when we 
 consider the things of heaven and earth ; their qualities and 
 uses; and ask whether they could have been formed by chance, 
 by a variety of beings, by an unwise or malevolent being. 
 
 2. It is easy to see how copious this source of religious 
 knowledge is : before it can be exhausted, we must be ac- 
 quainted with all the phaenomena of nature; inanimate, in- 
 stinctive, rational, moral: — the scheme and system of them, 
 the laws to which they are subject ; the relation of each to 
 
 1 Hume’s Dial, on Nat. Relig. Part 9. 
 
8 
 
 IlEASONIKG A POSTERIORI. 
 
 [I. iv. 3, 4. 
 
 every other, and to the whole : — we may safely pronounce I. 
 this source inexhaustible. If any one felt a desire to extend 
 his views, by examining a number of examples of what is here 
 said, he needs only have recourse to the works of Derham^ his 
 Physico-theology, and Astro-theology : or to any later and 
 more improved accounts of the works of the creation. 
 
 3. Mr. Hume is the author of some dialogues on natural 
 religion^ published since his death, which may serve to shew 
 the copiousness of both our methods of reasoning. He intro- 
 duces characters., who urge many sceptical arguments against 
 our argument d posteriori, which indeed may prevent its being 
 misapplied ; but the result is, according to him, that there is 
 no way but this of accounting for the phenomena of nature, 
 that is intelligible, and determinate. — It seems as if much 
 better answers might be given to his sceptical arguments, than 
 
 he himself gives; to attempt giving them here would detain us 12 
 too long on a single point; such an attempt should make a 
 separate work : we will content ourselves with a single instance. 
 Near the end of Part iii. we find, “none of the materials of 
 thought are in any respect similar in the human and in the 
 divine intelligence;” hence we are to infer, that we have no 
 right to say God is wise from his works, merely because it 
 would require human wisdom to construct such works : — but 
 suppose we take the reasoning of the Psalmist ^ ; “he that 
 planted the ear, shall he not hear.?” must we say, that this 
 is not good reasoning, because God cannot be said in an hu- 
 man sense to hear, he having no bodily ears ? — whetlier we 
 call his knowledge of our sounds hearing, or not, is insig- 
 nificant ; it is incredible that he should be ignorant of the 
 effects of those organs which he has constructed. In like man- 
 ner, we speak truly when we say, God is wise ; and man can 
 have no other way of expressing this truth ; though it is right 
 for him to be aware, that divine wisdom may differ as much 
 from human, as divine hearing from human hearing. I say 
 may differ, rather than does differ ; the latter expression im- 
 plies too little diffidence. 
 
 4. I fear the argument, in the essay of the same author 
 on Providence and a future State, has done harm ; it is such 
 an attack on the truths which we are now considering, that 
 I beg leave to take some notice of it. AVe cannot, says Mr. 
 Hume, infer a perfect God from an imperfect world ; we can 
 
 ^ Psalm xciv. 
 
1. IV. 5 .] 
 
 IlKASONING A POSTERWHI. 
 
 9 
 
 I. infer nothing in the cause which we do not see in tiie effect. 
 We cannot therefore reason from God’s perfect goodness, wis- 
 dom. &c. as if they had been fully established. — I would wish 
 only to observe, that it is good prohahte reasoning, and such 
 
 13 as we should use in any important worldly affair, to find out 
 God, in our way, and in our present state, a posteriori^ and 
 then to argue from his character, supposed perfect, to what 
 
 may be expected from a perfect being The Alexandrian 
 
 manuscript is a good one; how do we know that? from find- 
 ing in it many good readings : a conjecture occurs about the 
 manner of reading: a certain clause; he who finds this MS. 
 favor his conjecture, will think he proves it to be a right one ; 
 why ? because it is a good manuscript. 
 
 If a man behaves well in several instances, I conclude that 
 he is a man of good principles; then, if I want to judge how 
 he would act in a doubtful case, I say, he is a man of good 
 principles, and therefore he will behave well. This is a kind 
 of reasoning, on which a prudent man would stake his most 
 important interests; and therefore one, which may always be 
 admitted as a ground of action. 
 
 I conclude by induction in settling the goodness of the 
 man’s principles ; perhaps some actions of his appear, which 
 I do not fully understand; but I must judge of these by 
 such as I do understand ; I shall do this with the greater 
 readiness, if it is unlikely that I should understand them : in 
 that case, it is highly probable, if I did understand them, that 
 they would help towards the same conclusion Now it is in- 
 
 finitely unlikely, that we should understand all the acts of the 
 divine government ; but the instances of his benevolence mul- 
 tiply upon us as we improve in our knowledge of things, and 
 therefore we ought to conclude, that he is benevolent in the 
 
 instances which as yet we do not comprehend Let Mr. Hume 
 
 deny this to be demonstration ; to act against mere probable 
 reasoning is madness : I cannot demonstrate, that there will be 
 another harvest, but I must act as if I could. 
 
 14 5. Before we close our short discussions on natural re- 
 ligion, it seems proper to observe, that natural religion is 
 presupposed in revealed. This observation is made, because 
 some friends of revelation seem to undervalue natural reli- 
 gion. — It may also be of use, as a standing apology, whenever 
 we introduce topics and arguments of natural religion into our 
 disquisitions on scripture. ‘‘He that cometh to God, must 
 
10 
 
 IlEASONING A POSTERIORI. 
 
 [1. V. 1. 
 
 believe that he is and must not only believe the existence of I. 
 a Deity, but that he is a rewarder of them that diligently 
 
 seek him.” Heb. xi. 6 See also Rom i. 19. &c. — Acts xiv, 
 
 17. — Acts xvii. 24. — Rom. iii. 29. 
 
 It seems to be taken for granted in scripture, that all good 
 Christians have availed themselves as much as possible of all 
 kinds of notices from heaven ; not only with regard to religion, 
 but also with regard to virtue. See the character of Cor- 
 nelius; Acts X. 22. — Rom. ii. 34, 15 Ephes. vi. 1. 
 
 Nay, it seems as if the Christian religion was of too im- 
 proved a nature for those to be admitted into it, whose morals 
 were very rude and uncultivated. — But of this more hereafter, 
 when we treat of the propagation of the gospel, and the need 
 men have of revelation. 
 
 Except we settle previously our idea of God, we cannot 
 prove the divinity of the Son or Holy Ghost : that is shewn 
 by proving that each of those persons is spoken of as eternal, 
 omniscient, omnipresent, and, in short, is possessed of all di- 
 vine attributes^. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 15 
 
 OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES: AND FIRST, OF THE HEBREW 
 
 LANGUAGE. 
 
 1. We now pass on to the second source of religious truth; 
 the sacred writings , — Common people are apt to speak of the 
 hible as of one book, almost as if it had been published at one 
 time, and written by one author. But the least attention 
 shews the great length of time between the first and the last 
 publication : — the Pentateuch is said ^ to have been written 
 1452 years before Christ, the year before the death of Moses: 
 and the Revelation of St. John about ^ 97 years after Christ 
 (after his birth) : in which time manners, government, lan- 
 guages, and knowledge had undergone great changes, and the 
 divine dispensations had grown from almost a state of infancy, 
 in some particulars, to a state of maturity. 
 
 ^ See also in Ludlam’s Essay on Satis- 
 faction, p. 100, how natural religion is 
 used, even by Hervey, in the doctrine 
 
 of Imj)utation. 
 
 “ Blair’s Chronol. Tables. 
 
 ^ Lardner’s Works, vol. vi. p. 033. 
 
I. V. 2, 3.] 
 
 HEBREW LANGUAGE. 
 
 11 
 
 I. 2. But it will be best to divide these books into classes. 
 There may be six of the Old Testament, and three of the New. 
 
 The first class is, the book of Genesis : this should make a 
 class by itself, because it contains history of times before the 
 dispensation of Moses, and describes manners so simple and 
 unimproved, as to require separate and peculiar remarks. The 
 second class consists of the books containing the Law of Moses^ 
 
 16 viz. Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. The third 
 class consists of the historical books, giving an account of the 
 various fortunes which befel the chosen people of God, from 
 their oppression under the kings of ^Egypt, to the re-establish- 
 ment of the Jewish polity and re-building of the temple after 
 the Babylonish captivity, from the year 1706 to the year 515 
 
 before Christ There are some abridgements, as it were, of 
 
 these in the Acts of the Apostles. Chap. vii. and xiii. — The 
 fourth class consists of the prophetical books. The fifth of 
 the moral. The sixth of the poetical. 
 
 The first class of the books of the New Testament consists 
 of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, which record the 
 conduct and discourses of our Saviour, and of those who were 
 first commissioned by him: the second class is made up of 
 letters written to the newly-established churches, and a few 
 distinguished individuals: and the prophetic book called the 
 Revelation, constitutes the third class. 
 
 It must be owned, that these classes are not wholly distinct 
 from one another : several of them contain prophecies, and the 
 prophetical books contain history, and so on ; but this imper- 
 fection is to be found in all classes that I recollect ; and will 
 occasion no confusion in the present instance, if we only apply 
 observations on the prophetical hooks to such prophecies as are 
 found in the Psalms, or in the book of Numbers: — and so of 
 the other classes. 
 
 3. In a large sense we may say, the Old Testament is 
 written in Hebrew; as that word may comprehend the Phoe- 
 nician or Samaritan, (as far as concerns the Samaritan Pen- 
 tateuch,) and the Chaldee. Of this language Dr. Powell says'^ 
 (from Bishop Chandler and others) that it is neither clear 
 
 17 nor copious,” that it consists of a few words, used in a great 
 variety of senses ; and these senses often not connected, but by 
 some minute and scarce discernible resemblance.” But, though 
 he speaks of the prophecies, which have many difficulties be- 
 
 ^ Opening of Dis. 9. 
 
12 
 
 HEBREW LANGUAGE. 
 
 [I. V. 3. 
 
 sides that of the language, he adds, the obscurity we com- 
 plain of is such as should excite our industry, not lead us to 
 despair of success.” — It does seem as if Christians did not 
 study the Hebrew language sufficiently : though the Christian 
 dispensation is intended to supersede the Jewish, yet they are 
 only different parts of the same plan ; every word that is said 
 in the New Testament, is said to those that had Jewish ideas, 
 and the allusions which we may call Hebrew allusions, are in- 
 numerable^: and it is not only the sense of the New Testa- 
 ment, but the authenticity of it, which suffers by an ignorance 
 of Hebrew. We cannot judge so well, whether prophecies 
 have really been fulfilled, if we have not some understanding 
 of the meaning of the prophecies, as we can with such assist- 
 ance And the Old and New Testaments are knit together by 
 
 an endless number of ties^ the nature of which will not be 
 thoroughly seen by one, who is rudls atque hospes in the 
 original languages. Neither must we confine our views to the 
 past ; there is an unbounded field open before us for future 
 improvements : — but, if we do not search for oriental know- 
 ledge, we shall fall far short of what might possibly be effected. 
 
 Dr. Jubb has used several good arguments in favour of the 
 study of Hebrew, in a Latin speech, which he has printed, 
 made at Oxford in 1780. 
 
 Dr. William Wotton has shewn, that the Talmud, or, more 
 properly, the Misna^, is useful to Christians, as containing a 
 very old traditional law of the Jews reduced to writing; as 
 mentioning many things, which our Saviour, and those to 
 whom he addressed himself, would have in their minds. He 
 introduces a letter from Simon Ockley^, Professor of Arabic 
 in Cambridge in 1718, in which it is said, “ If I had ever had 
 an opportunity, I would most certainly have gone through the 
 New Testament under a Jew, — they understand it infinitely 
 better than we do,” &c. Lightfoot, in his Horm Hebraicag 
 and Talmudicae, has been of much use in the way we are 
 speaking of ; and he has been improved upon, I conceive, by 
 Sclioett genius . — It is indeed surprising to think how ignorant 
 of Hebrew some of the Greek Fathers were'^; the authority of 
 
 * See Prologue to Ecclesiasticus. 
 
 2 Wotton, Discourse i. chap. vii. vol. i. 
 p. 80—101. 
 
 3 Wotton’s Preface to Misna, — end. 
 
 ^ Some instances, relating to Justin 
 JMartyr, &c. may be found in Pearson on 
 the Creed, Article 2d, not far from the 
 beginning, about Joshua, Abraham, and 
 Sarah. 
 
I. V. 4 .] 
 
 HEBREW LANGUAGE. 
 
 13 
 
 I. the Septuagint must have occasioned it. Had the earliest Fa- 
 thers studied Hebrew, as Jerome did afterwards, we might have 
 known much more of the application of that language to the 
 New Testament, than we do at present ^ 
 
 4. The Samaritan Pentateuch is to be considered as an 
 original ; differing from the Hebrew only in characters ; or in 
 readings, as far as one MS. may differ from another. Samaria 
 was a city, (though a region round it has the same name) once 
 only the capital of the tribe of Ephraim, but afterwards made 
 the capital of the ten tribes which separated from Judah and 
 Benjamin : all twelve were carried captive into the East, into 
 19 Assyria and the neighbourhood of Babylon ; the ten above 
 100 years' before the two; the ten having jointly taken the 
 name of Israel^ as the main body of the twelve tribes; the 
 two, of Judah. — During the captivity, a colony was sent to 
 inhabit the depopulated provinces near Samaria ; this colony 
 were Cutheans^ and they were idolaters ; a long time after- 
 wards, an Israelitish priest was sent with the Samaritan Pen- 
 tateuch (not other parts of Scripture) to re-establish the 
 Mosaic relimon : this made a mixture of Judaism and idol- 
 
 O 
 
 atry ® ; especially as this colony adopted the religion of Moses, 
 in some degree, as the religion of the place: then, an Israel- 
 itish priest married a daughter of a Pagan governor of Samaria 
 (Sandballat); this governor built a temple on mount Gerizim'^^ 
 to rival the temple of Jerusalem, about 204 years after the re- 
 turn of the Jews; this rivalship produced a national hatred 
 between the Jews and the Samaritans. 
 
 Phcenicia was one name of Canaan proper ; the Phoenician 
 language was therefore properly the language of the Hebrews 
 before the captivity : and it is the same, whicli was afterwards 
 called the Samaritan. Our present Hebrew is written in the 
 Chaldee character, which the Hebrews got accustomed to, 
 during a seventy years captivity in the country near Babylon, 
 called sometimes Chaldea 
 
 See Masclef, vol. ii. Defence, p. v. 
 where it is said, that even PMlo and Jo- 
 ftephus, were infantes in H ebrew ; from 
 Capelins. 
 
 ® See Kennicott’s State of the Hebrew 
 Text, vol. I. 8vo. p. 337. ; and Du Pin’s 
 Canon of the Old Testament 5. 1. quoted 
 by Kennicott, p. 330. 
 
 ' Colly er’s Sacred Interpreter, i. 208. 
 
 ® V/ell might Christ say (John iv. 22.) 
 “ Ye worship ye know not what.” 
 
 A good account of this matter seems 
 to be in Beausobre' s Introdaction to the 
 New Testament. 
 
 ^ For Gerizim, see Deut. xi. 29. and 
 xxvii. 12. — See also Collyer, vol. i. p. 
 342, from Usher. 
 
 Lard. Works, vol. in. p. 415, quotes 
 Cellar. Orb. Ant. t. ii. p. 755. 
 
14 
 
 HEBREW LANGUAGE. 
 
 [1. V. 5. 
 
 To any one, who wishes to get a good idea of the Sama- I. 
 ritans, I would recommend a Dissertation of Dr. Kennicott : 
 the word Geri%im is in the Samaritan Pentateuch, Deut. xxvii. 
 
 4. where the Hebrew has Ehal ; Gerizim is by many supposed 20 
 to be inserted by a pious fraud ; but Dr. Kennicott has written 
 to prove Gerizim the right reading h Some have thought 
 the Samaritan Pentateuch now subsisting, to be only a tran- 
 script from our Plebrew ; but I should think they differ too 
 much for that ; how much they differ may be seen in Dr. Ken- 
 nicott’s Bible : he puts the Samaritan Pentateuch in Hebrew 
 characters, where it differs from the Hebrew, so that the Sa- 
 maritan copy may easily be compared with the Hebrew : he 
 says, the Samaritan Pentateuch should be “ held very pre- 
 cious.’’’ — Some places in the Plebrew Pentateuch will never 
 be intelligible, nor others defensible, till corrected agreeably to 
 the Samaritan^.” — See also Kennicott’s State of the Hebrew 
 Text, 2 vols. 8vo. — Index: particularly vol. i. p. 336, &c. where 
 he quotes a good passage from Du Pin’s Canon of the Old 
 Testament 1. 5. 1. — I conclude this account with mentioning, 
 that the Samaritan Pentateuch was quoted by the Fathers, (in 
 the 4th and 5th centuries, I think,) but then disappeared ; and 
 no MSS. of it were found till the 17th, when they seem to 
 have been purchased in the East. See Kennicott’s State, &c. 
 vol. I. p. 339 . 347 vol. II. p. 302, &c. 
 
 5. Chaldee may be considered as a dialect of the Hebrew ; 
 in the^ same characters with what we now call Hebrew, or 
 very^ nearly the same. — It is reckoned the original of the 
 books of Daniel and E%ra ; and of part of Jeremiah ; though 
 Dr. Kennicott® speaks of a MS. of Daniel and Ezra discovered 
 at Rome in 1764 in Hebrew, which seemed pure, and was pro- 21 
 bably ancient. — Chaldee is of great use for enabling us to read 
 the Chaldee^ Parajjhrases, which shew the sense put by the 
 Jews on the words of scripture; and shew particularly on what 
 passages they grounded their expectation of the Messiah. 
 
 Besides this Chaldee, there was the Syriac., or vulgar 
 tongue of the Jews, which possibly might be® a kind of coun- 
 
 > State of the Hebrew Text, vol. ii. 
 
 p. 20—102. 
 
 2 Dr Keniiicott’s Ten Annual Accounts, 
 p. 14r». 
 
 Masclef, vol. ii. p. 1st after Preface. 
 
 Walton’s Prolegomena. — Hut see 
 Parkhurst’s Greek liexicon, ’BfipaU. 
 
 Ten Annual Accounts, p. 74. See 
 also Masclef’s Grammar, vol. 11 . Argu- 
 menta, p. iii. 
 
 Hrerewood, chap. 0. might be read. 
 See also Parkhurst’s Greek Lexicon, un- 
 der ’E/lpcuv. 
 
I. V. 6,] 
 
 HEBREW LANGUAGE. 
 
 15 
 
 I. try dialect In the capital, Jerusalem, it seems as if one might 
 
 say, that Chaldee was spoken, when Syriac was spoken in Ga- 
 lilee ; I suppose, in a large town the vulgar tongue might 
 approach nearer to the written tongue, or proper language, 
 than in the country ; some have called the language spoken 
 at Jerusalem in our Saviour’s time, Syro-Chaldaic'^ . The 
 shades of dialects are endless : and, in some places, many 
 speak more languages than one; as the Welsh and Irish, the 
 Scotch and Flemish. The Syriac is recommended, because 
 our Saviour spoke it ; and his Evangelists wrote down what 
 he spoke; they might write in Greek, but their ^ ideas were 
 Syriac ; and therefore they of course used many Syriac idioms, 
 and some words The Syriac characters in time became dif- 
 ferent from the Chaldee, or what we now call Hebrew; but 
 how and when, does not appear The chief thing is to con- 
 ceive the Chaldee, brought from the East, as a language of 
 the better sort, and therefore usually written ; the Syriac, 
 belonging to the province which the Jews left, and to which 
 they returned, as a language of the more ordinary people, and 
 therefore usually spoken ; and the Greek, spreading as an uni- 
 22 versal language, and the language of the LXX : and these as 
 ingredients mixed in different proportions in different places, and 
 with different persons, in ways not now to be specified exactly. 
 
 6. After mentioning the language of the Old Testament, 
 we should mention the manner of learning it. Michaelis af- 
 firms ”, that there is not one tolerable lexicon in the Hebrew 
 language; and perhaps there may not be one equal to the 
 Greek Thesaurus of Henry Stephens, or the French dictionary 
 of the Academy ; but the reason may be, because it is impos- 
 sible to make such an one. Were there as many Hebrew as 
 Greek books, (and the same of words) and were it equally 
 practicable to ascertain or decipher Hebrew and Greek ex- 
 pressions, I doubt not but there would be as good an Hebrew 
 lexicon as the Greek one now mentioned : but this is not the 
 case. If we go to the bottom of the matter, each language is 
 to be learnt by examining all the passages in which any word 
 occurs But any one, who does this, will see what has been 
 
 ’ Masclef, vol. ii. Arg. p. iii. Mack- 
 night’s Index. 
 
 “ Masclef’s Grammar, vol. ii. p. 114. 
 Wotton’s Misna, Preface, p. xviii. 
 Masclef, Ibid. p. 121, 
 
 Introd. Lect. Pref. p. xii. &c. quarto. 
 
 A Chaldee Grammar is a set of ge- 
 neral observations formed by reading the 
 parts of Scripture, which are in Chaldee, 
 (as also the Chaldee Paraphrases, &c.) 
 
 and 
 
HEKKKW LANGUAGE. 
 
 [I. V. 6, 
 
 If) 
 
 done in the same way by those who have gone before him. I. 
 Lexicons and grammars consist of general observations de- 
 duced from a number of particular instances : the chief thing 
 is, to hit off well the connexion of different senses of the same 
 word, and their dependence on each other. The Hebrew words, 
 which we have, are within any one’s reach, and the chief dif- 
 ference between lexicographers seems to consist in arranging 
 them. Mr. Parkhurst endeavours always, in his lexicon of 
 Hebrew and English, to get a sense to the root, which has 
 something in common with all the senses ; so that the meaning 23 
 shall rise, like the sap in vegetables, immediately into the prin- 
 cipal branches, and from them into the smaller ones. Buxtorf 
 has published a small lexicon, which is well adapted to com- 
 mon use; and has the points: Cardinal Passionei has published 
 a large one with points, in two vols. folio, which saves the in- 
 vestigation of the root: and John Taylor’s Hebrew concord- 
 ance should be mentioned ; but there is such a connexion 
 between the different Oriental tongues, that I should recom- 
 mend some of those lexicons that contain more than mere 
 Hebrew ; as Schindler’s Pentaglotton, or Castellus’s (Castle’s) 
 Pleptaglotton. How melancholy ! that so worthy and learned' 
 a man as Castle should injure his sight, and ruin his fortune, 
 by such a work ! 
 
 There is a lexicon made by John Buxtorf^ jun. for the 
 purpose of explaining the Chaldee Paraphrases and the Syriac 
 Version of the New Testament; Basil, l 622 ; a well-printed 
 book ; but it has often failed me, when I thought I had reason 
 to expect information from it. 
 
 As to grammars, I know none more to be recommended 
 than Masclef’s as it gives rules for the Chaldee, Syriac, and 
 Samaritan, as well as for what is commonly called Hebrew. 
 
 He is entirely for banishing points, which suits my judgment, 
 as far as I can form one ; for they seem to embarrass more 
 than they elucidate ; and they seem to want authority. Park- 
 hurst’s grammar is without points, and very commodious : as 
 is also Wilson'’s^ which I think I should recommend upon the 
 whole to the English reader, for mere Hebrew ; especially as 
 Masclef’s is scarce. 
 
 What has been already said may give us some idea of the 24 
 
 and seeing what expressions and modes 
 of orthograpliy, &c. occur repeatedly. — 
 This easily applies/ lO a Lexicon. 
 
 * Masclef was a native of Amiens, and 
 canon of the cathedral there; died 1728, 
 aet. 68. 
 
I. V. 7, 8.] 
 
 HEBREW LANGUAGE. 
 
 17 
 
 I. history of the Hebrew, which is more properly the history of 
 the oriental tongues. The Samaritan, or Phoenician, is said to 
 be the same with the old Punic^ of which we have some speci- 
 mens^ in Plautus, and some of the Christian Fathers : the Phoe- 
 nicians were famous for trading voyages, and might make some 
 community of language with the Carthaginians, who, in their 
 turn, visited Tyre. Farther to the east was the Chaldee; the 
 Jews adopted that, and mixed it with what they had before; 
 possibly such mixture might degenerate into the Syriac. To 
 the south of Palestine are the Arabic, the ^thiopic, and the 
 Coptic, or language of the ancient ^Egyptians, called the 
 Cophti. The inscriptions at Palmyra are not yet, I believe, 
 understood. John David Michaelis in 1750 began ^ an history 
 of these languages, and an attempt to trace out their connexion 
 and their variations ; such a work might throw light on the 
 Old Testament, and be the ground of a better lexicon than has 
 yet been published. 
 
 The history of the English language would include ac- 
 counts of the British, Saxon, Norman, &c. 
 
 7 * Rabbinical Hebrew is much nearer to Chaldee than to 
 pure Hebrew, but somewhat different from Chaldee : besides 
 that it has words borrowed from the nations where Jews have 
 resided ; new customs and ideas require new w'ords ; and it is 
 more obvious to make some use of the words one hears, than 
 to invent perfectly new ones^. Schindler gives Rabbinical 
 25 words, and so does Buxtorf ; — and Buxtorf has written a 
 Rabbinical dictionary in folio, and a grammar which shews 
 the Rabbinical character, a sort of written hand, differing in 
 • different parts of Europe, and a Bibliotheca (in his abbrevi- 
 ations) ; Reland’s Analecta contains an Isagoge; Bartolocci® 
 has published a large Bibliotheca; and Pococke is celebrated 
 in this, as well as other parts of oriental learning. 
 
 8. The fewness of Hebrew books is to be lamented ; for 
 there is no making good dictionaries and grammars without 
 a great number of instances. Fewer books have been written 
 and more destroyed in Hebrew, than in any other language. 
 
 ^ Plautus, Paenulus, Act v. Scene 1. 
 Hanno loquitur Punice.” 
 
 ^ See Pref. to his Lectures on the New 
 Testament, near the end. Quarto. 
 
 The Talmud belongs to this; and 
 the Massora. for Talmud, see Wotton’s 
 Misua; for IMassora, see Buxtorf ’s Ti- 
 VOL. I. 
 
 herias ; and Talmud is mentioned B. iv. 
 Art. 6. of these Lectures. 
 
 Reland, a Dutchman, professor at 
 Utrecht, died IJPI set. 43. 
 
 ^ Bartolocci died l(lf>7, a monk; pro- 
 fessed Hebrew at Koine. 
 
 O 
 
18 
 
 HEBREW LANGUAGE. 
 
 [I. V. 8. 
 
 Masclef affirms, that no Hebrew book appears to have been I. 
 written for 600 years together ; from the first book of Macca- 
 bees to the Misna ; the reading of which in the synagogues is 
 forbidden by Justinian in 548; and that prohibition is the first 
 authentic record of its existence. He also affirms, as was 
 lately mentioned, that Philo and Josephus could not write 
 Hebrew tolerably k I suppose, he reckons the Chaldee Pa- 
 raphrases not Hebrew^ : after the Misna was published, it is 
 agreed, that many commentators upon it started up : and, since 
 that time, many rabbis have written, as appears by the Bi- 
 bliothecas: but there has been an unfortunate rivalsbip between 
 Jews and Christians; which caused Gregory^ the 9th to burn 
 twenty cart-loads of Hebrew books; Innocent the 4th is said to 26 
 have joined in the destruction of this kind of learning : it seems 
 as if they did harm to Christianity, though not so much as if 
 the books had been written sooner. We have more reason to 
 lament the books, which ^ probably were written soon after the 
 return from the Babylonish captivity, and were destroyed by 
 Antiochus Epiphanes^, or in the time of Titus, or in the per- 
 secution of Adrian. 
 
 What has been said, in this chapter, must not be thought 
 to pretend to remove all doubts and disputes : it is only meant 
 to put the student on a footing with the generality of divines, 
 and to point out subjects of farther inquiry, with regard to the 
 original language of the Old Testament. We might, at every 
 point of our journey, turn to the right hand or to the left, if 
 we pleased, and expatiate as far as we pleased ; but we must 
 remember the length of the journey which we have to per- 
 form. 
 
 ^ See Masclef's Novae Grammaticae 
 Argumenta. Vol. ii. p. v. &c. 
 
 2 JMasclef, ib. “ Hebraice ; quod de 
 Syro-chaldaico idiomate non potest in- 
 telligi.” — “Plebrea potuit a Chaldaicis 
 aut Syriacis distinguere,” viz. Hierony- 
 mus. p. iii. iv. — See note at the end of 
 this chapter. 
 
 ^ Chambers’s Diet. Gregory the 9th 
 died in 1241. Innocent the 4th died in 
 1254. 
 
 Prologues to Ecclesiasticus. 
 
 ® Bishop Chandler’s Introd. p. xiv. 
 Antiochus Epiphanes, Collyer, vol. i. 
 p. 97. He died 104 years before Christ. 
 
 In determining the sense of the word 
 Hehrerv, it may always be well to ob- 
 serve to what it is opposed : expressly or 
 tacitly : when opposed to Greek, Latin, 
 &c. it is a generic term, including Chal- 
 dee, &c.; — when opposed to Chaldee, 
 &c, it has a more confined meaning. So 
 the word Man sometimes means all hu- 
 man kind; and yet is sometimes the 
 term to distinguish one part of human 
 kind from another. At one time it in- 
 cludes what at another it excludes. 
 
 Lewis's Hebrew Antiquities might be 
 mentioned to the Student either here, or 
 in chapter x. 
 
I. vi. 1.] 
 
 GREEK LANGUAGE. 
 
 19 
 
 I- CHAPTER VI. 
 
 27 
 
 OF THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 
 
 1. Greek is always popularly called the original language 
 of the New Testament; (and therefore we mention the New 
 Testament before the Septuagint, which is only a translation;) 
 but this has been thought, especially by many ancient Chris- 
 tians, not to be strictly and universally true. We must think, 
 therefore, why we esteem it such. It is something, that we 
 have the Greek as the original ; to tis at least it is so, and 
 must be treated accordingly ; we can approach no nearer. 
 But moreover, we find the books of the New Testament quoted 
 in Greek, and very early ; and, if we consider circumstances, 
 it is likely, that the evangelists and apostles should choose 
 Greek in preference to Hebrew ; or at least to write Greek 
 originals, whether they wrote Hebrew ones or not. Greek 
 was understood by most people, even in Judea, and the Gos- 
 pel was to be preached® to “ all nations;” Greek was the most 
 general language ; the epistle to the Romans is not written in 
 the Roman language, though written within their empire, and 
 to inhabitants of their capital. If Philo and Josephus' had 
 reasons for choosing; to write in Greek, if Hebrew was trans- 
 lated into Greek for the use of Jews, why might not the first 
 publishers of the Gospel use the Greek language ? there is no 
 general presumption against it. 
 
 28 But it has been always allowed, that all the New Testa- 
 ment was originally in Greek, except St. Matthew’' s Gospel, 
 and the Epistle to the Hebrews ; therefore arguments may be 
 
 used peculiar to them And, if so many books were in Greek, 
 
 why not all ? — perhaps it may be said, because some should be 
 in Hebrew for the use of the lower people : yet the evangelists 
 were of the common people, and they understood Greek (three 
 at least) well enough to write it : below their rank, perhaps, 
 pure Hebrew would not have been much better understood in 
 our Saviour’s time by any, who could be deemed readers of the 
 
 ° The extent of the Greek language is 
 sheAvn in Brerewood, chap. 1. 
 
 7 Josephus first wrote his Jewish War 
 in the language of his own country, and 
 
 afterwards published it in Greek ; — Lard. 
 Works, vol. VII. p, 'do, from Josephus’s 
 Prol. sect. 2, 
 
 o, 2 
 
20 
 
 GREEK LANGUAGE. 
 
 [I. vi. 2. 
 
 books in question. — Syriac would have ^ been necessary ; and I. 
 
 a Syriac version there was very early If there ever was an 
 
 Hebrew original, it was probably rather for those who were 
 attached to Hebrew (against innovations and foreign fashions) 
 than for the lowest ranks of people ; and how came it so much 
 neglected ? who translated it into Greek ? i. e. made what the 
 church has generally taken as an original ? Both St. Matthew’s 
 Gospel and the Epistle to the Hebrews have much the appear- 
 ance and ease, and the harmony, numbers, and rhetorical 
 figures of originals^ It seems to have been prejudice, which 
 made men first fancy it was likely these two books should be 
 first written in Hebrew ; and thence conclude, that they were 
 so. Whoever wishes to see these and other arguments well 
 stated, may consult the Supplement to Gardner’s Credibility 
 of the Gospel History. 
 
 The utmost, which it seems possible to allow to the fa- 
 vourers of the opinion, that St. Matthew’s Gospel was first 
 written in Hebrew, is, that there might possibly be two ori- 
 ginals, one in Greek, another in some kind of Hebrew : as we 29 
 have two originals of our ^ Thirty-nine Articles, and of Sir 
 Isaac Newton’s Optics. Indeed, this supposition accounts for 
 some expressions of the ancients very well. What right the 
 favourers of such opinion have to our attention, will appear 
 from what follows. 
 
 2. In early times of Christianity, there was such a book 
 as the Gospel of the Nazarenes, sometimes called The Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews ; sometimes, The Gospel according 
 to the twelve^: — indeed, there were a great number of gospels 
 of different sorts, but this is particularly mentioned here, be- 
 cause it was afterwards imagined by some, to have been the 
 original Gospel of St. Matthew. — What it really was, cannot 
 perhaps be ascertained beyond all power of doubting : there- 
 fore we must not dwell on the subject : what seems most pro- 
 bable is this ; it was an history of the acts and sayings of 
 Christ, in some kind of Hebrew, taken chiefly from St. Mat- 
 
 ^ With regard to this, consider, as be- 
 fore, what Parkhurst says under ’Eppdk : 
 and the remarks offered in the preceding 
 chapter. 
 
 ^ See Beausobre’s Pref. to Ilebr. quot- 
 ed by Lardner, Works, vol. iv. p. 20(5: 
 where are other good authorities. See 
 also Limborch on Acts vi. 1. 
 
 3 The Countess of Rosenberg has writ- 
 ten in French and English, and says, 
 that they are equally original. Josephus 
 was mentioned in this section. 
 
 ^ Lard. Credib. Index, Gospel. Frag- 
 ments are preserved by Grabe. See also 
 Jeremiah Jones. 
 
I. vi. 3.] 
 
 GREEK LANGUAGE. 
 
 21 
 
 I. thevv, but with things added from some of the other Evan- 
 gelists, and with still more particulars than they mention, 
 known by tradition probably, for the use of the lowest orders 
 of the people^. 
 
 3. The Septimgint^ is a copious subject. We must en- 
 deavour to select what will give us the best idea of it, without 
 entering into minuti^. 
 
 Alexander the Great died 324 years before Christ : four of 
 his generals shared his dominions'^; Ptolemy, surnamed Soter 
 (Saviour) had ^Egypt: ere long, he tried to extend his domi- 
 30 nions ; he attacked him who had got Syria, but found oppo- 
 sition from the fidelity and loyalty of the Jews; one sabbath- 
 day, he contrived to get the better of them, and transported 
 several colonies of them into iEgypt, into the neighbourhood 
 of Alexandria chiefly, to the amount, it is said, of an hundred 
 thousand men. His son, Ptolemy, surnamed Philadelphus^ 
 succeeded him, 283 years before Christ; he was a lover of 
 literature, and formed, and dedicated with great magnificence, 
 under Demetrius Phalereus, as his librarian, the famous library 
 of Alexandria, consisting of two hundred thousand volumes. 
 About this time, (about 280 years before Christ), or perhaps® 
 rather later, the Hebrew Bible was, in fact, translated into 
 Greek. .The translation has the name of the Septuagint^ or 
 the version of the Seventy, from a notion, that Ptolemy pro- 
 cured six of each Jewish tribe to make it; twelve times six 
 amounts to seventy-two, and sometimes this is called the ver- 
 sion of the Seventy-two, but more commonly the number two 
 is neglected: some wonderful stories are told of these trans- 
 lators being shut up in separate cells, and bringing out the 
 very same translation to an iota, in two days ; or in seventy- 
 two ; but no learned man supports these stories now, I think, 
 if we may except Isaac Vossius^. Mill thinks, that the ap- 
 probation of a council of Jews, consisting of about seventy, 
 gave the Septuagint its name. (beg. of pref.) Prideaux^° thinks 
 the translation was made at the request of the Alexandrian 
 Jews; possibly their request, and Ptolemy’s turn for litera- 
 ture, and desire to suit the Jews, jointly occasion it". 
 
 ® This is Lardner’s opinion; Works, 
 vol, VI. p. 64. 
 
 Encyclopedic, Septante. 
 
 Colly er’s Sacred Interpreter, Index, 
 Septuagint. 
 
 “ Ladvocat under Ptol, Philad. says 271. 
 
 » See Pref. to Mill’s LXX, 12 ^ 0 , 3d 
 page. 
 
 ^0 Connexion 2. 1. quoted p. 347. Col- 
 ly er, vol. I. 
 
 For the contents of Aristaeus’s ac- 
 count of this translation of the Bible, as 
 
 well 
 
22 
 
 GREEK LANGUAGE. 
 
 [I. vi. 3. 
 
 On the authority of this translation, men have been di- I. 
 vided ; the Jews of late have reckoned it despicable; though 31 
 Josephus seems to venerate it: Isaac Vossius'^ has reckoned 
 it divine ; these are the extremes : some middle opinion would 
 come nearest the truth. Dr. Kennicott, in his State of the 
 Hebrew text, has several good remarks upon it scattered 
 about, and he has quoted several good opinions of others : — 
 he mentions one instance, where this version is right, and both 
 the Hebrew and Samaritan^ wrong; it differs from our He- 
 brew in a very great number ^ of passages ; and probably was 
 translated from copies, which differed much from ours : it has 
 now itself many various^ readings, in the different copies of 
 it ; but, supposing the right readings of it ascertained, I 
 should think that it ought to be allowed to correct our He- 
 brew, as well as our Hebrew to correct^ it: the genuine 
 reading ought to be investigated by comparing them. Jerom® 
 seems perplexed with it, but it stood in his way, when he 
 wanted to make a translation from certain Hebrew MSS. into 
 Latin. There seems not to have been any unity, either of 
 person or plan, in making this version, if we may judge from 32 
 different ways of spelling the same name”, and from different 
 ways of rendering the very same phrase, in passages very near 
 to each other. 
 
 The importance of this version is reckoned great by most 
 moderate men; it was made before the Jews were prejudiced^ 
 against Jesus as the Messiah ; it was the means of preparing® 
 the world at large for his appearance. There is a preface 
 signed I. P. (the initials of Bishop Pearson’s name) to a 
 
 ^vell as of the account of .Justin ]\Iartyr, 
 &c. see the Preliminaria to Montfaucon’s 
 edit, of Origen’s Hexapla, Cap. 3. Aris- 
 tcBUS (Montfaucon calls him Aristeas, 
 Josephus ’ApiaTOLo^,) was the name of 
 an officer in the court of Ptolemy Phila- 
 delphus ; so some one probably forged an 
 history under his name. Saying this, is 
 not affirming, that there are no true facts 
 in the history under the name of Aris- 
 taeus. — See Pref. to Mill’s Septuagint. 
 .Josephus (Ant. 12. 2.) has a long chapter 
 on this subject, telling many particulars ; 
 but they have not a credible appearance : 
 some speak of Aristajus’s work as genuine. 
 It is inserted in the Bibliotheca; Patrum. 
 
 ‘ Wotton’s Misna, Pref. p. ix. &c. 
 
 2 I. p. 549. ^ p. 284. 
 
 4 P. 211. 1788, Mr. Holmes is now 
 about collating the MSS. 
 
 ^ See Sir I. Newton’s Chronology, p. 
 343; quoted Kennicott’s State, &c. vol. 
 II. p. 337. 
 
 ® Kennicott’s State, vol. i. p. 211. 
 
 7 Ken. 197, vol. i. « Ken. 276. vol. i. 
 " Collyer i. 347. 
 
 Bishop Pearson was the person meant. 
 See Biographia Britannica, under Pear- 
 son. On the Creed, p. 491. 1st edit, (on 
 Descent into Hell) Bishop Pearson says, 
 ^‘many additional patches have been in 
 that translation,” meaning the LXX. 
 This sentence is not in some later edi- 
 tions of Pearson. 
 
I. vi. 4.] 
 
 GREEK LANGUAGE. 
 
 23 
 
 I. Cambridge edition of the Septuagint, printed in 1665, which 
 gives an account of many other advantages, (I will read you 
 the last paragraph) ; and Dr. Hody’s judgment seems can- 
 did Michaelis reckons the best edition of the LXX. to be 
 
 Breitinger’s ; references are made, by Dr. Kennicott, to the 
 Complutensian, and that of Aldus; and to the Vatican and 
 Alexandrian manuscripts. The Cambridge edition of l665 is 
 printed after the Vatican MS. 
 
 4. It may seem extraordinary, that our Saviour and the 
 sacred writers of the New Testament should quote the trans- 
 lation of the LXX. rather than the Hebrew; for so they are 
 said to have done. ‘‘ Almost all the passages of the Old Test- 
 ament,” introduced into the Epistle to the Hebrews, and they 
 are very numerous, are ‘‘ quoted according to the Seventy 
 33 not according to the Hebrew” — It is however said, that rather 
 the sense of the Septuagint is followed than the words 
 though our Testament is in the same language. Supposing 
 the truth of this, two ideas may be here mentioned; 1. The 
 Hebrew copies in use, at the first publication of Christianity, 
 might be more like those, from which the LXX. had trans- 
 lated, than our present copies are. And this idea will appear 
 less strange, if we attend to ‘‘ almost all,” in the passage now 
 quoted ; and to the words of a Greek translation not being 
 followed in a Greek book. 2. The Greek language might be 
 so much the general language, and the version of the LXX. 
 might be so much known, that it might be more likely to an- 
 swer the purpose of quotation to quote from the LXX, than 
 to quote from the Hebrew : the arguments, built upon quota- 
 tions, would not be weakened by such choice. The knowledge 
 of Greek did descend to low ranks ; to men of ordinary me- 
 chanic trades; such were the apostles; — how far quotations 
 from pure Hebrew, differing much from the Greek, would 
 have been entered into, I do not clearly see ; but they would 
 not have been so extensively useful as those from the Greek. 
 
 But it may be proper to mention, that Dr. Randolph and 
 Mr. Street think it cannot be generally affirmed, that Christ 
 and his Apostles did quote from the LXX. 
 
 My own idea is, that we do not enter quite enough into 
 the circumstances of this case. Christ and his Apostles would 
 
 Quoted in Kennicott, vol. i. p. 545. 
 Beausobre’s Pref. to Hebr. transl. by 
 Lardner, Works, vol. iv. p. 269. 
 
 13 Collyer, i. p. 347- 
 1^ See Preface to Mr Street’s Transla- 
 tion of the Psalms, p. xv — xviii. 
 
24 
 
 GREEK LANGUAGE. 
 
 [I. vi. 5, 6 . 
 
 have no nicety in quoting the Old Testament ; all they would I. 
 want, would be to refer their hearers to it, for some particular 
 purpose : they could not falsify ; the books were at hand. I 
 should think, therefore, reference would be made easily and 34? 
 freely, according to the notions or reading of the persons ad- 
 dressed at any particular time. To a Jew who was accustomed 
 to the LXX., the LXX. would be quoted ; to one who had 
 traditional modes of interpreting, those modes would be a- 
 dopted. (See Allix, Unitarians, chap, ii, iii, iv ; and Bp. 
 Chandler’s Defence, chap, iv, and v, and vi.) Hence, little 
 can be built, in the way of general observation, on the quota- 
 tions which occur ; they leave us still to get the best sense we 
 can from all copies and versions taken together. 
 
 5. The peculiarities of the Septuagint are such as might 
 be expected from a Jew’s writing of Jewish matters, belonging 
 to common life, in the Greek language. That is, Greek words^ 
 combined into Jewish idioms; and sometimes transferred or 
 
 borrowed, to express things unknown amongst the Grecians 
 
 If I wanted to give, in Sweden for instance, a notion of Addi- 
 son’s delicate humour, I could not do it in English, because I 
 should not be understood ; nor in Swedish, because I know 
 not the language myself ; but French is a general language ; 
 
 I could translate Addison into French, but it would have An- 
 glicisms in it, on two accounts; because I was an Englishman, 
 and because the ideas of Addison were English ; and of that 
 ordinary familiar sort, in which all nations differ from each 
 other. The peculiarities then of the Septuagint are, in short. 
 Oriental idioms and ideas. One thing, which makes this more 
 attended to, is, that the Greek of the LXX. naturally became 
 the Greek for expressing the things of religion, and so the 
 Greek of the New Testament’. 
 
 6. The expression Hellenistic Greek seems strange, be- 
 cause all Greek must be Hellenistic in some sense. But all 35 
 dispersed Jews, including those of Alexandria though settled 
 there, who forgot their own ^ language, and got to talk Greek 
 familiarly and habitually, would be Hellenists, and every 
 thing they did would be called Hellenistic; if Jews affected 
 Grecian manners, they might be called^ Hellenists, as might 
 
 ^ Syriac words, idioms and ideas in 
 New Testament, see in Wotton’s Misna. 
 Pref. p. xviii. 
 
 2 See Limborch on Acts vi. 1, 
 
 ^ Look at Diet. Acad. Franyoise : that 
 Diet, gives Hellenists four senses : 1. 
 Alexandrian Jews. 2. The Jews, who 
 spoke the language of the LXX. 3. The 
 
I. vi. 7.] 
 
 GREEK LANGUAGE. 
 
 25 
 
 T. Greeks who turned Jews: — there would, in this way, be Hel- 
 lenistic customs, dress, amusements, &c. — and, if Hellenists 
 spoke a peculiar kind of Greek, it would be called Hellenistic 
 
 Greek This Hellenistic Greek I conceive to be the language 
 
 of Philo, if not of Josephus; and his writing Hellenistic Greek 
 is one principal reason, I fancy, why his language is of im- 
 portance to Christians. — Parkhurst mentions in the 
 
 sense, to create, as being Hellenistic. The authors of the 
 apocryphal books, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees are called 
 “ Hellenizing Jews.*’ — Pearson on the Creed: p. 127. fol. 
 (note on, Oeog is not OeX^jjaa Oeov.) 
 
 We see now what it is to understand Greek with a view to 
 the sacred books; — it is to understand the Greek tongue in 
 its purity, to understand the oriental idioms mixed with it ; 
 and the manner in which they are mixed ; the proportion of 
 the several ingredients. 
 
 7. It may be as well here, as any where else, to make 
 some mention of those Translators of the Old Testament, who 
 
 lived after our Saviour I shall make use of MontfaucorC s 
 
 Preliminaria to Origen’s Hexapla; attempting only to mention 
 what seems most probable, without making any decision of my 
 
 36 own, in matters of so much uncertainty Symmachus comes 
 
 first in the syllabus ; perhaps because he has been most ap- 
 plauded by the Fathers, as an interpreter ; but I will now 
 follow the usual order. 
 
 Aquila is said to have been a Jew, of Pontus : an enemy to 
 Christianity : scrupulously adhering to the Hebrew copies ; 
 even so as to make his own expressions sometimes more ob- 
 scure than the Hebrew itself. The Jews, on this account 
 perhaps, reckon him the most accurate of all the interpreters. 
 Christians say, that he has distorted some passages, particularly 
 some prophecies relating to the Messiah. 
 
 Some have thought Aquila the same with Onkelos^ (Brere- 
 wood, chap. 9.) but the paraphrase of Onkelos differs much 
 from the version of Aquila ; though the same person might be 
 called by those two names. 
 
 Symmachus is said to have been a Samaritan, and to have 
 lived under Severus. He v/as probably an Ebionite, that is, 
 a sort of Christian. He was a man of abilities, and of taste. 
 
 Jews, who accommodated themselves to 
 Grecian manners. 4. The Greeks, who 
 embraced Judaism. 
 
 ^ Taylor says, this book is in Hellen- 
 istic Greek on Romans, Key, p. 121, 
 bottom. 
 
26 
 
 SCRIPTURES HOW FIRST PUBLISHED. [I. vii. 1. 
 
 much praised by the ancients. He wrote such Greek as not I. 
 to seem harsh to a Grecian. His translation is free, in com- 
 parison of Aquila‘’s: and gives generally a rational sense. 
 Indeed, if he had a fault, it was giving a rational sense, 
 when he did not thoroughly understand his original : this 
 was, not submitting to own that a passage was unintelligible 
 to him. 
 
 Theodotion seems to have been an unbelieving Jew, of 
 Ephesus, under Commodus, and therefore to have lived before 
 Symmachus. He is remarkable for having followed the LXX. 
 very strictly : so that when the LXX. fails, his version is look- 
 ed upon as supplying the defect. Yet he sometimes seems to 
 follow Aquila. 
 
 In Origen’s Hexapla, we have, in some places, a fifth, 
 sixth, and seventh interpreter ; but so little is known about 
 these, that I will content myself with barely mentioning them. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SACRED WRITINGS WERE 
 PUBLISHED, BEFORE THE ART OF PRINTING WAS KNOWN. 
 
 1. The Art of printing was not invented till the 15th 
 century; till about 1440 or 1450. The sacred books there- 
 fore must, before the discovery of this art, appear in manu- 
 script : — written by persons, who made writing books their 
 sole occupation. The written copies of the whole or part of 
 the Scriptures are mostly handsome, on vellum, or cotton 
 paper, some finely illuminated, but frequently worn, and diffi- 
 cult to be read, though, in many, the difficulty goes off much 
 sooner than is at first expected. — They are dispersed unequally 
 through the world ; ecclesiastical history teaches us where to 
 expect the most : many are of little value ; some are very pre- 
 cious ; the latter are known like famous men, and have charac- 
 ters peculiar to themselves respectively, which characters it is 
 a part of learning to know. 
 
 It is natural to ask after the originals of the books of 
 Scripture, v/ritten by the inspired penmen themselves : most 
 men are agreed, that these autographs do not exist : a gospel 
 of St. Mark is shewn as his autograph at Venice, where he is 
 
I. vii. 2, 3.] SCRIPTURES HOW FIRST PUBLISHED. 27 
 
 I, the patron saint ; but unfortunately it is not settled, whether 
 the characters are Greek or Latin k 
 
 2. Let no one be discouraged at this ; the Author of Na- 
 
 38 ture may be nevertheless the Author of the Gospel ; as we are 
 left to take the bad consequences of the carelessness of man- 
 kind in the things of nature, so are we in the dispensations of 
 grace. No objection can arise from hence to the divine au^ 
 thority of the sacred books. 
 
 Those who are discouraged by human accidents happening 
 to the sacred writings, seem to mistake the nature of what is 
 called a particular Providence. Providence may guide each 
 particular event, and yet Man have only a general belief that 
 it does so. It is one thing (and a very reasonable thing) to 
 have such a belief : it is another, and a very different one, to 
 think that we can point out, how such particular Providence is 
 to employ itself on any occasion. 
 
 3. For the age of MSS, we may look at Dr. Kennicott’s 
 
 State of the Hebrew Text, vol. i. p. 307, or ten Annual Ac- 
 counts, p. 144^. — The old ones are a continued series of let- 
 ters^ sometimes of the same size and at the same distance, 
 without any divisions, so much as into words, without any 
 points, or with very few ; and therefore they afford room for 
 perpetual study and improvement. Ends of lines there must 
 be. Lines sometimes contained a certain number of letters, 
 and were called ^ : sometimes a set of words expressing 
 
 a meaning in some degree separate, and such lines are called ^ 
 f)}]iaa.Ta. — The ancients have left us Stiehometries, by which 
 
 39 name they call catalogues of the canonical books, with the 
 number of verses contained in each®. The Masora of the 
 Jews answered this same purpose. — In the year S96, St. Paul’s 
 Epistles were divided into lessons or chapters. In 490®, an 
 edition was first published with lessons, chapters and verses. 
 Our kind of verses were invented by Robert Stephens in 1551k 
 
 1 Michaelis, Sect. 12. 4to. 
 
 2 I wish it had been the custom to say 
 when a MS. was probably written, in- 
 stead of saying it is so many years old. 
 Lard. Works, v. 252, does talk of the 
 Alexandrian being written in the 4th or 
 5th Century ; and so does Dr. Woide. 
 Dr. Powell expresses it, p. 65, some of 
 them, as is probable, have been preserved 
 more than a thousand years.” 
 
 ^ seems to mean a row of any 
 
 thing; men, trees, words. 
 
 ^ Michaelis, quarto, sects. 36 and 45. 
 See Simon’s Grit. Hist, last chap. (p. 180.) 
 
 ^ Lard. Works, vol. v. p. 258. 
 
 ® Michaelis, sect. 45. quarto. 
 
 7 In the last chapter of Simon’s Critical 
 History, are several things to our present 
 purpose ; at one time, St. Matthew was 
 said to contain 68 titles and 355 chapters : 
 and so of the rest. Names are arbitrary. 
 
28 
 
 'SCllIPTURES HOW FIRST PUBLISHED. [I. vii. 4, 5. 
 
 They are useful for finding passages; but Mr. Locke advises us I. 
 to neglect them all, when we want to find the real scope of any 
 part of Scripture. 
 
 4. Mr. Casley’s Preface to his catalogue of MSS. in the 
 King of England’s Library, may be read with profit by any 
 one who wishes to pursue this part of literature. And 
 stein's Introduction to his New Testament h 
 
 5. It may be proper to take an instance or two of MSS; 
 
 first, let us take the Aleccandrian. It is in four volumes, of 
 such a size as to be called sometimes folio, sometimes^ quarto; 
 the three first contain the Old Testament, in the version of the 
 LXX. ; the 4th, the books of the New Testament, but not 
 quite complete. The age of it is not entirely agreed upon ; it 
 might be written in or near the 5th century : it was probably 
 written in ^Egypt ; possibly at Alexandria, where they used to 
 write remarkably well. According to tradition, it was written 
 by a noble ^Egyptian lady, named Thecla^ soon after the 
 Council of Nice. So says an inscription of Cyrillus Lucaris, 40 
 to whom this nation was indebted for it. He, removing from 
 the patriarchate of Alexandria to that of Constantinople, took 
 
 it with him: he had been in several parts of Europe^, and 
 favoured the Reformed Religion. Pope Urban VIII, at that 
 time making a strong effort to reunite the Roman and Greek 
 churches, Cyril opposed the union, and wished to make one 
 between the Greek church and the Reformed ; he was after- 
 wards put to death, through the intrigues of the see of Rome, 
 by the Emperor of the Turks, for treason. He seems to 
 have been a man of an enlarged mind His good-will to the 
 Reformed appears by letters now published ; he was strongly 
 supported by the English ambassador, and he might probably 
 think, that the Scriptures had best be lodged where all men 
 were Christians, and where Christianity was reformed. How- 
 ever that was, he gave, when patriarch of Constantinople, the 
 Alexandrian MS. to King Charles the First, of England, about 
 the year l628, through his friend Sir Thomas Roe, the English 
 ambassador. It was in the royal library (and is mentioned 
 
 ^ Consult also Kennicott. Dr. Woitle. 
 Ivardner’s Indexes. Simon’s Critical 
 Ifistory of the New Testament. 
 
 “ Dr.tVoide says it was originally folio; 
 and Sir Thom.as Roe calls it ‘•‘a large 
 Rook but the margin has been cut, so 
 
 as, I think, to take off the contents of 
 chapters, &c. 
 
 ^ Mosheim. Index. 
 
 His history, by Thomas Smith in his 
 Miscellanies, probably might be worth 
 reading: Sir Thomas Roe’s Negotiations, 
 I think, are : Smith calls him a martyr. 
 
I. viii. 1.] 
 
 VARIOUS READINGS. 
 
 29 
 
 I. as there by Mr. Casley), till the king gave it to the British 
 Museum, where it is now lodged. Mill, Grabe, Walton, Wet- 
 stein, in their several Prolegomena, have spoken of this MS, 
 but the description of it is now become less necessary by Dr. 
 Woide’s having published a facsimile of the 4th volume, or 
 New Testament, which I am able to shew you. — Dr. Woide’s 
 preface shews how much this one MS. may be made a man’s 
 study 
 
 41 If any one has curiosity about the famous Cambridge MS, 
 given to the University by Theodore Be%a, he will, ere long, 
 be able to see ® a facsimile of that ; and mean time may read 
 a short account of it in Michaelis’s Introd. Lect., sect. 25, and 
 a longer one in Du Pin and Simon’s Critical History, and in 
 the prolegomena of Mill and Wetstein. ‘‘ It contains the Gos- 
 pels and the Acts, together with an ancient Latin Version.” — 
 Lardner speaks ~ unfavourably of it. 
 
 42 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 OF VARIOUS READINGS. 
 
 We have lost the originals of the sacred books; and not 
 only so, but those MSS. which we have, differ from each other 
 in many particulars : and there is no authority to decide which 
 is right. 
 
 1. Some persons seem to have denied the fact; formerly 
 as to the whole Scripture, (Kennicott’s Gen. Diss. end of Hebr. 
 Bible) but of late only as to the Old Testament. They assert 
 what they call the integrity of the Hebrew Tewt ; — but it 
 seems rather difficult to understand, how copies can differ from 
 each other, and none of them be corrupt : it seems as if all but 
 one must be so, nay possibly that one also. — And it seems 
 equally difficult to understand, how any learned man can get 
 
 ^ The order of the parts of the N. T. 
 in the Alexandrian copy seems best con- 
 ceived this way ; — Gospels, Acts, Gene- 
 ral Epistles (of James, Peter, John) — 
 Epistles to particular Churches, ending 
 with Hebrews; — Epistles to individuals, 
 Timothy, Titus, Philemon; — Apoca- 
 lypse — Though, to be sure, the 2d and 
 
 3d Epistles of .John are joined to the 
 first; and the Hebrews were not a par- 
 ticular church. 
 
 ® This facsimile has been now (1796) 
 published some time, and has been in- 
 creasing in value ever since its publica- 
 tion. 
 
 ’ Lard. W^orks, vol. in. p. 157. 
 
30 
 
 VARIOUS READINGS. 
 
 [I. viii. 1. 
 
 any copy, which he can reckon the only right one : — a com- I. 
 mon person reads his Bible, and has no idea of any other copy 
 besides that which he reads ; but a learned man must know b 
 that copies of the best character differ considerably from each 
 other. 
 
 It seems, however, right to mention this notion of the in- 
 tegrity of the Hebrew text; and that it was maintained in 
 1753; yet not all who favour the notion, hold that the Jews^ 
 never transcribed wrong : some only say never considerably 
 wrong: Dr. Kennicott set out with this opinion^, or prejudice: 43 
 Wolfius, Buxtorf, Pococke, are perhaps the most respectable 
 of those individuals, who have given into this way of thinking ; 
 and it seems as if in Switzerland the candidates for orders 
 
 were obliged to subscribe to this integrity But we have 
 
 names of equal weight on our side ; Mede, Lowth, Capell, 
 
 &c. — A good account of them is to be found in Dr. Kennicott’s 
 General Dissertation, at the end of his Bible. — This error 
 seems to turn, as that about decay of manuscripts lately men- 
 tioned, on a presumption, that a particular Providence must 
 guard things really sacred. 
 
 Nevertheless, if v/e think of the matter, we must say, that 
 naturally, the oftener any work is transcribed, the more mis- 
 takes there will be in it : therefore naturally many more mis- 
 takes must be in the copies of the Old Testament than in those 
 of the New. Shall we then presume to estimate supernatural 
 protection ? as far as we are able to do so, we must say, that 
 the New Testament is as likely to have a perpetual miracle 
 wrought in its favour, as the Old. Jews indeed might not 
 allow this; but some Jews'^ confess, that there are errors in 
 Hebrew copies of the Bible ; and, when they correct any 
 copies, they tacitly own the same thing. The ICeri seem’^ 
 nothing but various readings ; and the Masorites ° themselves 
 do not deny it. 
 
 It would carry us too far to dwell on particular instances 
 of faults in MSS. of the Old Testament; Dr. Kennicott has 
 mentioned several, in his State of the Hebrew Text: the 
 student may examine that in Psalm xvi. 10. — That relating 
 
 ^ Our present Hebrew Bibles, Kennicott 
 says, are from the latest and worst MSS, 
 and from the edit, of Ben Chaim in 
 ir)25. Ann. Accounts, p. 25. 143. 
 
 2 Kennicott’s State, vol. i. p. 9. 237. 
 204. 230. 
 
 Annual Accounts, p. 7* 
 
 ^ Ken. p. 246. 
 
 ^ See Kennicott’s State, &c. vol. ti. 
 p. 482. from Jablonski. 
 
 ^ Kennicott’s State, &c. Index, Inte- 
 grity. 
 
I. viii. 2.] 
 
 VARIOUS READINGS. 
 
 31 
 
 I. to the time of the Hebrews dwelling in iEgypt : — Exod. xii. 
 
 44 40. — and the account of 600 various readings in the thanks- 
 giving Ode of David, recorded 2 Sam.~ xxii. and Psalm xviii : 
 which last will give an idea of the manner of getting at the 
 
 true text, by a comparison of several faulty copies For what 
 
 is done in one ode or song, may be done in the whole Old 
 Testament. 
 
 Bp. Warburton, in his ^‘Doctrine of Grace,” treats this 
 notion of the integrity, &c. as superstitious, (p. 42.) The 
 Orohio there mentioned was a Spanish Jew, who pretended to 
 be a Christian, of the Romish church ; he was cotemporary 
 with Limborch, and had a friendly controversial conference 
 with him; which is much commended by Bp. Warburton, in 
 his directions for studying Divinity. 
 
 2. Having spoken of the fact, that there are various read- 
 ings, not only in the New Testament but in the Old, we will 
 take an instance of one person who has collected various read- 
 ings in the former, and of one who has collected them in the 
 latter ; Dr. Mill, and Dr. Kennicott ; — premising only this 
 definition ; (Ken. i. 272.) varia est lectio, ubicunque varie 
 legitur ; in word or letter ; or in the relative placing of the 
 same word or letter. 
 
 Dr. Mill^ collected no less than 30,000 different readings in 
 the New Testament: as appears from his Prolegomena to his 
 edition of the Greek Testament, published in folio at Oxford 
 1707. The work took him 30 years®: And to these, additions 
 have been made by Kuster, Bengelius, &c. Mill collated 
 about 112 MSS^®. 
 
 45 Dr. Kennicott began to collate Hebrew MSS. of the Old 
 Testament under the protection of the publick in 176 O; but, 
 more strictly, he began his work in 1751, as he tells us at the 
 opening of his general dissertation, at the end of his Bible ; 
 and he collated till 1770: he passed other ten years or more, 
 in preparing and publishing his Hebrew Bible in two vols. 
 folio; which came out in 178 O. He had above TOOOO^^ sub- 
 scribed, which he may be said to have expended on his work : 
 a work greatly respected in Europe, and carried on not only in 
 
 ^ Kenn. State, See. vol. i. p. 218. 397. 
 and vol. ii. p. 58.5, &c. and compare 
 Kenn. Annual Accounts, p. 18. 
 
 ^ Of Queen’s Coll. Oxf. died in 1707. 
 
 ^ Kenn. Annual — p. 157* 
 
 Dr Kennicott’s Annual Account for 
 17C9. Ten Ann. Acets. p. 165. 
 
 See Ten Annual Accounts, p. 17b 
 &c. 
 
32 
 
 VARIOUS READINGS. 
 
 [I. viii. 3. 
 
 Europe but in Asia and Africa^; his Ten Annual Accounts I. 
 of the progress of his work after it was publicly supported, 
 
 make now an interesting little volume As to the number of 
 
 MSS. and editions compared, I think he says, in his Disserta- 
 tion at the end of his Bible, that they amount ad numerum 
 fere septingentesimum — in 3769 he had 265 collations to 
 digest ; which, if we reflect that the collations were made by 
 comparing letter with letter, is prodigious ! — Some of the 
 more distant foreign collations had not then arrived in Eng- 
 land. 358 MSS. had been used at the end of the Pentateuch : 
 see the Bible, vol. i. end of Deut. 
 
 Of the number of variations in these 265 collations we may 
 form some idea, if we observe, that there were 1200 in one 
 single collation ; in comparing two very accurate printed edi- 
 tions ; that of 1488 printed at Soncino (the first printed edi- 
 tion, I think, of the whole Hebrew Bible) with Van. Hooght’s 
 Amst. 1705. 
 
 We have already said, that there were‘600 various readings 
 in collating 2 Sam. xxii. with the 18th Psalm. 
 
 I feel myself interested about the Pentateuch partly ^x- 46 
 pected from Naplose (Sichem, at the foot of Gerizim and 
 Ebal) — and I feel a wish, that Dr. Kennicott had consulted 
 his health more, though he had left part of his work to others. 
 
 3. The variations here spoken of are not such as to affect 
 our faith or practice in any thing material : they are mostly of 
 
 a minute, sometimes of a trifling nature Dr. Powell says, 
 
 “ “ The worst manuscript extant would not pervert one article 
 of our faith, or destroy one moral precept.” — We may look 
 at an instance or two of the most important sort. — That men- 
 tioned in Bp. Pearson on the Creed, p. 610. 1st edit. p. 303. 
 folio — And that consicjered by Lardner, in his Credibility, 
 &c., Act. XV. 20, 29. — Even 1 John v. 7. is not the only text, 
 nor perhaps one of the principal, on which our faith in the 
 Trinity is founded. 
 
 ^ One MS. from a Jew in America is 
 mentioned, Ann. Accts. p. 101. 
 
 2 P. 05. •' 1 Cor. XV. 51. 
 
 Omnes dormiemus, non autem omnes 
 immutabimur. (Alex.) 
 
 Omnes resurgemus, non autem omnes 
 immutabimur. (Vulgate.) 
 
 Non omnes dormiemus, omnes autem 
 immutabimur. (ours.) 
 
 Here is seemingly a great difference; 
 
 but we all believe every one of these 
 three affirmations. 
 
 We shall all die, one way or other, but 
 not all in that way which is called 
 chaiufimj. 
 
 There shall be a general resurrection, 
 but not a general chanying. 
 
 Not all men shall go to yraves^ (some 
 shall be taken up into the air, Ac.) ; 
 but we shall all have spiritual bodies. 
 
I. viii. 4, 5.] 
 
 VARIOUS READINGS. 
 
 33 
 
 I, In the Old Testament it is observed, that a great number 
 of the variations are in names and numbers'^. 
 
 4. Nevertheless, the variations which we find are not to be 
 neglected as of no consequence : had we no instances to prove 
 this, we could see, that it must be presumptuous and disre- 
 spectful to neglect bringing as near perfection as possible the 
 
 47 sacred oracles Who could have thought that so much would 
 
 have been said, as has been by the Socinians, on the dilFerence 
 between and 6 ?... Chrysostom’s comparison of the 
 
 Scripture to gold^ as to weighing every grain of it, is just and 
 reasonable. 
 
 5. Our business then, as scholars and Christians, seems 
 to require, that we should reflect a little on the causes of those 
 varieties, which have been described ; it may be some satisfac- 
 tion to see how they may be owing to men^ and need not be 
 charged upon Moses and the prophets^ — 
 
 Those, who write, may be either disinterested or inte^ 
 rested; though disinterested, they will run into mistakes, with- 
 out great and constant care ; even supposing them to understand 
 what they write ; in that case, they will often affect great sa- 
 gacity, and get wrong, through a desire of doing something 
 uncommonly ingenious. — If they do not understand what they 
 write, they are every moment in danger of error ; particularly, 
 when they copy hooks, (we may say from experience) of taking 
 marginal notes into the text. 
 
 But some scribes have been interested, either as getting 
 their livelihood by writing, or as wanting to have expressions 
 favour some particular opinions ; — in the first case, they would 
 take a sentence by the lump, be unwilling to blot, and make 
 themselves easy if what they wrote came much to the same, as 
 what they ought to have written®. — In the latter case, if they 
 wanted to favour certain opinions, they would be guilty of 
 pious or malicious frauds. 
 
 So far we have supposed scribes to write singly ; but 
 
 48 several might be obliged to copy from one original ; in that 
 case, sometimes the eye, sometimes the ear (when one dictated 
 to several,) would mislead them : and wrong words would often 
 be substituted for right ones, when there w^as a likeness of 
 shape, or a likeness of sound. 
 
 ^ Kennicott’sState, &c. vol. i.p. 11, 12. j niunt,s9dquodintelligunt,etdumalie- 
 Ibid. p. 271. i nos errores emendare nituntur, ostendunt 
 
 Scribunt (Librarii) non quod inve- ( suos. 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 3 
 
34 
 
 VARIOUS READINGS. 
 
 [I. viii. 6 — 8. 
 
 If we wish confirmation of this, we may read Lardner’s I. 
 account of Origen. 
 
 Dr. Kennicott observes \ that all variations must be made 
 by omission, addition, transposition, or change. — And, in his 
 directions^ to collators, he tells them to observe all differences 
 of words and letters, of each MS. from some printed copy, 
 whether they be 1. additions; 2. omissions; 3. transpositions; 
 
 4. variations; 5. corrections; 6. rasures But these are rather 
 
 modes of varying, than causes: they are sources of various 
 readings. 
 
 6. It may be proper, after considering the causes of 
 various readings, to take a specimen of the ways of reasoning 
 in order to ascertain the right reading. 
 
 1. The earlier manuscript, ceteris paribus, is more likely 
 to be right than the later, because every copying is liable to 
 new errors. 
 
 2. The greater number of MSS. confirm any reading, 
 the more probable that reading is ; care being taken, that any 
 manuscript, with all that have been copied from it, shall be 
 reckoned only as one. 
 
 3. If a reading seems likely to have been an error of a 
 writer, it may be rejected ; as when marks without meaning 
 resemble others that have meaning ; and these are only found 
 in few MSS. 
 
 4. If a reading A may have arisen out of another read- 
 ing B, but B cannot have arisen out of A, then is B tlie more 
 probable reading^. 
 
 5. That reading, which makes a passage more connected 49 
 is preferable ; all due allowance being made for abruptness in 
 the particular case. St. Paul is apt to digress abruptly. 
 
 (). Yet it is to be remembered, that an obscure reading 
 is less likely to be a conjectural emendation than a perspicu- 
 ous one. 
 
 7 . Nay, some errors are recommendations ; because vo- 
 luntary corruptions are more to be feared than involuntary ; 
 and errors sometimes prove, that the transcribers do not intend 
 to falsify. 
 
 8. Allied to this, is one of the most unexpected criteria: 
 viz. that in a quotation, in two copies compared, if one is in- 
 
 ' State, &.C. vol. i. p. 2/2. 
 
 - Ten Annual Accounts, p. 3(5. 
 
 I 3 I take the substance at least of these 
 1 criteria to be in Michaelis’s Introd. Lect. 
 I to Gr. Test. 4to. 
 
I. viii. 9.] 
 
 VARIOUS READINGS. 
 
 35 
 
 I. accurate, the inaccurate quotation is the right reading, and 
 therefore will recommend the copy. If the writer of that 
 which is accurate could consult the book from which the quo- 
 tation is made, there is a suspicion, that he might correct 
 by it, instead of transcribing faithfully ; in which case, we 
 should have a juster quotation, but a false reading. Now 
 what we want is the genuine reading. Supposing St. Mark 
 quoted Isaiah inaccurately, or according to a Hebrew copy 
 different from the copyist’s; the copyist, instead of transcrib- 
 ing simply, might turn to Isaiah, and make St. Mark quote 
 (as he thinks) accurately ; — whereas, no scribe v/ould ever be 
 tempted to make St. Mark quote inaccurately ; therefore he, 
 who gives the inaccurate quotation, is the more faithful scribe, 
 and his reading the genuine reading. — Such fidelity may be 
 the means of making us correct our present copies. 
 
 9. I conclude these criteria with observing, that perusing 
 those authors, who quote the Scriptures, may be a great help 
 towards investigating the true text. — Many quotations of the 
 50 Old Testament are made in the Talmuds'^, and principal 
 Jewish comments, composed five or six hundred years ago. — 
 And many, from both old and new, occur in the Christian 
 Fathers. Had not Origen’s works been in part lost, it is 
 thought we should have known how every ^ part of Scripture 
 was read early in the third century. 
 
 This last® criterion is like that of Versions; which will 
 occur in the next chapter. 
 
 In short, avoiding various readings has been rather a mat- 
 ter of prejudice, religious apprehension, not distinguishing 
 religious books from religion, than of judgment; and I should 
 think, the integrity of the Hebrew text will henceforth be 
 very little more defended than that of the Greek. Though 
 collecting variations in different copies of Scripture does imply 
 some imperfection, yet every rational collation will bring us 
 nearer to the possession of the genuine word of God : men 
 dread entering upon painful, uncomfortable, disgraceful reme- 
 dies, or series of expedients, however necessary for their health 
 or fortune ; but, after they are fairly entered, they feel them- 
 selves in the right way. I must confess, with regard to the 
 
 ^ Kenn. Annual Accounts, p. 114. 
 
 ® Lardner, Credib. in Origen. See 
 also in Cyprian, and Pearson on the 
 Creed, about 1 Cor. xv. 51. 
 
 ® If any one wishes to carry this matter 
 farther, he may have recourse to W etstein’s 
 43 Canons, and the confirmation of them : 
 his Gr. Test, in 12mo contains them. 
 
 3 9 , 
 
36 
 
 VERSIONS OF THE SACRED WRITINGS. 
 
 [I. ix. 1. 
 
 imperfections and corruptions of the text of Scripture, I have I. 
 a satisfaction in feeling myself a ma7i ; on the same footing in 
 that, as in other important concerns. I feel, in being so 
 situated, a security from enthusiasm and superstition; I feel 
 a call to exert myself in recovering the purity of Revelation, 
 on principles of reason and experience, by a method which 
 must naturally bring on an attention to the sacred writings. 51 
 I feel a liberal freedom in being exempted from all induce- 
 ments to use or adopt pious frauds ; than which, especially in 
 falsifying the word of God, nothing can be more abhorrent 
 from piety, nothing more presumptuous^ — Nay more: though 
 it is certainly a fault to alter the sacred writings, by design 
 or negligence ; and an evil to have them altered ; yet the inci- 
 dental good arising out of evil shews, in this case as in many 
 others, the astonishing wisdom and goodness of the Divine go- 
 vernment : we are now precisely so situated, that our faith 
 and morals are not hurt by the variations of copies of the 
 Scripture, and yet so that we are forcibly impelled to examine 
 them minutely ; the result must be, that the faults of our pre- 
 decessors can scarcely escape us, and that we shall make per- 
 petual improvements. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 OF VERSIONS OF THE SACRED WRITINGS. 
 
 1. If we look back to the time when the Pentateuch 
 was first published, and view tlie state of the Israelites from 
 that time to the separation of the twelve tribes into ten and 
 two^ we have only the idea of one single community ; and 
 though from Dan to Eeersheba might be a considerable dis- 
 tance, yet the people were so united, by the nature of their 
 worship, that they would not want the Scriptures in more 
 than one language. Nor would any translations be required 
 
 * It is to be feared, that some eminent 
 men, who have a great part of their lives 
 employed fine talents in the service of 
 
 religion, have given into deceits Even 
 
 lip. Walton is said to have been too j 
 peremptory in speaking from his own 
 knowledge about the Samaritan V ersion. , 
 
 (Kenn. State, ii.31.) AndMrTravis gives 
 a very indifferent account of Erasmus. 
 Such men must have deceived themselves 
 by some prejudices ; and, in som eway, 
 must have confounded religion with some 
 human means of promoting what they 
 took for granted was the real will of God. 
 
I. ix. 2.] 
 
 VERSIONS OE THE SACKED WRITINGS. 
 
 o>7 
 
 I for foreigners, because they were idolaters, and the religion 
 of Israel was intended to separate its professors from neigh- 
 bouring nations. — And, when the twelve tribes became two 
 separate communities, they continued in the same country, 
 and though some provincial dialects might gradually arise, yet 
 the Scriptures in the original language would continue in- 
 telligible, and capable of being read to the common people.— 
 But when the main body of both communities were carried 
 captive to Babylonia, a greater dispersion took place, a greater 
 mixture with strangers, and of course a greater variety of 
 dialects; the Hebrew got mixed with the Chaldee at Babylon, 
 and with the Syriac in Palestine ; and therefore would become 
 a kind of Syro-Chaldaic^ language, in whatever character it 
 was written. 
 
 5S 2. Hence it may not be difficult to conceive the nature 
 and end of the Samaritan rersion; it is supposed to have been 
 made about the time^ of Ezra, a little above 400 years before 
 Christ: at that time, there would be people in Samaria, who 
 would want copies of the Pentateuch ; and, in making them, 
 it would be natural ta modernise them so that they would 
 be read with the greatest ease and readiness. If one looks 
 at a Samaritan Grammar^ which I take to be a set of rules 
 for reading this Samaritan version, one may conceive, that the 
 Samaritans, 400 years before Christ, might understand what we 
 call the Samaritan Pentateuch, or Samaritan text, full as well 
 as common Englishmen could now read Wickliffe’s English 
 Bible; but they might want something nearer present spelling 
 and phraseology, as much as we dok Whether we should 
 call Wickliffe's English Bible in modern letters, spelling and 
 idioms, a version of Wickliffe’s Bible, is not material ; we 
 rather should not; and therefore I am inclined to say, there 
 was no translation, strictly speaking, before that of the LXX. 
 — As to the difference between the Samaritan teoot^ and 
 version^ it is very small; Kennicott says, that the version 
 in general “expresses exactly the Svords of the text;'’ I sup- 
 pose, it differs no more than might very easily be accounted 
 for by supposing it to have been taken from a copy a little 
 
 ^ Kenn. State, ii. 31(j. 
 
 ^ Kennicott’s State, vol. ii. p. 30. 316. 
 Ayalton’s Prolegomena : but Walton 
 speaks of more than one version of the 
 Samaritan Pentateuch ; of one into Greek, 
 another into Arabic. 
 
 This idea is only my ow» imagina- 
 tion. 
 
 ® Jllasclef, Pref. to Samaritan Gram- 
 mar. Pluribus in loots discrepare.” 
 
 <5 State, I. 430. 
 
38 
 
 VERSIONS OF THE SACRED WRITINGS. [I. ix. 3 5. 
 
 different from that which we have ; nay, the mere transcrib- I. 
 ing might perhaps account for such variations as are found. 
 Walton has noted them at the bottom of the column, that 54! 
 contains the Latin translation of the Samaritan^ text. 
 
 When, through Alexander’s conquests, and other causes, 
 Greek became a general language ; and when, by Ptolemy’s 
 carrying the Jews into J5gypt, they became much dispersed; 
 a Greek version was found needful. But of this we spoke 
 particularly, in the last chapter^. 
 
 3. The Chaldee paraphrases of ^Onkelos on the Law^ 
 and Jonathan on the Prophets^ are of great antiquity, and 
 throw light upon the sacred text ; but they cannot be called 
 versions'^ ; and if they could, it is not easy to ascertain their 
 age. I should think, the Jews made some sort of Chaldee 
 paraphrases, soon after the Babylonish captivity, or during it ; 
 but we do not know of what sort they were ; they might not 
 be written. No one places Onkelos and Jonathan (I think) 
 higher than our Saviour’s time ; and from their not being 
 mentioned by the early Christian writers (as Origen, Jerom, 
 Epiphanius, &c.) great doubts have arisen when they lived, 
 or ^who they were*^. 
 
 4. Christians differed much from Jews, as to their mo- 
 tives for spreading translations. The Jewish religion was to 55 
 constitute a separate people ; the Christian was to be preached 
 
 to all nations.” And the Christian dispensation consists, in 
 part, of the Old Testament The LXX. incidentally pub- 
 
 lished the Revelation of the Old Testament to the world, 
 though they aimed only to accommodate Jews; Christians de- 
 sired to propagate their sacred writings all over the world : 
 it was a part of their religion to do so. > 
 
 5. Accordingly, amongst the more ancient Christians we 
 find versions, in all the known and civilized parts of the world ; 
 
 — in Europe^ Asia, and Africa.- — In Europe, the Latin ; — in 
 
 ^ See Masclef, Pref. to Samar. Gram. 
 
 “ “ The Greek version being confess- 
 edly most ancient,” &c. see Kennicott’s 
 State, II. 325. 
 
 ^ “ R. Aquila, whom they call Onke- 
 los.” Brerewood, Chap. ix. p. 36, men- 
 tioned before, Chap. Aa. Sect. 7- 
 
 Masclef, vol. ii. beginning of Pre- 
 face to Chaldee Grammar. Yet Walton 
 calls them versions. 
 
 ^ Simon de Var. edit. Bibl. Cap. 13. — . 
 
 quoted in Kennicott’s State, &c. vol. ii. 
 
 p. 168. 
 
 ® Something should be said of the 
 Jerusalem Targum, and the other Jona- 
 than, on the Law. Walton’s Prolego- 
 mena — Preface to the Chaldee, &c. Lex- 
 icon of Buxtorf, jun. 
 
 It should also be remarked, that Law, 
 Prophets, and Ilagioprapha, compre- 
 hend the whole Bible ; though this will 
 occur Book iv. on Art. 6. sect. 9. 
 
I. ix. 6, 7.] VERSIONS OF THE SACRED WRITINGS. 
 
 39 
 
 I. Asia (not to mention the Greek any more) the Syriac, Arme- 
 nian, Arabic, Persic ; — in Africa, the ^thiopic and the Cop- 
 tic. — This is only an enumeration ; but we may observe, that 
 what is now called Abyssinia was the "^Christian ^Ethiopia, and 
 ^gypt ala Kotttov, so that the Coptic means the Egyptian. 
 They speak Arabic in Egypt now, but the vulgar tongue of 
 the ancient ^Egyptians, before the incursions of the Saracens, 
 was called Coptic ; and the Christians in AEgypt are still called 
 Kophts®, Copti; and are able to keep a settlement at or near 
 Coptus, or Coptos, in iEgypt. 
 
 6. Amongst the more modern Christians also, there have 
 been many versions of the Scriptures. Russian, French, Ger- 
 man, Dutch, Sclavonian, (a general language) &c. which we 
 may see mentioned in Calmet’s Dictionary, under Version — 
 
 56 but, of all modern versions, we are most concerned with our 
 own.< — The first English version was Wickliffe’s published (in 
 
 manuscript) in 1383, scarcely legible now There is also the 
 
 English Bible of Coverdale, printed in 1535®. — There was one 
 in Queen Elizabeth’s time; (London, 1568,) and, not to be 
 too particular, that English version, which we now use, was 
 made in the time of King James I. by Andrews, Bishop of 
 Winchester, and forty-six others, each of whom^^ undertook his 
 share, and laboured with great assiduity and attention. 
 
 7 . The utility of some ancient versions has been already 
 hinted at : ancient versions are instead of originals ; — when 
 original MSS. are lost, versions enable us to know what they 
 contained. Kennicott says, ancient versions “ afford m.uch 
 more plentiful ’^assistance” than MSS. ; — I suppose, because 
 they are more ancient than any MSS. we possess; and they 
 help us, both as to the meaning of very old lost MSS., and 
 as to expressions : — in his researches and collations, the worth 
 of versions increased upon him greatly. In those MSS.,” 
 
 ^ See Cellarius, iEthiopia: did Can- 
 dace forward Christianity in Ethiopia ? 
 or her minister ? 
 
 ® Pococke’s Travels, vol. i. Contents, 
 &c. The Gospel was preached early in 
 ^gypt : tradition, says, by St. Mark ; 
 and the Patriarch of Alexandria is held 
 successor to St. Mark there, as the Pope 
 is to St. Peter at Rome. — The Christian 
 Liturgy is in Coptic now, but the priests 
 understand little of it ; get prayers by 
 heart, and pray without understanding. 
 
 ^ Kenn. State, i. 39. 
 
 There is a list of English editions of 
 the Bible in Le Long’s Bibliotheca, 8vo. 
 vol. II. p. 584. And, I think, in Calmet 
 under Bible.— Moreover, Johnson'* s His- 
 torical Account of Engl. Translations, 
 Ainsworth’s Pentateuch, &c. the Geneva 
 Bible, and Rhemish Testament, seem 
 worth mentioning. 
 
 Neal’s Plistory of the Puritans, In- 
 dex, Bible. 
 
 State, I. 271. . * ’ 
 
40 
 
 VERSIONS OF THE SACRED WRITINGS. 
 
 [I. ix. 8. 
 
 says he, “ which I at first discovered, I soon met with several I. 
 readings, entirely diff*erent from the printed Hebrew copies ; 
 and exactly agreeing with the Greek, Syriac, and other ancient 
 versions.*” Instances are to be found by his indexes, in his 
 State of the Hebrew Text, of readings confirmed by ancient 
 versions. 
 
 As to ^particular versions, there is difficulty, and there 57 
 
 may be dispute The Syriac has been of great use, and 
 
 every one wishes to have it on his side ; yet it has its im- 
 perfections. The eastern Christians value it highly^, and say, 
 it was made in the first century ; its advocates, however, dis- 
 tinguish between a very old literal Syriac version, and one 
 done more lately^ in the sixth century, not yet printed; they 
 also, in commending the old one, except some parts done 
 later than the rest, and done by some inferior linguist ; but 
 Archdeacon Travis, in his 5th letter to Mr. Gibbon, mentions 
 some material omissions in the whole taken together, and re- 
 fers to Beza for more. 
 
 The JEthiopic, Coptic, Armenian, require too much ori- 
 ental learning, and indeed are too little understood, for us to 
 consider them at present. Of the Arabic version we may say, 
 that, as Arabic is the language which is generally used in the 
 dominions of the Grand Signor, and which has superseded 
 the Coptic, it is useful to his Christian subjects, but it should 
 be conceived as additional, and as made since the time^ of Ma- 
 homet : it is used with other eastern versions. — Whoever 
 wishes, at any time, to enter farther into this part of litera- 
 ture, may consult Simons History of the Versions, which is 
 far from being written in a dull manner; and he will find 
 Bengelius solid, clear, and intelligent. 
 
 8. The Latin versions have been most used in Europe, 
 and have been called authentic by the church^ of Rome ; they 
 are in some sense set above the Greek by ^ Hardouin, and 58 
 have had many copies, in other languages, corrected in order 
 to suit them. — But a distinction should be made, we are told, 
 between the old Latin, before Jerom, and that made by himk 
 
 ^ Versions may shew what books were 
 anciently thought Canonical. Jer. Jones 
 uses this argument. 
 
 - Wotton’s Misna, Pref. p. xix. See 
 Jeremiah Jones. Richardson’s Canon. 
 
 3 J. D. Michaelis, 4to. Sect, 52. 
 
 ^ Ibid. 54. 
 
 5 See Council of Trent, Session 4. 
 Decretum de editione et usu Sacrorum 
 Librorum. 
 
 ® J. D. Michaelis. Sect. 04. quarto. 
 
 7 “ The common opinion is that there 
 were several Latin versions before Jerom, 
 but one more eminent than the rest, call- 
 
I. ix. 8.] 
 
 VERSIONS OF THE SACRET) WRITINGS. 
 
 41 
 
 I. About the time of Christ, the Latin language was sup- 
 planting the Greek as a general language^ and it soon might 
 be called the general language of the western church. Indeed 
 it was natural, that the knowledge of the Roman language 
 should spread in the Roman provinces, especially as law-pro- 
 cesses were carried on in Latin. But independently of this, 
 Latin Scriptures must have been wanted ; certainly, as was 
 befoie observed, Hellenistic Greek was understood by most 
 Jews, and we know the more polite Romans studied pure 
 Greek ; but yet many Christian converts must want Latin 
 Scriptures, and those chiefly, who knew Latin not as a learned, 
 but as a vernacular language ; that is, who had learnt it not 
 by writing, but speaking; not by rules of grammar, but by 
 the ear. Now conceive a Latin version to be made for such 
 persons, and perhaps by such, and those Jews, — with great 
 care, nicety, and judgment, and you will have probably a 
 tolerably just idea of the original vulgate or Old Italic ver- 
 sion It might be the produce of the first century It 
 
 would, of course, contain expressions lower and more familiar, 
 than were to be found in classic authors, but such as were 
 used in conversation, at least of the ordinary people, Syria- 
 59 isms; and would not always be strict in point of ® grammar. — . 
 It would, moreover, be very literal, — We are told, that there 
 is no MS. of the old Italic extant; that some parts of this 
 version are printed by Martianay ; (St. Matthew and St. 
 James) ; and that Nobilius has collected some parts of it out 
 of the ancient Fathers; (Chambers — Bihle^ or Vulgate); and 
 that some of the old Roman liturgies contain expressions from 
 it, (Chambers) ; — also that some Greek MSS. have this ver- 
 sion annexed ; the Cambridge for one, but yet I do not expect 
 to see it exactly answer the above description, in all parti- 
 culars : like the antiquarian’s shield, I fear we shall find it 
 scoured, till the principal good of it, as a piece of antiquity, 
 is lost ; till it is incapable of confirming or disproving any 
 readings of the MSS. we now wish to study. We know of 
 no version, which has been so often altered, reformed, cor- 
 rupted, (what you please) as the Latin : but, if we get an 
 idea of two sorts, we can speak and read of the mixtures of 
 them, tolerably. 
 
 ed Italic .''’ — Waterland on the Atban. 
 Creed, p. 113, 2d edit — where, or p. 112, 
 four sorts oi Latin Psalters are mentioned. 
 
 Italic, Roman, Galilean, and Hebraic. 
 
 ® For instances, see Michaelis, quarto, 
 Sect. 61, 62, from Martianay. 
 
42 
 
 VERSIONS OF THE SACRED WRITINGS. [I. ix. 9, 10. 
 
 I take the difference between the old Italic and Jerortis I* 
 Latin version, to resemble the difference between vulgar 
 tongue, spoken, and general classical language, written : — 
 however, Jerom’s main design, as he tells us in his works, 
 was to correct the version of the LXX., and reduce the 
 Latin of the New Testament to the standard of the original 
 Greek. — This being the case, Jerom’s Latin version shews 
 us what were (in his judgment) the best readings in his time. 
 
 Dr. Bentley did not think our present Greek Testament so 
 pure as it might be made, by the help of MSS. and Jerom’s 
 version : and he published proposals for a new edition ; but 
 he was opposed, particularly by Dr. Middleton, and never 
 executed his design : the proposals are in the Biographia Bri- go 
 tannica — under Bentley : and may hereafter be useful. 
 
 9. Versions are very commonly made from other ver- 
 sions ; and sometimes it may be doubtful from what a version 
 is made. Versions have been made from the LXX.h the 
 Syriac^, and the Latin^. — Sometimes, a version seems odd in 
 some places, when the strangeness will go off by comparing 
 
 it with both Greek and LatiiD A second version may prove 
 
 the right reading of a passage in the first, in the same way 
 as the first proves with regard to the original. — In reckoning 
 the authorities, which favour a reading in the original, a ver- 
 sion and all versions taken from it, must be reckoned but 
 as 07ie. 
 
 10. A Polyglott gives us the principal versions at one 
 view, in the different columns of one page. Polyglotts are 
 magnificent works. I shall only mention two : that finished 
 at Compliitum (Alcala) in Spain in 1514, which is said to 
 have cost that great statesman. Cardinal Ximenes'^, 50,000 du- 
 cats; — and that made by Brian W'alton, Bishop of Chester, 
 who died in l66l, sometimes called the London Polyglott, or 
 the English, in contradistinction to the Paris Polyglott®. 
 
 The Complutensian Polyglott is sometimes called the 
 Complutensian Edition, or the Edition of Alcala: it is in six 
 volumes folio : it contains the Old Testament in Hebrew, 
 Chaldee, Greek, and Latin : the New, in Greek and Latin ; 
 the Greek type was made on purpose: the book is printed 
 from the best MSS., which the vast influence of Ximenes 
 
 ‘ Pearson’s Pref. to LXX. p. 0. 
 2 Travis’s Letters, 4to. p. 5JJ). 
 Michaelis. ^ Michaelis. 
 
 ^ Gibbon’s History, vol. iii. p. 545. 
 Le Long gives an account of these ; 
 and Calmet at the end of his Dictionary. 
 
I. ix. ll.J VERSIONS or THE SACRED WRITINGS. 
 
 43 
 
 I. could procure; the chief of them were sent from the Vatican. 
 6‘1 Forty-two men were employed fifteen years in completing it ; 
 and, though he was a general, as well as statesman, and car- 
 dinal, he did a great deal himself. 
 
 WaltoTi's Polyglott is ako in six volumes folio: contain- 
 ing the Old Testament in Hebrew, Samaritan (as far as it 
 goes), Syriac, Chaldee, in the Greek of the LXX., in the 
 Vulgate Latin, and Arabic; with Latin translations, I think, 
 to all except the vulgate; the Latin of the Hebrew is put 
 over it, word over word;-^ — The New Testament is in Greek, 
 
 Latin, Syriac, ^thiopic, Arabic, and Persic The French 
 
 reckon Walton’s only an improvement, or good edition, of Le 
 Jay's. — The Prolegomena to Walton’s make a good small 
 volume of themselves ; I wish they were published in 8vo. in 
 England, as they have been abroad”. 
 
 What has been said will be sufficient to shew the man- 
 ner in which versions are made evidence for determining the 
 genuineness of any part of the sacred text. 
 
 11. It has now been asked, for some time, whether we 
 ought not to have a new version of the Scriptures into our 
 own language. Hr. Kennicott thinks® the proper time not far 
 off ; and, as I remember. Hr. Rutherforth, who opposed him 
 in some things, agreed with him in this ; and gave this Uni- 
 versity his concurring opinion, in his Latin sermons : but we 
 seem to me scarcely to be sufficiently prepared for such a 
 62 work at present. Hr. Kennicott grounds his opinion on the 
 Collations published by him ; but, I should think, no one 
 man can collate with sufficient exactness to be depended upon ; 
 besides that, he did not make nearly all the collations him- 
 self, which he published : the same work should be gone 
 through again, with Hr. Kennicott’s collations : — whoever went 
 through it would make many new remarks ; and, where they 
 only confirmed what he had done, they would be of great use. 
 Who durst adopt implicitly all the remarks he makes ? even 
 though no particular objection appeared ? If persons of learn- 
 ing were appointed to take each a small part of the Scrip- 
 tures, to examine all the readings, propose new senses for the 
 
 I have a small volume 12mo. printed 
 in London 1G55— (2d edit.) called an 
 Introduction to the Oriental Languages, 
 nine in number, with a Preface by W al- 
 ton, filling half the volume. This Pre- 
 
 face is dated London, Oct. 1, 1654: it 
 seems to have been preparatory to the 
 publication of his Polyglott. 
 
 ^ State, I. p. 565, and conclusion of his 
 Annual Accounts. 
 
44 
 
 INTERPRETING OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 [L X. 1. 
 
 world to judge of, a new translation might go on gradually I. 
 and safely ; the legislature might employ proper persons ; and 
 at last collect the parts, and set the seal of public authority. 
 
 I fear also, there is scarcely a sufficient fund of sacred 
 literature amongst us, just at present ; we are apt to view 
 things superficially ; — nor perhaps is there a zeal for religion 
 sufficiently strong and steady. The 17th century was more 
 learned than the present. 
 
 It is not enough, that new translators are likely to render 
 some parts better than they were before ; the question is, 
 whether upon the wdiole they are like to produce a better 
 translation. — Yet all parts must be submitted to their discre- 
 tion. From the attempts, which I have^ seen, at new English 
 translations, though perhaps each may hit off some improve- 
 ments, I profess myself desirous at present to continue the use 
 of our present Bibles ; especially as they are the established 
 language of Christian piety ; and associated with religious 
 sentiments. How many people have Psalms and chapters 
 by heart ! the periods are become congenial to them ; — the 63 
 sound of them is the sound of religion itself^. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 OF INTERPRETING EXPRESSIONS OF SCRIPTURE BY ENTERING 
 INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THOSE, TO WH031 
 THEY WERE IMMEDIATELY ADDRESSED. 
 
 1. Let us now suppose all the words of Scripture fixed 
 and agreed upon : still, something more than lexicons and 
 grammars is necessary to our attaining the true and full sense 
 of them. And that is, 'putting ourselves m the place of those 
 who spoke, or heard ; or, what amounts to the same, inter- 
 
 ’ Dr Campbell’s, Mr Wakefield’s, &c. 
 
 2 1790. If any one thinks, that the Aca- 
 demical scholar would have borne more 
 learning, relative to the language of 
 Scripture, than is given him in the five 
 preceding chapters, such an one should 
 observe, in the Advertisement prefixed to 
 the Heads of liectures, how much of Bp. 
 Pearson's work on the Creed was read in 
 
 every course ; and then it would occur, that 
 many discussions on languages, &c. must 
 be wanted in order to make the notes in- 
 telligible, and to give them their due 
 weight.— Any student may now gain bet- 
 ter instruction than I could have given 
 him, from IMr. Marsh’s translation of the 
 4ih edition of Michaelis’s Lectures, with 
 learned notes. 
 
1. X. 1.] 
 
 INTERPRETING OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 45 
 
 I. preting words of Scripture as we should interpret like words 
 in common life. Some parts of Scripture are indeed lofty and 
 sublime, and remote from common life ; but I do not imagine, 
 that these have occasioned either so much controversy, or so 
 much anxiety of mind, as the more familiar parts ; plain nar- 
 rations, dialogues, letters; all expressions in which we must 
 endeavour to understand, as we should understand similar 
 
 expressions in similar compositions I doubt not but this may 
 
 seem an easy matter to some, on the first mention ; but it is 
 attended with considerable difficulties. At this day, it requires 
 great knowledge, and great steadiness of attention. Some 
 persons would be apt to say, ‘If I may but interpret Scripture 
 as I do ordinary expressions, that is all I wish for ; it is no 
 pain or trouble to me to understand what common people say 
 to me; I do it ivithouf trying to do it.’ This is true; 
 popular language seems to express what it means, to those 
 who are rightly circumstanced : but why does this happen ? 
 because each man in such case knows familiarly and habitu- 
 ally y not only wffiat the words express, but what they imply : 
 for sometimes, they imply more than they express; sometimes, 
 express more than they imply ; but habit makes all this easy 
 to those who are exactly in the right circumstances. Take 
 a man, who is ever so little out of the right circumstances, 
 let him come from a different county^ let him be of a 
 different oceupatioUy and he immediately wants some explana- 
 tory information ; sometimes, he will see too little in the 
 words used to him; and sometimes too much. Not that he, 
 who is in the right circumstances, understands rightly, without 
 numberless acts of the mind ; only he is not conscious of 
 them ; any more than he is of the actions of the muscles of 
 his eyes, when he looks at objects at different distances. — 
 Hence, if one far removed from the right circumstances, wants 
 to form a judgment how he should understand expressions if 
 he could put himself in those right circumstances, he must 
 ha\e to estimate, first, what knowledge the person rightly 
 situated has, which he has not ; — secondly, what are those acts 
 of the mind, which such person performs habitually when he 
 takes the words he hears rightly ; so that they really are 
 intended to imply neither more nor less than he conceives 
 them to imply. — This is what we should do, if possible, with 
 the words of Scripture; as we are far removed from the 
 circumstances of those for whom they were calculated, we 
 
46 
 
 INTERPRETING OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 [I. X. 2—4. 
 
 should see what knowledge the persons, rightly circumstanced I. 
 for understanding them, had, which we have not ; and we 
 should analyse those acts of the mind, by which they were 
 able, habitually, without being conscious of it, to give them 
 precisely that degree of meaning which they were intended to 
 convey. I do not conceive that we can do this perfectly, 66 
 but we may approach towards it ; it is the end at which we 
 ought to aim. 
 
 The way to approach as near as possible seems to be this : 
 to observe first how, in our own common life, words imply 
 more or less than they express ; and then apply our observa- 
 tions to Scripture ; — using them first to illustrate some plainer 
 cases, in order to get them, at length, applied to all cases 
 whatever. — This is a general view of the subject before us. 
 
 2. If we attend to the force of expressions used in com- 
 mon life, we see that expressions imply customs; and that 
 common popular language alludes to these customs perpetu- 
 ally : under customs may be included customary notions : 
 here words mean more than they express. 
 
 3. Any one, who was not convinced of this, might try 
 to explain a familiar letter or conversation in his own language 
 to a foreigner. He would find, that he had many long and 
 difficult explanations to make ; and, when they were made, the 
 foreigner would not still be exactly in the place of a native, 
 in understanding the letter or conversation. Every one may 
 conceive this in some degree; perhaps no one, perfectly, who 
 has not tried the experiment : perhaps no one who has. 
 
 4. Many of us may have tried to read of the things of 
 common life in dead languages ; and, when we have attempted 
 to put ourselves in the place of those for whom they were 
 immediately intended, in what researches have we been en- 
 gaged ! Grmvius in twelve folio volumes, and Gronovius in 
 thirteen, have told us many things Roman and Grecian ; and 
 given us many descriptions, and many opinions on this side 
 and that ; but still we fall far short of the knowledge which 6? 
 a plain citizen ^ of Rome or Athens would have, without ever 
 suspecting that he had any knowledge at all : we fall far short 
 
 * Suppose tlie following familiar letter 
 to be explained to a Chinese ; or to any 
 people IbOO years hence; our language 
 being supposed to be then a dead lan- 
 guage 
 
 Cambridge, Agril 5, 1780. 
 Sir, 
 
 On Thursday, I was at the As- 
 sizes for this County ; as only one felon 
 was to be tried, and he likely to be only 
 
I. X. 5, 6.] 
 
 INTERPRETING OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 47 
 
 I. of understanding those allusions, which such an one would 
 make in every thing he said ; without any consciousness that 
 he was alluding to any thing; and would understand, without 
 being aware, that the words meant more than they expressed. 
 
 5. In such expressions as have been hitherto considered, 
 words imply more than they express ; but some words imply 
 
 68 less : — as is the case when we make declarations^ (including 
 agreements, promises, threats, and narrations) ; or give direc- 
 tions to those who are to act in our stead. We say, ‘‘I will 
 undoubtedly be with you at the time appointed — yet no one 
 understands that to mean, I will be with you, though I 
 break a limb, though my nearest relation dies, in the mean 
 time : no ; any thing is allowed as an excuse, which we 
 should have specified, had it occurred to us as likely to 
 happen. 
 
 6. Words also imply less than they express, when we 
 give directions to others. Any one, who reflects, will per- 
 ceive how difficult it is to give directions to servants, which 
 shall be in all cases executed literally. A servant sees this, 
 and ventures to depart from the literal sense of his master’s 
 commands ; he is seldom commended if he does right ; ‘ how 
 could you have done otherwise .P’ is his only compliment; and 
 he is unreasonably blamed, if he happened to judge wTong: 
 ^what business had you to thinhV it is said; — whereas it 
 ought to be said, in such case, ^ why did you not think more ? 
 you would then have seen, that I could not intend, by what I 
 said, to give you such an advantage ; or, I could not mean to 
 throw upon you such a piece of drudgery.’ — 
 
 transported^ I sate in the Nisi-prius end 
 of the Shire-Hall. The Jury were ig- 
 norant, but followed the direction of the 
 Chief Baron., who sate as Judge; I 
 dined at two o'clock with the Sheriff, as 
 his Chaplain, at Trinity Lodge ; the 
 Judge dined in his coat and waistcoat, 
 without his gown, or full -bottom’d wig. 
 A small party adjourned to the Rose ; 
 we had a round of toasts, and drank all 
 the leading members of both Houses; 
 Whigs and Tories. The Punch and 
 Tobacco being too much for me, I went 
 into the Bar, but some people being there 
 engaged with Whist and Backgammon, I 
 went into the Balcony, and got a little 
 Porter : and below in the Market-place 
 I saw a Mob, in which a Brazier's Ap- 
 
 prentice got so hurt, that some shillings 
 were gathered for him, and he was sent 
 to the Hospital: what enraged them was, 
 fancying they had found part of a Press- 
 gang ; so they pulled off their hats, Imz- 
 za'd, and cried out “ Wilkes and Li- 
 berty!" a Quaker passed by, but he 
 would as soon have put on a Sword, as 
 have taken off his Hat; tho’ he was 
 offered plenty of Roast^ Beef and Plum- 
 pudding But the Post is just going 
 
 out, so I must, in haste, 
 
 subscribe myself your 
 
 obedient Servant, 
 
 J. H. 
 
 Fifty-four Dissertations might be made 
 on this letter; — such as those of Gra?- 
 vius or Gronovius. 
 
48 
 
 INTERPRETING OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 [I. X. 7) 8 
 
 7 . By pursuing this train, and keeping the subject in our I. 
 thoughts amidst the common occurrences of life, we may come 
 
 to attain a pretty good idea, how, in our own common dis- 
 course, words sometimes imply more than they express, and 
 sometimes less : let us now apply our observations to some 
 plainer cases in Scripture. 
 
 8. First, as to the allusions contained in scriptural 
 language : — -every allusion is a taking for granted, that the 
 reader, or person addressed, knows something so well that it 
 need not be specified ; now it is impossible we should under- 
 stand what any one says or writes, unless we know those 69 
 things which he takes it for granted we know. Hence, to 
 understand the language of Scripture, as far as concerns the 
 allusions it contains, is to understand whatever was familiar to 
 those to whom the several parts of Scripture were originally 
 addressed : — now this, after such an interval, is to understand 
 antiquities : which word may, in a large sense include history.^ 
 and its common appendages. 
 
 Antiquities are either natural or artificial; which latter 
 may be public or private: — As to natural antiquities, we 
 ought to have some knowledge of the animals mentioned in 
 Scripture, and of the vegetables ; our Saviour alludes to the 
 lilies.^ and to vineyards ; and makes use of the things com- 
 monly known with regard to figs. — He also alludes to local 
 rules about the weather. 
 
 Artificial antiquities of a public nature, which may be 
 wanted, are those concerning the divisions of time., for under- 
 standing the passovers, and the hours of the day. Those, 
 concerning coins, laws, tribunals^ punishments; rules of 
 adoption and redemption And we might mention with pro- 
 
 priety, the religious ceremonies of the Jews, as far as they are 
 not found in Scripture ; as well as the Pagan and Samaritan 
 rites. 
 
 Antiquities of a private nature may relate to the forms of 
 buildings, to appareP, to funerals, modes of travelling, &c. ; 
 the allusions made by St. Paid in particular, are well described 
 by Hr. Powell, in his 15th discourse. 
 
 The manner of acquiring such knowledge of antiquities 
 may be, by reading travels, in which there is this advantage, 
 that, in the east, there is less difference between ancient and 
 modern customs, than in the west. — Views of ruins, such as 
 ' See Taylor on the Romans ; Key, Art. 320. - 'Wedding garment. 
 
I. X. 8.] 
 
 INTERPRETING OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 49 
 
 I. those of Palmyra, may afford help. The antiquities published 
 
 70 at Venice in ^this century under Ugolino are so voluminous, 
 that one would be unwilling to mention them, were it not that 
 any parts of the work may be perused independently of the 
 rest. — Bochart should be consulted. Macknighfs prelimi- 
 nary observations are easily '‘read. 
 
 Some knowledge of history is necessary for us, in order to 
 have the right ideas about the Herods, the authority of Pilate, 
 and the rulers mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, and the 
 paying of tribute. The use of prophecies is not to be under- 
 stood, except we can compare a prediction with the events 
 which fulfil it. We should be able to compare sacred history 
 with profane; and trace out the history between the latest 
 events of the Old Testament, and the earliest of the New. 
 Many hooks may be consulted on this matter : Dean Prideaux 
 is famous for connecting the histories of the Old and New 
 Testaments: — perhaps no one book is preferable to ColliePs 
 Sacred Interpreter : he refers to others^. 
 
 History cannot be studied without Geography and Chro- 
 nology ; but moreover. Geography is wanted for descriptions 
 of travels and voyages, things relating to the lakes and rivers, 
 peculiarities of climate ; and it may be studied in Bochart, 
 Sanson, Cellarius, Wells, &c. — Chronology teaches us the 
 order of events in one place, and their coincidence in different 
 places : we want it, to shew us the state of the world at the 
 coming of Christ ; to shew the fulness of time ; and to con- 
 nect the dispensations of grace with the government of the 
 
 71 world. BlaiPs Tables are useful, and Du Fresnoy: Mack- 
 nighCs Chronological Dissertations, prefixed to his Harmony, 
 may inform us in some points ; and our veneration for Sir 
 Isaac Newton may induce us to see how he applies his wonder- 
 ful abilities to this part of science. 
 
 A very great number of allusions are made in the sacred 
 writings to controverted opinions; Pagan, Jewish, and Chris- 
 tian ; to Rabbinical traditions, Jewish sects, Pharisees, Saddu- 
 cees, Essenes: — to the high Jewish notions of election; to 
 heathen sects of philosophers, Stoics, Epicureans ; to oriental 
 
 ^ 34 Vols the first published in 1744 : 
 
 the last in 1769. 
 
 Calmet, at the end of his Dictionary, 
 has a Bibliotheca ; in which he gives an 
 account of all sorts of books wliich tend | 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 to illustrate the Scriptures. Le Long 
 does the same in his Bibliotheca. 
 
 ® The first part of Lardner’s Credi- 
 bility should by all means be mention- 
 ed. 
 
 4 
 
50 
 
 INTERPRETING OF SCRIPTURE. [I. X. 9, 10. 
 
 philosophy ; to mixture of Jewish and heathen notions held I. 
 by the Samaritans ; to the earliest Christian heresies h 
 
 Such are the allusions of Scripture, and such is the know- 
 ledge required to understand and taste the writings, which 
 contain them : — so far the words of Scripture imply more 
 than they express^. 
 
 9. In the declarations of Scripture, the words imply less 
 than they express : they are to be limited and restrained. 
 Declarations include agreements, promises, threats, narrations, 
 accounting for events, &c. — Things are said to be impossible^ 
 Avhich are only so improbable that the mind feels no expectation 
 of their happening: in common life we speak from our feelings: 
 
 “ it must needs be,” means, that the mind, estimating probabili- 
 ties, feels no doubt of such an event. “ God is no respecter of 
 persons,” &c. Acts x. 32. has been generally thought an uni- 
 versal proposition ; but Bishop Sherlock shews that it is not, 72 
 
 in his 12th discourse of vol. 1st Indeed, St. Paul mentions 
 
 principles on which we may build our limitations : “ I speak 
 after the manner of men.” (Rom. vi. 19.) — “ It is manifest that 
 
 he is excepted.” (l Cor. xv. 27.) — Dr. PowelP closes his 7th 
 discourse with a good sentence to our purpose ; and I am 
 inclined to add, that the difficulty of the texts about God’s 
 hardening the heart of Pharaoh^ arises from their not being 
 sufficiently and naturally limited: God is to be praised for all 
 good^ even for that which arises out of evil ; and all such 
 good, as well as the evil, is to be, in some indistinct way, 
 considered as under his government. Now the Jews received 
 
 O 
 
 good from Pharaoh’s evil conduct; they must thank God for 
 that good ; they must declare him to be the cause of it, in 
 some way unknown to them : limit the sayings to their partial 
 views, to that good which occasioned the sayings, and their 
 difficulty will not be great ; especially if we acquaint ourselves 
 with the habit ^ which the Jews naturally had, under a theo- 
 cracy, of referring every thing to God, without exception. 
 
 10. Lastly, we are to apply what has been said about 
 limitations of directions given for the conduct of others, to 
 some of the plainer cases of scriptural precepts. We are di- 
 
 ’ Lightfoot’s Ilorac, iScc. were mention- 
 ed before. 
 
 “ It is not to be conceived, that any 
 thing like a complete account should be 
 here attempted of sacred antiquities, geo- 
 
 graphy, &c. however useful; — they make 
 a separate study ; we would not here pro- 
 duce the rules of Hebrew or Greek 
 grammar, though wanted for understand- 
 ing Scripture. ^ Dr, Powell, p. 117. 
 
I. X. 11.] 
 
 INTERPRETING OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 51 
 
 I. rected, 1 Pet. iv. 9, to use hospitality ; but, can we suppose, 
 that we are not to shut our doors against a notorious robber 
 — we are directed, Rom. xii. 15 , to ‘‘rejoice with them that do 
 rejoice, and weep with them that weep;” — but, are we to 
 rejoice when fraud triumphs over virtuous simplicity ? Alex- 
 ander wept, because he had no more worlds to conquer ; are 
 we to shed sympathetic tears on such an occasion ? — Except 
 we “ become as little children'''^ we “ shall not enter into the 
 
 73 kingdom of heaven,” Matt, xviii. S ; may we not then be per- 
 
 mitted to speak distinctly, to walk steadily may we not 
 read, write, think (compare 1 Cor. xiii. 11.) “Look not 
 thou upon the wine^ when it is red,” says Solomon : (Prov. 
 xxiii. 31 .) “ Howl, all ye drinkers of wine,” says the pro- 
 
 phet Joel, (i. 5 .): — it is not clear, that these sayings might 
 not have made a sect of Christian Rechabites, had not St. 
 Paul advised ^ Timothy to drink no longer water, but a little 
 wine for his bodily infirmities ; yet the same limitation of 
 drinking moderately, and with a view to health, might have 
 been implied, if it had not been expressed®. 
 
 Precepts may be given by means of praise or blame: but 
 here we must limit the praise and blame by the occasion, 
 and scope of the passage. Our Saviour commended the un- 
 just steward, did he thereby favour injustice.^ God forbid! 
 he favoured prudence, and uniformity of conduct : the commen- 
 dation was bestowed on the steward, because he had done 
 wisely ; and spiritual prudence ought to keep pace with tem- 
 poral. David was called the man after God’s own heart ; does 
 scripture authorize adultery and murder ? by no means : — 
 for those crimes David was punished; he was dear to Jehovah, 
 because he forwarded the interests of the pure religion, in 
 spite of all temptations to idolatry and superstition ; this was 
 
 74 what God had chiefly at heart, for the principle of conduct, 
 in the governors of his chosen people^. 
 
 11. Perhaps some of the instances here mentioned may 
 be thought needless, because no one is likely to be misled 
 
 ^ Pour etre semblables a des enfans, 
 on les voyoit s’abaisser a des petits jeux, 
 et aftecter une simplicite puerile. — Hist, 
 des Anabap. p. 257. This is quoted in 
 “ The Principles and Practices of Me- 
 thodists farther considered.” Cambr. 
 1761, p. 69, where are several other in- 
 stances from the same history, much to 
 the present purpose. 
 
 5 1 Tim. V. 23. 
 
 ® Joel i. 5, and 1 Tim. v. 23, form a 
 contradiction : there are many such in 
 Scripture ; all arising from the same 
 cause, taking the letter^ without such 
 limitations as are implied. 
 
 ^ See Bishop Porteus’s sermon on this 
 subject. 
 
 4—2 
 
52 
 
 APPLYING SCRIPTURE SAYINGS 
 
 [I. xi. 1, 2. 
 
 in such cases ; — it is true, that there is the most danger of I. 
 error where v/hat is implied is the least evident : but these 
 instances seem more likely, than any abstract reasoning, to 
 lead us to a custom of interpreting all sayings of Scripture 
 
 by the circumstances in which they are used 1 am much 
 
 mistaken, if such a custom would not be the means of remov- 
 ing (not all difficulties, but) all disputes and dissensions about 
 some of those doctrines which are reckoned the most abstruse 
 and intricate. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 75 
 
 OF APPLYING SAYINGS AND ACTIONS, RECORDED IN 
 THE SCRIPTURES, TO OURSELVES. 
 
 1. This chapter is allied to the preceding, inasmuch as 
 they both turn upon estimating circumstances and situations, 
 taking the accuracy of expressions for granted : we interpret, 
 by considering the circumstances of others ; we apply, by 
 considering our own : or, more strictly speaking, by making 
 a comparison between the circumstances of those to whom 
 Scripture was immediately addressed, and our own. If we 
 neglect their circumstances, we shall do things enjoined only 
 by the letter of Scripture ; if we neglect our own, we shall do 
 things which are not enjoined at all, but barely mentioned. 
 
 2. But, though there is a connexion between the subjects 
 of this chapter and the preceding, they are quite distinct. 
 
 This chapter should go upon the supposition that the 
 end of the former is accomplished ; the several expressions of 
 Scripture should be now supposed to be rightly understood ; 
 but what is rightly understood may not be rightly applied. 
 Though we do not mistake the sacred writers, we may mis- 
 take ourselves, and our own real situations. Or we may, by 
 association of ideas, or prejudice, venerate things mentioned in 
 Scripture, as if they were essential parts of religion, though 
 they are wholly insignificant in themselves, and are not in- 7d 
 tended to be accounted otherwise. A child, brought up to 
 venerate the church, may venerate the joint-stool that he has 
 always seen there, though in reality it makes no part of the 
 sacred building. 
 
I. xi. 3.] 
 
 AND ACTIONS TO OURSELVES. 
 
 53 
 
 I. In some instances, the application of Scripture to our- 
 selves may be so evident as, at this time, to require no caution 
 or advice ; or it may be evident, that some parts of Scripture 
 are now inapplicable : — as in those cases where all males are 
 ordered to worship at Jerusalem three times a year^ ; and the 
 people of God are commanded to exterminate some societies 
 of men, or put to death a large number of those who mi- 
 nistered in a false religion. And yet the times are not long 
 past in which things have been done on the same principles 
 with these. King^ Charles I. was justified by his divines, by 
 precedents borrowed from the kings of Israel: — The Mo- 
 saical law was intended to be established, as the sole system 
 of English jurisprudence^” — The enthusiasts called millenna- 
 rians^ or Jifth-monarchy-men, claimed to be the saints of God, 
 and to have the dominion of saints. Nay, they went so far 
 as to give up their own Christian names, and assume others 
 from Scripture^; like the Manicheans® of old. — And both 
 parties, in the times we speak of, seem to have claimed a 
 right of applying, in some degree, the injunctions given in 
 77 barbarous times, against the worshippers of Baal, to those 
 who differed from them in modes of Christian worship'. 
 
 Men, less heated by enthusiasm and party-spirit than 
 these, seem, at different times, to have erred in applying Scrip- 
 ture to their own cases : — but, before we mention their no- 
 tions, let us see in general what we aim to establish. 
 
 3. Instead of adopting the sayings and actions recorded 
 in Scripture, implicitly and absolutely, we ought to rea- 
 son in some such manner as this:... If such a person, so 
 situated, best answered the ends of such an institution by 
 acting in such a manner, how shall we, in our situation, best 
 answer the ends of the same ? — Sometimes, merely proposing 
 this form of inquiry will carry us right ; but, in more dif- 
 ficult cases, we shall have the general principles, the nature 
 and end of the duty in question, to investigate, and from 
 
 ^ Deut. xvi. 16. Deut. xx. 10, 17. 
 1 Kings xviii. 40. 2 Kings x. 25. 
 
 ^ Dr Powell, Disc. iii. p. 54. 
 
 ^ Hume’s Engl. Hist. a.d. 1653. 
 
 ^ Dan. vii. 27. 
 
 ® See the Sussex Jury, in Hume’s 
 Hist. A.D. 1653. 
 
 ® Lardner, Works, vol. iii. p. 407. 
 
 7 How misapplying Scripture brought 
 on the miseries of our Civil wars, is ex- 
 plained by Dr Powell, Disc. iii. — But 
 he joins (of course) misinter'pretations 
 and misapplications together. See after- 
 wards about heresy being punished with 
 death in England ; seemingly from adopt- 
 ing Jewish ideas of punishing blasphemy, 
 &c. B. III. Chap. xiv. Sect. 15. 
 
54 
 
 APPLYING SCRIPTURE SAYINGS 
 
 [I. xi. 4. 
 
 these to determine the particular cases ; that is, how, in such I. 
 cases, the ends of the duty can be best attained. — However, 
 in most questions, a good heart will be more requisite than 
 a good head. 
 
 It may be thought, that investigating the theory of any 
 duty, is superseding Scripture; but it seems to be the only 
 method of preventing misapplication of Scripture : it seems to 
 be what Scripture takes for granted we shall do to the utmost 
 
 of our power^ In the first age of Christianity^, wisdom and 
 
 knowledge {human wisdom and knowledge) were given super- 78 
 naturally to apostles and prophets ; in later ages, they are 
 to be acquired naturally, by study and observation. Wis- 
 dom, as mentioned by St. Paul, is understood to be the kind 
 of thing which we are now recommending: if we endeavour 
 to attain it, we must study all the phenomena, natural and 
 moral, which fall within our reach ; and gather from them 
 whatever reason and experience can teach, with regard to the 
 greatest happiness of mankind : if we aim at knowledge^ we 
 must study whatever Rerelation teaches concerning the dispen- 
 sations of God. Both are wanting in the subject before us. 
 
 4. Having thus proposed the general form of our inquiry, 
 we may mention a particular instance in which Scripture 
 seems sometimes to have been misapplied. — Several things are 
 said in Scripture about ministers of the churchy which must, 
 of course, point out some form of church-government. Now, 
 supposing all men agreed in understanding the terms made 
 use of in the scriptural distribution of ecclesiastical authority ; 
 would it follow, that exactly the same kind of church-mi- 
 nisters should be appointed in all religious communities ? some 
 have wished to make this their standard ; but I should rather 
 say, the right method was, to study, in human nature with 
 tvisdom, and in Scripture with knowledge^ the theory of re- 
 ligious society ; its nature and ends, with the best methods 
 of attaining those ends; under different climates, under dif- 
 ferent habitual notions, and different arbitrary customs : then, 
 to consider the case of the earliest Christian churches in these 
 respects ; then, our own case ; and, on the comparison, apply 
 the general form of reasoning; being cautious, neither lightly 
 
 * Before, 1. iv. 5. 
 
 2 1 Cor. xii. 8, 28. See Dr. Horsley’s 
 Ordination Sermon, on 1 Cor. ii. 2, p. 10. 
 Also see Warburton on the Spirit, p. 24, 
 
 &c IMr. Locke, on 1 Cor. ii. 2, sets out 
 
 with rather a different idea, but con- 
 cludes with diffidence, and in a manner 
 reconcilable to Bp. Warburton. 
 
I. xi. 5, 6\] 
 
 AND ACTIONS TO OURSELVES. 
 
 55 
 
 I. to adopt, nor needlessly to set aside the precedents of the 
 79 apostolic ages: if churches so situated were so governed, in 
 what manner were it best that ours should be governed ? — 
 The determination of this question is not our^ present busi- 
 ness: only the manner in which it should be considered. Wc 
 hope, however, that our church has determined in a manner 
 which these principles would justify. 
 
 5. Under the old law, every seventh day of the week 
 is appointed to be a day of rest, or sabbath ; and, under the 
 new law, there is no direct command to change that day of 
 rest from the seventh day of the week to the first. And 
 some Christians have thought the Jewish sabbath ought to be 
 observed perpetually ; nay, some used to keep both sabbaths. 
 Yet the earliest Christians seem to have observed the first 
 
 day, instead of the last ; and so do most later Christians 
 
 There has been also a difference in the degree of rest, under 
 the two different dispensations, and amongst different parties 
 under each dispensation. How are we to settle our duty in 
 this matter — the method seems to be the same as before : 
 to endeavour to learn the true nature and end of a sabbath, 
 from the nature of man, to think how far his body requires 
 repose, and his mind to be turned from lower pursuits to 
 moral and religious ones : how far outward decency and clean- 
 liness promote inward purity and humanity. The sabbath 
 was made for man^ not man for the sabbath.”) Next, to 
 collect all the texts of Scripture enjoining it ; to learn the 
 circumstances of those who observed it first under the Mosaic, 
 then under the Christian dispensation ; afterwards, to com- 
 pare our own circumstances with theirs; and, finally, to say, 
 
 80 if persons so circumstanced'^ rested from their labours on 
 such a day of the week, and in such a manner, how could 
 we, in our circumstances, best promote the ends of such an 
 observance as a sabbath ? 
 
 6. Our Lord washed the feet of his disciples ; some 
 have thought that we ought literally ‘‘ to wash one another’s^ 
 
 ^ The subject belongs to Art. 36 of 
 the Church of England. 
 
 ^ See Wottori's Misna, vol. i. Pref. 
 and Diss. on Sabbatical Texts. Ileylin 
 has also an elaborate discourse on the 
 sabbath : — he makes the Lord's day dis- 
 tinct from the sabbath : and says it is no 
 sabbath. Bp. Porteus is against Sunday 
 
 being made gloomy^ but for its being 
 religious. See his Letter on Sunday 
 Schools, p. 23. 
 
 ® Cave, Hist. Lit. Tom. ii. Diss. ii. 
 p. 33. NtTTTjfjO. Barclay, as Quaker, says 
 we should do this to be consistent, if we 
 retain our ordinance, the Lord’s Supper. 
 Apol. p. 409. Edit. Birm. 1765. 
 
56 
 
 APPLYING SCRIPTURE SAYINGS 
 
 [L xi. 7- 
 
 feet:’’ (John xiii. 14.) — whether we ought or not, will de- I. 
 pend upon reasoning of the same kind : we must consider the 
 nature of man, the rectitude of acts of condescension^ ; how 
 far they should be external and visible ; how far this was a 
 necessary office and a customary servile one, according to the 
 eastern mode of travelling. — We should also observe, how 
 actions were used in the east, instead of words ; and were ex- 
 pressive, not only of the present, but of the future : we 
 should inquire, from circumstances, whether the act of wash- 
 ing feet could be symbolical ; or whether it appears to have 
 been such from hints thrown out: how the first Christians 
 acted upon our Saviour’s injunction. On these grounds, when 
 we have recollected our own circumstances, our own modes of 
 travelling, our own customs, as to making actions symbolical, 
 must our determinations, with regard to our duty at this time, 
 be formed. 
 
 7 . Much controversy has arisen about the manner of 
 celebrating the Lord's supper. — Jesus took bread and wine 81 
 after a real meal, or a convivial religious feast : some think we 
 ought therefore to make a meal of the Lord’s Supper, or, if 
 we only have the resemblance of a meal, we ought to sit at it; 
 others think that the thing enjoined is only a commemoration, 
 and as the bread and wine were only taken after a meal, and 
 we make an acknowledgement of a stupendous benefit conferred 
 by a divine person, we ought to use the humblest posture of 
 religious adoration. — The early Christians went on in a plain 
 simple way, with feasts of caritas.^ ayairv]., till inconveniencies 
 arose, and then they changed some things, retaining every- 
 thing they thought essential. Wisdom here must have less 
 influence than knowledge: aocpia must be less useful than 
 yvwcris. But how are we to act — We are to endeavour, 
 even here, to get at general, fundamental principles ; but they 
 will chiefly be found in the manner of instituting the rite: — 
 we have an act, which we dare venture to call a comme- 
 moration ; — there seems little reason to doubt its being of a 
 symbolic or emblematical nature, intended to express our ac- 
 ceptance of the benefits of the death of Christ, and the 
 consequent remission of our sins; intended to proclaim all this 
 to all men, whatever language they speak ; intended to pro- 
 mote mutual benevolence amongst'Christians. And we can see, 
 from our knowledge of human nature, that acts of gratitude 
 
 ^ The Saturnalia had acts of condescension. 
 
I. xi. 8.] 
 
 AND ACTIONS TO OURSELVES. 
 
 57 
 
 I. promote sentiments of gratitude ; that periodical commemora- 
 tions prevent benefits long past from dying away and sinking 
 into oblivion ; — that a religion, intended to unite all nations 
 and lana:ua"es, must have some visible sio:ns intelligible to all ; 
 — that finding we have a common interest in any thing great 
 and important, makes us more interested in one another ; and 
 therefore more benevolent and affectionate : perhaps study and 
 82 attention may teach us more principles : our business is, to 
 settle them as far as possible; to consider the circumstances 
 of the first Christians, and our own ; and say, if the ends of 
 such an institution were best answered by people so situated, 
 acting in such a manner, how will they best be answered by 
 us ? — It may seem odd, that, amongst the different observers 
 of this rite, there has never been a sect of accumhers ; our 
 Saviour neither kneeled^, nor sate, when he instituted the sa- 
 crament of the Lord’s supper ; but was in that posture, which 
 we have no word to express, and which the Romans expressed 
 by using the word acciimbere. 
 
 We might reason in the same manner, concerning the 
 community of goods seemingly instituted amongst the very- 
 first Christians^; — and concerning the application of recom- 
 mendations, and instances of hospitality^ now that we have 
 inns^ and no persecuted brethren, no common cause of divine 
 authority in seeming danger: but we will not stop here, as 
 probably no community of goods, strictly speaking, ever did 
 take place amongst Christians; — and hospitality, though a 
 perpetual duty, has not been remarkably mistaken ; has not 
 produced any dissensions. 
 
 8. Such is the manner in which we should apply the 
 
 directions and narrations of Scripture to our own conduct 
 
 It may be apprehended that there is some danger in allowing 
 such application upon such calculations : it may be said, ‘‘ all 
 duties may be evaded thus : a man has only to allege that 
 his circumstances are very different from those of the persons 
 S3 to whom the duty was enjoined, and he may be exempted 
 from the performance of it.” — There is so much meaning in 
 this difficulty as to require a caution^ lest men should suffer 
 themselves to be led into evasion and self-deceit, by the kind 
 
 ^ Wheatley says, accumbing “ was the 
 iable-gesture among those nations.” 
 p. 318. 
 
 ^ Some ancient Christians would not 
 
 be baptized till they were thirty years 
 old, because Christ was not. — Wall on 
 Inf. Bapt. I. ii. 7. 
 
58 
 
 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY [I. xii. Int. 
 
 of reasoning here recommended. There is no liberty which I. 
 men in a state of trial may not abuse : but they must not, on 
 that account, be deprived of liberty. Men’s obligations must 
 depend on their situations in life, and on the several relations 
 in which they stand : if they will mistake, or pretend to mis- 
 take, their situations, they must : but those who mean toler- 
 ably well may be cautioned, that they be thoroughly sincere 
 in determining what is their duty, and resolute in performing 
 what proves to be so. And this caution must not be confined 
 to the whole of any duty, taken as one individual thing; but 
 extended to the several parts of it ; nay, to the modes of per- 
 forming it ; for, if a man will avoid this mode of performing 
 a duty, and that mode, and so on, saying, that modes are not 
 essential to the duty, he may, in turns, avoid all possible 
 modes, and therefore the duty itself ; for it must be performed 
 after some mode, if it is performed at all. But, if men must 
 not be told the truth, because there is a danger of their abus- 
 ing it, the Scripture must be left incapable of defence, and 
 liable to do harm, instead of good. 
 
 Here it may not be improper to observe, that we have an 
 instance of what was mentioned, I. i. 7, about the division 
 of our system into several distinct parts: we may now be 
 said to have gone through a set of lectures on the manner of 
 attaining the true sense of Scripture. 
 
 The chapters, which follow, may be conceived as furnish- 
 ing matter for a set of lectures “ de veritate religionis Chris- 
 tianse:” to the end of this first book. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 84 
 
 OF EXAMINING THE GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY 
 OF BOOKS ACCOUNTED SACRED. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 We have considered the manner of interpreting the Scrip- 
 tures, taking for granted their divine authority: — but, to 
 see the reasons for concluding them to be divine, is one 
 great end of researches such as ours. 
 
 We might begin with the Old Testament; but perhaps 
 a less difficult and equally sure way would be to begin with 
 
I. xii. Int.] 
 
 OF BOOKS ACCOUNTED SACRED. 
 
 59 
 
 I. the New. As the New refers to the Old, and joins the Chris- 
 tian dispensation to the Mosaic, (which it would not do, if 
 it did not acknowledge the authority of the Mosaic), we may 
 be assured, that, when we prove the New to be divine, we in 
 effect prove the Old to be so likewise k 
 
 It is remarkable, as to the incidental good it produces, 
 that the Jews maintain the authority of the Old Testament, 
 and deny that of the New: — and the Jews and Christians are 
 so divided, that their joint testimony in favour of the Old 
 Testament, is very strong. Without such joint testimony of 
 enemies, infidels would say, the Old and New Testament were 
 made to suit each other. 
 
 Before we enter into particulars, let us fix upon some 
 plan which may unite our observations, and shew their con- 
 nexion. 
 
 We affirm, that there has been a divine Revelation: 
 “ how do you know that say our adversaries ; — we answer, 
 85 i. It is scarcely possible to read the Sci'iptures^ without 
 being convinced of it. 
 
 ii. The success, which their doctrine met with, confirms 
 our ideas of their original. 
 
 iii. And so also does the need there was of them for the 
 instruction and reformation of mankind. 
 
 i. The Scriptures r say they ; we have seen a book, 
 giving an account of some strange things, but who would 
 pay it any serious attention ? what know we of it, or of its 
 authors f'' In answer, we undertake to prove, that the several 
 books of Scripture are genuine ; that is, written by the per- 
 sons to whom they are respectively ascribed. 
 
 But these are obscure authors ; at what time did they 
 live? They foretel some things; but how know we that they 
 did not foretel events after those events came to pass ?” — In 
 answer, we say, that we can have the same proof of the time, 
 when the authors lived, as of their having written the books. 
 
 But the incidents which they relate, what assurance 
 have we that they were not mere invention — we will give 
 reasons why this supposition is inadmissible. 
 
 “Well, suppose these men wrote what they believed, yet 
 they might be mistaken as to the things they record.” We 
 answer, the history they give contains in itself, and implies, 
 ample testimony of the principal facts recorded. 
 
 ^ See John v. 39. Heb, x. 1; ix. 23. Col. ii. 17. 
 
60 
 
 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY [I. xii. Int. 
 
 “ This might be admitted,” say they, if the writers I. 
 in question only recorded things in the common course of na- 
 ture ; but they dwell on supernatural events.” We answer, 
 those supernatural events are themselves proofs of the truth 
 of their relations. — ^‘Miracles and prodigies,” say the in- 
 fidels, “ are suspicious things :” and one ingenious philosopher 
 has thought, that a miracle, as an argument to the human 
 understanding, is an impossibility. “ But, supposing miracles 
 could be performed, and even proved in theory yet in fact., 86 
 such proof is not to be expected; no real situation can be 
 assigned, in which it is to be found; — nay, supposing a 
 miracle made credible, what follows ? because a man can do 
 what I cannot, or even something beyond the powers of na- 
 ture, am I therefore to obey every thing he orders, as if it 
 were divine?” — To all this, we can only reply at present thus: 
 we hope to shew, that the truest philosophy justifies the use 
 of miracles on great occasions, in order to convince the mind 
 of man : that, though strong proof is required to make a 
 miracle credible, yet the Scripture does furnish such as is 
 sufficient, and such as will be owned sufficient by all who 
 calmly estimate the ability^ the honesty., and the number of 
 those who form the testimony: — .that the miracles of the New 
 Testament had something in them so convincing, and so pe- 
 culiarly seasonable, as to shew the superintendence of God 
 himself. 
 
 But moreover, the Scriptures give accounts of prophecies ; 
 of things predicted and completed: — “what superstition,” 
 say ' the infidels, “ ever wanted predictions and prognostica- 
 tions ? — but he, who examines yours, will find them ambiguous, 
 obscure, poetical ; in a dead language, imperfectly understood, 
 scanty in words, (so that one word means several different 
 things) abounding in tropes and figures, and not discriminat- 
 ing past and future ; — in writings partly historical, partly 
 poetical : — can sentences so circumstanced convince a reason- 
 able mind ? or, if we call them predictions, can any history 
 prove them to have been fulfilled by design?” — We can only 
 reply, that we despair not even here to satisfy the unpreju- 
 diced, when we come to lay open the nature of prophecy. 
 
 ii. In the next place we say, that the religion which 
 the Scriptures propose is divine, because no religion merely 87 
 human could have spread as it did : supposing the gospel 
 fruc^ its propagation was perfectly natural ; supposing it false., 
 
I. xii. 1, 2.] 
 
 OF BOOKS ACCOUNTED SACRED. 
 
 61 
 
 I. perfectly unaccountable: — and taking the miracles iov granted, 
 they shew, that it was God’s intention to have the Gospel so 
 propagated ; the mere consequences of an act of God (if we 
 can ascertain one properly so called) shew the divine ^inten- 
 tion. It may indeed be objected, that, in listening to accounts 
 of the first propagation of Christianity, we give too much 
 credit to the partial accounts of our friends, and too little 
 to the impartial ones of our enemies: but we hope to give 
 satisfaction on these heads, as well as others. 
 
 iii. Thirdly and lastly, lest our adversaries should urge, 
 that all the profusion of miracles, and of sufferings, recorded 
 in Scripture, was needless, as men would have improved in 
 moral virtue and natural religion without them; — we will 
 shew, that it is more just and reasonable to say, that men had 
 real need of Revelation, for the purposes of instruction and 
 reformation. 
 
 1. We may now begin our xiith chapter with remark- 
 ing, that all historical evidence can only be probable evidence: 
 demonstration, properly speaking, is not applicable to the 
 credibility of facts. — I would not object to Huefs Demon- 
 stratio Evangelica having definitions, axioms, postulates, pro- 
 positions ; — only let not the argument be mistaken for one 
 strictly demonstrative. As a principle of action, probability 
 is sufficient ; in a state of trial, it is more to be expected than 
 certainty; as Bishop Butler says, ‘^probability is the very 
 guide of life";” — and all we want is to give men a sufficient 
 guide for their conduct. 
 
 88 If any one thinks that we ought to have more than 
 probability to go upon in things of such importance, he should 
 remember, that it is only probable that we shall die ; it is 
 only probable that the sun will ever rise again. Yet we go 
 upon these things as certainties. 
 
 It has been matter of dispute, whether morality is capable 
 of demonstration ; I suppose all that is meant, in such dis- 
 pute, by demonstration, is shewing, that good consequences 
 follow from virtue ; but as consequences are only matter of 
 experience and ayialogy, that is only probable proof. 
 
 2. In order that we may reason the more intelligibly, 
 let us, first, take notice of some of the terms, which will most 
 frequently occur; such as genuine, authentic, apocryphal, 
 canonical. 
 
 * Powell, p. 112. ^ Introd. to Analogy, Parag. 11. 
 
62 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY [I. xil. 2. 
 
 I 
 
 A work is genuine, when it is written by the person whose I. 
 name it bears : some think Rowley's Poems genuine, others 
 not : — from hence it should follow, that no anonymous work 
 could have genuineness either affirmed or denied of it ; never- 
 theless, if a work is what it pretends to be, I think it is 
 called genuine in an enlarged sense. The opposite to genuine 
 spurious, supposititious, (suppositus, suppose, put clandes- 
 tinely in the place of another, forged,) or in the Greek, 
 pseudepigraphus. 
 
 Authentic means, having authority ; a writing may be 
 genuine, and yet not authentic ; or authentic, though the 
 word genuine cannot be applied to it. The Poems called 
 Rowley’s may be genuine, but nothing can be properly said 
 about their being or not being authentic, except perhaps as 
 proofs of antiquities, &c. ; — whatever is used as authority in 
 proving, may be called authentic in some sense. The first 
 epistle of Clemens and the epistle of Barnabas are genuine, 
 but have no authority on which we can build doctrines. On 89 
 the other hand, writings may be of good authority, grounded 
 upon testimonies, experience, arguments, and yet their au- 
 thors may be wholly unknown. It has been thought \ that 
 the books of the New Testament might be proved authentic, 
 though we did not know the writers of them. 
 
 Apocryphal seems usually to be opposed to authentic ; at 
 least so as to express doubt concerning authenticity : an apo- 
 cryphal writing is one whose origin and authority is doubted, 
 or disallowed, which in this case is nearly the same with 
 dejiied. — But about this word more will occur under the 6th 
 Article of the Church of England. In some titles of ancient 
 books there is an ambiguity, which may confound genuine, 
 authentic, and apocryphal. The preachings of Peter“ and 
 Paul may mean, that Peter and Paul are the authors ; or 
 that they are only the preachers, their preachings being sup- 
 posed to be recorded by others And on other occasions, 
 
 spurious and apocryphal seem to be sometimes confounded ; 
 or apocryphal defined spurious". But it may often happen, 
 that a writing which is apocryphal, or of doubtful authority, 
 may be spurious also. 
 
 Canonical is used in divinity to mean part of the canon, 
 or collection of writings of divine authority: but the connexion 
 
 * Dr. Powell, Disc. iv. p. 07* I ^ Lard. Works, vol. ii. p, 3G2. 
 
 2 Lard. Credib. Works, vol. v. p. 417. I 
 
I. xii. 3.] 
 
 OF BOOKS ACCOUNTED SACRED. 
 
 63 
 
 I. of canonical with the Greek word Kavcov does not seem to be 
 agreed upon. Kavcou is a rule, but some think that rule to be 
 the rule of our faith and practice ; so that canonical writings 
 are those which are to regulate our faith and manners ; 
 
 90 others call it a balance to try^ things by; others think that 
 tlie rule is the decree of the church, made at some council. 
 This difference is not very material ; the rules here understood 
 are consistent with each other, and with the opinion that the 
 canonical books are either written or authorized by the Apostles. 
 (Richardson, p. 7, note.) — The word seems to have been used, 
 because it occurs in Gal. vi. 16‘, and Phil. iii. 16’. This term 
 will also recur under Art. 6, of our church. 
 
 3. The canonical books are frequently called inspired 
 books : it is therefore right to endeavour to ascertain wherein 
 inspiration consists. Yet here, with a view to our own par- 
 ticular method, it may possibly be observed, that this is not 
 the place for entering into controversies about inspiration, 
 because all our first book professes to be about theology as 
 common to all sects of Christians : but there is scarce any 
 point about which there is not some difference amongst Chris- 
 tians ; and this matter of inspiration does not seem to divide 
 Christians into sects : we will therefore content ourselves with 
 mentioning a few notions, as we would to heathens : giving 
 the preference indeed to one, but leaving all Christians to pro- 
 fess their own peculiar notions and systems. 
 
 Some men have been of opinion, that every word of Scrip- 
 ture was inspired, and therefore that the sacred writers were 
 mere instruments'., this. Bishop Warburton calls ^ organic 
 inspiration ; and I suppose Dr. Priestley means the same by 
 '‘^plenary inspiration;” this seems the highest degree of sup- 
 posed inspiration : the Socinians seem to take tile lowest. Dr. 
 
 91 Priestley says, that St. Paul knew nothing of the fall of man' 
 but from the writings of Hoses'^; and that his writings 
 “ abound with analogies and antitheses, on which no very 
 serious stress is to be laid.” — But such as seem to me the 
 most judicious and learned men, suppose, that the sacred 
 writers were informed supernaturally as to the substance of 
 the Christian scheme, and were left to their own habits of 
 
 Richardson, p. C. 
 
 Jer. Jones, vol. i. p. 22. On this 
 word, see Lardner’s Works, vol. vi. p.5. 
 ° Warb, on Grace, p. 43. 
 
 7 Letter to Dr, Price, p. 159. Birm. 
 1787. But see the motto to Mr. Ormerod’s 
 book against Dr. Priestley ; from Dis- 
 quisitions on Matter and Spirit. 
 
64 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY [I. XH. 3. 
 
 speaking as far as related to the mode of expression ; only I. 
 care was taken by providence, that they did not necessarily 
 lead men into any material error ; the rule they published 
 being to stand as an ^infallible rule ; as a criterion^ by which 
 all notions and opinions, as well as practices, were to be tried. 
 
 After the pretensions which St. Paul makes, in the open- 
 ing of his Epistle to the Galatians, there seems no medium : 
 he must either be an impostor, or furnished with supernatural 
 knowledge. He cannot speak as a mere man, of things above 
 man’s comprehension. In 1 Cor. vii. he distinguishes be- 
 tween what he says of himself and what he says from his 
 Lord : Paul had never any intercourse with Christ but what 
 was supernatural. And this may seemingly be applied to 
 the other sacred writers : had they set themselves on recording 
 the acts and sayings of Christ during his lifetime, they might 
 have been on the same footing with other historians ; but 
 they received their commission after the death of Christ ; 
 they profess to have received it supernaturally ; either they 
 did so, or they are impostors. There is no writer, that I 
 know of, who says what is so much to the purpose on this 
 subject, in so small a compass, as Dr. Powell^ in the opening 92 
 of his 4th and 15th discourses. 
 
 With regard to the continuance of inspiration, it seems 
 as if we might form some analogy, from the account which 
 we find of spiritual gifts in 1 Cor. chap. xiv. — There, it ap- 
 pears, that men had a power of speaking languages superna- 
 turally ; and the most judicious (in my estimation) think, that 
 a man who spoke a foreign language so, was upon the same 
 footing with those who had learnt that language naturally : 
 like as a man who was once miraculously healed of lameness, 
 continued to walk as if he had been healed in an ordinary^ 
 way. Dr. Middleton held, that inspiration was temporary 
 and occasional ; but this notion appears improbable, because 
 those who had the power of speaking a foreign language for 
 the sake of being understood., abused that power, and spake 
 that language, through ostentation, to those who did not un- 
 derstand it : now, it is not to be conceived, that the words 
 would be suggested miraculously, by a particular inspiration, 
 when they were abused ; tliough such abuse might be per- 
 mitted^ when a man knew the language as a language is 
 
 ^ Warburton, p. 45, 40. Richardson, I “ Powell, p. 248. 
 p. 8. 1 Warburton on the Spirit, p. 21. 
 
I. xii. 4.] 
 
 OF BOOKS ACCOUNTED SACRED. 
 
 65 
 
 I- commonly known And, if the knowledge of a language was 
 
 communicated all together, as one thing, is it not likely, that 
 the knowledge of the Christian scheme would be communicated 
 entire, in like manner ? such a simple communication is rather to 
 be allowed, than a complex and reiterated communication — than 
 a series of miracles. Dr. Middleton's opinion therefore, that 
 inspiration was temporary and occasional, seems not probable. 
 
 It may perhaps be said, that referring the sacred writings 
 to the divine influence is only a pious mode of expression, 
 93 and implies no distinct fact. This may be sometimes the 
 case: Richardson‘S mentions some instances, which agree with 
 what will be laid down under Art. 10th of the Church^ of 
 England. But the way, in which the Apostles became in- 
 spired, implies an higher degree of inspiration: however, it does 
 not seem our business to ascertain exactly in what degree the 
 Apostles were inspired. We probably are incapable of finding 
 that out, or even of understanding it with precision : in Scrip- 
 ture, we see the effects; we must conceive the inspiration to 
 have been something capable of producing those effects, and 
 perhaps we can get no nearer. And I know not whether all 
 parties do not, at the bottom, though they may not always 
 be conscious of it, follow this plan, of reasoning from effect to 
 cause: each seems to settle the nature and degree of inspi- 
 ration, so that it shall be sufficient to account for what he 
 deems the true sense of Scripture. This imperfection of our 
 knowledge may afford a farther excuse for treating the subject 
 of inspiration out of its proper place. 
 
 4. Before we come to a direct proof that the books of 
 the Scripture are genuine, we must remove a difficulty out 
 of the way ; and that is, what arises from the multitude of 
 books which, we are told, in early times of Christianity were 
 a kind of competitors with the books now reckoned canonical. 
 — Let us state the fact, before we reason upon it. — In our 
 own times we have the books of Scripture in one volume, and 
 no skill is required to distinguish them from others ; but in the 
 earliest times of Christianity the few sacred writings subsist- 
 ing were dispersed ; read in one church, and not known in 
 9t another ; and for one that was really sacred, there were per- 
 haps ten or more that either pretended to be so, or were 
 quoted with respect by the Fathers, or read in Christian assem- 
 
 ■* Canon of the New Testament vin- • ^ Book IV. Art. (or Chap. ) x. Sect, 
 
 dicated, p. 29. | 39. 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 5 
 
66 
 
 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY 
 
 [I. xii. 4 . 
 
 blies : (and, moreover, in some persecutions, it was forbidden I. 
 to have the Scriptures in possession :) how can we be sure, that 
 we have not admitted some of these inferior writings into our 
 canon, or rejected some which ought to have been admitted? 
 
 — In answer to this question, we must describe the books here 
 spoken of more particularly. 
 
 i. First, the Antilegomena or seven controverted parts of 
 the New Testament^ may be mentioned, which were not 
 generally received till after the rest, and are not yet, I think, 
 except Hebrews and James, received by the Christians in 
 Syria’, ii. Then, there were some books called Ecclesiastical, 
 such as were not reckoned of divine authority, but were read 
 in churches, as pious and edifying. The Epistle of Barnabas, 
 the Shepherd of Hermas, the First Epistle of Clement, were of 
 this number : and the word scripture was applied to them^; they 
 were spoken of as ypacpi^, or eminent, distinguished writings. 
 iii. It seems also far from improbable, that many sayings of 
 Christ and his Apostles were got by hearing^ them repeated 
 frequently by one to another, and so at last written down 
 in some composition of some Christian writer, iv. Moreover, 
 it is natural to think that, during our Saviour’s lifetime, 
 some sincere well-meaning Christians might immediately make® 
 memorandums of what they themselves had heard our Saviour 95 
 say, and seen him do : to such records as these St. Luke 
 seems to refer, in the opening of his gospel : these were written, 
 before the famous day of Pentecost, and without any divine com- 
 mission. V. And some might contain accounts of the Apostles, 
 and not of Christ. The apostolic" constitutions and canons 
 are now in being ; in part at least they are plainly spurious ; 
 but there are some men of judgment who have thought that 
 the ground-work of them might be genuine®. — So far the 
 writings mentioned might now be worthy of attention ; might 
 be accounted genuine, though not authentic : but, vi. There 
 were others, composed by men weak and foolish ; in order to 
 recommend Christianity to the Gentiles, by an additional 
 number of miracles, by enlarging narrations, and adding 
 circumstances. And, vii. Some by Christian heretics ; in order 
 
 * The Epistle to the Hebrews, that of 
 .James, the Second Epistle of Peter, the 
 Second and Third of John, the Epistle of 
 Jude, and the Book of Revelation. 
 
 2 Richardson, p. BJ. 
 
 3 Ibid. p. 19. 
 
 Homily, 8vo. p. 76. 136. 303. Or 
 Richardson, p. 27, and Lardner. 
 
 ® Richardson, p. 91. See Acts xx. 35. 
 ^ Richardson, p. 92. 
 
 7 Ibid. p. 93. 
 
 « Ibid. 
 
I. xii. 4.] 
 
 OF BOOKS ACCOUNTED SACRED. 
 
 67 
 
 I. to justify their several tenets: the Manicheans adopted and 
 rejected what parts of the New Testament they pleased®; and 
 there were gospels of the Valentinians^ the gospel of Basilides, 
 he. I think, in all, there have been reckoned up forty go- 
 spels, and thirty-six writings of the nature of the Acts of the 
 Apostles. If we want a general motive for men’s composing 
 false gospels and acts, we may assign as such the desire of 
 making the sacred naratives more particular^ and the revealed 
 
 notion of virtue more sublime, pure, &c Lardner speaks 
 
 nearly thus vol v. p. 412, &c. — Some heretics wanted to defend 
 their peculiar doctrines, but many, only ‘‘ to elevate and 
 surprise.” viii. We may, besides, mention compositions such 
 g6 as that of Salman^^^ which he published as Timothy’s, through 
 a kind of modesty^^^ meaning no harm; well written, and of 
 intrinsic value : and some may add to this class the pretended 
 works of Dionysius the Areopagite. — ix. There are several 
 anonymous writings published later in the Church, written in 
 some sort of imitation of something already much esteemed ; 
 such as the Epistle to Diognetus^ ascribed to Justin Martyr, 
 which is called elegant; and the Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas, 
 who sulFered in the persecution under Severus, which is said to 
 be affecting; and there have been many spurious works 
 ascribed to Cyprian, and other Fathers ; but, as these did not 
 interfere with the settling of the canon of the New Testament, 
 we need descend no lower. This last sort of writings, and the 
 next before it, might make one class ; only that the motive of 
 writing such works as Salvian’s wants distinguishing. More- 
 over, it has no imitation, as the last sort has. 
 
 We see then what it is which authors undertake, who 
 profess to treat of the canon of the New Testament ; and that 
 their undertaking requires reading and critical skill. Fahricius, 
 
 ® Lard. Works, vol. iii. p. 518. 
 
 Lard. Credib. ii. 811. Works, vol. 
 II. p. 361. 
 
 This does not seem quite a clear 
 statement. Salvian published a Dis- 
 course on Avarice, under the name of Ti- 
 motheus ; — Christians immediately said, 
 is this written by Timotheus, to whom 
 St. Paid addressed two Epistles ? there 
 is not sufficient proof of that ; therefore, 
 if this discourse pretends to be by that 
 Timotheus, it must be classed with apo- 
 cryphal books: Bishop Salonius writes 
 to Salvian (his quondam preceptor) to 
 
 ask him about this matter; Salvian, in 
 answer, explains, 1. Why he wrote to the 
 Church at all. 2. Why he did not put 
 his own name to his discourse, through 
 modesty, &c. 3. Why he put the name 
 of Timotheus; — he meant it only as a 
 name expressing honour of God, as Theo- 
 philus was a name expressing love of 
 God. — He much dreaded all falsehood; 
 every one must knoiv that his discourse 
 was not written by St. Paul’s Timotheus : 
 — it was a book merely for instruction ; 
 then what signified the name ? &c. — See 
 Salvian to Salonius. 
 
 5 2 
 
68 
 
 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY [I. xii. 5. 
 
 a professor at Hamburgh, who died in 1736, the learned I. 
 author of the Bibliotheca Grgeca, and Latina, has composed a 97 
 Codex Pseudepigraphus, containing books which interfere 
 with the canon of the Old Testament; and a Codex Apocry- 
 phus, containing books which interfere with the canon of the 
 New Testament. Mr. Jeremiah Jones has made a complete 
 collection^ of spurious gospels, &c. with English translations; 
 and has prefixed to them sensible and acute remarks. Lardner 
 has taken notice of the subject in the fifth volume of his works, 
 and of the canon of the New Testament in the sixth volume. 
 
 In 1699 Mr. Poland published a book called Amyntor^ in 
 which he makes all possible use of the writings here spoken 
 of, to overthrow the authority of the New Testament ; — the 
 answer by John Richardson (once Fellow of Emmanuel 
 College) lets us easily into this part of theological learning, 
 and, I should think, must satisfy every candid judgment. 
 
 5. If it be asked, in a summary way, how we are to 
 clear the canon of the New Testament from these inferior 
 compositions, and set it above them, as of divine authority ; 
 we answer, by distinguishing between what was written or 
 authorized by Apostles, and all other writings ; between what 
 was reckoned authentic, and what was thought only edifying; 
 between what was quoted as proof, and what was quoted on 
 account of fine sentiment or beautiful expression, as we quote 
 from Shakespear, &c. ; between what is absurd or contra- 
 dictory, and what is rational and consistent ; between what is 
 supported by fanciful heretics, affecting singularity and 
 novelty, and what is supported by the most numerous, sober- 
 minded, and learned part of the Church. Other criteria may 
 occur in reading Richardson’ s book, or that of Jones‘S. 
 
 Hence it follows, that the writings here spoken of do not 98 
 really justify the infidel in rejecting the Scriptures. In the 
 first place, it is probable that infidels generally neglect most 
 of the distinctions just now proposed as criteria; which clearly 
 cannot be justified: but it may suffice to refer to Lardner, 
 who has treated this subject in the place above^ cited. With 
 regard to those compositions, which would be most disgraceful 
 to Christianity, if admitted as authentic, he observes, that these 
 ‘‘books were not much used by the primitive Christians;” — 
 that they confirm, in reality, “ the evangelical history,” as they 
 
 ^ Leland, speaking of Toland, calls [ ^ .Jones, vol. i. p. 87. 
 
 the collection complete. 1 ^ Lard. Works, vol. v. p. 412. 
 
I. xii. 6, 7.] 
 
 OF BOOKS ACCOUNTED SACRED. 
 
 69 
 
 I. are forgeries, affectations, imitations ; and, of course, the thing 
 imitated must be something valuable and honourable ; they also 
 specify the names of Peter, Paul, &c. ; nay, they profess re- 
 spect for them. Few or none of these books were composed 
 before the beginning of the second century.” — The case of 
 the Apostles of Christ is not singular ‘‘ divers orations were 
 falsely ascribed to Demosthenes and Lysias;” — Dinarchus, 
 Plautus, have had the same compliment paid to them : a part 
 of criticism, Greek and Roman, is employed in separating 
 genuine writings from spurious ; but no one has writings 
 falsely ascribed to him, who is not very much celebrated^. 
 
 A few instances are wanted here : perhaps the Letter to 
 Jesus Christ from Abgarus king of Edessa, might be one, as it 
 has been thought genuine. Abgarus was a name (like Ptolemy, 
 Pharaoh, &c.) by which several kings of Edessa were called. 
 This letter and the answer of Christ are treated by Lardner^ 
 99 in his Testimonies, and by J. Jones; — other ^instances might 
 be, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, as that has been spoken of, 
 Chap. vi. from Jones^; the Gospel of our SaviouPs Infancy^ ^ 
 
 and the Gospel of Mary, or Protevangelion of James'^ 
 
 What Dr. PowelF® says of the seven controverted pieces may 
 be extended to the best of these : the chief arguments for 
 the truth of our religion are not connected with the determina- 
 tions of these nicer questions ; the history of Christ and his 
 Apostles, and the proofs of their divine authority, being con- 
 tained in books which were never controverted.” 
 
 6. Having then, as we should hope, removed the spurious 
 and apocryphal writings out of the way, or pointed out the 
 method by which the studious may remove them, let us go on 
 to consider the genuineness of those writings which we judge 
 to have apostolical authority. 
 
 7- Our business here is properly with unbelievers; but 
 it may be right to mention, that some sects of Christians have 
 declared the Scriptures of the New Testament to be in many 
 places corrupted. The Manicheans did this in the greatest 
 degree; but the truth of the matter seems to be, that they 
 allowed every thing in the New Testament, which did not 
 
 See, besides what was quoted before, j 
 Lard.- Works, vol. iii. p. 536, and con- j 
 tents of Chapter, p. 493. 
 
 ^ Lard. Works, vii. 223. Jer. Jones, j 
 vol. 11 . beginning. I 
 
 ® See Mosheim’s Tables at the end of 
 his Eccles. History. 
 
 Jones, vol. i. p. 3/4. 
 
 8 Ibid. vol. II. p. 191. 
 
 9 Ibid. p. 276. 
 
 19 Powell’s Discourses, p. 72. 
 
70 
 
 GENrJINEXTKSS AXD AUTHENTICITY 
 
 [1. xii. 7. 
 
 interfere with their own peculiar opinions. They allowed our I. 
 Saviour’s parables, discourses, &c. but not his being born 
 of a material substance, nor his being circumcised, nor his 
 sacrificing like an heathen, nor his being really crucified. 
 They also rejected all the quotations of the Old Testament 
 found in the New ; because they rejected the Old Testament : 
 all these they rejected, as giving an account of nature and 
 of Christ, inconsistent with their notions of the evil principle 100 
 in matter. And other very ancient sects of Christians acted 
 in the same manner, on similar principles h 
 
 I believe, it is not needful for us to say more, in answer 
 to any charge of ancient sects against the genuineness of the 
 New Testament. They could not say that Christ or his apos- 
 tles taught any thing wrong, or any thing which was not 
 of divine authority ; for even the Manicheans were real Chris- 
 tians ; so that they had nothing for it but saying, that any 
 thing which they could not admit was interpolated; but 
 there is something so arbitrary and foolish in thus condemn- 
 ing every thing which did not suit their preconceived notions, 
 and erasing it at once out of the sacred code, that their conduct 
 will scarce be followed as an example^; nevertheless, if any one 
 should suspect they might have more to say for themselves 
 than we now allow, he may consult Augustin’s works ; he may 
 see what Faustus their bishop had to urge; and he may 
 be led to see, what is of more consequence, Augustin’s fine 
 writing against them. Mr. Richardson has translated, and 
 Dr. Lardner has quoted, some passages worthy to be read and 
 admired on this subject ; which indeed go farther than to 
 answer Faustus, and may now be useful, in proving the 
 genuineness of the books of the New Testament against in- 
 fidels. An additional reason why we do not enter farther into 
 controversy with the Manicheans, and other sects, though 
 they seem to come directly in our way, is, that they could not 
 be said to deny the authority of the Scriptures as such ; what- 
 ever they acknowledged to be Scripture, they acknowledged 101 
 to be divine : and the parts they rejected, must have amounted 
 to much less than those they received. Let us then return to 
 our reasoning with unbelievers. 
 
 * See Lardner’s Heresies, B. i. Sect. 
 10, or Works, vol. ix. p. 250, and else- 
 where. 
 
 ^ Martin Luther wished to dispute the 
 
 authority of the General Epistle of 
 James, because it pressed hard upon his 
 notion of Justification by Faith. 
 
I. xii. 8.] 
 
 OF BOOKS ACCOUNTED SACRED. 
 
 71 
 
 I. 8. In reasoning about the genuineness of any writing, 
 as Rowley’s Poems, the *Eikwv BacrtXf/c?], or any other, we 
 usually dwell much on internal marks, as style, expression, 
 &c.; but our first business in the present case is, to consider 
 the external evidence of the genuineness of the books of 
 the New Testament — and that might carry us into discussions 
 of great length. In order to keep ourselves as unembarrassed 
 as may be, let us first consider the form and nature of the 
 argument, before we enter upon such particulars as may come 
 within the limits of our present undertaking. 
 
 The arguments by which the genuineness of the books of 
 the New Testament is proved, are very well proposed and 
 expressed in Dr. Powell’s 4th Discourse : I do not take the 
 thoughts quite in the same order^ but dispose them with 
 a view to what follows in these lectures. If credit is to 
 be given to any writings that are ancient, as being written 
 by the persons whose names they bear, because they come down 
 to us ascribed to those persons, credit is certainly to be given 
 to the books of the New Testament, as the works of St. 
 Matthew and the other sacred writers ; nay, we may expect 
 them to be owned as genuine more readily than the writings of 
 the heathens, because more persons have concurred in ascribing 
 them to their reputed authors, than in ascribing works to 
 heathens : and those more dispersed through the world, and 
 more tempted to deny their genuineness. As to the identity of 
 the books in question, as to their being the same now with 
 those of which the ancients spake, we cannot doubt it, if we 
 102 think on the number of manuscripts, versions, quotations, and 
 comments, which the researches of learning bring to our view ; 
 and these independent of each other ; incapable of being 
 conceived the efiects of any design to impose upon the world. 
 Neither is there any chasm, or interval, during which the tes- 
 timonies of which we speak are not exhibited ; they begin from 
 the personal friends and acquaintance of the writers, from 
 those who in person were instructed by them, and are con- 
 tinued down to us in an uninterrupted succession. Neither 
 were these testimonies given only to those of the same party 
 with the witnesses themselves : some of them were given in 
 the most public manner possible, to men of different descrip- 
 tions ; they were received with approbation by an innumerable 
 company of friends ; they were uncontradicted even by ene- 
 mies. Nay, the genuineness of the books of the New Testa- 
 
72 
 
 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY 
 
 [I. xii. 9. 
 
 ment was expressly acknowledged by enemies possessed of all I. 
 human sources of information, particularly able and uncom- 
 monly desirous to disprove and deny it. 
 
 9. Such is the form and nature of the argument : but 
 a student will wish for more exact and particular information : 
 he must, therefore, be put into a way to acquire it. Our 
 testimonies come from friends^ or enemies ; — the friends are 
 the Christians^ the enemies are the heathens: though there 
 are some heathens, whose testimonies can scarce be called that 
 of either friends or professed enemies; who only mention cir- 
 cumstances and events, as they happened to come in the way. 
 
 With regard to the testimonies oi friends, we can scarce 
 take a better method than explaining the nature and use of 
 Lardner'^s Credibility of the Gospel History : adding a short 
 account of his ancient Testimonies. 
 
 He begins with examining the facts that are occasionally 103 
 mentioned in the New Testament, such as the acts of the 
 governors of Judea, the tenets of the Jewish sects, the Roman 
 customs, &c. ; and he shews, that such facts are agreeable to 
 what is recorded by the best ancient historians nearest the 
 time spoken of, and who give the accounts most to be depended 
 on : he observes, that the books which contain these facts 
 were believed ; that men changed their religion, in consequence 
 
 of what is contained in them His conclusion is, that the 
 
 sacred writers must have written what they knew ; and that, 
 at the time pretended, viz. before the destruction of Jerusalem, 
 which happened in the year 70 : because it would have been 
 impossible for any one writer to have copied the manners of 
 eight ; and it must be incredible, that eight so different, so 
 separated, could have combined together to deceive the world ; 
 nay, if they had, that they could have, at any distance of 
 time, composed an account of things of a public nature, said 
 to have happened so long ago, which would appear so like 
 reality, as to induce people to make any important changes in 
 their way of life. Then, if they did write the gospels at the 
 time pretended, the facts must have been true : nobody in 
 such a case could have admitted false facts ; at least not such 
 facts, and attended with such consequences. And, if the facts 
 related in the gospels are true, the Christian Revelation must 
 be divine. — So much is dispatched in one volume : — the con- 
 tents of it rather encroach upon some subjects to be treated 
 hereafter, but our account of the work before us ought to be 
 
I. xii. 9.] 
 
 OF BOOKS ACCOUNTED SACKED. 
 
 73 
 
 I. complete This one volume makes the first part. The second 
 
 part consists of several volumes : it is intended to prove 
 the credibility of the principal facts of the New Testament by 
 
 104 the testimony of the Christian Fathers: of all, or nearly all the 
 Fathers of the first four centuries, and of the chief ones down 
 to the beginning of the 12th century. By the principal facts 
 of the New Testament, he means those relating to St. John 
 
 Baptist, Jesus Christ, his Apostles, &c His method is to 
 
 give first a short history of each Father, referring to others, 
 who give one more full: then to discuss any thing singular in 
 the character, writings, opinions of that Father, and clear up 
 any doubts about them ; then lastly, having thus thrown all 
 light upon the testimony, and set it in a right point of view, to 
 produce the testimony itself ; — that is, to shew what Scriptures 
 that Father owned, ‘"quoted, alluded to: this he does with 
 very commodious recapitulations, and other helps of divisions, 
 indexes, &c. 
 
 To this is added a copious and elaborate Supplement^ 
 in which he treats of the Canon of the New Testament, and of 
 every thing relating to the publication of it ; and gives very 
 good accounts of the lives of the eight writers : which lives 
 are excellent helps towards understanding their works. 
 
 There is besides, his ancient testimonies of Jews and 
 heathens; in which he quotes every thing in Jewisli and 
 heathen antiquity that has any relation to Christianity ; after 
 setting it in a right light, by letting his reader into all circum- 
 stances of time, place, and the characters of the authors. 
 Plmy writes about Christians ; who was Pliny ? what kind of 
 man ? in what station ? when ? where ? do his writings go for 
 or against Christianity ? &c. — What knowledge of Christianity 
 do they shew ? Such are the questions which he answers. 
 
 The manner of this writer gives me pleasure.^ as well as 
 satisfaction ; he is clear, easy, accurate, and candid : he has 
 
 105 been^ called “the laborious Lardner,” and laborious he must 
 have been ; but yet he never seems to me to labour ; he is 
 always smooth and unembarrassed ; you go through a volume 
 without feeling any fatigue ; reading half a pamphlet of some 
 men’s writing would require a much greater effort. I would 
 observe of him, more particularly, that when he quotes a 
 passage out of an ancient Father, you are at first shocked and 
 
 ^ By Bp. Hallifax. Lardner himself 1 Warburton and others. See Lardner’s 
 uses '‘laborious" as & compliment to j Works, vol. viii. p. 383. 
 
74 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY [I. xii. 10, 1 1 . 
 
 disgusted with something superstitious or weak in it ; but, I. 
 when he comes to take it to pieces, and shew the circumstances 
 in which it was written, you recover your feelings, and gene- 
 rally your esteem for the Father ; for, if you still think the 
 passage faulty in itself in some respects, you have learnt how 
 to make proper allowances. This remark may properly 
 enough introduce the subject which is next to be treated ; 
 namely, the views with which we are to peruse those ancient 
 Christian writers, who are usually called the Fathers. 
 
 10. The imperfections of the Fathers, we affirm, have 
 occasioned their being read with too little attention. This has 
 not alwa 3 rs been the case ; in some ages, too much attention 
 has been paid them : but in all ages, I think, some knowledge 
 of them has been accounted a qualification of the divine : and 
 in all controversies, I believe, each party has wished to have 
 the Fathers^ on his side. It seems an unaccountable thing 
 beforehand, that men of literature should have engaged them- 
 selves totally in the cause of Christianity, should have written 
 copiously and fervently in defence of its doctrines, so as to 
 excite the admiration of their own times, and yet that their 
 works should not now be worth looking into : — on the other 
 hand, that mere men should be followed implicitly, in spite 
 of the improvements of later ages in knowledge, human and 
 divine, is a thing not rashly to be admitted. If then we are 106 
 neither to neglect the Fathers, nor let their judgment supersede 
 our own, what notion are we to entertain of their merits at this 
 time? In order to get some satisfaction on this question, let 
 
 us consider the Fathers in four different lights : 
 
 As records of Christian antiquity. 
 
 As preachers of Christian virtue. 
 
 As expositors of holy writ. 
 
 As defenders of the true Christian doctrine. 
 
 11. As repositories of antiquity, they are certainly well 
 worth reading ; there is no practice of the ancient Christian 
 churches which may not be made useful in modern times, 
 if rightly applied, allowing for difference of circumstances ; 
 and even spurious and anonymous works may answer our 
 purpose here, nearly as well as those that are genuine, so long 
 as we are not deceived as to the time when any sentence or 
 passage was really written. Christians are to improve by 
 experience, as well as other men ; and experience can only 
 
 * Monthly Review for June 1783. Art. 7, beginning. 
 
I. xii. 12.] 
 
 OF BOOKS ACCOUNTED SACKED. 
 
 75 
 
 I. be had from past events. Amongst things particularly to be 
 noticed, we may mention, 1. Ancient customs^ as, suppose, 
 ceremonies of ordination, baptism, Lord’s Supper, ranks of 
 
 officers, discipline, &c. kc 2. Ancient doctrines or opinions, 
 
 such as those concerning the nature and dignity of Christ ; 
 and of the Holy Spirit, with his assistance, ordinary and 
 extraordinary ; concerning the divine government and decrees ; 
 the efficacy of the sacraments, &c. What those opinions 
 were, is entirely a separate inquiry from what they ought 
 to have been. — 3. We should notice ancient scriptures, or 
 what books were referred to by each Father ; what as authentic, 
 what as only useful, pious, or virtuous: in this part of our 
 study of the Fathers, the principal caution regards the doc- 
 107 trines. When men speak on any subject, without foreseeing 
 disputes, they use words with less care than they would do if 
 actually engaged in disputes: and, when words so used are 
 afterwards' quoted, those who used them seem to have meant 
 more than they really did : they are brought as favouring one 
 side or the other, when they really favoured neither ; nor had 
 any idea, properly speaking, of the question in debate... 
 Trinitas did not at first imply what we now mean by Trinity. 
 
 The agreement^ of all the Fathers, extremely dissentient in 
 lesser matters, on the great points of redemption, sanctification, 
 immortality, must be a very strong argument in favour of 
 Christianity and fundamental doctrines. 
 
 12. As preachers of Christian virtue, we may now read the 
 Fathers, in many parts, with great profit, if we enter upon the 
 
 work with a right idea of them The Christian religion was 
 
 to them every thing : they devoted themselves to it with heart 
 and soul: their devout affections were excited and inflamed 
 to a degree not now often observable in ordinary life : this 
 being their character, when we read their pious meditations, 
 their praises of virtue, and their exhortations to sanctity, we 
 may catch a spirit of piety and virtue, which we in vain should 
 attempt to attain amidst the embarrassments of business, or 
 the dissipations of pleasure. 
 
 But, if we confide in the Fathers as understanding virtue 
 very systematically, we may be deceived. God leaves virtue to 
 improve gradually, as well as other things. The Fathers are 
 to be conceived as having explained the practical virtue and 
 
 ® Que parmi tant de diversitez ils ado- I une mesme sanctification, esperent tons 
 rent tons un mesme Christ, pressent tons j une mesme immortality. Daille', p. 518. 
 
76 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY [I. xii. 13. 
 
 piety of the Gospel, or as having applied general precepts to I. 
 particular cases, according to the state of morality established 108 
 in their own times respectively; but we have not ground for 
 saying, that they gave themselves to estimating the conse- 
 quences of actions by observation or experiment, and thereby 
 improving the received morality, and forming new rules of 
 virtue; or to refining and directing the moral sense. Hence 
 some things which they approved might now be disapproved ; 
 and every thing ought to be examined. Our business then is 
 to catch the ivarmth of their virtue and piety ; and, allowing 
 for the imperfections incident to the times in which they lived, 
 to make that warmth operate to the greatest possible advantage 
 in our own times. — If we could make the people feel at this 
 time, what Ambrose made the people feel at Milan, or Gregory 
 at Nazianzum, or Leo the Great at Rome, or John Chrysostom 
 at Constantinople, and then direct them with our most im- 
 proved morality, we might do great service to the cause of 
 virtue, that is, to the happiness of mankind. To quote par- 
 ticulars, would carry us into too great length; but, I think, 
 there are religious and moral passages in some of the Fathers, 
 which are truly beautiful and greatly affecting. I shall rather 
 produce and recommend them occasionally, than systematically. 
 
 13 . As expositors of Scripture we may profit by the 
 Fathers, if we are aware of their imperfections, and do not 
 expect that from them which they could not have. What 
 was said before is now again applicable: the Fathers applied 
 themselves to the reading of the Scriptures, with undivided 
 attention, with intense thought and holy admiration, as to what 
 was alone worthy to be studied. No part of Scripture was 
 neglected by them ; they were so earnestly intent upon it, that 
 not a jot or tittle escaped them. This, with the advantages 
 they had in point of languages^ and antiquities, could not fail 109 
 to produce remarks, which it must be very imprudent in any 
 age to neglect. Criticism improves indeed, in the same 
 natural progression with other things ; there is no kind of 
 mental improvement which does not improve criticism : polite 
 arts refine our feelings and taste, science our judgment; and 
 reflex observations on these improvements, and other pheno- 
 mena of human nature, improve both taste and understanding. 
 
 It may be thought, that this is representing taste and 
 criticism as in a more advanced state now, than in the Aiigus- 
 
 ^ It is not meant here, that the Latin Fathers understood Greek well. 
 
I. xii. 14.] 
 
 OF BOOKS ACCOUNTED SACRED. 
 
 77 
 
 I< tan age: I believe, they are; but it is not necessary to settle 
 that matter. We have no scriptural comments of the Augustan 
 age : if we could have had, they would probably have been 
 valuable; but, before the principal of our comments were 
 written, taste had degenerated ; and the Scriptures had seem- 
 ingly been read with too little critical skill and attention. 
 More of that skill might have prevented that excess of 
 allegorical interpretation into which some ancients ran : they 
 were probably led into it by studying with a warm imagina- 
 tion, prophecies, and types, and parables, and allusions ; by 
 our Saviour’s not opening the whole of his plan during his 
 lifetime ; — but it is our business to determine, as nearly as 
 we are able, when the interpretation of Scripture should be 
 plain, and when it should be understood as implying something 
 beyond the letter. 
 
 The result is, we must expect to find modern criticism 
 fall in more with our modern notions than ancient ; and in 
 many cases, we have really improved upon the ancient, thougli 
 sometimes by its assistance. But still we must be aware, that 
 there may be fashionable errors at any time ; and that the 
 110 ideas which are familiar to us, when we hear certain expres- 
 sions, were not always what those expressions would have 
 suggested in our Saviour’s time. Be it that Mr. Locke has 
 best explained St. Paul's epistles": his explanation may not 
 supersede all attention to remarks of the ancients on particular 
 passages. Were any one about to see whether Mr. Locke could not 
 be improved upon, I apprehend he should consult the ancients 
 occasionally ; though possibly they may afford greater help on 
 other parts of Scripture than on those which Mr. Locke has 
 explained. 
 
 14. As defenders of the pure Christian or, in other 
 words, as polemic divines, the Fathers may still be read with 
 improvement : for some old heresies seem to be extinct, when 
 the seeds of them remain, ready to spring forth at any time. 
 The causes of heresies seem permanent : such as abhorrence 
 of particular tenets; perplexity about some mysterious doc- 
 trine ; tenderness for sinners ; zeal for scripture, for reason, 
 for the honour of the Deity ; desire of novelty ; pride of 
 taking the lead. Most heresies have arisen from one or other 
 of these causes ; and these causes may, at any future time, 
 produce the same effects with some trifling variations. But 
 - Dr. Balguy, Charge 1st. (p. 175*)* 
 
78 
 
 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY 
 
 [I. xii. 14. 
 
 even those ancient heretical notions, which have so decayed I. 
 that they occasion no wars or violent contentions at present, 
 are opposed in creeds and other confessions of faith : these 
 ought to be understood; and we find very nearly the same 
 notions every now and then breaking out into controversy. In 
 such a case, it is very useful to be able to trace the deviations 
 of the human mind through a succession of ages : an error 
 thus traced has a very diff'erent appearance from the same 
 error seen only at one single time. I should think it would 111 
 be acknowledged, from the passages which occur in Bishop 
 Pearson on the Creed, that the ancients express themselves well 
 on controverted subjects, and shew a depth and clearness of 
 reasoning, where the question requires it. 
 
 There is, however, an acrimony in the ancient controver- 
 sialists, which we may pardon sometimes, but which we ought 
 never to imitate: we may pardon it, when it seems to arise 
 from a zeal for what is good, though a zeal not founded in 
 knowledge. Men taking for granted the justness of their 
 opinions, fancy that they ought to treat all opposition to them 
 as treason to the Majesty of God; as insult upon his Son : 
 whereas, two men cannot in reality be contending about any 
 thing more than the comparative value of two human judge- 
 ments ; they can only weigh fallibility against fallibility : and, 
 since every church has a right to judge for itself, no attack 
 should be used on one side which should not be allowed on the 
 other. Possibly those Fathers who indulged too much acri- 
 mony, might follow unthinkingly what they find in the Old 
 Testament about severity to idolatrous nations ; or some 
 terms of reproach used in the New : but, if they did, they did 
 not consider sufficiently difference of circumstances. — When, 
 therefore, we consult the Fathers, with a view to controversy, 
 we may apply their arguments, as far as they are applicable 
 to the question, avoiding their acrimonious invectives’. 
 When we compare a modern controversy with an ancient one, 
 w^e discern frequently from w^hat common cause they pro- 
 ceeded ; and seeing that, as it enlarges our views, has a 112 
 tendency to abate contention. — As a corollary, we may remark, 
 that we ought to be very cautious of adopting any accounts of 
 
 ‘ It is but justice to allow, that there 
 cannot he a finer precept about contro- 
 versy than that of Augustin’s quoted by 
 Lardner, from No. 4. of Contr. Epist, 
 
 Fundationis — See Lardner’s Works, vol. 
 III. p. 545. The passage immediately 
 before it is also very good : “ Illi in vos 
 saeviant,” &c. 
 
I. xii. 15.] 
 
 OF BOOKS ACCOUNTED SACRED. 
 
 79 
 
 I. the tenets of heretics from their adversaries. I fear the 
 cases are much too numerous in which this caution would be 
 useful. 
 
 15. And now, if we review our directions about reading 
 the Fathers, we shall find them reducible to one: — We must 
 make allowances for the circumstances in which the Fathers 
 wrote. If we follow this direction, we shall find an apology 
 for what has, in fact, occasioned the greatest dislike to them ; 
 and that is, their recounting superstitious stories of miracles, 
 and spirits, and judgments. The charge seems something 
 of this sort ; — either the Fathers believed the stories, or not ; 
 if they believed them, they were weakly credulous ; if not, 
 they were false and deceitful. The truth seems to be, that 
 they were guilty, in some degree, of both these faults : some- 
 times they were too credulous, sometimes they gave into a 
 degree of pious fraud. Can this be allowed, and yet any 
 sufficient apology be made for them ? let us try ; first, with 
 regard to pious fraud ; then with regard to credulity. 
 
 As to pious fraud, it might take place either when they 
 partly believed, or when they could not be said to believe at 
 all. When men partly believe, they can deceive themselves, 
 so as to lessen their blame of themselves, especially when 
 their insincerity is all intended to promote the cause of reli- 
 gion. In a fit of %eal, not only religious, but political, or 
 even scientific men, are often capable of admitting a great deal 
 of sophistry ; they neglect to sift their motives of conduct, 
 and push forward towards their desired end. I do not say 
 this is right, but it is what men often do who are generally 
 113 accounted men of good character: it is only on this footing 
 the Fathers are in some degree excusable; because they are 
 no worse than other grave and regular men. Suppose that, 
 in some cases, they cannot be said to believe even in part, 
 then it seems more difficult to excuse them. But we can say, 
 that pious fraud must have had great power of seducing, when 
 it was little blamed ; indeed, we seldom expect more of men 
 than that they should follow established maxims of virtue. 
 Mosheim^ tells us, that the Platonists (Christians so called, as 
 I understand) “ asserted the innocence of defending the truth 
 by artifice and falsehood and “ this method ’’ “ was” almost 
 universally approved.” Nay, it was so established, as to have 
 a name ; to do a thing on this footing was to do it economic 
 ’ Cent. 3. Part ii. Chap. iii. Sect. 10. 8vo. vol. i. p. 282. 
 
80 
 
 GENUINEJCESS AMD AUTHENTICITY [I.Xli. l6. 
 
 cally^^ Kar oiKOvo/jLiav. Those who fell short of this degree of I. 
 falsehood, might yet imagine, that, if they could any way 
 convert a sinner, heaven would reward them ; or that the 
 sinner himself would be thankful, as a man is who has been 
 cheated into a place of safety when he was intoxicated. In 
 common life we often find things tending this way. Con- 
 noisseurs in paintings, antiquities, &c. are sometimes thieves 
 and corrupters of servants, &c. if they be not misrepresented : 
 those who preside in a national religion are apt to have views 
 to the effects of truth, instead of desiring the truth simply, 
 and to encourage any popular defences of their own tenets. 
 Reasons of state might be mentioned here. When a man 
 feels his enthusiasm successful, there springs up in his mind a 
 wish to make some political use^ of it, &c. 
 
 16. But to come to the charge of credulity. — Now 114 
 credulity at one time should not be judged by light obtained 
 at a subsequent time. Incredulity is the very same fault 
 with credulity ; both consist in preferring a lower degree of 
 probability to an higher : to avoid both is to judge as well as 
 possible in given circumstances : it seems, therefore, as if it 
 would be a complete vindication of the Fathers, if the wisest 
 men of their times were as credulous as themselves^. The 
 elder Pliny., who wrote the Natural History, died about the 
 year 79 : the younger Pliny, flourished early in the second 
 century : Lardner makes him to be in his province of Pontus 
 and Bithynia from 106 to 108. — Plutarch died before the 
 middle of the second century ; and the emperor Julian after 
 the middle of the fourth : — these men were in high estimation, 
 and yet their superstition and credulity seem to have been 
 equal to those of the Christian Fathers. Even Lucian, that 
 great ridiculer of superstitious folly, seems to have had a 
 vision, when he wanted to run away from his master: his 
 master was a statuary, and his uncle. 
 
 Pliny senior was so superstitious, that his editor Hardouin 
 speaks of his superstition as a toyic in the preface, (not far 
 from the end,) and makes an apology for it, which adds to the 
 force of our argument ; namely, that other authors liad recorded 
 as strange things as he. He speaks (Nat. Hist. 2. 30.) of 
 
 ^ Gataker ad M. Antonini lib. xi. p. 
 
 330, &c quoted in Mosheim, ibidem. 
 
 2 Bishop Warburton somewhere talks 
 of the roguery that is apt to mix itself 
 
 with enthusiasm. 
 
 2 See Hume’s Natural History of Re- 
 ligion, Sect. 12. p. 464, 8vo, about the 
 superstition of Fompey, &c. 
 
I. xii. l6.] 
 
 OF BOOKS ACCOUNTED SACRED. 
 
 81 
 
 I. eclipses^ as owing to Caesar’s death, and the Antonine war ; 
 and as having continued in some degree almost a year. At 
 the opening of the second book he calls the world a deity; 
 he speaks (lib. vii. cap. 52, or 53) of dead people’s reviving, 
 
 115 and makes a general observation, ‘Miaec est conditio morta- 
 lium.” — Foeminarum sexus,” says he, huic malo videtur 
 maxime opportunus,” that is, for lying dead a long time before 
 reviving; — and then he adds a foolish reason, taken from the 
 corrugation of the uterus* (p. 408 of vol. i. Hardouin.) 
 
 Pliny junior was extremely superstitious. For a proof of 
 this, it will be quite sufficient to refer to his Epistle to Sura^^ 
 describing some as good ghosts as ever old woman believed in ; 
 and professing himself inclined to give credit to them ; or rather, 
 saying that he does give credit to them, though he desires the 
 judgment of his correspondent. More instances of his super- 
 stition are to be found in LardnePs ancient Testimonies ^ 
 
 Plutarch admits the same train of ideas with Pliny senior. 
 In Bishop Pearson® on the Creed, we have an expression 
 quoted from a treatise intitled, in Latin, ‘‘ De his qui sero 
 puniuntur,” in which we find the following story, (pretty 
 near the end.) Thespesius, who belonged to Soli (in Cyprus, 
 or Cilicia,) had been very vicious, and had been told by an 
 oracle that he would be better after he had been dead. He 
 fell from an height and dislocated his neck, and revived the 
 third day, just as they were going to bury him. 
 
 Juliaribs superstition seeems to have appeared chiefly in 
 his great anxiety about sacrificing to the heathen deities. 
 
 116 The account of it in Lardner’s Testimonies seems sufficient, 
 and to that therefore I will refer^. 
 
 I might mention Socrates® and Plato®, had they not lived 
 
 ^ Plin. Ep. lib. vii. ep. 27. 
 
 ® Works, vol. VII. p. 330. 
 
 ® Pearson on the Creed, p. 528, 4to, or 
 p. 261, fol. Art. 5, about Third day. 
 
 By looking into Lardner’s Testimonies, 
 many instances might be found of super- 
 stitious stories in sensible heathen writ- 
 ers of the 4th century, &c. Not to 
 mention Philostratus, who might have 
 a design, see Lardner’s Articles (Works, 
 vol. IX.) of Zosimus, Marinus, and Da- 
 mascius. 
 
 7 Vol. III. p. 26. 
 
 ® I think Socrates should not be pass- 
 ed over ; the best account of his being su- 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 perstitious, according to the superstition 
 of his age, is, I should think, in Nares’s 
 Essay on his Demon. London, 1782. See 
 particularly note (H), where the credu- 
 lity of several great men is mentioned. 
 And in note (K) Xenophon is added to 
 the number. P. 8. Mr. Nares lays it 
 down as a proposition to be proved by 
 him, “ That a single instance of error, or 
 of superstition, is by no means incom- 
 patable with the character even of the 
 greatest and best of men.” He has no 
 view to any Christians, in proving this. 
 
 ® De Rep. lib. x. p. 761. Ed. Franc. 
 1602. 
 
 6 
 
82 
 
 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY 
 
 [I. xii. l6. 
 
 too long before the Fathers; I might mention Porphyry^ I. 
 and others, would it not carry us too far : they were all what 
 we should now call superstitious ; and yet it is always tacitly 
 taken for granted, when the superstition of the ancient Chris- 
 tians is blamed, or ridiculed, that these men, of whom I have 
 been speaking, were free from superstition. 
 
 Not that I would be understood to undervalue the classical 
 authors in those things for which we admire them ; or par- 
 ticularly to hlame them, or even the adversaries of Christianity, 
 for their weakness. Aristotle understood many things relating 
 to man, as well as we do now; I would not neglect those 
 things, because he could not account for the phenomena of 
 the rainbow^: if he talked about the rainbow, like other 
 knowing men of his time^ he talked well enough. And 
 whoever talks about ghosts and witches^ and prodigies, like 
 those of his- own time, who are best informed, is not to be 
 thought deficient^ in understanding. There is nothing im- 1 
 possible in the nature of things, that we know of, in accounts 
 of spirits, &c. Their incredibility arises from a long train of ex- 
 perience ; nay, even now, many people of very good understand- 
 ings, that is, capable of any reasoning, are superstitious; 
 and many of weak understandings are free from superstition ; 
 on what this depends, may not yet be perfectly decided. — 
 We conclude, then, that the Fathers are not to be thought 
 wholly unworthy of attention, on account of their credulity. 
 
 Nevertheless it must be owned that some of their stories 
 want all sorts of apologies, though possibly there are none 
 of them which may not be excused one way or another, so 
 as to prevent harm to Christianity, and take off any argument 
 against it. I feel myself most affected when the Fathers 
 speak of strange events as having come within their own 
 knowledge : here, I suppose the case to have been, that they 
 were earnest to receive accounts, and ready to admit evidence 
 seeming to support their holy cause ; and we know that 
 evidence will be offered and persisted in whenever it is likely 
 to be well received. By accepting such evidence, the ancient 
 Fathers have certainly left their successors a difficult task ; I 
 
 ' Lardner. Old Stories in the Life of 
 Pythagoras : perhaps only adopted, and 
 handed forward by Porphyry. 
 
 2 Might not this be extended to Mo- 
 scs7 
 
 3 Bp. .Jewel was superstitious about 
 
 witches. Middleton’s Inquiry, p. 221. 
 Note. 
 
 Bp. Fisher and others believed the 
 Holy IMaid of Kent to be a prophetess 
 see IMiddleton’s Inquiry, p. 118 — Qu. 
 Did they not sometimes — a little ? 
 
I. xii. l6.] 
 
 OF BOOKS ACCOUNTED SACRED. 
 
 83 
 
 I. mean, that of clearing the reality from all that rubbish under 
 which it is buried. But the incidental good of this evil may 
 be great : it may induce us to study what we might have 
 neglected : in the present state of things, as there must be 
 ^heresies, so there must be doubt and labour. The ancients 
 seem more easy to be defended than those ® moderns who have 
 
 118 adopted many of their superstitions. Though we were to 
 grant that Dr. Jor tin’s idea of Paulinus^ might be taken as 
 a sort of abstract idea of a Father, yet we must affirm, with 
 Bishop Hallifaw^^ that such a person deserves credit with re- 
 gard to facts. A farmer who believed in ghosts (in the l6th 
 century if you please) might give a sus-pected account of them^ 
 and yet a credible account of common facts. 
 
 I should hope that what has been said would prevent in- 
 fidelity from being the consequence of reading Dr. Middleto7i‘s 
 Inquiry into the miraculous powers: it might also tend to 
 obviate the bad effects of a modern work, called an Essay on 
 Old Maids; especially if these remarks on credulity were 
 joined with what is said on celibacy, under the 32d Article of 
 the Church of England, on the Marriage of Priests^. 
 
 Before we close this subject of the ancient Christian 
 Fathers, we should mention the work of Mons. DailU, a minister 
 of the French reformed church, pretty early in the last cen- 
 tury. His view is, to shew that the Romanists pride them- 
 selves too much on the supposed agreement of the Fathers 
 with their opinions. With this view, Mons. Daille shews 
 with what restrictions the authority of the Fathers ought to 
 be allowed. He first marks out several difficulties in ascertain- 
 ing any sense which can properly be called the sense of 
 the Fathers ; and then shews, that if such sense or opinion 
 could be ascertained, there would be good reason to think it 
 
 119 fallible. In doing this he shews great learning and a good 
 understanding ; but he speaks too much as an advocate, 
 and is not averse to making an argument on his own side 
 strong, and on his adversary’s weak. Towards the conclusion 
 he says handsome things in favour of the Fathers, but they 
 
 ® 1 Cor. xi. 19. 
 
 ® Cave, Tillemont. 
 
 ^ Remarks, iii. p. 145. 
 
 ® On Proph. p. 198. 
 
 ^ Perhaps the instances of prodigies 
 about Julian might be as much to the 
 purpose as any, in this place ; see Lard. 
 
 Works, vol. VIII. p. 366, where we see 
 how freely Lardner declares the Fathers 
 unworthy of credit. Their 'seal, or de- 
 testation of Julian, worked up by de- 
 grees, made them so in the present in- 
 stance: we must try every evidence, as 
 well as every spirit. 
 
 6— -2 
 
84 
 
 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY [I. xH. 17. 
 
 are compressed into too small a compass to have an effect. Had I. 
 he quoted as many instances to support his commendations 
 as his restrictions (which I think he might have done), he 
 would have made his work more pleasing, and more generally 
 useful, and he would have done move justice to his subject. 
 
 17. We must now recollect, that our immediate concern 
 is proving the genuineness of the Books of the New Testa- 
 ment by external testimony ; — and that we proposed to bring 
 as witnesses, first our friends^ and secondly our enemies. 
 Having put the student into a way of examining and receiving 
 the testimony of friends to Christianity, we must now give 
 some account of its adversaries. 
 
 The three principal are Celsus^ Porphyry^ and Julian: and 
 these three are mentioned sometimes without any others k 
 Celsus is placed by Lardner so early as the year 176; but no 
 country is mentioned where he lived. Indeed, nothing more 
 seems to be said of him than that he was an Epicurean 
 philosopher. He was probably the Celsus to whom Lucian 
 addressed his Pseudomantis: he wrote an elaborate work, the 
 only work we know of his, professedly against the Christians, 
 called A070? dX7]dy%^ the true Word : this Origen answered in 
 a work, divided into eight books. We have not the objec- 
 tions themselves, as published by Celsus, but only quotations 
 in the answers. 
 
 Indeed this remark may be made general. The works of 120 
 the enemies of Christianity are missing ; lost in some way or 
 other. It seems as if %eal had destroyed some of them, because 
 we know there were edicts of Constantine and Theodosius 
 junior ordering them to be burnt; but it has been also said^ 
 that they were despised and disregarded ; which seems not 
 unlikely from what remains of them. That they are not extant 
 is a thing to be lamented, as they would do us probably much 
 more good than harm ; and as the want of them is apt to raise 
 imaginations, that they contained more than they really did. 
 
 It seems clear that what we find quoted as Celsus’s may be 
 depended upon as his ; because Origen did not know that the 
 works of Celsus would be lost ; and he, of course, answered 
 those arguments which appeared to him most dangerous to his 
 religion. 
 
 ‘ liard. Works, vol. viii. p. 1, &c. 
 from Jerom de Vir. illustr. proem. 
 
 2 Chrys. de S. Bab. Or. 2. Tom. ii. 
 
 p. 539. Edit. Bened. Powell, p. 68, also 
 Lardner’s Works, vol. viii. p. 2, 3. 
 
I. xii. 17.] 
 
 OF BOOKS ACCOUNTED SACRED. 
 
 85 
 
 I. But the testimony that Celsics has incidentally given is 
 very valuable. It appears from him that the Jews eoopected a 
 Messiah; that almost all those things had been said to happen 
 to Jesus which our New Testament affirms: there are quota- 
 tions out of three Gospels, though the Evangelists are not 
 named, and many other parts of the New Testament, and not 
 out of any of the false gospels. He confirms (all in the way 
 of objection) the Christian accounts of the propagation of the 
 Gospel, and seems to have known of the principal heresies. 
 He may be said to confirm the accounts of the miracles of the 
 New Testament, partly by accusing the Christians of magic. 
 This may suffice for our purpose : particulars may be found in 
 Lardner''s ancient Testimonies, or in Origen against Celsus, 
 where there are summaries of Celsus’s objections. 
 
 21 Porphyry^ is placed in the year 270; he was a Tyrian, of 
 a good family : he is called by Jerom, Bataneotes ; whence 
 some have tliought that he was born at Batanea, and that 
 Batanea might be in some colony of Tyrians. He studied some 
 time under Longinus ; and afterwards he attended the school 
 which Plotinus kept at Home, for six years. He wrote many 
 books, had a philosophical turn, and admired Pythagoras; he 
 wrote a copious treatise against the Christians, to whom he was 
 a great enemy ; and his attacks are reckoned the most formid- 
 able of any among the ancients. But, incidentally, his testi- 
 mony is the most valuable on that very account. He had made 
 himself acquainted with both the Old and New Testament, and 
 there are plain references in his writings to our four Gospels, 
 the Acts, and the Epistle to the Galatians, besides probable 
 references to other Epistles of St. Paul. He may well be 
 thought^ to confirm our Saviour’s miracles. Some of Por- 
 phyry’s works remain, but tliat against Christians only in frag- 
 ments, and they are very much dispersed — in Eusebius, Jerom, 
 &c. Jerom’s Commentary on Daniel contains Porphyry’s ob- 
 jections against that work. 
 
 Julian was nephew of Constantine the Great, being son of 
 that Emperor’s brother, Constantins ; a man of polished educa- 
 cation and fine parts, and many good qualities. He became 
 Emperor in 361, and died in S63, of a wound received in battle, 
 in the 32d year of his age. He was brought up a Christian, 
 
 ^ Porphyry’s Chapter in Lardner’s 
 Tests, is the 37th ; Works, vol. viii. p. 
 
 170. 
 
 ^ Lardner’s Works, vol. ix. p. 93: 
 a remarkable passage. 
 
86 
 
 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY 
 
 [L xii. 17. 
 
 but returned to Gentilism, and is thence called the Apostate. . 1 . 
 He seems to have been proud, vain, and in some things what 
 is familiarly called wrongheaded, for want • of a particular 122 
 cause to which seeming absurdities can be ascribed. His 
 apostasy seems partly owing to these faults, and partly to his 
 great intercourse with the Pagan plilosophers. It is thought 
 to have taken place when he was not much above twenty years 
 of age. He was a great composer both of orations and epistles, 
 not to mention edicts. We have a folio volume of his works 
 now : his work against Christians was written while he was pre- 
 paring for the Persian war. Fragments of it are to be found in 
 the works of Cyril of Alexandria, who wrote against it ; from 
 which it appears that Julian may be now considered as a valu- 
 able witness in favour of the Scriptures k He allows the time 
 
 of the hnth of Jesus, and of the rise of the Christian religion. 
 
 He bears witness to the genuineness and authenticity” of our 
 four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, and so as to exclude 
 other histories. He plainly refers to several of St. Paulas 
 Epistles. He allows Jesus Christ to have worked miracles ; he 
 mentions the conversion of Cornelius and Sergius Paulus. 
 
 His arguments ” are perfectly harmless, and insufficient to 
 unsettle the weakest Christian k” 
 
 Besides these principal enemies to Christianity, there were 
 others. Hierocles^ wrote a comparison between the miracles of 
 Jesus Christ and those of Apollonius^ of Tyana ; adopting 123 
 Philostratus' s account of Apollonius, which has been thought 
 by some to have been written with the same view ; though 
 Gardner seems to prove that it did not at all refer to Christ. 
 Lactantius mentions an anonymous writer of the same cast be- 
 sides Hierocles ; indeed he does not name Hierocles, though he 
 describes him fully; but others do. Some ancient works against 
 
 1 Lardner’s Works, vol. viii. p. 410. 
 See Richardson’s Canon, p. 128. 130, and 
 Powell, p. 08. 
 
 2 How strange it is that such men as 
 Pliny jun. and .Julian should prefer hea- 
 thenism to Christianity ! Could it be be- 
 cause the rites of the religion in which 
 one is brought up are strongly associated 
 with all that is really valuable in reli- 
 gion ? religious principles, affections, sen- 
 timents ?— giving up one’s outward reli- 
 gion might seem treachery to religion 
 
 I itself. 
 
 2 Placed by Lard, in 303 : an adviser 
 in Diocletian’s persecution. President 
 in Bithynia, prefect at Alexandria. 
 
 ^ Apollonius was, in some sense, an 
 obscure man, or his character not famous, 
 till raised by Philostratus about the year 
 210. Apollonius was a Pythagorean, and 
 affected to improve upon Pythagoras, or 
 go beyond him. And so, by fasting, &c. 
 he was enabled (says his biographer) to 
 do many wonderful things. 
 
OF BOOKS ACCOUNTED SACKED. 
 
 I. xiii. 1.] 
 
 87 
 
 I. Christians are probably lost, as well as some ancient defences 
 of Christianity. 
 
 On the whole, the testimonies of the professed enemies of 
 Christianity may be reckoned more valuable than that of the 
 same number of friends. Their works had but little success 
 in their own times, and now they afford very strong proof against 
 the end for which they were written. 
 
 They are also extremely useful in confirming our reason- 
 ings by which we distinguish between apocryphal books and 
 those which we call canonical. 
 
 This is well expressed at the end of Lardner’s Review of 
 his ancient Testimonies^. 
 
 Having then given the general plan of our argument for 
 proving the genuineness of the Books of the New Testament, 
 and also sufficient specimens of the particular testimonies on 
 which that argument is founded, with directions to find the 
 rest, we may conclude that the Books of the New Testament 
 are genuine. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REAL AND FICTITIOUS 
 NARRATIVES. 
 
 1. A GENERAL idea of the contents of this Chapter seems 
 the first thing here to be explained. 
 
 Though our proof given in the preceding Chapter, of the 
 genuineness of the Books of the New Testament seems sufficient, 
 yet it was all (or very nearly all) of the external sort ; whereas 
 genuineness is perhaps more frequently, though not more satis- 
 factorily, proved from internal marks, than from external tes- 
 timonies. It is thus Mr. Hume proves the genuineness of the 
 ’Eikcov l^aa-iXiKT], at the end of his reign of Charles I., (though 
 by the way, the third volume of the Clarendon Papers seems 
 clearly to prove that it was written by Bishop Gauden). Now 
 internal proof presupposes a knowledge of style, manner, &c. 
 and we have no knowledge of the style and manner of the 
 sacred writers, except we take for granted that our Scriptures 
 are written by them. We can say indeed that some things 
 
 5 Lardner’s Works, vol. ix. p. 97* 
 
88 
 
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REAL 
 
 [I. xiii. 2. 
 
 written in early times of Christianity are too absurd to be of I. 
 Divine authority; but we cannot say they are too absurd to be 
 written by Matthew the publican. How then can we get at 
 any thing like internal proof of the genuineness of the Gospels 
 the most likely method seems to be, to prove that such narra- 
 tives could not be invented by any one : from whence it would • 
 follow, that they are mere simple relations of real facts; that 125 
 they are authentic histories. If they are such, the main point 
 is gained, and a dispute about the authors would be thought 
 superfluous. Yet, if we wished to form an opinion on the 
 point, we should say, and content ourselves with saying. Who 
 so likely to have recorded a set of facts and sayings (if they are 
 truly recorded) as those who were witnesses of them, and most 
 interested to have them known and remembered ? Finding the 
 names of certain persons prefixed as the authors, would be 
 thought quite a sufficient proof that they were so, whenever 
 there was no reason to the contrary. 
 
 Let us then see whether it is at all credible, that any per- 
 sons whatever could invent such narratives as the Gospels are ? 
 could put together such a train of events and discourses, so as ' 
 to have them believed : for that the Gospels were believed by 
 many is too evident to be questioned. 
 
 When we have shewn the great probability that no persons 
 whatever could have invented the series of Gospel events, we 
 may offer some additional considerations, shewing that such 
 persons in particular as the Evangelists could not connect 
 such things into a regular narrative. Nor would it at all fol- 
 low that the Evangelists could not write the narratives : the 
 facts are such as they may well be conceived to record, sup- 
 posing they had really known them ; though such as they 
 could not have imagined, had they never known them. 
 
 First, then, we are to offer reasons for thinking that no per- 
 sons whatsoever could invent such narratives as our Gospels : 
 and here the most satisfactory method would probably be, first, 
 to speak in general of inventing narratives, and then to apply 
 our observations to the case of the Gospels. 
 
 2. We can form more judgment whether a relator invents 
 what he relates, than might perhaps at first be imagined. The 126 
 readiest way to judge is to put ourselves in the place of the re- 
 lator, surround ourselves with all his circumstances, and ask, 
 could he have known this.? could he have thought of that.? 
 from whence, in such a situation, could he have borrowed this 
 
I. xiii. 3.] 
 
 AND FICTITIOUS NAKKATIVES. 
 
 89 
 
 I. fact, derived this notion, adopted this expression ? We may do 
 this with various degrees of attention, but if we do it with the 
 greatest conceivable degree, it will not fail us, or leave us in 
 much doubt. 
 
 Without doing this very exactly, comparing circumstances 
 will do a great deal towards discerning truth from fiction. It is 
 surprising what discoveries of falsehood have been made by 
 working circumstances about into different combinations : this 
 appears in cross-examinations, so evidently, that if a man 
 wants to conceal any event, he never dares mention a number 
 of circumstances, however trifling they may seem to be. 
 
 3. We may speak more precisely and readily of fictitious 
 ■ characters, if we are aware of the parts of which any one must 
 consist. According to Aristotle, whoever makes a fictitious 
 character, must be able to draw, with probability, a ixvQo^, or 
 series of interesting incidents ; manners suitable to the 
 
 character ; Sidvoia, thoughts or sentiments, and Xefts expres- 
 sions, such as a person of that character would most freely 
 usek 
 
 Now, to take the most simple case first, let us suppose a 
 man wanted to draw a character of one such as himself, an 
 equal, a countryman, a cbtemporary ; I mean so that the ficti- 
 tious character shall pass for real, and all the fictitious events 
 127 for real; that must always be understood, on the present sub- 
 ject. Though he would here come the nearest to truth, or 
 make his fictitious incidents most like to real ones, yet he would 
 meet with some difficulties which he would find unsurmount- 
 able; and, if he published his invention soon, he would have 
 judges very near at hand. Experience tells us that no man is 
 equal to the task of putting together a long series of facts 
 which shall be consistent with each other, and with cotempo- 
 raneous facts whose truth is established, so as to deceive those 
 who know mankind. And we can conceive that the fictitious 
 person must be placed in some particular circumstances, and 
 made to be connected with some particular persons, and that he 
 must be represented as knowing some things and some men 
 better than the author knows them ; as being present at some 
 places which the author knew but imperfectly ; as being affected 
 by some laws, or by some parts of nature, or some civil com- 
 
 ' Want of costume in painting, and 
 want of observing the time of certain in- 
 ventions, such as fire-arms, &c. often dis- 
 
 cover something or other with regard to 
 the painter. 
 
90 
 
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REAL [I. xiii. 4, 5. 
 
 motions or revolutions, which the author did not know mi- I. 
 nutely : in all which cases, though it would have been easy 
 to describe real facts, fiction will be'^infallibly detected. 
 
 4. In the next place, suppose a man undertakes to draw 
 a fictitious character of one remote in place or timCi of a 
 foreigner, or an ancient, which he wishes to pass for real, 
 his accounts may not seem so inaccurate and improbable to 
 his countrymen and cotemporaries, but they will be in reality 
 much more so ; and therefore, after a little more time, they will 
 be discovered and publicly known to be so. He will not dare 
 to be circumstantial, which will give not only an insipidity and 
 an indecisive air to his narrative, but will make it less credible 
 and less attended to. No one will doubt about this who has 
 attended to the manner in which critics have proved the spurious- 
 ness of such writings as the Apostolic^ Constitutions, &c., or 128 
 who has seen the gross blunders which some foreign authors 
 make in describing English manners. (Not that I would in- 
 sinuate that English authors describe foreign manners better — 
 
 of this we are not judges). . .The mistakes that men are liable to 
 make in describing the manners of past times, are mentioned 
 by Lardner, at the conclusion of the first part of the Credi- 
 bility of the Gospel History^. If a Frenchman was to write 
 a feigned narrative of incidents happening in England, the 
 falsehood of his narration would appear in every page^. 
 
 5. The difficulty and the danger of detection is still 
 greater when any one undertakes to draw a character of a 
 superior ; and the greater the superiority the greater the diffi- 
 culty : the awkwardness with which lower people ape the 
 manners of the higher is enough to convince us of this. 
 
 The model is all dignity, ease, and elegance; the imitation is 
 stiff, forced, mean, and contemptible. But a superior is not 
 only one higher in rank, but one higher in knowledge, abilities 
 and talents, refinement of manners, elevation and dignity and 
 purity of sentiment, and also in power. If a low vulgar 
 person attempts to describe such an one, he immediately makes 
 himself ridiculous to those who know high life ; his manners 
 are not fashionable, his generosity is extravagance, his dignity 
 blustering and arrogance — all his imitation a coarse daubing, 
 which leaves no expression of real greatness. Let an ordinary 
 
 ^ See Lardner’s Acc. of Porphyry, last ® How does Gil Bias appear to a Spa- 
 Sect. about Philosophy of Oracles. niard? 
 
 2 Lardner’s Works, vol. i. p. 420. 
 
I, xiii. 6-8.] 
 
 AND FICTITIOUS NARRATIVES. 
 
 91 
 
 I. mechanic write a letter from a great statesman to his secre- 
 tary, containing supposed confidential communications, not 
 three words together will be right. 
 
 129 6. The absurdities into which a fictitious narrative would 
 run would be greater still, if the character feigned was some- 
 thing more than human. Here the author’s taste for prodigies 
 would display itself : his deity would easily take offence, and 
 then all would be fire, thunder, vengeance ; or else he would 
 be flattered, and then there would be fantastic and arbitrary 
 rewarding, of mere favourites, or accidental benefactors, or 
 partizans. The hero or demi-god would annihilate^ both 
 space and time,” and be sure to do nothing that a mere man 
 could do, nothing that would be dictated by plain common 
 sense 
 
 7. To these observations it may be objected, If it is so 
 difficult to draw characters, why is it so often undertaken, and 
 so successfully, in epic and dramatic compositions.? We 
 might answer, that characters do frequently contain many such 
 blunders as we have just now mentioned; and these blunders 
 do hurt and weaken the interest of the pieces in which they 
 are found ; yet in some degree such pieces do interest those 
 who want nothing more than a temporary illusion. Did any 
 thing important depend upon the justness of drawing, the 
 want of resemblance would soon be discovered. But the best 
 drawn characters in the epos and drama are quite a different 
 business from narratives intended to pass for fact: in the 
 former, the illusion will be effected, though all the incidents 
 are known to be feigned ; in the latter, there must be no fact 
 that can possibly be disproved. No man could compose a 
 more probable epos than Henry Fielding; at the same time, 
 
 130 he saw so much of detecting falsehood by comparing circum- 
 stances, in his magisterial capacity, that he would have been 
 the last man in the world to attempt a circumstantial narrative 
 which should be received as fact. No man would judge such 
 an attempt more impracticable. Merely to say that such an 
 one acted and spoke wittily, and such an one wisely, is not 
 difficult : to make characters act and speak in many and 
 extraordinary situations, so that what they do and say shall be 
 believed as reality, is beyond the power of man. 
 
 8. So far in general of making fictitious characters pass 
 
 ^ Lee. I might be read, and remarks made ; it was 
 
 ® Here the letter of Jesus to Abgarus j mentioned Chap. xii. Sect. 5. 
 
92 
 
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REAL 
 
 [I. xiii. 9. 
 
 for real. Let us uow apply this to the narratives of the New I. 
 Testament, so as to see whether it is credible, that any person 
 whatever should have feigned or invented them. 
 
 The Gospel narratives are very circumstantial: this single 
 consideration goes a great way : give any judge a sufficient 
 number of circumstances, and he will discover any falsehood. 
 
 Yet it must be owned, that each of the two opposite histo- 
 ries of Squires^ the gipsy, was so circumstantial that it would 
 have been believed, had it not been for the other: but then, 
 though the number of circumstances was large for the kind of 
 thing, in comparison it was very small, the scene confined, the 
 persons very low, so as to have no property or education, not 
 likely to be distinct, precise, simple, sincere; the incidents 
 feeble, the cotemporaneous facts very obscure. Of the 
 'Eikwv (iaaiXiKr] we may say, that the opposite evidences were, 
 when Mr. Hume wrote, very strong, so as to make the 
 case doubtful, which may frequently happen ; but it was a 
 composition infinitely easier to invent than the Gospels : then 
 there was external and internal testimony on both sides ; I do 
 not know that there is either against the Gospels : only a 
 general prejudice and presumption. We may add therefore, 131 
 that the circumstances mentioned in the Gospel narratives were 
 not only numerous, but public, striking ; circumstances affect- 
 ing many civil governors ; affecting life and death ; — giving 
 accounts of the Jewish and Roman laws, which are more known 
 at this day than any others, by the dispersion of the Jews, 
 and by the study of the Roman civil law. They were circum- 
 stances relating to countries very distant from each other; 
 connecting very distant times by means of prophecies and their 
 completion. Such circumstances as these no man could feign 
 without the disadvantages now mentioned, of describing foreign 
 affairs and past events. To suppose the narratives written 
 before the destruction of Jerusalem, (a.d. 70.) is in effect 
 to suppose them true ; because they were believed, and could 
 not possibly be believed, if false : nevertheless, we may add, 
 on this supposition, whoever invented the narratives in ques- 
 tion, at or near the time of the events, must have had all the 
 difficulties of drawing the character of a superior; a most 
 amiable and sublime character, nay, a character of one who 
 had power more than human. 
 
 9. Our conclusion here is, that it is highly improbable, 
 and quite incredible, that any person whatever could have 
 
I. xiii. 9 .] 
 
 AND FICTITIOUS N AIIR ATIVE5. 
 
 93 
 
 I. invented the narratives of the New Testament. From whence 
 it follows, according to what was before laid down, that, if 
 if we do not prove the genuineness of the Books of the New 
 Testament by internal evidence, we at least by internal evi- 
 dence take away the ground of the dispute: because we prove 
 their authenticity as histories; and if the things there related 
 were really performed, the names of the historians become 
 matters of inferior moment. We are now to proceed to shew, 
 that such persons in particular as the Evangelists could not 
 
 132 connect such things as are contained in them by any power of 
 invention. 
 
 The first step towards shewing this seems to be, to give 
 some account of the characters of the Evangelists^ or sacred 
 historians (we may say) of the New Testament, since St. 
 Luke composed the Acts of the Apostles; shewing that they 
 had a decent plain education, but were not such proficients 
 in learning as to invent the Gospel history. 
 
 St. Matthew was^ a man of confined observation : of 
 Galilee^ as were the other Apostles ; his usual station was by 
 the sea-side, in Capernaum ; his employment (probably) to 
 collect tolls and duties of those who came into Judea, and 
 brought goods and merchandises by the way of the sea of 
 Galilee : that employment he quitted when our Saviour 
 called him from the receipt of custom, but his education had 
 then been long finished, his peculiar habits acquired, his 
 character fixed. We find he was able to make some kind 
 of entertainment for a numerous company. Amongst his 
 guests were Jesus and some of his disciples, and many pub- 
 licans, whose employments were at least nearly allied to 
 Matthew’s. The entertainment might be made on taking leave 
 of them and the profession. Matthew, to execute the duties 
 of his office, must have understood numbers and accounts, 
 and must have had some idea of the commodities for which 
 toll or duty was paid ; but this knowledge would not have en- 
 abled him to compose a consistent circumstantial narrative out 
 of his own imagination, in which such things should be 
 described as he describes in his gospel. It is as probable 
 that the printer’s boy should have invented Sir Isaac Newton’s 
 
 133 Principia, as that Matthew should have invented some actions 
 and sayings of Jesus Christ, which he relates. 
 
 ‘ For the facts here related, see Lardner’s Appendix to his Credibility. 
 
94 
 
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REAL 
 
 [I. xiii. 9. 
 
 Mark was the same as John^^ surnamed Mark: his I. 
 mother, Mary, lived at Jerusalem ; St. Peter was a friend of 
 the family ; and, when he was delivered out of prison by the 
 ^ angel, he chose to go to their house immediately. Mark was 
 sister’s son to Barnahas^^ who introduced his nephew to St. 
 Paul; Mark accompanied them first to Antioch^ (from Jeru- 
 salem), then to Cyprus. But, when they landed (from Cyprus) 
 at Perga in Pamphylia, Mark returned home to ® Jerusalem. 
 Though Barnabas was his uncle, Peter was his chief friend : 
 at home therefore he probably conversed with Peter. 
 
 Afterwards, when Paul and Barnabas set about a visita- 
 tion of the churches, Barnabas would have chosen his nephew 
 as an assistant ; but Paul, rather hurt with Mark’s having 
 left him before, preferred Silas ; though afterwards, at Rome, 
 he again accepted Mark’s assistance, and desired Timothy to 
 bring him, as likely to be a good assistant, profitable” “ for 
 the ministry®.” However, Mark adhered chiefly to Peter, the 
 old friend of his family, and wrote his gospel at Rome, with 
 Peter, and from Peter’s" preaching ; though he went once 
 more with his uncle, Barnabas, to Cyprus, and was some time 
 with St. Paul in his troubles. 
 
 It appears from this account, that Mark was not superior 
 in worldly rank to Peter ; and Peter was a fisherman : pos- 
 sessed indeed of some fishing-vessels, but not educated for any 
 other employment. 
 
 St. Luke was probably a Jew., or of the Jewish religion: 134 ? 
 he was probably a ® physician, but then it should be remem- 
 bered that slaves used to be physicians to their master’s fami- 
 lies. Some have concluded, from his being a physician, that 
 he must have been a slave, but that cannot be concluded ; 
 what we want, may ; that St. Luke’s being a physician does 
 not imply that he was as liberally educated as a modern phy- 
 sician usually is. The notion of his being a painter seems to 
 be given up. His whole history consists in his accompanying 
 St. Paul: from Paul’s preaching he wrote his gospel ; probably 
 he formed it into a regular book in Greece, when he left Paul. 
 Indeed it is probable that Luke was related to Paul; ^‘Lucius”^ 
 one of his “ /cmsmew,” probably meant Luke : at least, Luke 
 accompanied Paul as a Atct/coFos? or assistant, when sent pri- 
 
 1 Acts xii. 12, 2r). ^ ^cts xii. 12. 
 
 Col. iv. 10. ^ Acts xiii. 5. 
 
 ^ Acts xiii. 13. ® 2 Tim. iv. 11. 
 
 7 Preaching, at first, must have been 
 historical. Lard. Suppl. 
 
 “ Col. xiv. 14, ^ Rom. xvi.21. 
 
I. xiii. 9-] 
 
 AND FICTITIOUS NARRATIVES. 
 
 95 
 
 I. soner from Cesarea to Rome, and there continued with him 
 during ‘‘his two years imprisonment.” Tertullian and Chry- 
 sostom call St. Paul St. Luke’s master that is, teacher ; 
 though Luke was probably an hearer of Christ himself, and 
 walked with him to Emmaus. Now, if Luke was Paul’s assist- 
 ant, and Paul was a tentmaker, there is no reason to think that 
 Luke had any very learned or polite education — He must 
 have understood Greek ; so must all the other evangelists. 
 
 John was the son of a fisherman on the sea of Galilee, 
 younger brother to James ^ (son of Zebedee^°). His father 
 possessed a boat and nets ; and he hired servants necessary 
 for fishing. John’s mother, Salome, was one of those who 
 brought sweet spices to embalm our Saviour’s body, and John 
 had an home to which he took’^ the Virgin Mary. Some think 
 135 John was a relation of Christ’s, and was employed as an 
 humble friend, or honourable servant, about his person. 
 
 It is said, Acts iv. 13, of Peter and John, that they were 
 ignorant and unlearned men ; but aypdiuL^xaroL and iSicoraL 
 means only, illiterate men, and in private stations of life:” 
 “ neither doctors (ypaiuiaarel^) nor magistrates.” However, 
 there is reason to think that they had what we should call 
 a decent education. The instruction they had received re- 
 lated chiefly to the dispensation of AToses (in all probability); 
 and was the more full, on account of the general expectation 
 of the Messiah then prevailing. This text. Acts iv. 13, con- 
 tains the observation which we want to enforce. 
 
 What has been said of St. Matthew, may now be said 
 in general of the other historians of the New Testament ; if 
 there is any thing in the Gospel (as we hope to prove) im- 
 plying a superior turn of mind, that could not be invented by 
 any of them ; nor by that spirit, which was imbibed at the 
 feet of Gamaliel, and excited Saul to make ^^havock among 
 the Christian brethren. Had these persons invented, we may 
 see what they would have written, by their being desirous to 
 call down fire from heaven by their ambition to be greatest 
 in the kingdom^® of Christ. They would not have invented 
 accounts of ^^dissensions among themselves; of their all for- 
 saking their Lord, of one of them denying him, and another 
 betraying him^®. 
 
 Matt. iv. 21. 
 Mark xvi. 1. 
 Acts viii. 3. 
 
 Mark i. 20. 
 
 13 John xix. 27. 
 13 Luke ix. 54. 
 
 13 Mark ix. 34. 
 
 17 Acts XV. 2, 39. Gal. ii. 11. 
 13 Matt. xxvi. 49, 56, 74. 
 
96 
 
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REAL 
 
 10 
 
 10. That the Gospel narratives are not invented will far- I. 
 ther appear, if we apply to them a little more particularly 
 what was laid down before in general about miracles, only 
 taking care not to encroach upon the subjects of the subse- 136 
 quent chapters. It seems undeniable, that if the Evangelists 
 had invented the accounts of the miracles they related, those 
 miracles would have been as idle and foolish as those related 
 by the ancient Fathers; for the Fathers had, many of them, 
 much better education than the Evangelists. Inventing mi- 
 racles is treading on dangerous ground. I know no one who 
 would not in such an attempt, even with the greatest improve- 
 ments the world has ever had, run into absurd pomp and 
 ostentation ; into something that would dazzle and amaze the 
 vulgar, into something remote from human nature and common 
 sense. When, therefore, we find the Gospel miracles rational, 
 sober, seasonable, calculated to promote one particular end, 
 and that one of an heavenly and supernatural kind — never 
 morose, revengeful, superstitious, flighty — it is a sufficient 
 proof that they were not invented by men. I should think it 
 might afford a strong presumption in their favour merely to 
 reflect, that they appear rational even since the abolition of 
 witchcraft. All nations in all ages, till very lately, have be- 
 lieved in witchcraft; and yet there is not properly any such 
 thing in the New Testament; (for demoniacs seem^ widely 
 different from persons bewitched) ; whereas, if men had in- 137 
 vented that book, it would have contained instances of witch- 
 craft innumerable. 
 
 In order to make the difference between the Gospel mira^ 
 
 ^ See Macknight’s Prelim. Essay, vol. 
 I. p. 172. Witches are human beings, 
 that are worshippers of the Evil Spirit 
 (or Spirits); they pay obedience to him, 
 and he gives them some supernatural 
 jiowers ; they worship him at the time 
 or place called in French Sabat (see Diet. 
 Acad.) This is the idea; when people 
 have suffered harm (from diseases, ca- 
 lamities, &c.) it has been ascribed to 
 some particular sorcerer, or sorceress, 
 who has been punished as the cause of 
 the harm. Sometimes a sorcerer or sor- 
 ceress has been, I think, punished merely 
 for possessing the power of doing harm, 
 it being taken for granted that such 
 power would be exerted. It is supposed 
 
 to be known by certain marks whether 
 a person has such power or not, by cer- 
 tain actions, thought to be out of the 
 common way of actions merely human. 
 Laws against witchcraft have been laws 
 against any one exerting or possess- 
 ing such power. Abolishing such laws 
 is forbidding any one to be punished as 
 the cause of such harm, or as possessing 
 the power of inflicting it. 
 
 But a demoniac is a human being 
 possessed by a demon or evil spirit ( what- 
 ever that may mean), tormented by him; 
 not worshipping the devil, nor having 
 any power of ])erforming any thing su- 
 pernatural ; passive ; causing no evil to 
 any one ; or no intended, contrived evil. 
 
I. xiii. 10.] 
 
 AND FICTITIOUS NARRATIVES. 
 
 97 
 
 I. cles and those of the Fathers evident, it only seems necessary 
 to specify a few of the latter class, as the former are well 
 known. These we may find in great abundance in Dr. Mid- 
 dleton^s Free Inquiry; a book written with too little respect 
 for the ancients, as has been already hinted. I hope what 
 has been said ^before may render a reference to it safe; that 
 is, may put readers upon thinking, before they form ^ their 
 final judgment. The miracles of the Fathers seem often imita- 
 tions of Gospel miracles, with an heightening. The death 
 of Folycarp^ may be compared with that of Christ. The ac- 
 count of Ignatius’s ^appearing to the faithful in their dreams, 
 may be compared to the necessary information given to St. 
 Peter®. The demoniacs of Scripture have given ^ occasion to 
 a great many idle miracles, and to attempts which have been 
 acknowledged unsuccessful®: the ®Bactrian camel may be one 
 instance of the foolish sort. I do not know whether St. An- 
 thony's visit from Satan wdll bear any comparison with our 
 138 SaviouFs temptation ; which last is intended seemingly to 
 give us at once precept and example in the three most dan- 
 gerous situations of human life, namely, when men would 
 undermine our principles with false philosophy — would draw 
 us into scenes not immediately criminal, but such as could 
 scarce fail to corrupt us — or would try to overpower us in 
 direct assaults by the rewards of vice deemed irresistible. 
 As to miracles performed by hones or relics, or by the con- 
 secrated elements, I do not recollect any thing like them in 
 Scripture ; nor can those who proclaimed their faith when 
 Hunneric had cut out their tongues, be fairly compared wdth 
 those who had the gift of tongues ; a gift supernatural indeed, 
 but necessary to enable them to preach the Gospel to all na- 
 tions. The lower we descend in point of time, the more 
 extravagant miracles grow ; the taste for them in this, resem- 
 bling the taste for strong liquors, that it requires a perpetual 
 increase of strength. 
 
 We return to our conclusion : If the Gospel miracles are 
 rational, and subsequent ones, though related, and, we pre- 
 sume, invented by persons of better education than the Evan- 
 
 ^ Book I. xii. 16. 
 
 ^ According to our reasoning here, 
 Dr. Middleton’s abuse of the Bathers 
 is turned into an argument in favour of 
 the Gospel History : still he may de- 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 preciate the Fathers too much. 
 
 ^ ^ Middleton, p. 124. 
 
 5 Midd. p. 108. Acts x. 
 
 7 Midd. p. 80. « Ib. p. 98. 
 
 « lb. p. 89. Ib. p. 147. 
 
 7 
 
98 
 
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REAL 
 
 [I. xiii. 11. 
 
 gelists, are irrational, the Gospel miracles were not invented I. 
 by the Evangelists. 
 
 11. Let us now take some notice of the incidents, man- 
 ners, sentiments, and expressions found in the Gospels, such 
 as have nothing supernatural in them ; and see whether it is 
 credible that they were the invention of the sacred historians. 
 
 This is too extensive a subject to enter into fully, but we 
 may give a few specimens, which may suffice for our purpose, 
 and may engage the student to ‘‘ search the Scriptures” for 
 more. 
 
 Some incidents have been very lately hinted at, which 
 the sacred historians must have been desirous to omit if pos- 139 
 sible. We may add, that they would be the more desirous 
 to omit their own ambition, because it was disappointed; — 
 disappointed ambition is a thing every one is ashamed of. 
 Would any writers have chosen to describe their hero as 
 dying an ignominious death ? Suffering the punishment of 
 a slave between two criminals, must appear a very bad apo- 
 theosis. 
 
 As to manners and sentiments: The writers of the New 
 Testament evidently must want to have their hero appear 
 great. Now, take a fisherman from the banks of Newfound- 
 land, or even from the coast of Great Britain, and let him 
 possess as many fishing-vessels as Peter or Zebedee did on 
 the lake of Gennesareth, or sea of Galilee ; — if he wished to 
 describe an heavenly leader as great, would he give him gen- 
 tleness and modesty in his manners.'^ or humility and placa- 
 bility in his sentiments no ; modesty would be meanness, 
 and placability cowardice. 
 
 Nay, suppose he wished to describe such a character as 
 Jesus, would he be able? the story of the good Samaritan 
 is so exquisite an instance of discretion, that I know not the 
 man who could invent it. And nearly the same might be 
 ' said of the story of the woman taken in adultery. The 
 Lord’s Prayer is so nobly conceived, so aptly arranged, and 
 so properly expressed, that I have not the least idea of any 
 one’s inventing it whose thoughts were generally fixed on a 
 laborious occupation. 
 
 It might illustrate some things which have been said, if 
 we were to suppose an European gentleman of a very im- 
 proved mind to have fallen amongst savages, and to have 
 passed the latter part of his life, and died amongst them ; he 
 
I. xiii. 11.] 
 
 AND FICTITIOUS NARRATIVES. 
 
 99 
 
 I. did them such service as to be generally esteemed ; and, after 
 
 140 his death, they are desirous of recording his virtues; — now, 
 from the particular accounts given of him, it would be easy to 
 judge whether those accounts were real or fictitious. If the 
 writer made him only a better sort of savage, the account was 
 fictitious; if he described manners and sentiments plainly, 
 without applause or censure^ such as he did not himself 
 comprehend, or feel the merit of, and .ascribe them to the de- 
 ceased merely as fact^ the account was real. 
 
 That this reasoning has weight, will not be denied perhaps ; 
 but the degree in which it is forcible will not be seen with- 
 out attention to particular instances. It is with regret that 
 I forbear to say more of the instances already mentioned, and 
 that I pass over many others ; but our proper business will 
 not allow all to be insisted on, therefore I will confine myself 
 to the last scenes of our Saviour’s life. 
 
 When Judas^ came to betray his Lord and Master, he 
 was not upbraided ; his salute was returned, at least with kind 
 language; ‘‘Jesus said unto him. Friend^ wherefore art thou 
 come F” Intimations had before^ been given of treachery ; but 
 Jesus spake as a man, and would not repel with rudeness 
 what had a courteous appearance. Besides, it is possible Jesus 
 might perceive that the act of Judas was about to bring on 
 more fatal consequences than Judas himself intended ; (for his 
 remorse was afterwards desperate;) Jesus would also know 
 that kindness would be more apt to give him right feelings 
 than the sharpest upbraidings : — but not one of these mo- 
 tives is at all likely to have entered into the mind of Matthew, 
 considered as a mere inventor. 
 
 The address of Jesus to Pilate^ according to the sense^ 
 
 141 in which some have understood it, has something truly great 
 in it; something which raises the character of Jesus very far 
 above that of his judge. The sentence pronounced was un- 
 just, by the judge’s own confession; nevertheless our Saviour 
 places it in the most favourable light, and apologizes for it. 
 He does indeed rather intimate that Pilate ought not to have 
 boasted of power, as he only submitted to the Jewish priests, 
 and at best was only a tool of such a prince as Tiberius; but, 
 though this is intimated with an ingenuous dignity, yet the 
 ruling sentiments are pity and complacency, which mark a 
 
 * Matt. xxvi. 50. j ^ John xix. 11; Macknight. 
 
 2 John xiii. 21, &c. I 
 
 7— -2 
 
100 
 
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REAL 
 
 [I. xiii. 11. 
 
 genuine superiority. How St. Matthew could of himself give I. 
 the character of Jesus such sentiments is inexplicable. 
 
 When Jesus was ‘Hed away” to be crucified, ‘‘there fol- 
 lowed him a great company' of people, and of women, which 
 (women) also bewailed and lamented him.” What shall he 
 say to them? shall it be this: “Have pity upon me“, have 
 pity upon me, O ye my friends ! for the hand of God hath 
 touched me?” Had we been composing the scene, we should 
 have been well contented with this sentiment ; and so would 
 Matthew, Attention to self, in such a situation, would convey 
 no idea of meanness : but no ! these were the words of Job : 
 the words of Christ breathe a spirit of sublime benevolence, 
 which makes their pathos inimitable : “ Daughters of J eru- 
 salem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves and for your 
 children !” For my own part, I know of nothing in either 
 tragedy or oratory which does not fall below this. 
 
 A vulgar inventor would not have described Christ, under 
 great pain and fatigue, just expiring, as making a provision 
 for his earthly parent^ “Behold thy son,” — “behold thy 
 mother” — are perhaps as proper and beautiful expressions for 142 
 such an act of introduction, such a forming of a connexion 
 as can be imagined. Jesus could not then point with his 
 hand ; he could only mark out each of these beloved person- 
 ages to the other by his eyes and countenance. 
 
 But, remote as these instances are from the conceptions 
 of any ordinary man, I know not whether the last I shall 
 mention is not, if possible, still more so : and that is, the 
 prayer of Jesus to his heavenly Father, offered, probably, 
 whilst the Jews were actually nailing him to the cross; — “ Fa- 
 ther, forgive them, for they know not'^ what they do — 
 plain, simple, free from all rhetorical colouring, all declama- 
 tory exaggeration ! yet containing ideas grand and affecting 
 beyond measure ! I say not, what mechanic, but what poet, 
 what painter, what artist or inventor of any kind, has ever 
 been equal to feigning any thing so truly divine? — such wis- 
 dom about the true interests of those who themselves were 
 in a state of blindness and ignorance ? — such candour and in- 
 dulgence in urging that very ignorance in excuse? — such 
 fortitude as is implied in Jesus’s considering all circumstances, 
 whilst under actual pain and disgrace — “ enduring the cross, 
 
 * liuke xxiii. 27 , 28. 
 
 “ Job xix. 21. 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 .John xix. 20, 27- 
 Luke xxiii. 34. 
 
I. xiii. 12.] 
 
 AND FICTITIOUS NARllATIVES. 
 
 101 
 
 I. despising the shame ^ — such meekness as, in extreme suf- 
 
 ferings, utters no complaints, no reproofs ? and, lastly, such 
 henemlence as is displayed in praying for forgiveness to those 
 against whom the sufferer would have been indignant, had 
 they done a much less cruel deed to any but himself.'^ 
 
 12. The last reason that I shall urge, why the Gospel 
 narratives cannot have been invented, is the agreement of the 
 different Evangelists with each other. Indeed, if it could 
 be imagined that they had written in concert^ or had copied 
 
 143 from each other, the force of this argument would be weak- 
 ened ; but appearances are very strong against such a sup- 
 position. Undoubtedly, John wrote after the other three, and 
 so much after them, that he might have seen their histories ; 
 but then, as he does not write with a view of saying the same 
 things, but rather with a view of supplying what he thought 
 they seemed to have omitted, his having seen three Gospels 
 is not to be pleaded in the present case. Each Evangelist 
 seems to have been first possessed of many facts and sayings, 
 and to have judged that the converts, and those to whom 
 Christianity was preached, ought to know them as regularly 
 as himself ; and each seems to have written them down with 
 this view : each would probably have thought it needless to 
 write, if any gospel had already subsisted in the place where he 
 was. Some have thought that Mark abridged Matthew, but 
 the contrary seems proved by Lardner*^ ; Mark does not follow 
 the order of Matthew, and he wants some things mentioned 
 by Matthew, which no abridger would have left out, and has 
 some things which Matthew has 7iot. In general, it may be 
 observed of the first three Evangelists, that each has written 
 what may be called a complete gospel ; that is, the essentials of 
 a gospel ; and that each has some things not unimportant pe- 
 culiar to himself; though no one of them has~ nearly all 
 which might have been collected. This looks very unlike 
 combination ; and so does the plain artless manner in which 
 all the Gospels are written, and ®the varieties which are found 
 amongst them in lesser matters. In short, there is no appear- 
 ance of any concerted plan between the different Evangelists ; 
 
 144 and, on the supposition that there was none, we say, that their 
 agreement is a very strong argument that they did not invent^ 
 but only related. For the histories which may be invented 
 
 5 Heb. xii. 2. I 7 John xx. 30, 31 ; xxi. 25. 
 
 ^ Supplement to Cred. I ^ Powell Pis, V. p. 79* 
 
102 
 
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REAL 
 
 [I. xiii. 13. 
 
 are infinite; therefore, if any one relator invents, the proba- I. 
 bility that he will not coincide with other relators is infinitely 
 great : what then would be the case if three different re- 
 lators, though all aiming to make the same person head of 
 a new religion, wrote from their invention ! How widely dif- 
 ferent would their relations be from our first three Gospels ! 
 
 How much more would each differ from the rest, than any one 
 of our Gospels differs from the others ! 
 
 As to the order in which the three Evangelists did write, 
 it does not seem settled : different writers have had different 
 opinions, but to examine them would delay us too long. Nor 
 can the order in which three writers wrote be of very great 
 consequence, if they wrote independently of each other. Three 
 different narrations, written in different places, might be writ- 
 ten at the same time; one might be begun first, another finished 
 first, and so on. 
 
 13. The last observation to be made on this subject, 
 upon the difference between real and fictitious narratives, is, 
 that the reasoning made use of in this chapter will always 
 appear the more forcible, as the human mind shall be more 
 improved. 
 
 We say the Gospel narratives must be real, because no one 
 could invent such incidents, manners, sentiments, expressions, 
 as we find in them. The Evangelists at least were not im- 
 proved enough to do it, in morality or in philology. If this 
 be a real argument, it is one which will appear the more 
 clearly the more we improve in those particulars. Now mo- 
 rality^ consisting of rules for making mankind happy, depends 
 upon whatever affects happiness and misery ; and indeed 
 includes our religious duties, and the grounds on which we 145 
 perform them. As we improve, therefore, in the knowledge of 
 man^ of God^ of the laws of nature,^ we improve in morality. 
 
 And moreover experience, if duly attended to, will improve 
 our judgments about truth and falsehood, made upon grounds 
 of probability. Hence, almost every species of improvement 
 will bring our argument forward, and render it more striking 
 and more forcible. 
 
 If, as men improve, the Gospels continue to seem to con- 
 tain good morality, the evidence of their excellence must be 
 acknowledged to increase ; because every improvement in the 
 judges of this matter, must put the writings judged to a new 
 trial. And if, as men improved, the gospel morality should 
 
I. xiv. 1.] 
 
 AND FICTITIOUS NARRATIVES. 
 
 103 
 
 I. appear more and more excellent, the argument in favour of its 
 divine original would be irresistible. 
 
 History seems to justify our giving into this train of 
 thought : false gospels (weak and foolish as they were) would 
 not have spread, if they had not pleased k The very absurd 
 and silly stories of Philostratus are said to have occasioned 
 trouble in the Church at one^ time. We have not now the least 
 idea of attending to such fables ; yet we admire the canoni- 
 cal Gospels : we may therefore say, that these have been rising 
 in estimation : for, however they might be admired at first, 
 yet, whilst foolish writings were also admired, admiration im- 
 plied but little real excellence. As the false gospels have 
 sunk in credit, the true Gospels have risen ; even though the 
 admiration of them now should not be stronger than it was 
 at first. 
 
 Bishop Hurd has shewn, by his Sermons, how a great 
 146 critic (in the highest sense of the word) may open new beau- 
 ties and excellencies of Scripture ; and the more we improve 
 our minds, the more we admire the passages exhibited in the 
 eleventh section of this chapter. Other men will hereafter 
 probably admire them more. 
 
 Thus, every new improvement of the human mind will 
 discover new instances of the excellence of Christianity ; and 
 every new instance of its excellence will be a new proof of 
 its truth. 
 
 Well may the learned Daille say, as he does, ‘‘ La sagesse 
 exquise et Pinestimable beaute de la discipline nieme de Jesus 
 Christ, est (je Tavoue) le plus fort et le plus sur argument de 
 sa ^verite.” 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH A BOOK MAY CONTAIN IN ITSELF 
 OF THE TRUTHS OF FACTS RELATED IN IT. 
 
 1. In the introduction to this set of chapters, beginning 
 with the 12th and extending to the end of this book, it was 
 laid down, that the history which the writers of the New 
 
 * Jer. Jones, vol. i. p. 5. I ^ Fathers, near the end, p. 
 
 ® Mosheim, vol. i. 8vo. p. 256. 1 518. 
 
104. 
 
 INTERNAL EVIDENCE 
 
 [I. xiv. 2—4. 
 
 Testament give, contains in itself^ and implies, sufficient testi- I. 
 mony of the principal facts recorded. This we are now to consi- 
 der more at large ; and every thing proved will go to confirm 
 the proposition contained in the heads of lectures, that the 
 Gospel narratives were not invented. In order that our rea- 
 soning on this subject may have its free course, and its proper 
 weight and effect, it will be expedient, before we speak of the 
 New Testament, to take a general view of the nature of 
 internal historical evidence ; and to illustrate our general 
 observations by examples about which those who want con- 
 viction with regard to revelation have no prejudices. It is 
 most usual to offer the general observation first, and the 
 particular instances or illustrations afterwards ; but I am, on 
 most occasions, inclined to reverse this method ; as I think ge- 
 neral truth is most easily understood after particular instances; 
 it being only an enlarging of those instances, and an extending 
 them to other particulars, till the observation is seen to be 
 capable of being applied to all. 
 
 I may, therefore, be permitted to mention instances first, 
 when that seems most convenient. 
 
 2. On this footing I observe, that, if Livy, in his historical 148 
 writings, gives an account of any event which might easily 
 have been contradicted^ and which, if false, probably would 
 have been contradicted at or near the time when he published 
 them, and that account never was contradicted or refuted by 
 any cotemporary historians, epistolary correspondence, &c., 
 
 the mere silence strongly tends to make such account credible. 
 
 It seems unnecessary, at present, to mention events more parti- 
 cularly ; any which we chose to fix upon might answer our 
 purpose here ; though indeed it is making the observation but 
 little more general to say, ‘ Historical assertions, likely to have 
 been contradicted, if false, and yet not contradicted, are 
 credible.’ 
 
 3. If JEschines^ in an oration against Demosthenes, says 
 any thing favourable of Demosthenes, that favourable assertion 
 is the more credible, on account of the motives to avoid it : 
 and the same if Demosthenes says any thing favourable of 
 Philip, or Cicero of Verres. Or, in general terms, ‘ Events 
 allowed to be true by those who must have wished them false, 
 are credible.’ 
 
 4. It may be considered as a part of this last general 
 observation if we say, that events ‘ are credible, if allowed 
 
I. xiv. 5.] 
 
 OF THE TRUTH OF FACTS. 
 
 105 
 
 I. to be true by those who deny their plain consequences!' 
 Because, when a person denies the plain consequences of a 
 fact, he would wish to deny the fact, if he could with any 
 appearance of candour ; the falsehood of the fact would most 
 completely rid him of the consequences by which he is 
 troubled. Was Aristides yes; the plain consequence 
 
 of his being so was his being esteemed and trusted, and his 
 receiving the suffrages of the people : when, therefore, any 
 persons refused to vote for him, at the same time allowing 
 his character good, they shewed that they allowed it unwil- 
 149 lingly ; they would not have allowed it, if they could have 
 avoided it ; as they could not avoid it, their attempts are so 
 many proofs or arguments that he was just. 
 
 It comes to much the same thing to say, that an event 
 is credible when it is accounted for absurdly ; for whoever 
 accounts for an event absurdly wishes to deny it : indeed, no 
 one can well deny the plain consequences of an event, but he 
 must account for it from some cause different from that to 
 which it is by others generally ascribed : he must impute it 
 to some wrong motive. Was Aristides just.^ what justice he 
 had was owing to an affectation of making himself appear 
 ^ better than other men : the man who thus accounted for 
 Aristides’s justice did it in order to avoid its proper con- 
 sequences, and would have denied the reality of it if he had 
 dared. Did Charles the First of England make a minute in 
 council, that he meant not to recognize the claim of a certain 
 prince to the kingdom of Spain, though, on some formalities, 
 he had repeated the title of king, meaning that prince ? (as we 
 repeat the title of King of France, meaning the King of 
 England) ? the consequence is, that he was sincere and pru- 
 dent : some deny this, and say, that the consequence is he 
 was insincere. Or they account for his making the minute 
 by ascribing it to a bad motive; thus confirming the 
 Those who have said, that such person’s affection was owing 
 to incantations and witchcraft, would deny the affection if they 
 could ; not being able to do that, they confirm the evidence in 
 favour of its existence. 
 
 5. When we read any of Cicero’s Letters to his brother 
 Quintus, or to his friend Brutus, and see a fact spoken of as 
 known to the person to whom the letter is addressed, that 
 
 ^ Se ignorare Aristidem, sed sibi non | prsster ceteros Justus apellaretur. Corn, 
 placere quod tarn cupide elaborasset ut I Nep. 
 
106 
 
 INTERNAL EVIDENCE 
 
 [L xiv. 6, 7. 
 
 fact is credible, not only as asserted by Marcus Cicero, but as I. 
 attested by Quintus or Brutus : it is attested with the same 150 
 force as if the fact had received the testimony of Quintus 
 Cicero, or Marcus Brutus, in a court of justice. This is, in 
 general terms, ‘ Facts implied in letters are attested by the 
 persons to whom the letters are addressed.’ Nor does it 
 make any difference, in the nature of the evidence, though it 
 must in the strength of it, whether the letter is addressed to 
 an individual, or a number ; whether Cicero wrote to Marcus 
 Brutus, or to the Roman senate. 
 
 6. If Corn. Nepos publishes the life of his friend Atticus^ 
 whilst Atticus^ is alive^ and speaks as if he (Atticus) had 
 been present at any event, then Atticus is to be deemed a 
 witness of that event, just as if he had attested it in a court 
 of judicature. This observation is allied to the first; only that 
 the first merely states the fact to be credible, because of its 
 not being contradicted, whereas this marks out the particular 
 evidence by which it is supported. Thus, I call Atticus a 
 witness^ though he gives no evidence expressly that he himself 
 resided and studied at Athens ; remitted a great part of his 
 fortune thither ; was beloved both by M. T. Cicero and 
 Hortensius, though they were rival orators : nay, by M. An- 
 tony, who hated Cicero, and all the rest of his friends. 
 
 This observation grows more important, as we suppose 
 the number of persons present to increase. Suppose a pro- 
 consul or praetor mentions to a senate twenty persons who 
 have been present at any event, and these twenty know of the 
 assertion, then such event is confirmed by the concurrent 
 testimony of twenty witnesses. How strong that testimony 
 is, may appear hereafter. In general, ‘ Persons declared (who i5i 
 know that they are declared) to have been present at any 
 event, are witnesses of that event.’ 
 
 7 . Nor is it always necessary that the persons referred 
 to should be specified by name: they may be spoken of col- 
 lectively, as a body : there may be other marks besides names. 
 Suppose Cicero to accuse Verres of having done a cruel and 
 oppressive thing to an hundred people in Sicily, whom he 
 does not name, we have not only Cicero’s declaration in proof 
 of the fact, but some testimony from a number of witnesses : 
 Cicero obliges himself to produce an hundred witnesses ; he 
 calls all who know the affairs of Sicily to witness that there 
 
 ‘ Hactenus Attico vivo edita haec a nobis sunt. Sect. 19. 
 
OF THE TRUTH OF FACTS. 
 
 I. xiv. 8-11.] 
 
 107 
 
 I. was about such a number of persons injured : he puts it in the 
 power of many persons to disprove what he affirms. 
 
 8. There were wars in consequence of Julius Caesar’s 
 death ; these wars serve as proofs of the nature of his death. 
 The orphan daughters of Aristides were supported and por- 
 tioned by the public treasury ; this shews that Aristides had 
 been disinterested and esteemed, and therefore that he had 
 been just. 
 
 9 . It may also be proper to observe, that the sorts of tes- 
 timony here enumerated are capable of uniting and strength- 
 ening each other : some events may be supported by them all 
 jointly. The assassination of CcBsar would have been con- 
 tradicted, and has not been. It has been expressly owned, 
 and by men of all parties and persuasions : it is mentioned 
 in letters as known to those to whom they were addressed; — 
 the names of the conspirators have been ascertained; — the pre- 
 sence of the senate at large has been affirmed ; — and effects 
 relating to the succession, &c. have been recorded. 
 
 10 . We will mention no more internal evidences, though 
 152 these may not be all which might be enumerated. It may, 
 
 however, as some of these are from persons who have written 
 nothing, be proper to distinguish the evidence of which we 
 speak, from traditional evidence : they seem somewhat alike. 
 Traditional evidence is variable, handed down from father to 
 son, admitting some change at every step, from inaccuracy, 
 prejudice, &c. ; but the evidence here described is invariable, 
 flourishing with uniform vigour to successive generations. 
 
 Let us now apply the observations which we have made, 
 to the evidence which the New Testament contains in itself of 
 the facts recorded in it : extending our proof occasionally to 
 early Christian writers. 
 
 11 . From the first observation we see what evidence we 
 have for many facts, which would have been contradicted^ 
 especially by those who wrote against Christianity, had they 
 been misrepresented in the New Testament — by Jews and 
 heathens, who envied and persecuted : we may particularly 
 mention Josephus and Celsus. The darkness at the cruci- 
 fixion of our Saviour may be one instance of such facts : — the 
 slaughter of the infants at Bethlehem another. 
 
 The silence of Josephus as to the affairs of Christians, is 
 so remarkable, that it requires some separate notice ; and, 
 when joined with the inquiry, whether one passage,, which does 
 
108 
 
 INTERNAL EVIDENCE 
 
 [I. xiv. 11. 
 
 speak of Jesus, is genuine or interpolated, it makes a copious I. 
 subject : what may seem needful to be said upon it in these 
 disquisitions, shall be said at the close of this chapter. 
 
 When the Jeivs allow, that, in the reign of Tiberius, Je- 
 sus performed “res ^ prodigiosas when heathens allow that 
 Christians multiplied very fast soon after that reign; we 153 
 must not say that their evidence is of an ordinary sort. They 
 would not have allowed any thing so favourable to Christianity, 
 if they could possibly have avoided it. On the same ground, 
 the testimony of Pliny^ jun. in favour of the morals of 
 Christians in his time is very strong. “ They entered,” says 
 he, “ into a solemn engagement not to steal, or rob, or commit 
 adultery, or defraud.” 
 
 The Jews of old allowed that Christ did miracles ^ but 
 said that he did them through Beelzehuh ; they are therefore 
 on the footing of those who deny the plain consequences of 
 events, or account for them absurdly : that is, they bear tes- 
 timony in favour of the facts, which is peculiarly strong, 
 because involuntary. Celsus is of this number, and the 
 Talmudical writers may be added ; these (as well as many 
 more ancient Jews) “in order to disparage our Lord*’s mira- 
 cles, gave out that they were performed by magical arts, such 
 as he had learned in Egypt^” 
 
 When the speaking of foreign tongues, on the famous day 
 of Pentecost, was ascribed to drinking unfermented wine, a 
 strong testimony v/as given of the fact, that foreign languages 
 were spoken. 
 
 When St. Paul writes an Epistle to the Cormthians, and 
 orders them to correct the abuses of the gift of tongues, all 
 members of the church of Corinth are witnesses of the exist- 
 ence of such gift. 
 
 In like manner, when Justin Martyr"^ speaks to the 
 Roman senate of facts known to them, he makes them wit- 151 
 nesses of those facts. That is, supposing the senate to attend 
 to what is ^said; — if the senate did not give much attention 
 to miracles, they were at least good witnesses of more ordinary 
 
 ’ Grotius de Ver. lib. v. sect. 2. says, 
 ‘‘ipsorum Thalmudicorum et Judasorum 
 confessio est.” 
 
 2 Ep. lib. ix. ep. 97- 
 
 3 Lard. Test. vol. i. p. 29. Sec also 
 iMacknight, Prelim. Obs. viii. p. 0(i. 
 
 Justin Martyr can only be produced 
 
 here as a similar instance, if our busi- 
 ness is, strictly, to prove that the Neio 
 Testament contains evidence in itself ; 
 yet such similar instance is worth men- 
 tioning. 
 
 ^ Middleton’s Inquiry, 5thly. 
 
I. xiv. ]2.] 
 
 OF THE TRUTH OF FACTS. 
 
 109 
 
 I. facts, if of such a nature that they could not but attend to 
 them. Tertullian’s Apology mentions many important facts 
 as known to the Roman magistrates. 
 
 The twelve Apostles are named as having been present 
 whilst our Lord performed several miracles, and they must have 
 known that they were said to have been present : they are 
 therefore witnesses ; how valuable their evidence is may be 
 considered hereafter ; in Chap. xvi. 
 
 The Apostles are mentioned by name, but St. Paul ap- 
 peals to Jive hundred, without giving their names. Had he 
 been called upon he must have produced them : those to whom 
 he wrote were persuaded that he could produce them. Some, 
 indeed, were fallen asleep,'"'' but they must have given their 
 evidence to others with whom they conversed. 
 
 We may remember, too, ihsit Jive thousand were miracu- 
 lously fed with loaves and Jishes. 
 
 The effects of the Gospel history were very strong, and there- 
 fore they strongly prove its truth. How strong they were will 
 appear best in Chapter xviii. ; but it is almost sufficient to say, 
 that every conversion was a powerful effect, and therefore every 
 convert a powerful witness. When we consider how much each 
 convert® gave up, how much he hazarded, and how much he 
 underwent, we cannot but conclude that he had carefully” 
 weighed all the evidence for and against his new religion. 
 
 ]55 The sorts of evidence here mentioned will unite in proving 
 the gift of tongues, as well as the death of Julius Ccesar. 
 It has not been contradicted ; it was allowed unwillingly ; it 
 is taken for granted in letters ; many are affirmed to have 
 been present at it, some of whom are named ; and its effects 
 have appeared in multitudes of conversions to Christianity. 
 
 12. Nothing now remains of what has been proposed, 
 except the observations concerning Josephus. It seems strange 
 that Josephus should have said nothing about Christians, 
 except one thing about John the Baptist: and the question 
 is, how are we to account for his silence f Some will say he 
 has said something about Christians, for he has magnified 
 their leader ; there is, no doubt, a passage in his w^orks to that 
 purpose, but I believe it to be an interpolation. The reasons 
 on which this opinion is founded would be too tedious for an 
 undertaking such as ours ; they may be seen in Lardner'"s 
 ancient Testimonies, where reference is made to authors on 
 “ Acts iv. 34. * Powell, p. 85. Lard. Jewish Test. p. 13, 28. 
 
110 
 
 INTERNAL EVIDENCE, &C. 
 
 [I. xiv. 12. 
 
 both sides of the question. Others will say the passage about I. 
 John Baptist is an interpolation, but I think most students 
 will now think it is not. There is another passage about 
 James the Just, brother of our Lord, which I believe to be 
 spurious. Leaving these matters to be determined in your 
 critical researches, I will presume that Josephus is silent 
 about Christians properly so called, and will inquire into the 
 cause of his silence. 
 
 It seems utterly incredible that this silence should be 
 otherwise than intended. He lived from the year 37 to beyond 
 the year 90 : Christians had that name (Christians) at An- 
 tioch in the year 40 : he lived much in the world as a general 
 and a courtier., though he was originally a priest. He lived 
 at Rome, and was well acquainted with Roman affairs : he 
 must have known the persecution under Nero perfectly well. 156 
 What was his motive for never mentioning those people, who 
 were grown numerous and important in his time, who founded 
 their religion on his own, cannot be said with absolute cer- 
 tainty ; but probably it was a miocture of hatred and respect 
 for the Christians. Not willing to speak well of them, not 
 able to speak ill with any success, he judged that he could 
 not do them more harm than by passing them over in silence. 
 
 And this agrees with his character^ He was by no means a 
 man to make a point of conscience of omitting no truth. He 
 omitted the history of worshipping the golden calf ; he never 
 uses the word Zion ; he was, in short, a true worldly man : he 
 was hated by his own nation ; he wanted to make Vespasian 
 the Messiah I Professor Bullet argues upon facts, and con- 
 cludes, that Josephus paid an high regard to the character^ of 
 Christ. I think the number of instances which the Professor 
 gives, of persons of less note than Jesus mentioned by Josephus, 
 many of them pretending to be the Messiah, prove undeniably 
 that Josephus must have omitted speaking of Jesus and his 
 followers designedly. 
 
 Though no probable account could be given of Josephus’s 
 silence, his works are much more useful than hurtful to Chris- 
 tianity. It wants not his express testimony ; he has inci- 
 dentally confirmed the Gospel history in many particulars 
 relating to Judea; and he has confirmed the authenticity of 
 the prophecies of the Gospel concerning the destruction of Je- 
 rusalem, of which destruction he was an eye-witness. 
 
 * Salisbury’s Translation of Bullet, p. 217— 229, (the end). 
 
I. XV. 1.] 
 
 MIRACLES IN GENERAL. 
 
 Ill 
 
 I. 
 
 157 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 OF THE CREDIBILITY OF MIRACLES IN GENERAL. 
 
 1. Having shewn that the Books of the New Testament 
 are genuine^ and contain narratives which could not be in- 
 ventedj and moreover hnply very strong evidence of the facts 
 which they record ; we proceed, according to the plan men- 
 tioned in the introduction to the 12th Chapter, to take par- 
 ticular notice of the supernatural events related in them. 
 Supposing doubts to arise about these, they throw an obscurity 
 over all the rest ; but supposing these to be established, they 
 very strongly confirm the rest. 
 
 I know not that any one has questioned the credibility of 
 miracles, on any general principle, except Mr. Hume. He has 
 an essay on this subject, which makes the tenth section of 
 his “ Inquiry concerning the human understanding.” Though 
 I think him mistaken in his argument and conclusion, I would 
 not recommend my opinion by depreciating his character : he 
 seems to have been a man of amiable manners and a benevolent 
 disposition. He was possessed of great knowledge, and will 
 live to posterity as an historian. Finding popular language 
 to express things inadequately, especially concerning the mind, 
 instead of laying the blame on language^ and correcting that, 
 he called all our notions into question; which, though inaccurate 
 in some respects, and made so in part by popular expressions, 
 
 158 are far less inaccurate than they seem to be. Mr. Hume has, 
 however, by his researches, made some improvements himself, 
 and occasioned more to be made by other men. But the 
 work of undoing established notions and prejudices occupied 
 him so much, that he settled and determined little or nothing. 
 Indeed, he himself has no confidence in his own principles, as 
 he has left them. That he should be sometimes inaccurate, in 
 a number of nice and subtle discussions, is not much to be 
 wondered at; that he should be particularly so in religious 
 subjects, is much to be lamented : he seldom or never speaks 
 acrimoniously on any other subjects. In other subjects, he 
 seems to be aiming at truth ; in religious ones, at confutation. 
 In treating other matters, he is forming opinions ; in treating 
 religion, he is supporting notions and prejudices already 
 formed. Not that I would ascribe his aversion for established 
 religious tenets to any worse cause than his historical know- 
 
112 
 
 MIRACLES JN GENERAL. 
 
 [I. XV. 2. 
 
 ledge of the abuses and corruptions of religion ; which, I fear, I. 
 make a much greater figure in history, and even in common 
 life, than religion in its native purity and simplicity. I know 
 not that he would be offended with what I say, or with any 
 objections to his writings, made with candour and good man- 
 ners ; — except it were with the observation, that, in alleg- 
 ing facts, he has adduced some and omitted others, as much 
 with party views, as much taking for granted the truth of 
 his own opinions, as any of the ancient Fathers whom he 
 would accuse of pious fraud h I could much wish to know 
 what he would say to this : perhaps only that he acted like 
 all other advocates. 
 
 2. Mr. Hume’s Essay on Miracles is divided into two 159 
 parts: in the first, he speaks as a logician., and attempts to 
 prove that no miracle can he made credible; in the second, 
 he speaks as an historian, or man of the world, and endeavours 
 to shew that no miracle has been made credible. At present, 
 we are chiefly concerned with the first part. His conclusion 
 is, ‘‘ That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, 
 unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood 
 would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours 
 to establish : and, even in that case, there is a mutual destruc- 
 tion of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance 
 suitable to that degree of force which remains after deducting 
 the inferior.” 
 
 This conclusion must need some explanation to those who 
 are not acquainted with the premises ; especially as talking of 
 the falsehood of a testimony as being miraculous (very incon- 
 sistently with Mr. Flume’s definition of a - miracle) makes a 
 perplexity. A miracle, if there were any such thing, must be 
 a transgression of a law ^ of nature.” Now the question is, 
 can we believe an event to have happened, which is such a 
 transgression, upon human testimony? First, on what do we 
 believe the existence of any law of nature ? on experience. 
 Next, on what do we believe human testimony? on experience. 
 When therefore we believe a miracle, we oppose two experi- 
 ences ; if that for the testimony was the stronger, then, in 
 some sense, the falsehood of the testimony might be called 
 
 * See Leland on the INIiracles said to 
 he performed at the Tomb of the Abbe 
 de Paris: and Mr. des Va;ux, quoted by 
 him. View of Deistical Writers, letter 
 xix. p. 321, 322. 
 
 “ “A transgression of a law of na- 
 ture, by a particular volition of the Deity, 
 or by the interposition of some invisible 
 agent.” — Hvo. p. 129; Essays. 
 
 ^ Hume, bvo. p. 129. 
 
I. XV. 3 - 5 .] 
 
 MIRACLES IN GENERAL. 
 
 113 
 
 I. “ more miraculous'''' than the transofression of the law of 
 
 O 
 
 nature; and our belief is finally grounded on the difference 
 between the two testimonies opposed ^ 
 
 Ido 3. To some, perhaps, this argument may seem to come 
 within Mr. Hume’s description^ of those of Dr. Berkeley; 
 “ they admit of no answer, and produce no conviction.” Yet 
 it seems that an examination of it may be productive of 
 benefit, with a view both to our judgment of truth, and our 
 principles of religion. 
 
 My general idea of Mr. Hume’s argument is, that it is an 
 instance of that very species of fallacy which he himself has, 
 in his Essays, laboured so much to expose and prevent it 
 represents popular prejudice as philosophical reasoning. The 
 truth of this notion may appear from the following considera- 
 tions ; in which we will attempt, first, to analyze one of the 
 experiences which he balances, and then the other: — first, we 
 will endeavour to shew what wrong conceptions he offers with 
 regard to laws of nature; secondly, into what erroneous 
 notions we should be led by following him implicitly with 
 regard to human testimony. 
 
 4. He speaks of ‘‘ the laws of nature''’' as if they were 
 something which we knew to be fixed®; whereas we really 
 know of no such tiling : when we use the expression ‘ a law of 
 nature,’ we speak in a very loose and popular manner. A law 
 does not properly relate to things inanimate, but to voluntary 
 agents. A law is a rule which voluntary agents cannot violate 
 without incurring some evil. Laws are rules generally fol- 
 lowed, and therefore when any thing inanimate takes repeat- 
 edly the same course, we conceive it as following a rule^ or, as 
 it cannot govern itself, obeying a law ; but its being subject to 
 any rule, or law, is really the dictate of our hnagination : we 
 make a kind of person of it ; and, in some indistinct way, 
 fancy it a person under government, rule, order. 
 l6’l 5. For instance, we say, Mead falls to the ground by the 
 law of gravity — so we say, speaking from our habitual feel- 
 ings, or prejudices^ but, in reality, we know nothing of any 
 law of gravity. We know that lead has fallen to the ground; 
 Ave know not that it has ever risen from the ground ; but what 
 will happen the next time we try, we know not in the least. 
 Indeed, we act as if it would fall, because we have had an 
 
 ^ This is like p. 144. Hume, 8vo. | ® See Part 1st; beginning of last para- 
 
 ® Essays, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 173. | graph but one, p. 128. 8vo. 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 8 
 
114 
 
 MITwACLES IN GENERAL. 
 
 [I. XV. (l 
 
 habitual expectation of its falling generated in our minds, (in I. 
 a manner not thoroughly understood), and because we have 
 acted on such expectation, and have found that it did not 
 deceive us ; and those who have acted otherwise have been 
 punished, or have incurred eviL But this cannot, with any 
 propriety, be called knowledge. Whenever we set aside our 
 habitual expectation that lead will fall, which is a mere pre~ 
 judice., we must find om judgment in a state of perfect indif- 
 ference as to its falling, rising, or moving in any possible 
 direction ; and, at firsts we should as soon believe it to move in 
 any one direction as in any other. 
 
 This is not meant to condemn our ordinary princij^^les of 
 action: ordinarily ive must act according to principles which 
 have been found to carry us right ; this is prudent ; — but we 
 should be aware how factitious the expectation is from which 
 we act — how gradually it has grown, in order that ive may, at 
 any time, recover our reason and judgment, when tliat expecta- 
 tion would lead us into error or actual evil. We may act 
 ordinarily as if lead would fall, but when we examine into the 
 elements of our minds, and compare different p^'mciples., we 
 should keep in mind, that, to an unprejudiced understanding, 
 the direction in which it moves is a matter of perfect indif- 
 fere7ice. 
 
 6. Having, then, freed the mind from its most usual l62 
 judices relating to laws of nature, we may more safely and 
 profitably go on to see how it makes those deductions from 
 experience^ upon which it acts — by which it guides itself in 
 all occurrences of life. But it will be best to make use of 
 that term which is commonly used by the best writers, 
 
 I mean, analogy. Mr. Hume does not use it in his Essay 
 on Miracles, strictly speaking, but he uses it in his notes on 
 that Essay, and in the ninth section of the same Inquiry con- 
 cerning the Human Understanding, of which the Essay on 
 Miracles makes the tenth section. A few general observations 
 on analogy may not be unacceptable, especially as Bishop 
 Butler observes \ that analogy is a part of logic not yet well 
 studied. My main purpose shall be, to offer some cautions 
 about admitting conclusions from analogy rashly, where they 
 arc remote from common life, and otherwise likely to be 
 erroneous. 
 
 When we conclude, from any thing having happened, that 
 ^ Butler’s Analogy, Introcl. p. 5. Bp. IJallifax’s Edition. 
 
I. XV. 6.] 
 
 MIRACLES IN GENERAL. 
 
 115 
 
 I. the same will happen again, in like circumstances, we are said 
 to reason by analogy. This sense of the term has some 
 affinity to the mathematical one, there being here two events 
 and two situations to be compared ; nevertheless, conclusions 
 by analogy are not, properly, reasoning. A single event may 
 give some faint expectation of its being repeated, when the 
 same circumstances recur ; (at least when we have been ac- 
 customed to other analogies ;) a repetition makes the expecta- 
 tion stronger; and the more constant the repetition, the stronger 
 is the expectation generated ; till at length we lose all our 
 doubts, and expect the event fully and entirely. This, how- 
 ever, is only a single analogy. 
 
 But an event may be expected by several different analo- 
 1G3 gies ; indeed there is no end of the analogies which may lead us 
 to a particular event ; and different analogies may lead us from 
 the present to numberless different future events. Two analo- 
 gies may conspire.^ and make us expect an event more strongly 
 than either of them singly. Or, two analogies may oppose 
 each other ; in which case our expectation will result from their 
 difference; if they are equals we may be in perfect doubt or 
 suspense. Two analogies may be very strong, and yet their 
 difference very small. Or, two weaker analogies may counter- 
 balance one stronger. 
 
 O 
 
 An analogy may be interrupted by another analogy ; the 
 first event, which interrupts an analogy, may be, and gene- 
 rally is, the beginning of a new analogy. A man is seen 
 riding at a certain place several days together ; he is more 
 and more expected ; he misses one day, but it rains ; this 
 is an interruption of the old analogy, or the beginning of a 
 new one : ere long he is expected to omit riding every rainy 
 day. 
 
 Sometimes an analogy may seem to lessen expectation ; 
 but it is only when some stronger analogy overpowers it, and 
 yet is not so much attended to as the first. You throw two 
 dice, which come up aces six times together; would you expect 
 them to come up aces the seventh time ? no ; your surprize 
 would increase if they did ; that is, repetition lessens exjiecta- 
 tion ; yet if you saw a comet six nights together, you would 
 expect it the seventh. The case is, that when the dice are 
 thrown, you have already an established analogy leading you 
 to expect that one side of a die will come up as often as 
 another. We must be cautious, therefore, when we judge 
 
 8—2 
 
116 
 
 MIRACLES IN GENERAL. 
 
 [I. XV. 6. 
 
 from one analogy, that we do not neglect others which happen I. 
 to be less striking. 
 
 When circumstances are changed, our analogy, how strong 
 soever, instantly vanishes : this is according to the definition^ lG4 
 but is not always sufficiently noticed. What do I expect 
 more fully, than that the sun will set to-night the analogy 
 on which I expect this has continued from my infancy, and 
 has been wholly uninterrupted : place me near the pole, my 
 analogy is all dissipated, and I have to begin anew. Hence 
 we must be cautious, when we reason about distant analogies, 
 which we do not feel, and which are remote from ordinary 
 occurrences, how we adhere to conclusions drawn from any 
 analogy with regard to facts, which liappened in circumstances 
 different from those in which the analogy was formed. Our 
 common habitual conclusions from experience, by which we 
 guide ourselves in ordinary life, and which we find to be right 
 upon trial, imply a number of circumstances to continue the 
 same, which we do not distinctly attend to, and which we 
 should not mention, if we explained the grounds of our belief : 
 we imperceptibly confine our judgments and expectations to 
 limits, of which we are not continually conscious h But the 
 
 case is the same in all habitual acts, of body and mind ; they 
 are adapted and adjusted to circumstances, much more mi- 
 nutely than we are aware of. 
 
 The more any man knows of the causes of appearances, 
 the more he is aware that any analogy may he broken. When 
 I was young I felt no surprise at the return of the summer or 
 winter; and, I imagine, the unthinking^ peasant takes all usual 
 changes in natural phenomena as things of course: but now, l65 
 the days never grow longer in spring without exciting in my 
 mind a pretty strong sentiment of wonder or admiration : and 
 
 * Expecting skips to arrive, adapts it- 
 self to and presupposes a continuance of 
 jicace ; expecting the sun to rise is on 
 condition that the planetary system does 
 not change, nor our situation on our 
 own globe, very greatly. 
 
 ^ Mr Hume says, that violations of 
 laws of nature are admitted chiefly by 
 the ignorant and barbarous, p. 133 ; 
 thirdly. Also, p. 140. But the truth may 
 be, that the ignorant man, having thought 
 very little, does not feel much difference 
 between laws of nature founded on facts, 
 and such as have only imagination to 
 
 support them. His habitual expectations 
 have perhaps no diffidence, but they are 
 not founded on knoioledge. He is indif- 
 ferent both as to the continuance and 
 the change of the course of nature. Or 
 rather, his habitual conformity to old 
 phenomena does not afford him reason to 
 disbelieve new. He is less aivare of the 
 mutability of the course of nature, yet 
 more ready to allow without good reason 
 that course to have changed in any in- 
 stance. He is most prepared to admit 
 a jnetended change ; least to admit a 
 real one. 
 
I. XV. 7 .] 
 
 MIRACLES IN GENERA! . 
 
 117 
 
 I. even in those instances in which I reflect the least, I should 
 be less struck with a real change of what we call the laws of 
 nature, than a peasant would be, though he would believe 
 accounts of things supernatural sooner than I should. In 
 judging therefore from analogy, we must not proportion the 
 probability of a continuance of a law of nature to the thought- 
 less confidence with which it is expected, any more than we 
 should think a sanguine temper a proof of future pros- 
 perity. Improvements in knowledge and reasoning make 
 real violations of laws of nature more easily admitted, not 
 less easily. 
 
 Common people, when a thing is said to be impossible'^ ^ 
 do not distinguish between real impossibility and a degree of 
 improbability which, in fact, leaves no doubt : on many 
 occasions the distinction needs not be made, and the Scripture 
 sometimes neglects it, using natural, popular language. But 
 though in common life it may be neglected, yet in extraordi- 
 nary situations it should be always ready at hand. Im- 
 prohability, in whatever degree, is always inferred from 
 166 analogy^ that is, from past events; impossibility^ in the strict 
 sense, has nothing to do with experience, analogy, or past 
 events. 
 
 Though we speak with a view to miracles, we speak of the 
 nature of expectation; that is, though we speak of the credi- 
 bility of past events, our observations seem all to relate to 
 future events. 2\nd it may go a good way towards settling 
 what past events are credible, if we can determine what events 
 are to be expected, on a footing of probability ; but yet it 
 should not be wholly omitted, that I may have no reason to 
 expect an event, though I may have no doubt of its credibility, 
 when it is said to have happened. A friend of mine has a 
 ticket in the lottery^ I do not expect that he will have the 
 highest prize ; probability is very much against it ; but, after 
 the fact, he may easily make me believe that he has got it. 
 
 7. These remarks on the nature of our assent, grounded 
 on analogy, will enable us to see that Mr. Hume does not 
 rightly oppose analogy to testimony. When two things are 
 opposed in the way of argument, they should be quite dis- 
 tinct from one another ; but analogy is partly made up of 
 testimony. When we conclude from experience, we take in 
 not only our own experience, but that of others, which can only 
 
 ^ Hume on Miracles, p. 141. 8vo; this quoted by L^land, Letter xviii, p. 295. 
 
118 
 
 MIRACLES IN GENERAL. 
 
 [I. XV. 8. 
 
 be known from testimony. Moreover, when two things are I. 
 opposed, as far as one is t7'ue, the other should be false ; 
 whereas analogy and testimony, when set in opposition, may 
 both be true. Analogy says, lead falls ; let testimony say, 
 lead rose the other day ; here is no contradiction ; all experi- 
 ence, prior to the event in question, may be for the falling 
 of lead, yet it might rise v/hen it Avas said to do so. 
 
 8. According to Mr. Hume’s argument, if men had 
 always given testimony that was true, and a man told us he 16 ? 
 had seen lead rise, the case would be one of perfect donht ; 
 the experience of the falling of lead was uniform, so was that 
 of the veracity of man ; and they were opposed (Mr. Hume 
 would say) to each other, so as to counterbalance one another 
 exactly. But it seems as if this equilibrium could not be 
 inferred without some false suppositions. 1st. The course 
 of nature is here supposed more fixed than we know it to be — ■ 
 as just now explained. 2. Testimony is supposed to be 
 perfectly distmct and separate from analogy ; or what we 
 call experience is supposed to be all our oivn. 3. It seems 
 taken for granted, that the analogy in favour of a law of 
 nature cannot be interrupted by any other analogy. 4. But 
 the principal wrong supposition is, that our experience of 
 human testimony is only a single analogy — such as it would 
 be if man were irrational or inanimate; as if he were an 
 automaton, the construction of which Ave are Avholly ignorant 
 of — void of sense, reason, passions, conscience, such as Ave 
 perceive in ourselves. Whereas, besides the analogy Avhich 
 Ave have from viewing man exte^'naUy, we have several analo- 
 gies from viewing him inte^'nally ; that is, from knowing his 
 motives of action. Man acts through fear of shame — man 
 acts through love of vhdue^ ; — man acts from a desire of 
 being trusted, respected, beloved. All these experiences make 
 a very compound and strong analogy. It may indeed be said, 
 man acts from love of money ; but this only shews, that 
 regard must be liad to the characters of witnesses, Avhen their 
 testimony is received. The generality of men are prompted to 
 speak truth, and restrained from falsehood, by many things 
 of Avhich we have some tolerable conception ; Ave know of no- 
 thing to prevent lead from rising, or any other common ap- l68 
 pearance of nature from being reversed. 
 
 Let not any one here say we have no immediate insight 
 
 ’ ]\Ir. Hume says much the same in some places ; but without the same effect. 
 
I. XV. 9 - 11 .] 
 
 MIRACLES IN GENERAL. 
 
 119 
 
 I. into the human ^ mind: that may be a very good metaphysical 
 argument, but it is a very insufficient one in practice ; and he 
 who uses it must, if he will be consistent, trust all men 
 equally. 
 
 9. If what has been last said needs any illustration^ it 
 may receive one from supposing two clocks to go together 
 for some days, and then to vary ; so long as they strike toge- 
 ther they make but a single analogy, and they are expected 
 to strike on after equal intervals; but they vary: one strikes 
 before the other, which of them has gone wrong ? Common 
 people must be at a loss, having two simple analogies opposed 
 to each other, of equal strength ; but if a person who under- 
 stands the make of these machines is present, he can form a 
 judgment from a compound analogy ; he knows their internal 
 construction, and from his general experience can judge better 
 of the causes of the failure than those who have nothing to 
 judge from but the mere striking. 
 
 10. Our conclusion is, that, supposing no instance of 
 false testimony, we should not be in perfect doubt; but the 
 testimony of a single witness would be enough to prove a 
 violation or transgression of what we call a law of nature, 
 that is, to prove the reality of a miracle. Nor do I conceive 
 that in such case any one would have ever thought of dis- 
 believing. 
 
 11. Now may we not, instead of one witness, (when we 
 suppose no false testimony to have been ever given,) substitute 
 such evidence as has never been known to mislead This is 
 
 idq indeed regarding men externally but yet, when we have such 
 testimony of human beings^ we have more reason to trust to 
 that, than to trust to the continuance of what we call a law 
 of nature, as we know more of its nature and essence. Speak- 
 ing v/ithout any idea of substitution, we may affirm that such 
 testimony as has never been known to deceive is sufficient 
 to make a miracle credible; because it may be taken as valid 
 proof, and we have no proof equally valid of the continuance 
 of any law of nature : — our testimony has never deceived us, 
 our experience has often deceived us. Indeed, if the testi- 
 mony is such as has never been known to deceive, the thing to 
 be proved needs only be naturally possible : we have reason to 
 believe it. 
 
 2 Hume, sect, viii, p. 94, &c. ‘^the | actions;” &c. “ambition, avarice,” &c. 
 same motives produce always the same 1 &c. 
 
120 
 
 MIRACLES IN GENERAL. 
 
 [I. XV. 12, 13. 
 
 12. But, supposing the analogy in favour of the con- I. 
 tinuance of the law of nature to be only exactly counter- 
 balanced by testimony in any particular case, yet the analogy 
 may be interrupted by another analogy, which may reasonably 
 be admitted h We have constant experience that rational 
 agents use extraordinary measures on extraordinary occasions ; 
 if, therefore, any extraordinary emergency were to occur, 
 we should even have ground to expect a transgression of 
 ordinary rules : this would give the testimony, whatever it 
 happened to be, great additional force. It is said there 
 must be an uniform experience against a miracle in order 
 to make it a miracle ; but this experience is only in one 
 single track ; there may be analogies in other tracks which 
 may make a miracle to be in some measure conformable to 
 experience. 
 
 In this case circumstances’^ are altered ; by which means 
 the analogy may be much weakened, or entirely destroyed. 
 
 If I were asked, why I commonly disbelieve miraculous stories, 170 
 I should answer, because they are offered within the limits 
 of ordinary experience; in the regions where we rightly trust 
 to analogy ; without any new circumstances, any opening or 
 enlarging of our views. Nay, we have analogy that such 
 accounts will deceive us. 
 
 Besides, if we may judge of the reasons why the Governor 
 of the world should fix laws of nature in any degree, we must 
 conclude that those reasons may not have place in extraordi- 
 nary emergencies : our expectations may be disappointed in 
 such cases, and yet they may be left entire for all common uses 
 or purposes of human life. 
 
 If then we suppose such a case as the publication of a 
 new religion like the Christian^ there is more to be presumed 
 in favour of miracles than against them. What other creden- 
 tials can we imagine so proper what so likely as that some- 
 thing supernatural should be performed ? what possible diffi- 
 culty in the way ? 
 
 13. On the whole, since Mr. Hume’s argument against 
 the credibility of miracles depends upon the strength of 
 analogy and the weakness of testimony, and is only this, that 
 testimony cannot prove a transgression of a law of nature; 
 since 'we have shewn that he docs not rightly oppose these one 
 to the other, and have proved how much weaker analogy is 
 
 * Sect. G. of this chapter, and Dr. Powell, p. 97* 
 
 2 Sect. C. 
 
I. XV. 14, 15.] 
 
 MIRACLES IN GENERAL. 
 
 121 
 
 I. in itself, and how much stronger^ testimony is in itself, than 
 Mr. Hume allows ; since we have shewn also that any analogy 
 
 171 is liable to be interrupted by other analogies, and to be weak- 
 ened or destroyed by change of circumstances ; that extra- 
 ordinary cases are always likely to be attended with extra- 
 ordinary measures ; and that the regularity of the movements 
 and operations of nature may answer all its purposes, though 
 something supernatural be performed on the fii'st publication 
 of such a religion as the Christian ; — we seem to have entirely 
 removed Mr. Hume’s objection, and to have proved the credi- 
 bility of miracles in general. 
 
 14. But however conclusive our reasoning may be, it 
 may be useful to suppose that some men are not convinced by 
 it. To such we would say that they ought not wholly to refuse 
 their consent if they do not wliolly give it. There are various 
 degrees of assenting and of dissenting, at least in practice. 
 We may determine to adopt a measure and yet may do it with 
 great diffidence; in which case we shall not be positive, nor 
 hazard much upon our determination : on the other hand, we 
 may reject a measure with great doubts of our own judgment, 
 and our conduct will be indecisive accordingly. If then, 
 in the case of miracles, any one unhappily feels a want of con- 
 viction, he is not to think that he is to adopt a decided oppo- 
 sition to the notion of their credibility ; he should rather say, 
 they 7nay have been performed, though he is not fully persuaded 
 that they have been. 
 
 This is a matter worth insisting upon separately, because 
 we may presume that one great end of miracles is to excite 
 attention, and to set men upon a serious examination. This 
 end may be answered without a full belief: let men only 7 iot 
 reject credentials, and they may be led to examine particulars ; 
 and the more carefully they consider either the doctrines of 
 the Christian religion, or the conduct of those who published 
 it, the more likely are they to embrace it. 
 
 172 15. Men are apt to run into a fallacy in judging from 
 probability : they are apt to take it for granted that what 
 is against probability cannot be true ; whereas many events 
 
 ^ This part scarcely appears in the force 
 it might do : if a man say, that one thing 
 balances another, and you find, upon ex- 
 amination, that the first thing is much 
 lighter than it was reckoned, and the se- 
 cond much heavier, the equiponderance 
 
 is very much broken into indeed : the 
 lightness of the first, alone, would have 
 destroyed the equipoise; and so would 
 the heaviness of the second, alone. How 
 great then must be the effect of the causes 
 when conjoined ! 
 
122 
 
 MIllACLES IN GENERAL. 
 
 [I. XV. 15. 
 
 fall out against probability — otherwise he who in a wager I. 
 laid on the probable side must always win. Certainly every 
 man ought to determine to act after the best judgment he 
 can form; but he should remember, that so long as his iudg- 
 ment is only a probable judgment, it may lead him into er- 
 ror. The forgetting of this is sometimes hurtful to religion. 
 
 A man thinks the difficulties attending any opinion overbalance 
 the arguments urged in favour of it ; he therefore takes up 
 the negative side, and thinks he has nothing more to do with 
 the affirmative; thinks he may at once banish all doubt and 
 perplexity, and cease from all farther inquiry ; whereas it may 
 often happen that the negative side is to be taken in our 
 conduct, when the question demands siiW farther deliberation. 
 
 When the King^ of Siam disbelieved the existence of ice, 
 
 Mr. Hume says he reasoned justly; we say, he concluded 
 falsely. A man may, however, have taken the most probable 
 side, though he be wrong. Let us suppose that this prince had 
 more reason to disbelieve than to believe ; yet if his judgment 
 was not wrong, at least the peremptoriness with which he 
 rejected the improbable side was surely so. Now,*” says he, 
 
 “ I am sure you lie.” W ould he not have been more reason- 
 able had he said something of this sort ? “ What you assert 
 
 seems so very strange that I cannot believe it ; it is unlike any 
 thing I ever saw. Water, which, you say, is in Holland 
 sometimes hard enough to allow men to walk upon it, seems 
 to be so very soft, that softness is its chief property. I have 173 
 not yet known you deceive me, but travellers are apt to 
 exaggerate. It is not necessary that I should form a judg- 
 ment on this matter just at present. If I am obliged to act 
 one way or another, I will take that side which seems most 
 probable ; but, as I knov/ nothing of the nature of water, or 
 of that internal make on which its properties depend, and 
 what you tell me is said to happen at a great distance and in 
 circumstances very different from those in which I am placed, 
 
 I will not entirely reject your account. Though to me the 
 report of the liardness of water may be improbable, yet 
 what is improbable may prove true ; and on the whole, I 
 will, if ever I have occasion to act, take such measures as to 
 be secure, if possible, on whichever side the truth shall prove 
 to lie.”... Had the prince spoken in some way like this, the 
 Europeans would not have blamed him ; and the injidel would 
 
 * Locke’s Essay, iv. 15. 5. 
 
I. XV. 16.] 
 
 MIllACLES IN GENERAL. 
 
 123 
 
 I. do well to pursue the same plan. So much may be said 
 without taking for granted the point in dispute — without pre- 
 suming that he. must be in an error. 
 
 16. A follower of Mr. Hume would offer a distinction 
 here between an eoctraor dinar event and a miraculous one. 
 A miraculous event, he would say, is a contradiction to our 
 experience in well known circumstances, or all circumstances 
 continuing the same ; an extraordinary event is one “ not 
 conformable to our experience in circumstances unknown ; 
 or is only an instance of a law of nature newly observed, in 
 circumstances somewhat like but oiot the same — an event 
 that to some men is of an ordinary sort, I do not think 
 this ^distinction materially affects our question, yet as it may 
 be thought to do so, I will take some notice of it. 
 
 174 There is certainly a great difference between a natural 
 and a supernatural event, as also between the pretensions of 
 those who would persuade us of the truth of one and the other. 
 And it seems very proper to attend to these distinctions, in 
 order to enlarge and to clear up our conceptions. A natural 
 event takes place in a course of nature according to some 
 general rules; a supernatural event takes place by a particular 
 volition of some Being superior to nature, and independently, 
 at least, of those general rules. And when men persuade us 
 to believe a natural event, they stand in a different light 
 from that in which they are when they would persuade us 
 to believe a supernatural event ; yet we should be aware that 
 we do not know one sort of event from the other intuitively 
 or immediately, in any instance, though their difference in 
 theory is plain enough. -When an event is proposed for 
 our belief as a miracle, we have two things to ask : did this 
 event really happen ? — suppose it did happen, was it mi- 
 raculous We can only determine either question on pro- 
 bable grounds : but probability is the guide of human life 
 in every thing. We should moreover be aware, that any sort 
 of event may be either natural or supernatural ; that which we 
 deem natural (as a cure, &c.) may be supernatural, and that 
 which we deem supernatural may possibly be natural. But 
 our probable judgment, if we are honest, will be a sufficient 
 guide. In order to judge whether a fact be miraculous it 
 
 2 Hume on Miracles, Essays, 8vo. vol. 
 II. p. 128, note. 
 
 ^ This is something like the distinction 
 
 between Ttpas and o-jj/xeloi/. Parkhurst’s 
 Lex. under TC/oas, from Mintert and 
 Etymol. 
 
124 
 
 MIRACLES IN GENERAL. 
 
 [I. XV. 17. 
 
 must be familiar ; if it be very remote our ideas will be very T. 
 faint, both as to the fact having happened and as to its being 
 miraculous. Suppose a missionary had accompanied the 
 Dutch ambassador to the king of Siam, and had affirmed that 
 St. Peter walked upon the water (Matt. xiv. 25 , 29. John 
 xxi. 7 ) — perhaps the king would sooner have believed the 175 
 missionary than the ambassador: ‘Ay, now you give me a 
 reason^ he might have said. On the contrary, some would 
 believe perhaps the natural event, the walking on ice, more 
 easily than the supernatural event, the walking upon water, 
 as a proof of divine interposition. However that might be, 
 the events are certainly totally distinct ; and nothing relating 
 to the strangeness of the natural event could any way affect 
 our reasoning on the supernatural one. The ambassador 
 would say, ‘Water sometimes hardens in Holland so that 
 people walk upon it, but that is nothing supernatural, it does 
 so every winter,’ &c. The missionary would say, ‘ St. Peter 
 walked on the water, not when it was fro%en, nor according 
 to any general law of nature, but when it was in its Jliud 
 state, as the Indian rivers are,’ &c. on purpose to shew by a 
 supernatural power the truth of the religion of Jesus, just 
 then beginning to be published. How could one of these 
 explanations possibly interfere with the other ? 
 
 17. There is another distinction, which I look upon to be 
 very important; and that is, between expecting like events, 
 and disbelieving unlike. 
 
 We are perpetually deceived by our imaginations: a jingle 
 of words, a slight resemblance of things, or a seeming contrast, 
 carries all our reasonings before it. Because we by habit 
 expect like things to follow in like circumstances, we take for 
 granted that we ought to oppose our expectation to unlike 
 things. But our expectation is merely and mechani- 
 cal ; it has nothing to do out of its proper place ; take away 
 tlie chain of events to which it has owed its birth and growth, 
 and on which it constantly depends, and it is perfectly useless; 
 nay, it loses its very being. The illustration used before^ about 176 
 change of circumstances, might be applied here. Nothing 
 should be conceived as belonging to any analogy but the train 
 of events on which it is founded, and the expectations arising 
 from them ; to admit any other kind of conclusion is to admit 
 what is perfectly groundless, and must of course lead to error. 
 
 ^ Sect. G. 
 
I. XV. 18 , 19.] 
 
 MIRACLES IN GENERAL. 
 
 125 
 
 I. Though expecting an event may make us feel some shock 
 when it does not happen, yet a shock at missing a step does 
 not make us disbelieve any thing ; or, though we feel some 
 expectation that nothing will happen that is inconsistent with 
 an expected event, yet we must not deceive ourselves: we have 
 no right to encourage the latter sort of expectation. To be 
 justified in expecting like events, we need only have had 
 experience; to be justified in disbelieving unlike^ we should 
 know all the powers of nature, all the designs of God. 
 
 18. There seems to be one unsteadiness in Mr. Hume’s 
 reasoning, which should be noted : he seems not always to keep 
 perfectly distinct the two ideas ; we do not believe” — and 
 we" ought not to believe.” He seems sometimes to take our 
 actual disbebef as a proof that we ought to disbelieve ; and 
 yet sometimes he blames us for believing. Whereas, if our 
 disbelieving was an argument that we ought to disbelieve, our 
 believing should be an argument that we ought to believe... I 
 will not dwell long here, as that would detain us too long, in a 
 matter not very important ; and as perhaps some part of the 
 unsteadiness I speak of may be found in most men’s reasonings 
 about the force of experience, and is to be ascribed to what has 
 been mentioned before, that analogy is a part of logic which 
 177 has not been well attended to^ I will therefore content 
 myself with suggesting the idea to Mr. Hume’s readers : they 
 will examine more particularly, and determine for themselves. 
 In order to set all belief of miracles in a contemptible light, 
 those faults are enumerated which occasion their being be- 
 lieved too easily. And then it is to follow, that however 
 careful men are — if they believe at all, their belief is owing 
 to those faults. And this artifice does succeed too frequently. 
 
 19 . The principal fault in men which makes them receive 
 accounts of miracles too easily is credulity; and the reason 
 why men reject the belief of miracles, is a dread of being 
 despised for credulity, as a weakness unworthy of a man of 
 sense. Incredulity they are not near so much ashamed of ; 
 but yet, when one comes to think, they both imply error, 
 nay, as before observed^, both the same kind of error, follow- 
 ing a weaker probability in preference to a stronger. And 
 surely, taking equal distances from the truth, the credulous 
 man may be as wise as the incredulous: incredulity rejects the 
 
 2 P. 131, 8vo. I to under sect, beginning. 
 
 Intr. to Butler’s Analogy, referred 1 ^ Chap. xii. Sect. 16. 
 
126 
 
 MIRACLES IN GENERAL. 
 
 [I, XV. 20,21. 
 
 experience of other men, and neglects warnings and cautions ; I. 
 credulity only (in a comman way) carries caution to excess. 
 
 Both may doubtless be hurtful ; and incredulity has less the 
 appearance of being duped, to ordinary judges ; but to a real 
 philosopher, the credulous man will appear as rational as the. 
 incredulous. 
 
 20. The belief of miracles is also owing, we are told, to 
 the pleasure of indulging the passion or sentiment of admira- 
 tion, and other passions or sentiments which get involved in 
 miraculous stories ; — and so it is to be insinuated, that, if it 
 was not for this pleasure, miracles would never be believed at 
 
 all. Admiration is certainly a very pleasing and interesting 17S 
 sentiment, and great advantages have been taken of it to lead 
 men into error ; but that all facts which have excited admira- 
 tion are to be disbelieved, is a very extravagant conclusion. 
 
 The observation aiTords sufficient reason why we should ex- 
 amine carefully into the circumstances attending miracles; and 
 consider whether the witnesses of them are enthusiastic or 
 superstitious. It gives us a right to require, that they should 
 be calm, reasonable, sober-minded, as well as ingenuous, and 
 lovers of truth ; but it can carry us no farther. Any passion 
 may be an occasion of self-deceit, or of falsehood ; those who 
 Avish much to gratify it, and make little resistance, will gratify 
 it at any rate ; with truth, if they can ; if not, Avith falsehood ; 
 but surely no one, on this account, despairs of distinguishing 
 truth from falsehood, Avhen the inquiry seems Avorthy of atten- 
 tion. Love of praise, resentment, ambition, have given birth 
 to numberless falsehoods ; but have not such falsehoods been 
 often discoverable ? nay, have they not generally been founded 
 on truth ? could they have succeeded in any degree Avithout 
 some assistance from truth ? 
 
 21. I have no doubt but that the accounts of a very great 
 number of miracles Avhich we find in books are Avithout founda- 
 tion in truth ; but surely that docs not make all miracles 
 incredible. Many ancient Avritings, heathen as Avell as Chris- 
 tian, are most probably forged, but every one believes that 
 some are genuine. In all subjects, falsehood is mixed Avith 
 truth ; it Avould not be reasonable to give up the truth 
 on that account : to separate truth from falsehood, is the 
 great business of the human understanding, and that from 
 Avliich it Avill receive the greatest improvement. Flatterers 
 may mix Avith real friends, but we are not to give up friend- 179 
 
I. XV. 22.] 
 
 MIRACLES IX GENERAL. 
 
 127 
 
 I. sliip because, in some instances, we have had reason to suspect 
 flattery. 
 
 In fact, the forged miracles have been very silly businesses; 
 and have, by their folly, made those, which we believe, more, 
 not less, estimable. 
 
 22. We have indeed reason enough to restrain our cre- 
 dulity, and guard ourselves against the excesses of our devout 
 admiration and other seducing passions. If we could go farther, 
 and settle some criteria of true miracles, it might answer 
 many good purposes. The great difficulty seems to be, that 
 any criteria might give occasion to new forgeries, more artful 
 than the preceding; but still perhaps something might be 
 done. As this subject is to be resumed in the next chapter, 
 we may treat it the more briefly here : 
 
 True miracles may be frequently distinguished from false, 
 by the occasions on whicli they are performed, by the manner 
 and the matter of them. 
 
 If they are performed on common and trivial occasions 
 they are suspicious ; for a considerable part of the proof of 
 their credibility arose from their being extraordinary measures, 
 taken upon extraordinary occasions. If they are said to have 
 been performed at times when things were in an ordinary train, 
 or in support of a religion well established, or of a powerful 
 party, or of folly and fanaticism, they are suspicious : whereas, 
 if they are said to have been performed when any great and 
 important change was taking place in the dispensations of 
 Heaven, when the supporters of true religion were very weak, 
 and in favour of rational religion and improved morality, they 
 then seem reasonable^ and therefore are, upon competent testi- 
 mony, credible. 
 
 A judgment might be built upon the manner in which 
 ISO miracles should be performed. A modest, simple, sober man- 
 ner would make miracles much more credible than a proud, 
 ostentatious, fanatical manner. 
 
 If the moMer shewed a regular plan^ a durable and con- 
 stant attention to some great and rational purpose, it could not 
 but add to their credibility. 
 
 Chambers says, in his Dictionary, the criteria are not 
 agreed upon ; and perhaps there may always be doubt enough 
 to exercise the understanding and try the heart ; yet much 
 might be done, at any time, by one who was sincere and 
 attentive. Nay, I know not why we miglit not refer some- 
 
128 MlilACLES OK 'J lIE NEW TESTAMENT. [I. Xvi. 1. 
 
 thing to the same powers of judging which we have about prii- I. 
 dence, beauty, virtue, &c. — call it common sense, or what you 
 please, which we scarcely know the nature of distinctly our- 
 selves. Only we must be aware, that though we may put 
 some confidence in our feelings, we should endeavour to 
 analyze them, and to regulate them by reason and utility. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. ISI 
 
 OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE MIRACLES RECORDED IN THE 
 NEW TESTAMENT, AND THE CONCLUSIONS TO EE 
 DRAWN FROM THEM. 
 
 We are now to take for granted that miracles may he 
 wrought for the conviction of mankind. The next thing, 
 according to our plan, is to consider whether any have been 
 wrought. And it might be sufficient to refer to Chapter xiii., 
 in which we shewed that the Scripture narratives could not be 
 fictitious; for those narrative do certainly contain accounts 
 of miracles, and the writers were either witnesses of the mira- 
 cles, or received their accounts from those who were. 
 
 But we will pursue the plan laid down in the Introduction 
 to the 12th Chapter, and consider the witnesses of the miracles 
 recorded in the New Testament, in respect of their ability, 
 their intention, and their number. 
 
 1. As to ability. On what does the ability of witnesses, 
 as such, depend ? wherein consists the perfection of it ? Their 
 being enabled to judge of what they testify must depend upon 
 the things witnessed, and upon the personal qualities of those 
 who witness them. Or, if we use the word see as a general 
 term, on the things seen, and the qualities of those who see 
 them. 
 
 The things or events, in order that the witnesses may be 
 perfectly enabled to speak of tliem, must be common, such as 
 the persons are accustomed to ; must be placed within the 
 reach of their senses or other discerning powers, or must be 
 related by the witnesses immediately, without interval of time 
 or place; from time to time, so as to be liable to perpetual 
 examination. They should moreover be public, exposed on 
 every side. 
 
r. xvi. 2.] MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 129 
 
 I. The persotis should possess all those faculties of body and 
 7nind entire, which are requisite for forming a perfect judgment 
 of the events. They should not only possess these ordinarily, 
 but they should have them undisturbed and uncorrupted at the 
 time of beholding. Now the faculties of the body, the senses 
 of sight, hearing, &c., are apt to be impaired or disordered by 
 certain diseases, or by intemperance of various kinds. The 
 faculties of the mind may be disordered in things of religion 
 by enthusiastic furor, by superstitious panics, by a too rap- 
 turous devotion, by a course of severe mortification and auste- 
 rity. In some sense also, and in effect, the faculties of the 
 mind may be said to be disordered by any inordinate passion. 
 A spirit of party, a love of gain, ambition, &c., are sometimes 
 spoken of as disabling a man from forming a right judgment, 
 and getting a true knowledge of things ; and, as far as they do 
 this, they belong to the ability of witnesses, rather than to their 
 intention. St. Paul speaks of the god of this world as 
 having blinded the minds of some menh The blind are 
 unable to see, literally, and therefore figuratively. 
 
 2. Applying these observations to the characters of the 
 sacred witnesses, would give us an idea of their ability. The 
 miraculous powers exercised by Jesus were exemplified in the 
 most familiar instances — in cures of well-known diseases, in 
 raising an human being from a state of death. No uncommon 
 knowledge of natural philosophy, chemistry, or arts, was neces- 
 sary to comprehend them ; they were not remote or hidden 
 18,S on any side, they were not done in a corner This is true of 
 the miracles of the New Testament in general, particularly so 
 of that performed on the the great day of Pentecost. When 
 related by an original witness to another, they seem to have 
 been related immediately, and continually. 
 
 The witnesses were healthy, sober, temperate : men of 
 sober minds ; of piety free from flightiness and extravagance. 
 Nor do they seem to have been influenced by any love of gain, 
 ambition, party spirit, which could blind their understandings. 
 We find them indeed desirous of distinguished places in the 
 kingdom of Christ during Ins life-time; but they could have no 
 hopes of honours after his death. Mr. Hume thinks that 
 there is no “greater temptation than to appear a missionary^ 
 a prophet, an ambassador from heaven but those who were 
 actuated by such motives would make the best advantage 
 * 2 Cor. iv. 4. ~ Acts xxvi. 20. P. 142. Ovo. 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 9 
 
130 
 
 MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [I. Xvi. 3. 
 
 of their situation ; whereas the preachers of Christianity we I. 
 find restraining men from paying them too high honours. 
 Paul and Barnabas^ ^ with all marks of earnestness, say to 
 those who would treat them as gods, “ Why do ye these 
 things.^ we also are men of like passions with you^ But 
 here we approach rather too near perhaps to the subject of 
 good intention in the witnesses. 
 
 3. Mr. Hume has an invidious remark^, intimating that 
 the miracles of the Gospel would not have been believed had 
 not they been first published amongst an ignorant and bar- 
 barous people so he^ calls the Jews. Lucian gives an ac- 
 count in his Pseudomantis, of one Alexander, an impostor, 
 who set up an oracle in Paphlagonia, which had great suc- 
 cess there, and some even at Rome. Mr. Hume says, it was a 184< 
 wise policy in this impostor to lay the first scene of his im- 
 postures where ‘‘ the people were extremely ignorant and 
 stupid, and ready to swallow even the grossest delusion.” Had 
 he fixed his residence at Athens,” philosophers would have 
 spread abroad the delusion, and would have entirely opened 
 the eyes of mankind.” Mr. Hume farther insinuates, that 
 if there had been a Lucian to give an account of St. Paul, as 
 well as of Alexander, our Apostle would have appeared in a 
 very different light from that in which he is represented by 
 Lord Lyttelton, in his Letter to Mr. Gilbert West. 
 
 In the first place, it seems odd that Mr. Hume should fix 
 upon an instance, in order to rank Christianity amongst impos- 
 tures, which all Christians would most readily fix upon in 
 order to shew that the early Christians were enemies to impos- 
 tures. Lucian was no way partial to Christians, yet, in this 
 History of Alexander, he speaks of the Christians as those who 
 opposed and detected his cheats; nay, Lucian relates, that 
 when people were to be kept off from inspecting Alexander’s 
 mysteries, the Christians were particularly forbidden to spy 
 into them ; Alexander^ himself, or some one presiding, thrust- 
 ing the people away, and crying y^pLariavovs^ away with 
 the Christians. How could Mr. Hume overlook this ? or why 
 should he forbear to mention it ? For my own part, I wish St. 
 Paul had had his Lucian : if Lucian had given as circumstan- 
 tial an account of St. Paul as he had done of Alexander, I should 
 not vote for a letter of it being destroyed. And I believe 
 
 ^ Acts xiv. 15. “ P. 134. Bvo. 1 ^ The Greek is, Kal 6 fihv ijyeiTo : the 
 
 ^ P. 14G. Bvo. 1 Latin (of Erasmus) “illo praseunte.” 
 
I. xvi. 3.] 
 
 MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 131 
 
 I. all rational Christians would now recover, if they could, the 
 strictures of Lucian’s dear friend, Celsus. The Christian 
 
 185 cause derives considerable good from what is found in the 
 works of Lucian. 
 
 But, to call the Jews “an ignorant and barbarous people,” 
 when the subject in hand is religion.^ is surely a gross misre- 
 presentation. Whatever progress they might have made in arts 
 and sciences, they certainly were the only people in the world 
 who worshipped one invisible God, the patron of no vices. 
 Rome and Athens were before them in many things, but in 
 religion infinitely behind them. Nor must it be said, that they 
 attended more to their sacrifices and other rites than to the 
 spiritual nature of God ; for their ceremonies were only modes 
 of worshipping one holy spiritual Deity; and some were prose- 
 lytes amongst them, who only adopted their principles of 
 natural religion^. The question is, supposing Christianity 
 false, where would it have been first rejected ? at Rome, or at 
 Jerusalem? I say, at Jerusalem. Any absurd religion would 
 have much sooner made its way at Rome or Athens than there; 
 indeed, the more enlightened at Rome or Athens might have 
 rejected some kinds of religious® absurdity, but all ranks 
 amongst the Jews would have rejected all kinds. Again, 
 supposing the Christian religion reasonable and true, where 
 would it have been most readily accepted? at Jerusalem 
 clearly. Would the higher ranks at Rome or Athens have 
 submitted to be poor in spirit ? would the pride of philosophy 
 have condescended to be taught ? would the lower ranks, or 
 
 186 even any ranks, have demolished their idols? But principally, 
 would any ranks have agreed to worship one invisible God in 
 spirit and in truth? At Jerusalem, the spirituality of the 
 Christian religion must be its greatest recommendation. The 
 Jews, indeed, by being separated from idolaters, did acquire 
 too high notions of their being the favourites of God, to the 
 exclusion of other men. This was a fault ; but not so univer- 
 sal as to prevent the reception of proselytes, nor such an one as 
 would make the Jews less ready, than any even the most 
 polished heathens, to accept a rational religion. 
 
 ish religion. See Lardner’s Works, In- 
 dex, Proselytes. 
 
 ® Yet see Chap. xii. Sect. 10, how su- 
 perstitious Pliny., Julian, &c. were; 
 and Marcus Aurelius, Hume, p. 134, 
 bottom. 
 
 9—2 
 
 ® This, at least, is a received opinion. 
 It must be owned, that Lardner has ar- 
 gued ably to prove that the Jews had 
 only one sort of proselytes amongst 
 them, namely, those who, not having 
 been born Jews, had embraced the Jew- 
 
132 MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [I. Xvi. 4—6 
 
 But, suppose the Jews had been ‘‘ignorant and barbar- I. 
 ous,” Jesus could not be said to choose them ; the Christian 
 Religion must be grafted on the Jewish ; Christ was the 
 Messiah of Jews; Jesus had no choice. 
 
 4. With regard to the intention of the witnesses of the 
 Gospel miracles : — the perfection of intention is, if we may be 
 allowed the expression, to have no intention at all : to speak 
 facts with artless simplicity, without any particular views ; to 
 attend to the facts, and record them naturally and clearly, and 
 to attend to nothing else. It is not commonly seen how much 
 good simplicity implies, nor how consistent it is with the high- 
 est intellectual endowments. The wisest, the most learned of 
 men may be the most simple; for simplicity is only freedom 
 from duplicity — from deceit and disguise ; it is speaking from 
 real opinions, and real feelings, and not from such as are 
 only pretended. 
 
 5. That the witnesses of the Gospel miracles answered to 
 this description, may have already appeared in some degree, 
 when it was proved that the writers of the Gospel narratives 
 were ^artless: indeed all the witnesses whom we could call in 
 support of the miracles of which we are treating, have every 187 
 mark of a disinterested spirit, and of perfect freedom from 
 indirect purposes. It has been remarked, that the writers 
 recorded the most wonderful things without any epithets, or 
 other expressions of wonder : this looks like simplicity, and 
 such as they would not have thought of affecting. As con- 
 verts they gave up every thing, they suffered every thing ; 
 and they suffered in such a manner as to shew, that, after they 
 had lost their Lord, and set themselves seriously to execute 
 the trust delegated to them, they knew what manner of spirit 
 they were of. They were not only clear of any inordinate 
 passion which could blind their judgment, but from any which 
 should lay inducements in their way to give false accounts 
 voluntarily, with any corrupt design. It may, indeed, occur 
 
 to an objector to say, why should the witnesses be Christians ? 
 that is, parti zans ? — The short answer is, the professed wit- 
 nesses could not be otherwise, supposing the miracles real ; 
 and what would happen, supposing them real, cannot be liable 
 to objection. 
 
 6. As to the number of those who might with propriety 
 be called witnesses of the Gospel miracles, it is very great 
 
 * (jimp. xiii. Sects. 10, 11. 
 
I. Xvi. 6.] MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 133 
 
 I. indeed ; but it seems as if we should, in the first place, confine 
 ourselves to the same witnesses that we may be supposed to 
 have kept in mind, whilst we were speaking of their ability and 
 intention. 
 
 In order to avoid any suspicion of surreptitiously enlarging 
 the idea affixed to the word witnesses, in what has been just 
 now said, we will first suppose that the number is only twelve; 
 which, considering that the Apostles were twelve, and that 
 Mark, Luke, Paul, Barnabas, must have been witnesses to 
 
 188 many miracles, and must have had many more related to them 
 immediately, from time to time, is a very small number. If it 
 is an even chance*'^, that each of these speaks the truth singly, 
 then the probability that the truth is spoken, when they all 
 twelve agree, is 4096 to one. And, if we suppose it three 
 to one that any one of twelve speaks truth, then the probability 
 that what they all agree in is truth, is, if I mistake not, 
 19,297,215 to one. 
 
 This being the case, what numbers would express the 
 probability, were we to calculate upon the hundreds that saw 
 our Saviour after his resurrection — the thousands that were 
 fed miraculously with loaves and fishes — the thousands that 
 were present on the famous day of Pentecost ! 
 
 It does not seem absolutely necessary to add more con- 
 cerning the number of witnesses of the New Testament-mira- 
 cles, yet, as we have laid down some principles in the 14 th 
 Chapter, it may not be amiss to give a few examples relative 
 to the present subject. 
 
 The miracles of Christ have never been contradicted. 
 
 They have been acknowledged unwillingly. 
 
 They have been absurdly accounted for. 
 
 They are spoken of in Letters, as known to those to whom 
 
 189 the Letters were addressed; though, as the subjects of the 
 Epistles were controversial, and churches were a good deal 
 settled when they were written, miracles are not very fre- 
 quently referred to in them. 
 
 2 A coin has two sides, head and re- 
 verse: ^ represents the probability, I 
 think, that one such coin does not come 
 up head, or it is 1 : 1 ; the probability 
 that tivo do not come up heads is — , or 
 it is 3 : 1 ; the probability that n do not 
 come up heads is or 2” — I : 1. 
 
 A 
 
 A die has six sides : suppose only one 
 side blue; it is 5 : 1 the blue side does 
 not come up in one die : the probability 
 
 in n dies is ^ that all do not come up 
 with the blue side, or the chance is 
 6"-l ; 1; if w be 3, as 215 : 1. 
 
134) MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [I. xvi. 7. 
 
 Persons are called upon or attested as having been present I. 
 Avhen miracles were performed, or as having had immediate 
 information of them. Nicodemus might be reckoned in the 
 number; perhaps the Samaritan woman; Joseph of Arima- 
 thea; and almost^ Agrippa. I consider these as attested by 
 Qiame, though we have not the name of the Samaritan woman. 
 
 Others were attested without being specified: and it will 
 be always proper for the reader of the New Testament, when 
 he finds expressions about miracles, signs, wonders, &c. to con- 
 sider before whom they were spoken. John x. 24, 25, as also 
 ver. 37, 38, were spoken at the Enccenia, John xiv. 11, only 
 to the disciples. Acts ii. 22, was at the feast of Pentecost. 
 Heb. ii. 3, 4, was addressed probably to a large number, and 
 of persons inclined to Judaism. 
 
 Lastly, the miracles of the New Testament are proved by 
 their effects : this has been mentioned before, and will occur 
 again. 
 
 This is, on the v/hole, a testimony which has never been 
 known to mislead, and one which we may safely trust. 
 
 7- On the subject of miracles, it seems proper to take 
 some notice of the opinion of Woolston, that the miracles of 
 Christ were allegorical. This opinion, in the first part or 
 quarter of the present century, made a great noise in the 
 Christian world, and called out many writers of high rank: 
 several bishops attacked it. Bishop Gibson thought fit to 
 provide even the people of his diocese with an antidote against 
 it ; and since that. Dr. Lardner and others have opposed some I 90 
 parts of the discourses in which it is maintained. Yet the 
 opinion seems too wild to be dangerous ; for who is likely to 
 believe that Christ did no real miracles, if it be allowed that 
 he did some things which could be called allegorical miracles ? 
 Indeed, it might be asked, what is meant by miracles being 
 allegorical ? Are the relations allegorical ? like that of the 
 choice of Hercules ? and such as we find in the Spectator ? did 
 Christ do nothing ? did he speak ? did he use gestures ? For 
 an answer we must refer to Woolston himself; and I think 
 myself fortunate in having his book, as it is not in the Uni- 
 versity Library, nor in that of Trinity College. ‘‘The 
 Gospel,” he says, “ is in no sort a literal story ; — the history 
 of Jesus’s life is only an emblematical representation of his 
 
 spiritual life in the souls of men” “neither the Fathers, 
 
 nor the Apostles, nor Jesus himself, meant that his miracles 
 
I. Xvi. 7 .] MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 135 
 
 I. should be taken in the literal, but in the mystical and para- 
 bolical sense.” These expressions are quoted by Leland in his 
 View of Deistical Writers; but I will give you some specimens 
 of his mystical interpretations. 
 
 You will say, after reading these specimens, could this 
 folly give so general an alarm ? One would think not ; and 
 therefore I once thought this only a pretence^ ^ and the real 
 design of the author to be to raise cavils against the miracles 
 of Christ. The miracles, he argues, are allegorical; and this 
 is proved by proving that, in the literal sense, they are ab- 
 surd ; but I had an idea that he cared more about his means 
 191 than his end. I now think, from the series of his works, that 
 he was sincere in what he^ professed. Nevertheless, I am still 
 of opinion, that the thing which really gave the alarm was not 
 the hypothesis, but the arguments by which it was supported. 
 Had he simply maintained that miracles were allegorical, he 
 would probably have been left to his own fancies ; but, when 
 he shewed this by the medium of abuse on the Christian 
 miracles, he grew dangerous. And his manner, towards the 
 latter part of his life, got to be such as was likely to be laid 
 hold on by the scorner, and to be a dangerous weapon in his 
 hand. 
 
 The way to clear up difficulties is generally to have re- 
 course to history: in the present case, the History of the 
 Life of the Author would answer our purpose ; and I am 
 interested in it by having been a member of the same society 
 with the author. His name was Thomas Woolston^ he was 
 born at Northampton, and received his school education there 
 and at Daventry : he was admitted of Sidney College in 1685 ; 
 was studious and exemplary, and at the same time cheerful 
 and pleasant; he was both esteemed and beloved. He was 
 chosen fellow in 1690, and took his degree of B.D. in 1699. 
 About that time he composed some exercises, which he after- 
 wards reduced into one treatise^ on the Time of our Saviour’s 
 coming into the World, though it was not published till 1722 . 
 It is reckoned rational, learned, and ingenious; one of the 
 
 ^ The infidel writers used generally to 
 pretend that they were friends to Chris- 
 tianity : see Toland’s Amyntor, Hume 
 on Miracles, near the end. Woolston, 
 Let. 1. pp. 3, 6. 
 
 ” Yet I think, from misanthropy, &c. 
 he had great pleasure in refuting, as he 
 
 thought, opinions generally maintained 
 by the hireling clergy. We may observe 
 how large a part of his Letters is taken 
 up in objections to the received sense, 
 when compared with the part which ex- 
 plains the mystical sense. 
 
136 
 
 MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [I. Xvi. 7 . 
 
 best ^ theological tracts we have : I have never been able to I. 
 procure it. .But he soon took a kind of fantastic and enthu- 192 
 siastic turn in studying the Scripture. He compared the Old 
 Testament with the New. Certainly the connecting ties are 
 extremely numerous, and some of them fine and delicate, by 
 means of types, prophecies, symbolical actions and words, and 
 allusions ; but any thing may be carried too far. He was 
 very learned; his imagination began to be powerful; at last, he 
 saw nothing but typical actions and expressions in the Old 
 Testament, and nothing but spiritual and mystical meanings in 
 the New. The Fathers, by moralizing and spiritualizing, by 
 their Christian Cabbala, helped him forward ; particularly 
 Origen^. And his sequestered life might have its effect. In 
 1705 he printed, at the University Press, (with licence, of 
 course) his Old Apology^ which runs great lengths, though it is 
 confined to the Old Testament, and does not give an allego- 
 rical sense to any fact of the New. Flis Moderator also seems 
 confined to Prophecies of the Old Testament; only those pro- 
 phecies have their interpretations in the New. He moderated 
 between Collins and his opponents, of whom some mention 
 will be made in the next chapter. In this Moderator he gave 
 some intimations of his plan ; but afterwards, heated by oppo- 
 sition, in his Sios Discourses he went to a degree of extrava- 
 gance, which began to look like real blasphemy. A prosecu- 
 tion was commenced against him by the Attorney-General 
 (afterwards Lord Chancellor Hardwicke), and he was sentenced 
 to fine and imprisonment by Chief Justice Raymond. In 
 prison he ended his life, unable to pay the fine ; and refusing 193 
 to find sureties, because he was determined to write with his 
 usual freedom. 
 
 It does not seem very difficult, in this train, to account for 
 any thing in Woolston’s writings, except his derision. In 
 support of any singular opinion, a friend to Christianity would 
 generally be decent; but Woolston would persuade himself 
 that he disclaimed ridicule (see opening of Letter 6 th), or that 
 he was only deriding abuses and misrepresentations of Scrip- 
 ture, and such persons as made misrepresentations wilfully for 
 
 * Biogr. Britan. 
 
 2 I./ardner, in his account of Origen, 
 (Credib. chap. Sd,) owns, that he some- 
 times “ gives a vast scope to his fancy 
 (See Cave’s Hist. Lit. I. p. 115.) but 
 
 yet he observes, that Origen “treats 
 those as heretics who allegorize the his- 
 tory of Christ’s miracles of healing dis- 
 eases, as if nothing else was meant but 
 healing the soul, &c.” 
 
I. Xvi. 7.] MIRACLES OF THE KEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 137 
 
 I. gain. Do we not find the Socinians, in like manner, speaking 
 lightly about the Trinity'^ The truth seems to be, that be- 
 sides his having been incensed like a baited animal, he was 
 under a degree of insanity. At one time, after he ceased to 
 be fellow, perhaps about 1721, he was actually under confine- 
 ment as insane; but before his fellowship was declared vacant 
 he shewed some marks of a disordered mind. It is said by 
 some biographers^, that he was deprived of his fellowship for 
 blasphemy, but he really lost it only by non-residence. When 
 he first exceeded the time then allowed for absence, he was 
 continued in his fellowship from a principle of compassion ; 
 but, when he heard that such a motive was assigned, he came 
 to college to declare he was perfectly well ; proving, by his 
 manner, the contrary. Not long after, being called to resi- 
 dence, he refused to come, and then his fellowship was vacated. 
 This history seems to clear up all difficulties arising from the 
 wildness of the notion he maintained. 
 
 As to the truth of his allegorical hypothesis, little need be 
 194 saidk It is quite groundless. There may be something in 
 the New Testament which may seem like it. Our Saviour 
 has moralized^ upon a miracle of his own : several actions are 
 mentioned in Scripture, which are intended to mean something— 
 to be a kind of visible language. Some of the Christian Fathers 
 drew mystical meanings from every fact, natural as well as 
 supernatural ; but they never moralized or spiritualized a 
 miracle^ that I know of, without presupposing its literal 
 meaning. Of Origen this is evident, from his controversy^ 
 with Celsus"^. 
 
 As to the most formidable parts of Woolston’s works, his 
 incidental (for so I am inclined to call them) cavils at the 
 miracles of Christ, they may have encouraged and assisted 
 
 ^ See Ladvocat’s Diet, and those he 
 took his short account from. 
 
 ^ Something of this notion seems to be 
 encouraged by the followers of Baron 
 Swedenborg. See Dialogues about his 
 works, p. 34. The Baron had seen hea- 
 ven, &c. — was this credible with mira- 
 cles ? to be sure it was ; miracles were 
 not wrought chiefly for confirming ; they 
 were to declare hidden truths. 
 
 ® John vi. 27: but see Macknight, 
 p. 344. Some say the story of the good 
 Samarilan is founded on fact. ( Dr. 
 
 Jortin.) One might read Bp. Hurd's 
 Discourse on Christ’s driving buyers and 
 sellers out of the temple. 
 
 ® See Bp. Gibson’s first pastoral let- 
 ter. 
 
 ’’ Some Christians, in the time of Ori- 
 gen, or sooner, must have allegorized the 
 miraculous cures, much as Woolston did ; 
 (see before, the quotation from Gardner’s 
 account of Origen, Works, vol. ii. p. 
 535, ) but I speak only of such Fathers 
 as have had works descend to us, and of 
 such as I have happened to see. 
 
138 
 
 MIEACLES OF THE >JEW TESTAMENT. [I. Xvi. 8. 
 
 infidels, but I should doubt whether they have done harm I. 
 upon the whole. They are often contemptible; and if one 
 takes those which are the least so^ when one estimates the 
 good arising from the ^answers to them, it is not easy to pro- 
 nounce that they have been an evil. Those against the resur- 
 rection of Christ, which are perhaps the most forcible of all, 195 
 will be considered ^hereafter. 
 
 I am not ashamed to conclude with owning, that 1 feel 
 more compassion, when I think of Woolston, than indignation. 
 
 In his last works he approached near to infidelity, but he 
 always fancied he was refining the Christian system; his notions 
 were a disorder in his intellects. He was a man of learning 
 and probity ; nay, of wit and humour, however misapplied. 
 
 It would have reflected more honour upon our religion, and 
 upon our civil government, to have committed him to the 
 care of his relations and friends (for friends he had to the 
 last, of the greatest ^eminence in the Church), than to let 
 him support himself in prison by the sale of his writings, and 
 end his days in confinement. 
 
 8. Mr. Hume has briefly touched upon the miracles of the 
 Old Testament ; at least upon those mentioned in the Penta- 
 teuch. Our plan is, to leave the credibility of the Old Testa- 
 ment to be supported by the New; yet, as he challenges us 
 to lay our hand upon our hearty and declare whether we 
 think the Pentateuch credible, it may be proper not wholly 
 to pass over the subject, though we must leave it to others 
 to do justice to it. 
 
 i. In general^ things so very remote from our customs 
 and observations and habits of thinking, as those related in 
 the Pentateuch, will be most favourably received by those 
 who think very little^ and by those who think very much ; an 
 intermediate degree of reflection will make them seem strange.^ 
 and yet not enable us to divest ourselves sufficiently of our 
 habitual prejudices to make proper allowances for them. 
 
 ii. The natural philosophy"^ of the Pentateuch ought not 196 
 
 1 Lardner’s Discourses on the revival of 
 Lazarus^ &c. are useful beyond obviating 
 the cavils of Woolston. For other an- 
 swers see Leland’s View. 
 
 2 Art. 4 of Church of England. 
 
 ^ Dr. Samuel Clarke, BIr, Whiston, 
 Archbp. Wake. 
 
 ^ Some Christians once reckoned it he- 
 retical to call stars by any names not 
 mentioned in Scripture, (see Lardner’s 
 Heresies, book i. sect. Augustin 
 seems to have been ashamed of this he- 
 resy : query, is there not all the folly of 
 it in insisting on the Pentateuch contain- 
 ing perfect natural philosophy ? 
 
I. Xvi. 8.] MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 139 
 
 I, to induce us to reject it. It is not at all likely that God, in 
 order to enable a man to be a lawgiver of the Jews, should 
 reveal to him all the causes of the phenomena of nature — 
 should make him supersede the studies of Newton, and antici- 
 pate the discoveries of Herschel ; nay, a man must know ten 
 thousand times more than either of these to be liable to no 
 mistakes in philosophy, to know all the powers of nature, or 
 all that in after times may be discovered by man. And if 
 Moses could not know all, how can any one object to a little 
 more or a little less? A man might govern the Jews, that 
 had the ideas of the planetary system contained in the first 
 chapter of Genesis : I do not recollect that there is any thing 
 in it contrary to modern discoveries ; if not, that may be worth 
 remembering. The account seems to me in a great degree 
 intended to establish the Sabbath ; which was what Moses 
 would want, and what we still want. But why, you will say, 
 did Moses give this as an authentic account of the creation ? 
 Suppose I answer, I do not know ? it seems to me as if that 
 would be no sufficient reason for rejecting our whole system 
 of religious dispensations^. Suppose I answer, Moses might 
 be an inspired writer as a religious minister, and be left to 
 his own notions, or to notions established in his time, as a 
 natural philosopher^', and yet he always might write and speak 
 197 in those different characters in one and the same tone and 
 style ? even that would be sufficient to hinder our rejecting 
 the Pentateuch. I verily believe St. Paul would have done 
 so : (for we have a clearer idea^ of the inspiration of St. Paul 
 than of Moses,) and yet no false astronomy would weaken my 
 faith in St. Paul : — ‘‘ one star differeth from another star in 
 gloryj"' makes no difference between fixed star and planet. 
 Why should not St. Paul be as good an astronomer as Moses ? 
 
 •'> In the Monthly Review for April, 
 1792, p. 432, there is a quotation from a 
 pamphlet, or hook, which might be worth 
 considering in this place : it is Belsharn’s 
 Essays, vol. ii. 
 
 ^ The Pentateuch might be a sacred 
 hook, even suppose Moses to have writ- 
 ten only what happened in his own time, 
 prefixing what he received from tradi- 
 tion : the facts conveyed down by tradi- 
 tion would be the more evident, the more 
 nearly they were connected with his peo- 
 ple. That Moses was the author of the 
 Pentateuch, was proved Dec. 2d, 1792, by 
 
 Mr. Marsh, of St. John’s Coll. (Camb.) in 
 a Sermon preached before the University, 
 and since printed. Conceive Moses 1500 
 years before Christ, or 2500 after the crea- 
 tion, giving an account of the creation ; he 
 could not speak as a witness ; no one, in 
 his own time, would understand him to 
 be doing more than giving the notions of 
 the best informed, as held at that time. 
 Universal inspiration is a very impro- 
 bable thing. Inspiration must be for sorhe 
 particular purpose. 
 
 7 Powell, 15th Discourse. Chap. xii. 
 sect. 3, of this. 
 
140 
 
 MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [I. Xvi. 8. 
 
 iii. It will be thought more likely that God should reveal I. 
 morality than natural philosophy; and yet it does not seem 
 clear that he even revealed morality, strictly speaking, in 
 either Old or New^ Testament: though they both, in many 
 ways, tend to improve morality ; and both give {incidentally 
 
 as it were) eocamples of higher morality than could be invented 
 by the sacred writers. I have already said, that no one could 
 invent such sentiments as our Saviour uttered in the ^last 
 scenes of his life ; yet some duties seem to be left in the New 
 Testament according to the established morality of the times. 
 
 In like manner, the established morality in the Pentateuch may 198 
 be what we should now call imperfect ; and yet the simplicity 
 of the book of Genesis, and some fine strokes of moral painting 
 contained in it, may afford a strong presumption in favour of 
 its authenticity. 
 
 iv. The account of the fall^ to which Mr. Hume refers, 
 is very short^; too short to furnish an insuperable objection 
 to a system of dispensations. Besides, suppose we did not 
 understand it, is it necessary that we should ? Nevertheless, 
 
 I own I see nothing contrary to either reason or Scripture, 
 in considering it as an history of an human being, at first 
 ignorant^ of his powers, and therefore under the immediate 
 guidance of God; afterwards desirous of conducting himself, 
 and in learning how to conduct himself, getting into various 
 sorts of evil, natural and moral : allowing his passions to 
 acquire too much strength, and acquiring bad habits, of 
 which his descendants would, of course, according to the 
 laws and constitution of human nature, feel some hurtful 
 effects. The story of the Prodigal Son is never reckoned 
 unnatural ; and he did much the same that Adam, the first 
 liuman “son^ of God,” did: only the account does not ex- 
 tend to the children of the prodigal son ; and the reconcili- 
 ation of Adam to his heavenly Parent followed after a greater 
 interval. 
 
 V. Mr. Hume mentions the deluge. The appearances 
 of fossil shells and fishes he could not be a stranger to ; he 
 might incline to some other solution of them. There have 
 been many theories of the earth, but I am told, that the 
 
 ^ There is something to this purpose 
 on Art. C. of the Church of England, 
 sect. 5. 
 
 2 Chap. xiii. sect. 11. 
 
 3 Dr. Balguy, p. 200. 
 
 ^ Abp. King’s Sermon; my Poem on 
 Redemption; these Lectures, on Art. 9. 
 * Luke iii. 38. 
 
I. Xvi. 8.] MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 141 
 
 I. most rational and ingenious of the modern ones defend the 
 
 399 Mosaic history, and very ably®. 
 
 vi. There is something wrong, it seems, in the arbitrary 
 
 choice of one people as the favourites of Heaven.'*'* Mr. Hume 
 must call the selection and separation of Jews arbitrary^ if lie 
 pleases ; but put yourself in the place of an inhabitant of the 
 world at the time of their separation, and say what expedient 
 could be used for the purpose of recovering men from their 
 idolatry, but that which was used ? namely, reserving one 
 people to profess the unity and spirituality of the Supreme 
 Being. You may call this people favourites of Heaven, if 
 you please, but the purpose in separating them was, as far as 
 we can conceive, the general good of all mankind. Not that 
 God'*s giving a superior degree of happiness to any one nation^ 
 or to any one world, is inconsistent with either his justice or 
 his goodness, any more than his giving more understanding or 
 more health ; but Mr. Hume'’s meaning is, that the Jews were 
 not really separated by Heaven. If ever any thing proved 
 itself it is this divine appointment. Who, I beseech you, 
 could possibly separate them but the Governor of the world ? 
 Consider the barbarism of the times, consider the stroncj 
 sensual enticements to idolatry, consider the difficulty of any 
 one’s despising all religions around him, consider the want of 
 all inducements to do it, not forgetting, that the worship of 
 the One Spiritual God reached down to the very lowest of the 
 Jewish ; and you must acknowledge, that no cause can 
 
 be assigned for the separation of the Jews, which has the least 
 
 200 shew of probability, but the immediate command of God. 
 One might as soon expect a man struck with a palsy to raise 
 himself, (take up his bed and walk,) as a people stupified with 
 idolatry. Consider farther to what this separation has tended, 
 how it has fallen in with the natural improvements of men, 
 how it has jwepared the world for an universal religion, pure, 
 rational, and spiritual ; and you will be fixed and settled in 
 your conclusion. 
 
 vii. But though I say, that the mere separation of the 
 Jews proves itself to be Divine, I do not mean to deny that 
 strong marks of a power superior to that of man must be 
 requisite to effect the separation. Miracles were absolutely 
 necessary, and those very striking and awful, and such as 
 
 “ I conceive this to he the case with ] toire de la Terre et del’ Homme, par J. A. 
 “Lettres physiques et morales sur I’His- I De Imc.” 
 
142 MIRACLES OE THE NEW TESTAMENT. [I. XVI. 9 . 
 
 would strike a number of 'people at the same time. Yet to I. 
 these also Mr. Hume objects. As one discrediting circum- 
 stance he mentions the deliverance of the Jews ‘‘ from bondage 
 by prodigies the most astonishing imaginable.” One does not 
 see how any man could have influence enough to institute the 
 Jewish polity, without miracles of an astonishing nature ; but 
 Mr. Hume seems to entertain one wTong idea, which may be 
 less obvious: he seems to think that we are to offer the same 
 proofs of the credibility of the Jewish miracles, as if they had 
 been wrought for our conviction ; whereas miracles are to be 
 suited to those for whose conviction they are intended ; and, 
 when their end is answered, the circumstantial proofs of their 
 credibility must decay — and may safely. Posterity has other 
 proofs — proofs from the effects of the miracles, and from pro- 
 phecy. Prophecy affords a proof irresistible to those who 
 live long after the promulgation of the religion in question, 
 though it be less useful to those to whom it is immediately 
 proposed. 
 
 viii. Lastly, Mr. Hume seems to think the number as 201 
 well as the grandeur of miracles recorded in the Pentateuch a 
 suspicious circumstance. He finds the book full of prodigies 
 and miracles.” But any one who reflects upon the nature of 
 the Jewish government., must see that it could not be carried 
 on without miracles. ‘‘Miracles,” says ^Bishop Hallifax, 
 
 “ were absolutely requisite, to execute the temporal rewards 
 and punishments annexed to the Law.” Besides, the reason, 
 which we have assigned for miracles in the beginning of the 
 Jewish polity, extends to the continuation of it: without them, 
 it is not conceivable how the Jew^s could have been kept from 
 relapsing into idolatry. But a number of difficulties wholly 
 unanswerable could never weigh with me against the separa- 
 tion of the Israelites, the government and history of the Jews. 
 
 I call this separation, as it has been continued, the strongest, 
 the most undeniable “ concurring testimony.” Mr. Hume 
 says, the history of the Pentateuch is “ corroborated by no 
 concurring testimony.” 
 
 9. If we now return to our plan, the next thing which 
 occurs is the question, whether, supposing the ^reality of the 
 miracles recorded in the New Testament, they really prove 
 what they are thought to prove ; namely, the purpose of God 
 
 * Serm. i. p. 9 . 1 that Bartimajus really recovered his sight, 
 
 2 This must mean, supposing not only | but that he recovered it supernaturally. 
 
I. Xvi. 9.] MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 143 
 
 I. to instruct mankind by those who perform them ? or, as it was 
 put before^. Because a man can do what I cannot, or even 
 something beyond the powers of nature, am I therefore to 
 comply with him in every thing he orders, as if his directions 
 were really Divine ? This is a question which had “ been 
 
 202 slightly passed over,” till Dr. Powell proposed and solved it in 
 his 7th Discourse. I shall endeavour to give the substance of 
 what he says, departing freely from his expressions, as a ser- 
 mon does not admit the humbler style of a lecture, and because 
 two different modes of expressing the same thing may illustrate 
 one another. 
 
 i. When we find men entrusted with an extraordinary 
 'power, we cannot but think it likely that they have also extra- 
 ordinary knowledge, especially concerning the design and the 
 use of that power. When any messenger brings a verbal 
 message from a king, if he shews a signet, which he could 
 only get from the monarch, we must think we have sufficient 
 reason for listening to his message, as expressing the real will 
 of his lord. Or, more popularly, does God really send us a 
 message by those who work miracles ? if they say so, he most 
 probably does: they must know, and they bring very good 
 credentials. 
 
 ii. As legal evidence may be called evidence, which it is 
 the intention of the lawgiver that we should receive^ — so 
 natural evidence must be such as is sufficient, according to 
 the intention of the Author of nature: the only difficulty is, 
 what evidence may be deemed natural. Now, to reasonable 
 minds, violations of the laws of nature declare the interposition 
 of God, naturally, or by the constitution of their nature ; 
 therefore it is the intention of God that they should do so ; 
 or, when miracles are performed, it is the intention of God 
 that we should consider him who performs them as empowered 
 to instruct us. Or, more popularly, it is natural to us to 
 think that those speak to us from God who work miracles. 
 And who made it natural ? God : therefore God does mean us 
 to think so when he works miracles. 
 
 203 iii. If the Christian miracles were not intended to reveal 
 the will of God, they would all have answered some other 
 important purpose: it does not appear that they did. Though 
 
 ^ Introduction to Chap. xii. 
 
 ^ As for instance, the evidence of three 
 v/itnesses to a will devising lands, &c. 
 
 such evidence is not infallible, but it is 
 to be deemed sufficient ; such is the m- 
 tention of the legislator. 
 
144 MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [I. Xvi. Q. 
 
 they often shewed marks of Christian benevolence, and were I. 
 never flighty, nor revengeful, yet some of them caused no 
 increase of happiness whatever h This seems unaccountable, 
 except we suppose them meant to prove that Jesus was a true 
 Prophet ; and, if we admit that supposition, all seems reason- 
 able and consistent. 
 
 iv. A real miracle is an action of God — not merely a 
 permission : his actions must have the effects intended ; and 
 those effects, when no abuse takes place, will be good. There- 
 fore, if we know the good effects of any miracles, we can from 
 them trace out the intention. The good effects of the 
 Christian miracles were to convert men to Christianity ; there- 
 fore the intention of miracles was to convert men to Christi- 
 anity. And he who performed them was sent by God. This 
 argument cannot have place, till some effects of miracles have 
 been experienced. 
 
 (Not that we seem more assured in this reasoning than we 
 are in that about any other final cause ; as the final cause 
 of the dew or frost, or any of the parts of the human body. 
 
 A miracle may possibly, for any thing we know, fail in its 
 effect, af least in some instances ; yet our opinion as to the 
 final cause of miracles may be well founded.) 
 
 V. The last remark (which we are now about to make) 
 will seem perhaps less obscure than any of the foregoing. 
 Suppose any one to say he will perform a miracle with a par- 
 ticular design, or in proof of a particular assertion ; he per- 
 forms it ; then that miracle proves that such person is commis- 
 sioned by God, and that his assertion is true. Nay, in such a 
 case, God himself speaks. For, would God, after such a decla- 204 
 ration, give power from above, if the assertion were false ? that 
 would be inconsistent with his veracity. “ The God that 
 answereth by fire,” said Elijah to the prophets of Baal, ‘‘ let 
 him^ be God:” — Jehovah answered by fire, and thereby de- 
 clared, as strongly as by words, that Elijah acted by his com- 
 mission. Jesus gave the friends'^ of La%arus to understand 
 that he would raise Lazarus from the dead, in order to shew 
 them that he was sent from heaven. The Divine Power did 
 immediately perform what Jesus had engaged for, and thereby 
 confirmed his mission as strongly as by a voice from heaven. 
 This case differs from the first. If, at sea, an officer came 
 
 ^ Fig-tree — darkness — walking on the j - 1 Kings xviii. 24. 
 
 water. I .John xi. 42. 
 
I. Xvi. 10.] MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 14,5 
 
 I. from one admiral to another, to negociate some affair, and said, 
 
 ‘ To shew that I come not of myself, whenever I make my 
 signal my admiral will furl his mainsail,’ and so it proved ; 
 that would only be the testimony mentioned in the of 
 these remarks ; we depend finally on the interpretation of the 
 officer. But if the admiral who sent heard what was said, and 
 then furled his mainsail — if he did not abide by what his mes- 
 senger had in his hearing engaged for, he would be guilty of 
 direct falsehood. And to reject a miracle of the kind now 
 under consideration, would be to make “ God a liaif' accord- 
 ing to the expression^ of St. John. Falsehood is deceiving by 
 the use of signs ; and though words are the most usual signs 
 of our ideas, they are but arbitrary signs ; visible signs are by 
 no means uncommon. 
 
 So far I take the substance of what I say from Dr. Powell. 
 If it should occur, that we treated ^before of the abuse of the 
 gift of tongues, it may perhaps be asked, why may not any 
 person, who is possessed of any other miraculous power, be 
 205 conceived to abuse it ? — because the gift of tongues seems to 
 have been a miraculous communication of a faculty, to be 
 managed like any other faculty, and therefore liable to abuse — 
 to changes of humour, attacks of temptation, sallies of passion, 
 &c. ; but every supernatural cure, every raising of an human 
 being from a state of death, seems as if it should be considered 
 as arising from a separate communication of Divine Power®. 
 If this be the right notion of the thing, it is very improbable 
 that the Deity should supply such power, when it would 
 not only answer no end, as in the case of languages spoken 
 from ostentation, but defeat its own ends. In the last-men- 
 tioned kind of miracles, in those mentioned in the 5th observa- 
 tion, the difficulty proposed is out of the question : the veracity 
 of the Supreme Being himself is immediately concerned. 
 
 10. In the preceding chapter, when we were speaking of 
 the credibility of miracles in general, we took some notice 
 of the means of discerning true ^ miracles from false. This 
 
 ^ 1 John V. 10. 
 
 ® Chap. xii. sect. 3. 
 
 ® At least this account here is consist^ 
 ent with the former ; for there, from the 
 abuse of the gift of tongues, we concluded, 
 that God could not give that gift occa- 
 sionally. A reiterated communication 
 of supernatural power seems to answer 
 VoL. I. 
 
 wise purposes in what we commonly call 
 miracles: though it may be less con- 
 ceivable in what is called inspiration ; 
 either of words or things ; either of lan- 
 guages, or the scheme of the Christian 
 redemption. 
 
 7 False miracles are called in 2 Thess. 
 ii. 9, lying ivonders.*'' 
 
 10 
 
146 MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [I* Xvi. 10. 
 
 subject should be resumed now that we are speaking of the I. 
 Gospel miracles in particular; partly because there are some 
 texts of Scripture which seem to imply that miracles may 
 possibly deceive; partly because what was said before was 
 short and general, and not so useful as it might be made by 
 the mention of some few examples. 
 
 Texts of Scripture, which seem to imply that mere 206 
 miracles, or what we dare not absolutely deny to be real, may 
 possibly deceive, are such as the following: — ^‘^If there 
 arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and 
 giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder 
 come to pass whereof he spake unto thee, saying. Let us go 
 after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve 
 them ; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, 
 or that dreamer of dreams ; for the Lord your God proveth 
 you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your 
 heart and with all your soul.” — There shall arise false 
 
 Christs and false prophets, and shall shew signs and wonders.” 
 “^Though we,” (says St. Paul) “or an angel from heaven, 
 preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have 
 preached unto you, let him be accursed.” St. Paul also says, 
 of “"^that wicked” who shall “be revealed,” (o dvojuo^) that 
 his “ coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, 
 and signs, and lying wonders®.” We cannot read such texts 
 as these, and think ourselves at liberty to neglect criteria of 
 true and false miracles. It must be wrong not to prepare 
 ourselves for a duty to which we are plainly informed that 
 we shall (or may) be called. 
 
 With regard to instances of miracles, exemplifying the 
 general remarks in the last chapter, many might be enume- 
 rated, far beyond our limits ; it would carry us into great 
 length of discussion to consider all the circumstances even of 
 those few miracles mentioned by Mr. Hume^. We will only 
 select such examples as seem requisite to elucidate the general 207 
 observations made in the last section of the preceding chapter. 
 
 In considering doubtful miracles, we must keep two 
 things in our mind ; their nature and their j)urpose. Under 
 
 ^ Deut. xiii. 1 — 3. 
 
 2 Matt. xxiv. 24. ^ Gal. 1. 8. 
 
 2 Thess. ii. 8, 9, 1 1, crjixeluv is distin- 
 guished from Tepu^. — See Parkhurst’s 
 Lex. Tc'/oas, or Mintert’s, as before. 
 
 ° See Bishop Hallifax on Prophecy, 
 
 p. 2. 
 
 ® Here Mr. Hume’s account of Vespa- 
 sian’s miracles, and those at the tomb of 
 the Abbe Paris, should be read. 
 
I. Xvi. 10.] MIIIACLES OF THE XEW TESTAMENT 
 
 147 
 
 I. their nature^ I comprehend the occasion on which they were 
 wrought, as well as the manner'^ and matter of them; con- 
 fining the notion of 'purpose to the religious and moral systems 
 which they were intended to support. 
 
 To form a complete system of criteria of true and false 
 miracles is impracticable. The regular way of forming one 
 would be, to read with very nice attention® all the accounts 
 of miracles which are to be found, and mark with the utmost 
 minuteness all their distinguishing properties; then class 
 them, &c. If it should be allowed that there is a degree 
 of human sagacity capable of accomplishing this, yet, when 
 these criteria were known, the next forgers of miracles would 
 be aware of them, and would furnish their signs and wonders 
 with as many as possible of the newly-discovered marks of 
 credibility. 
 
 Nevertheless, from the occasion^ the manner^ and the 
 matter of doubtful and suspicious miracles, we may, in many 
 cases, form a judgment; and perhaps we need seldom be in 
 any great perplexity about the conduct which we shall 
 pursue. 
 
 If the occasion of any doubtful miracle is trijling^ and 
 208 frivolous, we shall hesitate much to accept it. A miracle is 
 no trifle. Many trifling occasions are so plainly such, as 
 to want no pointing out : others may have some appearance of 
 bustle and importance, when they really are of very little 
 moment. It may justly be thought a trifling occasion when 
 men contend about things they do not understand, however 
 vehement they may be. Words without ideas seem as if they 
 could never furnish a motive to infinite wisdom for unsettling 
 the laws of nature. And as regularity in the operations of 
 nature seems intended to guide us in our ordinary under- 
 takings, it is improbable that the laws of nature should ever 
 be violated in the ordinary course of things, or when such 
 violations are needless. The Jesuits and Jansenists differed 
 about questions above the decision of the human understand- 
 ing and the miracles said to be performed at the tomb of 
 
 See xvi. 1, and xv. 22. 
 
 ^ Bacon, as quoted by Hume at the 
 end of his Essay, seems to say something 
 like this : “ Facienda est congeries om- 
 nium monstrorum,” &c. 
 
 •'* Several of the ScripOire m.iracles are 
 
 performed on occasions which may be 
 called trifling, taken separately ; but they 
 should all be conceived as jointly per- 
 formed on one single occasion^ to prove 
 Jesus to be the Messiah. 
 
 See book iv. of this; art. x. sect. IJ. 
 
 10 2 
 
148 
 
 MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [I. Xvi. 10. 
 
 the '^Ahhe Pa^'is were performed in support of the Jansenist I. 
 side of those questions. 
 
 We cannot conceive Vespasian's being emperor any very 
 important matter in the sight of Heaven. 
 
 When miracles are said to be performed in support of a 
 religion that is established, they are the less credible on that 
 account. The Mahometan religion does not appear to have 
 made any public pretensions to miracles before it was estab- 
 lished, except perhaps communication of the prophet with 
 the Deity, which is a miracle that wants other miracles -to 
 prove it ; whereas the Christian religion unquestionably did : 
 and I think Bishop Butler has shewn^, that, in the proper 
 sense of the expressions, this was peculiar to Christianity, 
 (including the Mosaic religion, by which it was introduced.) 209 
 The first publishers of the Christian religion performed mi- 
 racles before it acquired any strength or influence, or had any 
 witnesses who could be partial ; when men could not concert 
 them, and were least likely to accept them. 
 
 When miracles are said to be performed in support of 
 any powerful party^ or set of men, they are evidently the less 
 credible on that account; because power can procure false 
 testimony, and a party or set of men can furnish numbers, 
 who can play into each others hands. The Abbe Paris was 
 favoured by a powerful party, and every miracle supposed 
 to be performed at his tomb was immediately applied as a 
 strong argument in support of that party. This principle 
 discredits the miracle said to have been performed by ^Ves- 
 pasian: he could want no proofs that he chose to call for. 
 What is said of parties is particularly applicable to rival and 
 contending parties : if they are equal in power they strain 
 every nerve for victory. And indeed this principle reaches 
 all miracles which appear to be performed with worldly 
 views. 
 
 Sometimes we may form a judgment of miracles from the 
 manner in which they are performed or related. If miracles 
 are a long time in performing, it aflbrds room to suspect that 
 they are brought about by human means. Several of the 
 
 1 Should it be Abbe Paris, or Abbe' de 
 Paris? Hume, a very good Frenchman, 
 quotes in French, Abb(- Paris, p. 131). 8vo ; 
 but Leland uses Abbe de Paris, seem- 
 ingly from the French also, from the very 
 same title, P.ecueil dcs Miracles, &c. 
 
 2 See Bp. Butler’s Analogy, Part ii. 
 chap. 7. 
 
 3 Suetonius, Vesp. Chap. vii. — Taci- 
 tus, Hist. iv. bl.—Bullet, by Salisbury, 
 p. 251. — Lardner’s Test. — Hume on Mi- 
 racles. 
 
I. Xvi. 10.] MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 149 
 
 I. cures at the tomb of the Abbe Paris were slow, gradual, and 
 attended with excessive pain% whereas our Saviour’s miracles 
 mio^ht be called instantaneous. St. Januarius’s blood is not 
 liquefied all at once^; it takes up between eight, and twenty 
 minutes. 
 
 210 Though some witnesses of miracles are necessary to their 
 credibility, yet crowds are suspicious. There were generally 
 crowds present at the tomb of the Abbe Paris. And St. 
 Januarius^s blood is always liquefied in the midst of a large 
 multitude. When our Lord cured the deaf man (Mark vii. 
 33) it is particularly said, he took him “ aside from the multi- 
 tude and yet there were some witnesses.^ for we find “ he 
 charged them'"’' not to publish his fame. How different from 
 the conduct of Lucian’s Alexander! 
 
 Some judgment may be formed from scenery.^ and those 
 that have possession of it: sometimes if that be changed the 
 miraculous power ceases. The Cock-lane ghost could only 
 knock and scratch in one place. When the gates of the 
 church-yard were shut up at Paris, the Abbe occasioned no 
 more miracles. Some indeed have excepted convulsions ; but, 
 as thirty Jansenist divines*^ have rejected them, we may reject 
 them safely. 
 
 We may here mark the difference between a single mi- 
 racle, and a set or system^ all adapted in an orderly manner to 
 one important end. No single miracle seems wholly credible 
 of itself. We cannot conceive any reason for exerting mira- 
 culous power, which would not occasion a number of miracles. 
 This again affects Vespasian^s cure; and so it must, though 
 he were said to have performed another. The Christian 
 miracles were very numerous. From this consideration it fol- 
 lows, that, if we meet with a relation of a miracle.^ with cir- 
 cumstances which we cannot account for., we are not to be 
 alarmed, nor to think that a proof of its credibility. 
 
 Our judgment may moreover be assisted by the manner 
 in which miracles are related. Accounts nicely studied and 
 211 arranged are suspicious, because they shew a consciousness of 
 some weakness, which requires circumspection; some guarding 
 against discoveries: and a pompous style shews that the re- 
 lator distrusts his matter. The relations of the New Testa- 
 ment are remarkably artless and unguarded — the consequence 
 of which is some cavilling from enemies ; but I should hope 
 
 Leland i. p. 327, 5th edit. ® See any travels to Naples. *5 Leland i. p. 328. 
 
150 MIRACLES OE THE NEW TESTAMENT. [1. Xvi. 10, 
 
 great credit from the candid and judicious. Though we could L 
 not solve any certain difficulty in a relation of a Gospel miracle, 
 yet, if we see it is clearly one which an artful contriver of a 
 story would not have left, that is enough to shew that the 
 relation is not artfully contrived ; which is the main thing we 
 want to be convinced of. Thus errors in manuscripts' are 
 sometimes recommendations (Chap. viii. sect. 6.). The reason 
 is the same; voluntary falsifications are more to be feared 
 than involuntary : and if we can be secure against the former, 
 we can put up with the latter, especially when the latter are 
 the foundation of our security. 
 
 Under this head we may rank the character of the persons 
 who give the relation ; if they have been found encouragers of 
 pious frauds, their accounts will deserve but little attention. 
 
 If they are very remote their credit is the worse; as analogy 
 of all kinds is weakened by distance’, in any sense of the word. 
 
 But the principal thing to consider, with regard to relators 
 (whose veracity we have no particular reason to suspect), is, 
 whether they are what one may call versed in miracles, whether 
 they know all the criteria fixed upon before their own times. 
 
 The relators of the first Christian miracles seem not to have 
 had any notion of such a thing ; any more than an ingenuous 
 man has of the external marks of internal emotions, or one 
 naturally eloquent, of the rules of rhetorie: — whereas those 212 
 who presided at the tomb of the Ahhe Paris understood per- 
 fectly all the criteria which had ever been remarked, and could 
 provide accordingly. 
 
 We may, lastly, form some judgment of the credibility of 
 particular miracles, from what may be called the matter of 
 them. If the changes they make are in laws of nature which 
 are little known^ they are suspicious ; and so, if they are like 
 former false miracles. If they have a sameness amongst them- 
 selves, being all cures^ for instance, of one sort of distemper,, 
 or of distempers nearly allied, there is room to suspect that 
 they are all only one tricky with some variations. Marks of 
 henevolenee must be some recommendation of miracles, because 
 those who invent wish often to avenge their gods or themselves 
 of their enemies: Christ ‘‘“went about doing good” miracu- 
 louslv, though the whole system of Christian miracles seems to 
 liave been intended to convinee men that he was sent from 
 God. 
 
 * Powell, p. (15, “ Acts X. 38. 
 
I. Xvi. 11.] MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 151 
 
 I. We may add here, as we did when we spoke^ of the criteria 
 of miracles in general, that, after all, there may be some cases 
 of which we must form a judgment in a manner which we cannot 
 describe, by means of owe feelings and common sense; though 
 we must not rest in these when it can be avoided. Of such 
 it is not easy to give instances. 
 
 11. Having considered the marks of true and false 
 miracles, which may be found in their nature, we now come to 
 take some notice of their purpose. The purpose of true miracles 
 is to promote true religion and improved morality. 
 
 If doubtful miracles tend to promote rational religion and 
 pui'e morals, that will add greatly to their credibility ; but if 
 
 213 they are performed in order to support idolatry, very gross 
 superstition, enthusiasm, fanaticism, or had morals, no ex- 
 ternal testimony can make them perfectly credible^ 
 
 It may probably be thought that this remark is too hold, 
 and unfriendly to Revelation; and therefore that the Scriptures 
 cannot encourage this opinion : it is then our business to shew 
 that they do. Indeed, this may appear in some degree from 
 the texts already'" quoted ; but it will more fully appear from 
 the following considerations. 
 
 Our Lord distinguishes between the spirit of Elias and the 
 spirit of the Gospel, in the exertion of the same miraculous® 
 power. Elias had called ior fire from heaven to consume those 
 who attacked him : the disciples of Christ proposed to him to 
 do the same thing, to punish the Samaritans for their inhos- 
 pitable treatment : — “ but he turned, and rebuked them, and 
 said. Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of:” that is^ 
 Such a miracle would be as much a miracle as any other, 
 but it would not arise from, and therefore it would not promote, 
 Christian virtue: it would be an instance of power, but it 
 would prove nothing in my favour by its tendency,^’' 
 
 When the Jews" want to apply the above-mentioned text 
 (Deut. xiii. 1—3) to Christ, and say that his power is not of an 
 heavenly sort, though they require a sign he grants them none ; 
 he shews them no further instance of power, but only points 
 
 214 out to them the general good tendency of his miracles, or 
 
 ^ xvi. 1, and xv. 22. j racles said to have been performed at his 
 
 ^ Leland rightly gives (vol. i. p. 356,) tomb, 
 the additional accounts which he had I ® In the preceding section. Deut. xiii. 
 received of the fanatical austerities of the ! 1 — 3, and others. 
 
 Abbe Paris; judging that gross errors in j « Luke ix. 55. 2 Kings i. 10, 12. 
 religion could not but discredit the mi- ' ^ Luj^g xi.15,16. See Macknight,p.368. 
 
152 
 
 MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [I. Xvi. 12. 
 
 rather refers them to it (as a thing well known) tacitly^ which I. 
 must prove that his power could not be diabolical; and, as he 
 taught no false religion, that text (Deut. xiii. 1—3) could not 
 be applicable to him, 
 
 Christ, as was lately^ observed, sometimes points out the 
 moral tendency of his own miracles by moralizing upon them: 
 during the performance also of his miracles he had often looks 
 and gestures of a moral nature, and ^shewed by prayer, by 
 sighs, and tears, how much he had the true happiness of man- 
 kind at heart, which he knew well must depend upon religion 
 and virtue. 
 
 Though doing many miracles was a characteristic of the 
 Messiah, yet he is not described by mere power ; the applica- 
 tion of his power is always particularly insisted on. The 
 spectators of his miracle exclaim, “ He hath done all things^ 
 well.” God anointed (says St. Peter) Jesus of Nazareth^ 
 with the Holy Ghost and with power, who went about doing' 
 good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for 
 God was with him.” “ The Spirit of the Lord is upon me 
 (reads our Saviour^, out of the prophecy of Isaiah, concerning 
 the Messiah), because he hath anointed me to preach the 
 Gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken- 
 hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering 
 of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 
 to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.” Men were to 
 judge, then, whether Jesus was the Messiah, not only by his 
 power in performing miracles, but by their tendency : and we 
 may safely adopt the words of a learned prelate, Neither 
 doctrines alone, nor miracles alone, are a sufficient testimony® 215 
 that the revelation containing them is divine ;” though their 
 united testimony is sufficiently convincing. 
 
 12. We may affirm, on this ground, that the evidence of 
 the Gospel miracles is suffcient to answer all the purposes 
 which it can be supposed they were intended to answer. As 
 was observed before of the evidence for Christianity in general, 
 it is but probable evidence: — 1. Our senses may possibly 
 deceive us ; 2. Testimony can only be probable ; 3. Supposing 
 a fact ascertained, we may not know certainly whether it is 
 
 » Sect. 7. 
 
 2 See IMark vii. 34. John xi. 33, 35, 33. 
 ^ Mark vii. 37. Acts x. 33. 
 
 ^ Luke iv. 13. Isai. Lxi. 1. 
 
 ® Bp. Halifax, p. 2. He goes on after 
 these words to say the same thing more 
 fully. 
 
I. Xvi. 13.] MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 153 
 
 I. natural or supernatural ; 4. Supposing it supernatural, yet 
 scepticism may still question whether it expresses the intention 
 of God, But, though our evidence is only probable evidence, 
 yet it is sufficiently strong. Our expectations of life and 
 death, of day and night, summer and winter, are founded only 
 on probability ; yet we act upon them as on knowledge or 
 certainty: and if the evidence of miracles does but influence 
 our lives and actions, it will do all that it needs to do. No 
 higher degree of evidence, were it within the nature of the 
 thing, could leave us in a state of probation. Bishop Butler, 
 in his ■'Analogy, speaks more particularly on this utility of 
 probable evidence, and with his usual good sense : he also 
 says®, “ Nor does there appear any absurdity in supposing 
 that the speculative difficulties in which the evidence of Beli- 
 gion is involved, may make even the principal part of some 
 persons’ trial;” which agrees with Deut. xiii. 3, quoted before: 
 
 216 “ For the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye 
 love the Lord your God, with all your heart and with all 
 your soul.” 
 
 13. It seems to follow, from what has been said, that the 
 evidence of miracles, even though supposed to be performed 
 in or near our own times, gradually grows weaker and weaker, 
 and at last must be too weak to convince any reasonable person : 
 for whatever marks can be put upon true miracles, may be 
 forged in such a degree as to occasion great doubt : and the 
 less occasion there seems for them, the less effect will any 
 given strength of evidence have. As there seems great reason 
 to conclude that the Christian dispensation is not to be 
 succeeded by any other; for it is universal, and admits the 
 greatest improvements in all mankind that we have any con- 
 ception of ; it appears probable that the miracles intended 
 to establish the Christian religion will be the last credible 
 miracles performed in the world. Grotius, on Mark xvi. 17» 
 says, that if a man was to go teach the Gospel to barbarous 
 nations, he would still have the supernatural powers mentioned 
 in that verse; but this seems rash: the first propagation 
 of the Gospel was very different from the spreading of it at 
 present'^ Besides, we cannot on any occasion point out the 
 
 7 Butler’s Anal. Part ii. chap. 8. 4thly. 
 ® Part ii. chap. 6. 3dly. 
 
 ^ Grotius rather seems to speak with 
 a reference to the power of casting out 
 
 demons^ than to that of speaking with 
 new tongues ; though I do not see why 
 he might not mean to include these 
 also. 
 
154 
 
 MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [I. Xvi. 14. 
 
 expedients of divine government beforehand^ though we may I. 
 admire them when they are past. 
 
 It is not necessary for us, just at present, to enter into 
 disputes about the duration of miraculous powers in the 
 Christian church. All that we have said only implies, that 
 Christian miracles were intended to establish Christianity, 
 whether they continued a longer or a shorter time. Bishop 
 Warburton has published a very ingenious defence of the 217 
 miraculous fiery eruption, when Julian attempted (or was 
 supposed to attempt) to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem. 
 
 I once^ explained my reasons why I was not satisfied with it; 
 and I since find that Lardner~^ who saw much farther into 
 the subject than I did, came to the same conclusion. I men- 
 tion this miracle as one about which learned men have 
 held different opinions. Another instance is, the miracle of 
 the thundering'^ legion. Another, the conversion of Con- 
 stantine the Greatb 
 
 14. I know not that I can now make any more remarks 
 on the subject of miracles, without being too particular for 
 the nature of our undertaking. I could only wish to look 
 once more through Mr. Hume’s Essay, and apply what has 
 been said, in the order of his observations ; inserting any 
 thing that may appear to have been improperly omitted. 
 
 Mr. Hume opens his Essay on Miracles with an argu- 
 ment of Archbishop Tillotson^ which seems neither^ conclu- 
 sive nor applicable. He estimates the comparative forces 
 of analogy and testimony falsely, in several respects ; ascrib- 
 ing too much force to analogy, and too little to testimony. 
 
 He defends the Indian prince^ and says he reasoned justly; 
 though he says, that Indians cannot reasonably be positive” 
 about what happens in Muscovy. He builds upon a dis- 218 
 tinction between extraordinary and miraculous, which does 
 not affect our reasoning. He speaks of a law of nature 
 
 ^ In some lectures on ecclesiastical his- 
 tory, read in Sidney College Chapel, in 
 the years 1708 and 1709. 
 
 ^ Lardner’s Works, vol. viii. p. 393; 
 and vol. x. p. 83: read the passage in 
 vol. first. 
 
 •'* Bullet transl. by Salisbury, p. 47, 
 and note. 
 
 ^ See Lardner’s Works, vol. iv. pp. 
 151, 152. 
 
 ® The twenty-eighth Article of the 
 Church of England takes better ground. 
 Transubstantiation, it says, cannot be 
 proved by Holy Writ, nay, is repugnant 
 to it, &c. — If all else was right, our senses 
 would not give us just reason for reject- 
 ing the doctrine. And the evidence of 
 miracles does not overthrow that of our 
 senses. 
 
I.Xvi. H',] MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 155 
 
 I. as of something known to be fixed. He says, that there 
 must be an uniform experience against a miracle,” in order 
 to make it one; whereas experience tells us, that extraor- 
 dinary measures are always used on extraordinary occasions. 
 And the experience of which he speaks is only in one tracks 
 and the expectation founded on it liable to be weakened or 
 destroyed by change of circumstances : God’s giving the 
 teachers of a new religion power to alter the course of 
 nature, would not lessen our ordinary confidence in it. So 
 that if a man said, “ that he saiu a dead man restored to lifefi 
 and that was the whole of the matter, I should disbelieve it. 
 My habitual expectations should guide me in ordinary cases ; 
 but if the resurrection of a dead person seemed a rational 
 proof of any thing extraordinary and important^ and part 
 of a system of miracles, the case would be changed ; I should 
 be quite in a new situation^ and it would be childish and 
 absurd for me to adhere to that experience which had before 
 been my best guide. If, indeed, this rising of a dead man 
 was a single event, I should give it but little credit. 
 
 So much of what might he. With regard to what has 
 been, it seems to me, that a testimony which has never been 
 known to deceive ought to convince, especially when joined 
 with an important occasion. And such testimony we have 
 in favour of Christian miracles. Men certainly love the 
 marvellous, but our witnesses were very sober-minded. Ig^ 
 norant people may be easily imposed upon ; but the Jews 
 were the least ignorant, as to religion, of any people in the 
 world. Miracles for one religion are miracles agamst an- 
 other, it seems; but I have heard two witnesses swear point- 
 
 19 blank against each other, and yet nobody thought both of 
 them perjured. Vespasian'^s miracles seem incredible, be- 
 cause he had dependents and flatterers, and was inclined 
 to superstition ; besides, he did so little, and in cases so 
 unimportant! The effects of credulity and pious fraud, 
 separate and conjoined, are certainly lamentable: the door- 
 keeper of Saragossa cathedral, the niece of Pascal, and the 
 tomb of the Abbe Paris, are melancholy instances. But the 
 occasions were trifling, the parties powerful, interested, 
 enthusiastic, and well skilled in the criteria of miracles, and 
 marks of credibility. This last shews how “the Jansenist 
 miracles” might “much surpass'''' those of Jesus Christ in 
 evidence and authority. 
 
156 
 
 PROI'HECIES, 
 
 [I. xvii. Int. 
 
 A great deal might be said about circumstances of I. 
 these affairs, as appears from Leland‘'s View, where several 
 curious things appear: but our principles will suffice; de- 
 tails would be tedious^ and imperfect. We have no reason, 
 as Christians, to expect such miracles ; we have great reason 
 to suspect the testimony by which they were supported. 
 
 I profess that my expectation is, that if ever God does 
 reveal his will to mankind, he will alter the course of nature 
 by some of his agents. I have no idea what other creden- 
 Hals they can have. 
 
 And, with regard to the Christian religion, I own that 
 the notion of its being propagated without miracles, (sup- 
 posing it true), is more strange, more contrary to all judge- 
 ments which I can form from experience, than its being 
 propagated by their assistance. Although, therefore, I have 
 an expectation of falsehood and deception in pretensions to 
 modern miracles, or to any circumstanced like those which 
 are said to have been performed between the settlement of 
 Christianity and the present time, yet I have, from the 
 same experience, a strong expectation of real miracles on 220 
 such an occasion as the first propagation of the Gospel. 
 
 It is mortifying to be obliged to speak of the miracles 
 of the Gospel collectively ; but our limits require it, and 
 make it neeessary. The answers to Woolston will supply 
 particulars to the attentive reader. I would especially re- 
 commend Lardno^s answers, at the beginning of the last 
 volume of his works. 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 221 
 
 OF PROPHECIES. 
 
 Prophecies may be conceived as a species of miracles: 
 the law of nature which they violate is that by which we 
 are made ignorant of future events ; but this conception may 
 seem rather confused ; we may therefore as well not confine 
 ourselves to it. The word Prophecy needs no definition : we 
 know sufficiently, without explanation, what is meant by it. 
 There may be some utility in dividing prophecies into dif- 
 ferent sorts. 
 
I. xvii. 1.] 
 
 PllOPHEXIES. 
 
 157 
 
 I. 1. We may mention those of the Old Testament : these 
 seem to be well enumerated by Bishop Newton^ in his Dis- 
 sertations on the Prophecies which have been fulfilled or 
 are fulfilling. The purpose of this learned prelate was, to 
 compare History with Prophecy. He tells us, towards his 
 conclusion, (p, 439 , vol. iii.) that the study of History led 
 him to the study of Prophecy. 
 
 He mentions only one prophecy before that of Noah, 
 
 ‘ namely, Gen. iii. 15 , which verse he thinks unworthy of 
 Moses or any sensible writer in any other sense besides a 
 propheticaP one. He then gives a dissertation on Noah’s^ 
 prophecy, and its completion ; another on the prophecies 
 concerning IshmaeP ; and others in like manner upon the 
 prophecies concerning Jacob and Esau ; on Jacob's pro- 
 phecies concerning his sons, particularly Judah; on BalaanCs 
 prophecies, and on those of Moses, Then he takes the sub- 
 222 jects in the order of the several nations whose fortunes 
 were foretold : he collects the various prophecies concerning 
 the Jews; the Ninevites ; the inhabitants of Babylon, with 
 their city ; concerning Tyre, and Egypt ; after which, he 
 applies himself to the prophecies of Daniel separately from 
 the rest. If we take the prophetic hooks of the Old Test- 
 ament, we must mention four books of the major prophets, 
 and twelve of the minor ; all of whom lived between about 
 800 years before Christ and 430 . Malachi was the last. 
 Not that it is quite certain when each prophet lived, though 
 the time may be tolerably well ascertained from internal 
 marks. Prophecy is intermixed with history in most if not 
 all the books in which it is found, except perhaps the 
 Book of Psalms. 
 
 This may be a proper place for remarking, that the 
 subjects of theology are so copious, that we are obliged, 
 in a system which contains all subjects, to leave some to 
 be treated in separate works. This is the case with pro- 
 phecy : we can only give the elements of it, leaving the 
 completion of particular prophecies to other works. Indeed, 
 our readings in Bishop Pearson on the Creed will contri- 
 bute greatly to supply the defect we speak of. 
 
 The same kind of omissions are made in other exten- 
 sive systems; — as in those of natural philosophy, law, his- 
 tory, &c. No one who teaches all the branches of natural 
 ‘ Vol. I. p. 10. 2 ix. 25, 26, 27. ^ Gen. xvi. 6—12; xvii. 20; xxi. 13, 18. 
 
158 
 
 PROPHECIES. 
 
 [I. xvii. 2-4. 
 
 philosophy gives all the particulars contained in SmitJis I. 
 Optics. 
 
 2. We must next mention the prophecies of the New 
 Testament. Bishop Newton also enumerates these, and 
 points out their completion, as far as they are already 
 completed ; for, though ‘ some of them are completed, others 
 remain uncompleted. Bishop Newton has four dissertations 
 on our Saviour’s prophecies relating to the destruction of 
 Jerusalem; one upon St. Paul’s prophecy of the man^ of sin; 223 
 and one upon his prophecy of the apostasy^ of the latter 
 times; and nearly an wdiole octavo volume on St. John’s 
 prophecies in the book of Revelation. 
 
 3. There seems to have been a sort of prophecy dis- 
 tinguishable from both the foregoing ; chiefly by its being 
 occasional. In the New Testament it is called the gift^ of 
 prophecy, but there seems to have been something analogous 
 to it under the Old, as may appear from Deut. xiii. 1, already 
 quoted, and from the use of the Urim and Thummim^, 
 Indeed, under the Jewish polity, prediction of events which 
 soon came to pass made part of the Theocracy^ at least till the 
 time of Solomon : under Christianity, at its first publication, 
 this temporary prophecy seems to have been intended for com- 
 fort to the persecuted, and for warning as to the measures 
 which it was prudent to adopt^. 
 
 Yet sometimes to prophesy means only to expound pro- 
 phecies, or the plans of Revelation ; and prophets are accord- 
 ingly expounders of the revealed will of God : nay, sometimes 
 they seem to be only the instruments of exhortation and 
 edification in general — of that kind of edification which fore- 
 telling events was one means of producing. The gift of 
 prophecy must operate as a strong proof of the truth of Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 4. The difficulties attending the prophecies of the Old 
 Testament have® been acknowledged to be very great ; but 
 yet they do not necessarily take away the argument on which 
 our faith is founded. The chief thing that we want to prove 224 
 is the Divine Interposition ; for whatever the Supreme Being 
 
 • * 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4. 
 
 2 1 Tim. iv. 1, 2, 3. 
 
 2 1 Cor. xiii. 2. 
 
 See Crutlen’s Concordance, under 
 Thummim. 
 
 ^ See Warb. on Grace, p. 27 ; and Ep. 
 Horsley’s Sermon, on 1 Cor. ii. 2, Ap- 
 pendix. 
 
 See the opening of Dr. Powell’s 9th 
 Discourse. 
 
I. xvii. 4.] 
 
 PROPHECIES. 
 
 159 
 
 1. proves, by interposing in it, is true ; and, whenever there is 
 such a coincidence between any previous notice and a subse- 
 quent event, as is utterly unaccountable except on supposition 
 of a Divine interference, there the interference of the Deity is 
 to be admitted and allowed. Now such a coincidence there 
 may be, either when an eccpectation has been excited by the 
 previous notice, or not. If any expectation has been excited, 
 the coincidence of the event with that expectation is a proof of 
 the Divine interposition, even though we cannot judge of the 
 particular manner in which the expectation was originally 
 raised ; for what but the hand of Heaven could fulfil an 
 expectation of many particulars, especially w'hen they are of a 
 wonderful nature, or of a supernatural sort, or quite out of the 
 reach of ordinary analogy.^ To feel the force of this remarl<, 
 we should dwell on the subject; we should calculate the pro- 
 bability against any expectation being fulfilled by mere chance. 
 The Magi probably thought that the rising of a new star 
 portended the birth of a new prince ; and, on this erroneous 
 principle, they might follow the supernatural meteor which 
 led them to Jerusalem, and afterwards to Bethlehem: what 
 then ? though their expectation was founded upon astrology, 
 yet could it have been completed by chance ? or even without 
 a Divine interposition, somewhere or other ? Hence, without 
 clearly knowing the grounds of an expectation, we can pro- 
 nounce the fulfilling of that expectation Divine. On this 
 footing it is that we say, many difficulties relating to the pro- 
 phecies of the Old Testament may be neglected. Difficulties 
 are raised as to the grounds on which the Jews expected the 
 225 'Messiah; but we see that, if they did expect him, and their 
 expectation related to several particulars, and those of an extra- 
 ordinary nature, and if events corresponded to those expecta- 
 tions, that is sufficient. 
 
 But, though the previous notice raises 7io expectation^ 
 (which may happen through inattention, misapprehension, pre- 
 judice, &c.) yet the Divine interposition may still appear. 
 Events may bring to light a previous notice of those events ; 
 as in common life we may find that we had been warned of a 
 danger when we fall into it, though we had not found it out 
 before. And whenever a previous notice and a subsequent 
 event coincide — at whatever time we happen to discover the 
 coincidence, there is an interposition of Heaven. 
 
 The present intention of these remarks is only to prevent 
 
160 
 
 PUOPIIECIES. 
 
 [I. xvii. 5, 6. 
 
 our being discouraged with difficulties relating to prophecies, I. 
 when they seem unsurmountable : we must not conclude that 
 all difficulties will have such an appearance, when we come to 
 consider them attentively. 
 
 5. Nevertheless, it must not be denied, that the generality 
 of prophecies are involved in obscurity. Our next business is 
 to consider the nature of that obscurity, and the probable 
 reasons of it. Such considerations must best excite us to study 
 the subject of prophecy with diligence, and enable us to study 
 it with success. 
 
 The clearest possible kind of prophecies we can only 
 imagine ; we have no instances of it. If an event was foretold 
 with all circumstances, of time, place, &c. and was to come to 
 pass, there would be no difficulty at all ; but yet, though the 
 completion would be miraculous, this is not the sort we meet 
 with ; — why, we may not know perfectly. The obscurity of 
 prophecies can afford no presumption that they do not come 
 from the Author of nature; because in his government many 
 difficulties occur. To have prophecies perfectly plain, seems 226 
 like having jewels ready polished, medicines vegetating already 
 compounded ; which would afford no exercise for the faculties, 
 natural or moral — no probation. We may add, that if pro- 
 phecies were perfectly plain, the completion of them might be 
 obstructed, unless man’s freedom of choice were taken away or 
 abridged ; or it might be hastened by man, which would lessen 
 the belief of the divine interposition. In general, whatever 
 introduces human contrivance into any events must diminish 
 the evidence of their being supernatural. 
 
 6. So far we might apologize for the obscurity of pro- 
 phecies, before we come to study them : when we come to 
 study them, we find some reasons for their obscurity taken 
 from the nature of language^ some taken from the circum- 
 stances in which they were delivered. 
 
 All languages abound with imperfections, which are sup- 
 plied by habitual feelings^ as was before shewn h Whenever 
 God speaks to man, he will suffer his agents to fall into all 
 customary modes of speech ; otherwise, the language they 
 spoke would, in effect, be the most imperfect of any, as it 
 would be the least intelligible. Eastern language, when the 
 pro})hets wrote, was very figurative, therefore so must be 
 theirs. To conceive this properly, it seems necessary to 
 
 * Chap. X. sect. 1. 
 
I.xvii. 6.] 
 
 PROPHECIES. 
 
 IGl 
 
 I. recur to the origin." of figurative speech. When words are 
 few in any language, there is a necessity of using one word, 
 not only to express the thing it stands for immediately, but to 
 transfer it, {txeracpepeLvf) so that it shall stand for another 
 
 227 thing which resembles the first ; and as these resemblances, 
 couched in a single word, are ‘pleasing^ they are carried 
 farther, and continued longer than necessity requires. The 
 degree in which they are used may, I should think, depend 
 upon the pleasure they excite, that is, upon the ^warmth of 
 imagination. This relates chiefly to speaking. 
 
 Language, in writings may be either by an alphabet^ 
 that is, a set of marks merely arbitrary ; or by hieroglyphics, 
 that is, symbolic marks; or hy pictures. I mention the alphabet 
 first, because that is most familiar to us, though the most 
 difficult in itself ; but the order in which the marks were 
 invented^ must have been the reverse. Men would first 
 express a thing in writing by some picture of it; but this 
 could only express visible objects: then they would make the 
 same picture to represent objects of sense, and things 7iot 
 objects of sense — things visible, and things invisible, as an 
 horn would mean '^stre^igth: and lastly, for expedition and 
 convenience, they would use marks purely arbitrary ; though 
 how a letter, which expresses 710 idea, should come to be 
 substituted for a picture or symbol which expresses a whole 
 idea, is somewhat difficult to comprehend. 
 
 When the mark of an horn is made to signify an hor7i, 
 it is a picture; when to signify strength, it is properly an 
 
 228 hieroglyphic, or symbolic character ; and it has been said, 
 we may conceive these to degenerate, by quick writing, into 
 ^letters. As each hieroglyphic contains move senses than one, 
 we may conceive several to be put together, so as to form a 
 
 2 See Bp. Hurd’s 9th Sermon on Pro- 
 phecy, particularly p. 280, &c. 
 
 ^ Bp. Hurd rather opposes this no- 
 tion ; but necessity might occasion the 
 first use of metaphors, and pleasure con- 
 tinue it, as indeed he himself owns. 
 
 If they loere all invented. Mr. Wake- 
 field has written a dissertation in order 
 to prove that alphabetical writing was 
 revealed to the Hebrews, and borrowed 
 from them by other nations. See Life of 
 31r. Gilbert Wakefield by himself, p. 
 200. In things so obscure as the subject 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 of alphabetical writing, arguments which 
 we cannot take off may leave the mind 
 undecided ; especially till an opportunity 
 occurs of giving them an attentive exami- 
 nation. 
 
 5 Hurd. 
 
 A picture of an axe might at first be 
 a mark meaning an axe ; then it might 
 mean any thing sAcrjo, or cutting; a sharp 
 cutting reproof ; any thing acid : at last 
 the picture might be hastily and ill made ; 
 deviate from a picture into a character, 
 i and from a character into a mere letter. 
 
 11 
 
1G2 
 
 PROPHECIES. 
 
 [I. xvii. 6. 
 
 kind of enigma^ which would amuse by exercising ingenuity^ I. 
 and sometimes answer the purpose of temporary concealment. 
 These and other reasons might induce the Egyptians to con- 
 tinue the use of hieroglyphics after they had an alphabet; and 
 other nations to copy from them, which the Jews and others in 
 the East are said certainly to have done ; and some westerns, 
 or at least Grecians, are said to have done the same. 
 
 Though symbols or hieroglyphics had some resemblance 
 to an original, which was an object of the senses, yet they, as 
 well as letters, were in a considerable degree arbitrary ; and 
 therefore they might be learnt as a language. Dr. Peter 
 Lancaster^ has prefixed to his abridgment of Daubuz on the 
 Revelation, an account of all the symbols used in that sacred 
 book, with the interpretations of the ancients ; the terms 
 ranged in alphabetical order, and making a symbolical die- 
 tionary, as far as such a dictionary is wanted for the book of 
 Revelation. 
 
 These symbols seem to have been the ground of the rules 
 of interpreting dreams : the ground of the science of Oneiro- 
 critics^. A leopard was a symbol of a crafty man; therefore 
 to dream of a leopard (connected probably with other circum- 
 stances) was to dream of a crafty man, or was to be warned 229 
 concerning some artful person : and so in numberless other 
 cases. Hence, if the language of dreams was lost, we could 
 find it out if we had the language of symbols ; or if the 
 language of symbols was lost, we could find it out if we had 
 the language of dreams ; or if both were partly lost, the 
 remains of one would help out the remains of the other. 
 This is the reason why men, no way superstitious about dreams, 
 set such a value on Oneirocritics : they help to teach the sym- 
 bolic language, and that is (often) the language of prophecy. 
 
 Nay, there is another reason why Oneirocritics should be 
 valued, though it may seem somewhat harsh, or weak, to the 
 unthinking prejudice of those who abhor ^superstition. God 
 revealed many things in dreams; Oneirocritics contain the 
 established language of dreams : the same reasons which prove 
 that God would use any other established language, though 
 very imperfect, prove that he would use this. By Oneiro- 
 
 * liancaster’s Symbolic Dictionary. 
 
 2 See Artemidorus ; and Bp. Hurd on 
 Propliecy, Disc. JHh, p. 208. 
 
 •'* JMay not one conceive that, wlien a 
 man is made to dream^ he must be made 
 
 to dream of some msihle objects? On 
 this supposition, the way to reveal (by 
 dream) any ideas, would be to make a 
 person dream of those visible objects 
 which represent those ideas. 
 
I. xvii. 7.] 
 
 PROPHECIES. 
 
 163 
 
 I. critics therefore those revelations are to be interpreted. To 
 look at that in Gen. xxxvii. 10, with the idea that a sun is the 
 symbol of a king, or prince, or head^, a moon of a queen, &c. 
 according as the scene is laid, would do no harm. We see 
 the father and mother understood the dream immediately. 
 
 What has been said of Oneirocritics, as teaching symbolical 
 language, may be extended to Dimnation. An ^ horse was a 
 symbol of prosperity; finding an head of an horse denoted 
 230 prosperity, in laying the foundations of Carthage : had we not 
 known that an horse was a symbol of prosperity, this act of 
 divination might have informed us. 
 
 If you ask why this symbolical language should be the 
 language of prophecy, it would be enough to answer, it was 
 the established language ; but we might add, that though 
 arbitrary in a degree, it is less arbitrary than alphabetical 
 language, and therefore better suited to instruct all nations, 
 in all times. Though it might be more obscure to any parti- 
 cular nation than its own vernacular tongue, yet to all nations, 
 taken collectively, it would be least obscure. 
 
 Moreover, the obscurity which it had to the one nation 
 of the Jews might answer good purposes. They were instru- 
 ments in the hand of Providence : had they seen clearly 
 to the end of their law, they would not have respected it 
 sufficiently for purposes of subjection and obedience. But 
 this leads us to apologize for the obscurity of the prophecies, 
 by the circumstances in which they were delivered. 
 
 7 . And surely it will be enough to observe, that the 
 distinctness with which any future event is seen by the light 
 of prophecy, in any scriptural instance, is proportioned to the 
 nearness of that event to the times of him who sees it. 
 
 To see a very remote event very clearly, could answer no 
 purpose of utility ; but all we want to prove is, that prophecy 
 is of divine original. Now, who but the supreme Being could 
 so proportion the obscurity of the prediction to the remoteness 
 of the event, as we find them proportioned ? If he made the 
 proportion, no more is wanted : our proofs of the propriety 
 of the prophecies, in different respects, are all intended to 
 terminate here‘s. 
 
 ^ Lancaster, p. 
 
 '' Hurd on Proph. p. 298. 
 
 Bp. Warburton (Works, 4to. vol. III. 
 p. 488,) has observed, that the prophets 
 were more fgiiraiive after the douhle 
 
 senses were left off; but this remark 
 cannot well be noticed, before we come 
 to speak of double senses ; nor does it 
 seem to contradict wliat has been said 
 hers. 
 
 n— 2 
 
164 
 
 PROPHECIES, 
 
 [1. xvii. 8. 
 
 8. Having thus shewn that we are not likely to find in I. 
 the Scriptures any prophecies which are as plain and clear 231 
 as any can be conceived to be, let us go to those which approach 
 nearest to such, in point of simplicity ; those which raise one 
 single expectation of one great and wonderful event, attended 
 with many particular circumstances. The argument, from 
 the completion of an expectation, has already been urged in 
 general : what we shall now say will relate particularly to the 
 Jews. That they did expect a Messiah^ and at the time when 
 our Saviour came into the world, cannot well be doubted : 
 the expectation appears from all the Jewish writings, parti- 
 cularly from their paraphrases of their Scriptures. The Scrip- 
 tures themselves speak only of a person, not mentioning the 
 jMessiah ; but in the paraphrases the word Messiah is found 
 about seventy times. In the Acts of the Apostles, it appears 
 from the speeches of St. Peter and St. Paul, (which are no way 
 likely to have been contrived for the purpose) that the point 
 in dispute was not whether the Messiah was or had been expect 
 but whether he had appeared. But it is urged that there 
 was no reaso7i to expect the Messiah ; the Jews grounded 
 their expectations on texts which related to "other matters: 
 to settle this point is not essential to our argument. The 
 Jews expected a very great event, attended with a number of 
 circumstances ; that event happened ; it could not have hap- 
 pened by chance ; it could not have been brought about by 
 art : there is only the divine interposition which can account 
 for it. Most probably the expectation was well grounded, but 
 that supposition is not absolutely necessary ; yet it seems as if 
 the main truth should be rightly understood by the expectants, 232 
 though the subordinate circumstances might be mistaken : 
 however, the argument is valid without entering into this. 
 
 Some have thought that there are no prophecies concerning 
 Christ which relate to him alone. Grotius was of this opinion ; 
 
 (see Div. Leg. B. vi. Sect 6’. p. 506, 8vo, where his notion is 
 Avell accounted for). But Bishop Chandler shews that many 
 prophecies relate immediately to Christ ; or, as it is called, in 
 their primary seiise, or to Christ alone (page 52—162, 2d 
 edit.) And Dr. Postlethwaite adds, with very great force 
 of reasoning, Isaiah vii. 14—16. See his Sermon preached at 
 Cambridge, Dec. 24, 1780. But at present I only just men- 
 
 ^ See Gibson’s Pastoral Letters, p. 17. Bishop Chandler’s Defence, Contents, 
 and Summary. * Powell, Disc. viii. p. 125. 
 
I. xvii. 9.] 
 
 FllOPHEClES. 
 
 165 
 
 I. tion this: the proper time for looking at any particular 
 prophecies, as having occasioned disputes, will be after we 
 have treated of prophecies supposed to liave two senses. This 
 however may be observed iiow^ that about the time of our 
 Saviour’s coming, the expectation of the Jews was a single 
 expectation of a Messiah, and that this expectation arose from 
 the prophecies : whatever other events, besides the coming of a 
 Messiah, any prophecies had pointed out, those events were 
 long over and past. 
 
 It may possibly happen, that an expectation may be com- 
 pleted hy chance^ as in the case of the twelve vultures mentioned’^ 
 by Bishop Hurd. But what was said^ of miracles is true of 
 prophecies : no single one can be a gi’ound of faith ; a single 
 expectation may be grounded on many prophecies ; and I 
 know not whether too much attention has not been paid to the 
 instance just now mentioned. A city is to be built: it is 
 natural to think how long it will last : twelve birds appear : 
 the conclusion is, it will last twelve somethings. When a 
 233 certain man, an augur, Vettius Valens, about 30 or 40 years 
 before Christ, found that it had lasted more than twelve tens 
 of years, the number twelve running in his mind, he took the 
 next thing, and said it would last twelve hundred years. 
 Rome was sacked by Genseric the Vandal, a.d. 454, or anno 
 Urbis conditss 1208 ; but it was afterwards sacked by Totila 
 king of the Goths'^ in 545 of Christ, or u.c. 1299. This is 
 pitiful prophesying, and very unlike even any single predic- 
 tion in the Bible. 
 
 9. The next thing which occurs is, to take notice that 
 many men may agree in an expectation, and yet disagree about 
 the completion of it. This does not seem to affect the argu- 
 ment to those who believe the expectation to have been ful- 
 filled : they must act after their own judgment. Others may 
 be biassed by prejudice, or worldly motives, or selfish pas- 
 sions : those who believe the completion cannot help that. If 
 we ask how it could happen, that some men should think the 
 common expectation fulfilled, others not.^ it may be answered, 
 that might happen by means of figurative, symbolic language ; 
 nay, supposing only that the expressions on which the expecta- 
 tion was grounded, were general^ capable of being applied to 
 different cases. Suppose, for instance, it had been foretold, 
 that a great poet should be born in England in the 17tli 
 . ^ Page 9'J. * Chap. xvi. sect. 10. ^ Blair’s Tables. 
 
166 
 
 PROPHECIES. 
 
 [I. xvii. 9. 
 
 century, and such an event was generally expected; those I 
 who expected it most strongly might doubt whether Milton 
 was the man. 
 
 But what we are principally concerned with here, is the 
 particular case of the Jews. Of them it has been^ said, that 
 they were better judges than we are ; as they knew the Ian- 
 guage of the prophecies concerning the Messiah better than 
 we could, and had a much nearer view of all those circum- 234 
 stances on which the interpretation of languages so greatly 
 depends. 
 
 i. To this we answer, it may be doubted whether the 
 modern Jews do understand pure Hebrew better than our- 
 selves ; even in our Saviour’s time they spoke only a dialect 
 of the Hebrew. Probably the Italians do not understand 
 Latin better than the English do. If those who speak any 
 language understand it much better than others, it is chiefly in 
 familiar idioms. But the language of prophecy is not familiar ; 
 it is solemn, and it is frequently figurative. 
 
 ii. Foreigners could judge as well of Milton’' s being the 
 poet foretold, as natives of England could. 
 
 iii. The Jews seem to be much more prejudiced than we 
 are. It is not easy to say how our prejudices could make 
 us admit Jesus as the Messiah ; but it is very easy to see how 
 their prejudices could make them reject him. He was poor, 
 of low rank, incapable of freeing them from the Roman yoke, 
 incapable of avenging them of their enemies. And Bishop 
 Chandler well observes^, that ‘‘ ambition, covetousness, and 
 thirst after revenge,” had cherished the Jewish notion of a 
 Messiah. Nay, their own Scriptures represent them as very 
 much prejudiced, and those evasive methods of interpreting, 
 which they adopted after the time of Jesus, prove them to 
 be so: to which we may add, that, in their evasive interpre- 
 tations, they differ much from each other, or, as Chrysostom 
 says, run foul of each other in the dark. 
 
 iv. The argument must not be proposed as if all the Jews 235 
 had rejected Jesus; for many ^myriads of them have become, 
 nay, soon became his followers. And in modern times a con- 
 siderable proportion of the learned amongst the Jews have been 
 converted to Christianity, by studying the prophecies; and 
 
 ^ See Hurd on Proph. Serm. v. p. 143, ^ Defence, p. 353, printed p. 343 — ten 
 
 &c. pages wrong all the way after p. 222. 
 
 ^ Jl6<raL /nvpidBe^, Act. xxi. 20. 
 
L. xvii. 10.] 
 
 PROPHECIES. 
 
 167 
 
 I. some have written their reasons for the changed Nor as if 
 the difference between Jews and Christians was upon all 
 parts of the question ; for they are agreed about the particular 
 prophecies as relating to the Messiah, and about the time when 
 he was expected ; they differ only about the application of 
 such prophecies. 
 
 V. If the proper interpretation of a prophecy arises from 
 the events as will be shewn hereafter, then those who are best 
 acquainted with the event are best able to interpret the pro- 
 phecy. Any real facts, which it is only pretended were fore- 
 told, must throw light upon the predictions, and prove some- 
 thing for or against them. Indeed, the Jews might study 
 this event, but I suppose they do not, in any diligent and 
 candid manner. 
 
 10. The sort of prophecies which have occasioned the 
 greatest disputes, both of Christians against infidels, and be- 
 tween Christians amongst each other, are those which were 
 calculated to raise more than one expectation^ or which ad- 
 mitted of more than one completion. Bishop Warburton has 
 treated of these, in his masterly way, at the conclusion of the 
 fifth section, and in the sixth section, of the sixth book of his 
 36 Divine Legation of Moses; and he has touched upon them 
 not far from the end^ of his book on the Spirit. Bishop Hurd 
 has strengthened his opinion, by many strong and elegant 
 representations, in his Sermons on Prophecy ; and Bishop 
 Hallifax has done the same in his, by additional considera- 
 tions. 
 
 The argument about the fulfilling of an expectation^ on 
 whatever grounded, is independent of this or any particular 
 sort of prophecy : but it seems proper for us to consider this 
 sort, though we seem to have provided for the conviction of 
 those who do not admit it. 
 
 Whatever other .difficulties may obstruct the reception 
 of this species of prophecies, it is no difficulty to the under-- 
 standings I think, to conceive a prophecy which shall cause 
 one event to be be expected at no very great distance, and yet 
 shall contain expressions too great and lofty for that event; 
 
 See Powell, Disc. ix. p. 147; with a 
 reference to Chapman’s Eusebius, vol. 1st, 
 at the end; p. 529, &c. See also (con- 
 cerning Trajan’s time) Bp. Chandler’s 
 Introd. p. vii. with a reference to Allix 
 against Unitarians, p. 326.... The Jews, 
 
 at this time (1793) seem, many of them, 
 so full of cabalistical fancies, that we can- 
 not wonder at their not embracing our 
 rational religion. 
 
 ^ Warb. on the Spirit, p. 321. This 
 more particularly afterwards. 
 
168 
 
 rRoriiEciEs. 
 
 [I. xvii. 10. 
 
 such as shall raise some expectation of another event more L 
 awful than the former, though in some sort analogous to 
 it. This could not indeed well be done if the lano-uaffe of 
 
 O O 
 
 prophecy was perfectly plain; and times, places, circumstances, 
 were marked out without any metaphors. We suppose the 
 language of prophecy to be, in the cases of which we speak, 
 highly figurative^ or symbolical, and to describe sometimes 
 even the first event by metaphorical terms h 
 
 AVhen prophecies are supposed to point out two events, 
 the first event most commonly relates to Jews, the second to 
 Christians ; but there seem to be some prophecies in Scripture 
 which point out two events, both relating to the Jews. And 
 Bishop Warburton mentions one prophecy that has two senses, 237 
 both relating to Christians, or to the government of Christ. 
 Bishop Httrd^ mentions also such as have one sense relating 
 to the person of Christ, or his first coming, and one to his 
 Church after his ascension into heaven, or to his second coming. 
 
 We may mention here, that divines call ChrisCs coming in 
 person his first coming ; and his coming, or exercising his 
 power as governor and judge, his second coming; though 
 the latter is supposed to commence from the time of his ^resur- 
 rection, and to be continued and gradual. But the most 
 usual kind of prophecy, with two senses, is when one sense 
 relates to the Jews, and the other to Christians. 
 
 I speak of a prophecy as raising more than one ex- 
 pectation ; but more than one needs not be supposed to 
 exist (or at least to be strong,) at one time. There is no 
 sure confidence to be placed in any prophecy till the event 
 predicted confirms and explains it^; and therefore great 
 latitude may be allowed in speaking about expectation of 
 this kind ; and all prophecies which have more senses than 
 one, at whatever time tliose senses appear, may belong to 
 this head. 
 
 But a few instances will be necessary to make this intel- 
 ligible. First, we may take one of the most usual sort, 
 in which the first sense relates to the Jews and the second 
 
 ' Here might he read the conclusion, [ sometimes to be considered as his second 
 i.e. the last two paragraphs of Bp. Hurd’s | coming. 2 Pet. iii. 4. 
 fnh Sermon on Prophecy. | ^ See Sir I. Newton on Apoc. Ch. i. p. 
 
 I 251, quoted in Bp. Newton, 4to, vol. i. 
 
 P. 132. Serm. v. , . 
 
 ^ Hurd, opening of Serm. v. But j Hurd in three pages, Serm. viii. and here 
 f Ihrist’s coming to judge the world seems I afterwards. 
 
I. xvii. 10.] 
 
 PKOl’HECIEb. 
 
 169 
 
 I. to Christianity. That well-known prophecy^, “Unto us 
 
 238 a child is born/’ &c., may well serve our purpose. Bishop 
 Warburton® seems to grant Mr. Collins that this may re- 
 late to a Jewish monarchy and that the language may in 
 some measure be accounted for by the Eastern hyperbole. 
 But then he says, that, supposing it has such first sense, 
 in the second sense it belongs to the monarch of the worlds 
 and in that sense the words become plain description ; and 
 the language made use of is admirably fitted to connect two 
 such senses together. 
 
 What Isaiah says, xi. 6, “ The wolf shall dwell with 
 the lamb,” &c. is understood as having its first completion 
 in the reign of Hexekiah, when profound peace was enjoyed 
 under Hezekiah after the troubles under Sennacherib ; but 
 its' second completion under the Gospel. I am inclined to 
 mention Jer. xxxi. 15, where Rachefs weeping for her 
 children® is thought, by Grotius, to be primarily a pre- 
 diction of the lamentation of the Jewish matrons for their 
 children carried captive to Babylon. The evangelist^ de- 
 termines its secondary sense, supposing it had a prior sense, 
 to be the mourning of the mothers for the loss of those 
 children who suffered in Herod’s massacre. 
 
 Bishop Warburton^^ mentions, as an instance of a pro- 
 phecy that had two senses, both affecting the Jews, a pas- 
 sage of Joel, contained in the first and second chapters, 
 in which the prophet foretells both a ravage of locusts, 
 and a desolation by the Assyriayi army. That real locusts 
 are meant, appears by the expressions about the vine, bark- 
 ing the fig-tree, making the branches clean, &c., chap. i. ver. 7. 
 
 239 That an army is meant, appears by the expressions about 
 horses, horsemen, &c., in the first ten verses of the second 
 chapter. “In some places,” says Bishop Warburton, “dearth 
 by insects must needs be understood — in others, desolation 
 by war ; so that both senses are of necessity to be admitted.” 
 
 This great prelate” mentions, as an instance of a pro- 
 phecy with two senses, both regarding the government of 
 Christ, that delivered by our Lord in the twenty-fourth 
 
 ® Isai. ix. 6. 
 
 ® Div. Leg. B. vi. sect. vi. 8vo, p. 460. 
 4to, p. 417. 
 
 ’ Ibid. B. vi. sect. 6. p. 490, 8vo. 
 p. 450, 4to. 
 
 3 Ibid. p. 492, 8vo. p. 444, 4to. 
 
 3 Matt. ii. 17. 
 
 10 Warb. ibid. p. 465, 8vo. 422, 4to. 
 I lip. 469, 8vo. p. 425, 4to. 
 
170 
 
 PROPHECIES. 
 
 [I. xvii. 11. 
 
 chapter of St. Matthew, and parallel places : which relates I. 
 both to the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, (or Christ’s 
 coming virtually to destroy that edifice by his power,) and 
 to the future judgment of the world, (or Christ’s coming 
 in person to judge the world.) Some expressions shew that 
 the former must be meant, some the latter.^ St. Matthew ' 
 (xxiv. 34 ) affirms, that all must be accomplished in the 
 then generation ; (so that all may be applied to the primary 
 completion). St. Mark (xiii. 32 ) declares that the time when 
 the prophecy would be completed was unknown to all but 
 the Father, The former of these texts must relate to the 
 primary completion, the latter to the secondary. 
 
 Having given no instance of the symbolical language 
 of prophecy, though I have of that of dreams^, I now men- 
 tion, that the primary sense of the prophecy just now quoted 
 is conveyed in symbolical language. Mark (xiii. 24 — 26 ) 
 speaks of the sun^ moon, and stars ; of which Bishop 
 Warburton remarks^, The change of magistracy, the fall 240 
 of kingdoms, and the revolutions of states, are described, 
 in the old language of inspiration, by disasters in the 
 heavens, by the fall of stars, and by eclipses of the greater 
 luminaries.” 
 
 If more instances were wanted. Bishop Warburton might 
 be taken about a neiv heaven"^ and a new earth — i. e. a new 
 religion and a new law. 
 
 Or the opening of Bishop Hurd’s tenth sermon, pp. 318 , 319 , 
 about incense, treading a wine-press, &c. 
 
 11. In disputes^ on our present subject, confusion is 
 apt to arise from want of attention to the meaning of the 
 terms literal and mystical. When there are two senses 
 of a prophecy, the primary sense is sometimes called the 
 literal sense ; but then we should remember, that such 
 primary sense may be conveyed under figurative expressions, 
 which have therefore a more literal meaning; as is the case 
 with Isai. xi. 6, and Jer. xxxi. 15 . And in the use of the 
 
 * This idea seems to be strongly con- 
 firmed by the uncertainty in which some 
 of Christ's principal disciples seem to 
 have been, with regard to the time of his 
 future coming; they seem not to have 
 known whether to expect him soon (in 
 order to accomplish the consummation 
 of all things, judge the world, &c.) or 
 
 not. See Dr. Cooke’s Sermon on 2 Pet. i. 
 19, p. 12. 
 
 2 Under Sect. 6. 
 
 3 Div. Leg. B.vi. sect. 6. p. 471, 8vo. 
 427, 4to. 
 
 ^ Ibid. B. vi. sect. 6. p. 502, or 4to, 
 p. 452. 
 
 5 Ibid, p. 491, &c. 8vo. 
 
I. xvii. 12.] 
 
 PROPHECIES. 
 
 171 
 
 I. word mystical^ we must observe what it is opposed to : if 
 to the most literal^ then it may mean only figurative^ and 
 therefore it may be the primarxfi sense ; if it be opposed 
 to primary^ or to literal, in the sense of primary, it will 
 mean the secondary^ or hidden sense. 
 
 12. This subject of double senses of prophecies is the 
 more nice, because many learned^ Christians have been pre- 
 judiced against it; and their objections have been eagerly 
 seized upon by '^infidels. Prejudices have arisen, partly 
 from the excess of allegorizing, into which some men have 
 24)1 run ; partly from the idea that allowing double senses was 
 fantastic, and favourable to enthusiasm — that it encouraged 
 mystery, and made the Scriptures resemble the old Pagan 
 Oracles. In fact^ men have been the less tractable about it, 
 because they have not been familiarised to it ; which none 
 could well be but Jews, because it was a thing peculiar to 
 their religious situation. Indeed we have mentioned one 
 instance in Christianity but it was addressed to Jews, and 
 is probably a single one: the Jews were so accustomed to the 
 kind of thing, that they made no difficulty about it. 
 
 Our business is to throw aside our prejudices, to put our- 
 selves into the place of the J ews, and to ask ourselves, whether 
 we have any solid reason for rejecting the notion of double 
 senses There is no impossibility, no absurdity, in prophetic 
 figurative phrases pointing out two events. Supposing we saw 
 no good in it, we cannot say that God might not use such a 
 method. It is agreeable to the feelings of the human mind ; 
 all the ^^ancients run into something very near it, as near as 
 human foresight and imagination would allow : perhaps the 
 Easterns most frequently, but Virgil and Horace have been 
 very useful in illustrating^^ our subject, and the more modern 
 Spenser. 
 
 But, in truth, we may see (though that is more than God 
 was any way obliged to shew us) a great deal of propriety in 
 the Jews being informed of great events to come, by prophecies 
 with double senses. Their dispensation was temporary and 
 
 ® As in Daniel’s weeks. 
 
 Dr. Postlethwaite speaks, page 2, of 
 “the subtle doctrine of double senses.” 
 Subtilis is sometimes used in Latin with- 
 out blame, for “ refined, &c. but here 
 the sentence, taken entire, seems rather to 
 imply some apprehension of error — some 
 
 want of entire satisfaction. 
 
 ^ See Warb. on Grace, p. 321, &c. 
 
 ® Matt. xxiv. 
 
 This Collins allows; see Warb. Div. 
 Leg. B. vi. sect. 6. p. 510, 8vo. 
 
 See Warb. Div. Leg. B. vi. sect. 6. 
 and Hurd, Serm. iv. p. 114. 
 
172 PllOPHEClES. [I.xvii. 13. 
 
 jneparatory : they must be suffered to venerate their own I. 
 laws and polity ; and the Mosaic religion was the only reli- 242 
 gion they had. Had they looked upon it as mere scaffolding, 
 they would have wanted principles and sentiments of piety, 
 and motives to obedience^ and subjection: the state to which 
 their religion was to conduct men must be very obscurely 
 pointed out to them, and yet some intimations of it must be 
 given; how could that be better effected than by prophecies 
 with double senses ? what could connect so well, what could 
 open so faintly, and yet so awfully ? This method would 
 afford them proofs^, from time to time, that their prophets 
 had told them the truth ; and would raise in them devout 
 expectation of what yet remained for themselves or their 
 posterity. 
 
 This method was adapted to the Jews before the coming 
 of the Messiah, but the great benefit of it must be seen and 
 felt after his coming. When the double prophecies had 
 ceased for some centuries, then all the parts of the scheme 
 must appear connected together ; one wisdom must be seen to 
 have guided and conducted the whole; one power to have 
 presided over it, and to have mixed light and shade in such 
 a manner as would produce the best and greatest effects. 
 
 Surely this must do away our prejudices. As to the Pagan 
 oracles^ they were nothing like Jewish prophecies; they would 
 by no means answer the descriptions now given : they had 
 ambiguity indeed, but could it be said that the most obvious 
 sense led to one useful sort of conduct, and afterwards a more 
 mystical sense to a conduct more highly useful.^ that the 
 various meanings of one oracle, and the various answers of 
 different oracles, all made one scheme or system, calculated to 
 promote the highest good to mankind.^ and that the more 243 
 their predictions were reflected on, the more clearly did they 
 manifest an uniformity of design, an equability of benevo- 
 lence? 
 
 13. It is not unnatural for us to wish to form some 
 conception of what passed in the mind of the prophet, when 
 he foretold things in the manner now described. What did he 
 feel ? what did he see ? particularly, did he see both the 
 events which his words delineated, one as a near object and 
 more distinct^ the other as more remote and obscure? We 
 
 ’ End of sect. 6. Bp. Hallifax, Serm. i. j ^ gee Hurd, p. 127; or Pascal’s 
 p. 11. 1 Thoughts. 
 
I. xvii. 14.] 
 
 PROPHECIES. 
 
 I/O 
 
 I. know not the truth exactly^ ; but it seems very probable that 
 the prophet was greatly warmed and elevated in his feelings 
 by the prospects whicli opened upon him. Probably he had 
 some glimpse or glimmering of the noblest event which the 
 words he used could possibly describe, or ever give men rea- 
 son to expect ; and that imperfect view, though too faint and 
 confused to be described minutely to others, probably made 
 his heart overflow with sublimity, and enriched and ennobled 
 his expressions beyond what was necessary to describe the 
 nearer and more distinct event. 
 
 14. If therefore any one w'as to ask, how judge when 
 any prophecies do contain a secondary as well as a primary 
 sense ? we might reply, we conclude so when we find a lofti- 
 ness of expression which is unsuitable to the first event, but 
 which, at the same time that it might, by hyperbole and 
 amplification, be conceived to express that, expressed a second 
 event more grand, noble, and extensive than the former, easily, 
 naturally, and with a sort of accuracy. This seems particu- 
 larly applicable to the prophetic Psalms, The second seems 
 to have two senses running through it most evenly : in the 45th, 
 244 the spouse meaning the Churchy does not fall in easily with our 
 customary notions and feelings, though it would with those of 
 Fenelon; but the 110th, though “a Psalm of David j"* can 
 belong scarce at all to himself (when in the first person singu- 
 lar), but must belong wholly, or very nearly so, to the Mes- 
 siah. Notwithstanding what has been said, it should not be 
 . denied, that some secondary senses found in the Gospels are 
 such as could not be proved to have been intended, without 
 allowing authority to him who affixes the senses. However, 
 it is no way illogicaP to prove the divine authority of Scrip- 
 tural interpretations of prophecies, from their being in Scrip- 
 ture, so long as we have not proved the divine authority of 
 Scripture by those prophecies. 
 
 I would recommend it to you to compare Dr. Postle>- 
 thwaite'’s interpretation’^ of Isaiah vii. 14 — 16, with Bishop 
 Hurd’s®. The difference is not so great as at first it might 
 seem ; for, though Bishop Hurd conceives the prophecy to be 
 intended to comfort Aha%^ and the sign spoken of to be the 
 
 ^ 1 Pet. i. 10 — 12, seems to give some I ® In his Sermon preached at Cambridge, 
 answer. Dec. 24, 1780. 
 
 ^ Warb. Div. Leg. B. vi. sect. 6. p. ® Serm, v. p. 1.30. 
 
 488, 8vo. ' 
 
174 
 
 PROPHECIES. 
 
 [I. xvii. 14. 
 
 birth of Isaiah’s son, to whom the symbolic name of Maher- I. 
 shalal-hash-baz was ordered to be given, yet both own that 
 the prophecy belongs to Christ ; and both say, that the fate of 
 the two kings was to be a sign or proof of the Messiah’s 
 coming of the house of David: these are the main matters. 
 Bishop Hurd owns that nothing more was meant than “ as- 
 surance''' to Ahaz. He makes more use indeed, of the birth 
 soon to happen, than Dr. Postlethwaite, but he does not make 
 it a miracle in Ahaz’s judgment. Dr. Postlethwaite seems to 
 look upon it only as a way of calculating time ; except indeed 
 as it was a fact registered^ and the name imposed superna- 
 turally, implying divine interference, and a promise of victory. 245 
 But, as to our present subject, as to the difference between a 
 single and a double prophecy, it seems only (or chiefly) to 
 depend upon the likeness between the deliverance of Ahaz and 
 the redemption of Christians. Suppose only one prophecy, 
 and the deliverance of Ahaz strongly to resemble, or rather to 
 be a prejiguration of our deliverance through Jesus Christ, 
 and then the prophecy assumes the form (or nearly) of a 
 prophecy with two senses; but suppose the deliverance of 
 Ahaz to have no analogy to Christian deliverance, and then 
 there is only one prophetical meaning, and that relates to 
 the birth of Christ: and the deliverance of Ahaz becomes 
 a mere sign, proof, argument, that the promise of a Messiali 
 will faithfully be fulfilled. The birth of Isaiah’s son was 
 foretold, as much as that of Jesus Christ; but by a separate 
 prophecy. 
 
 As something relative to the subject of double senses will 
 occur when we speak of types, and quotations from the Old 
 Testament in the New, we may close it for the present, by the 
 concession which ^Bishop Warburton seems to make to Mr. 
 Collins: “Most of the prophecies in question relate to Jesus 
 in a secondary sense only, and the rest in a primary, but 
 expressed in figurative terms ; which, till their completion, 
 threw a shade over their meaning, and kept them in a certain 
 degree of obscurity^.” 
 
 ^ I)iv. Leg. B. vi. sect. 6. p. 490, 8vo. 
 
 “ Here we might read Bp. Warbur- 
 ton’s History of Double Prophecies, Es- 
 say on Spirit, p. 821—324; consider any 
 of the prophecies referred to briefly in 
 the 8th section of this Chapter, as relat- 
 ing to Christ in the primary sense, and 
 
 to Christ only; and take in what Bp. 
 Warburton says of Grotins*, as far as 
 we found it convenient. We might also 
 mention again the remark of Warburton, 
 introduced at the end of the 7th section 
 of this Chapter. 
 
 * Vol. IV. Ovo, p. COG, or vol. in. 4to, p. 45G. 
 
I. xvii. 15.] 
 
 PROPHECIES. 
 
 175 
 
 I. 15. Having then treated of prophecies raising one single 
 
 246 expectation, and of those raising a twofold expectation, we 
 come next to those prophecies which have raised no eocpecta- 
 tion: but, under this head, we shall comprehend not only 
 those whose existence was discovered by the event, but those 
 whose principal meaning was so discovered. That an event is 
 capable of bringing to light a prediction relating to itself, has 
 been briefly shewn before^; but what was said was not only 
 short, but general. Our present business must be to produce 
 a few instances ; first repeating, that all we want is, such 
 coincidence of previous arrangement and subsequent event as 
 could not be owing to art or accident. So as we find this 
 coincidence at last, it matters not whether the prophecy or the 
 completion is the first to make its appearance. But I wish 
 also to give one sentence of Sir Isaac Newton% on account of 
 the great and deserved authority of his name, particularly in 
 this University. 
 
 “ The folly of interpreters (he is speaking of the Apoca- 
 lypse) has been, to foretel times and things by this prophecy, 
 as if God designed to make them prophets. By this rashness 
 they have not only exposed themselves, but brought the pro- 
 phecy also into contempt. The design of God was much 
 otherwise. He gave this, and the prophecies of the Old 
 Testament, not to gratify men’s curiosities by enabling them 
 to foreknow things, but that after they were fulfilled they 
 might be interpreted by the event, and his own providence, 
 not the interpreter’s, be then manifested thereby to the world 
 
 247 This passage gives a right idea of interpreting by the event, 
 and is therefore particularly applicable to those prophecies 
 whose existence, or whose meaning, is not conceived to be 
 
 2 Close of sect. 4. 
 
 ^ On the Apocalypse, Chap. i. p. 251. 
 See also Bishop Porteus’s Charge of 1794, 
 p. 29, where he says, ‘‘I pretend not 
 either to prophecy or to interpret pro- 
 phecy.” 
 
 ® Dr. Cooke, in the Sermon lately men- 
 tioned, says, that the meaning of St. 
 Peter’s expression, 2 Pet. i. 20, is, that no 
 prophecy interprets itself; that every pro- 
 phecy is interpreted by the event. This 
 notion, he says, gives the right meaning 
 of ioias, and agrees with the context. i8ia9 
 t-7ri\i5o-e6t)5 is translated in our version, 
 of private interpretation. One might add. 
 
 that, in other kinds of writing, each sen- 
 tence is intended to interpret itself. Get 
 the right meaning of the words (includ- 
 ing circumstances., according to Chap, x.) 
 and you have the full meaning of the 
 sentence: not so in prophecies: if the 
 words of a prophecy are ever so well un- 
 derstood, it is still but a light shining 
 in a dark place ; the phosphorus, the day, 
 is to shine forth in the event. — 1793, Feb. 
 27, Dr. Cooke refers me for the sense of 
 hirCKx) (Tern'S to such places as Mark iv. 34, 
 where erreXye implies, he took off the 
 TTapa^oXt]* 
 
17G 
 
 PROPHECIES. 
 
 [I. xvii. 15. 
 
 known but from their completion;- — those which have raised I. 
 no expectation, or none corresponding to the meaning w'hich 
 they are found to contain h 
 
 Instances to our present purpose are to be found both in 
 the Old and New Testament: — though we must not be too 
 particular. 
 
 Before we mention instances, we may as well observe, that 
 a single event may answer to a seeming prediction hy acci- 
 dent ; as the discovery of corresponds to Seneca’s 
 
 prediction, mentioned by Bishop Hurd, p. 102. After what 
 was said on the expectation of the continuance of Rome, 
 (sect. 9,) we need only observe, that it required no prophetic 
 spirit to say, as some countries have been discovered unex- 
 pectedly, so others will be. This is nothing more than con- 
 cluding from analogy ; only in a chorus the thought or con- 
 clusion must be made 'poetical^ which it could not well be 
 without being thrown into the form of a prophecy. 
 
 The Jews could not reckon even the seventy weeks of 
 Daniel without the event. (Mede quoted by Hurd, p. 395.) 
 
 The book of Revelation raised at first but little expecta- 248 
 tion ; or, more properly perhaps, what expectation it did raise 
 was so disappointed and blighted by difficulties then inexplica- 
 ble, that it died away. The early Christians,” says ^Bishop 
 Hurd, “ saw so little in this prophecy, that they were led by 
 degrees to neglect the study of it.” Scaliger commends 
 ^ Calvin for not writing upon it ; and Whitby, even after the 
 time of Mede, enforces the commendation, and makes it his 
 own apology for declining the task. But this will never be 
 the case again, in all probability. The prophecies in this 
 book having been in a degree unfolded by events ; and some 
 wonderful efforts having been made to find the order and plan 
 of it, the ages as they rise will be watched for new events, in 
 order to bring out new explications. 
 
 It is thought that the prophetic doctrine concerning 
 Antichrist was intended to be hidden, or mysterious, till the 
 12th century^. If so, the use that was made of the name 
 of Antichrist before that time was only so much declamation. 
 
 I would in this book (of my system) confine myself to 
 opinions common to all sects of Christians ; therefore I will 
 only say, that events must determine all controversies con- 
 
 * Bp. Hurd speaks well on this sub- ! - Serm. viii. p. 27o. 
 
 ject, pp. 118, 119, (Serm. iv.) ^ Hurd, p. 2.10, from Mede. 
 
 # 
 
I. xvii. i(i.] 
 
 V ilOl'IIKCIES. 
 
 177 
 
 J. cerning Anticlirist, the Man of Sin, and the Apostasy of the 
 latter times. 
 
 John ii. 19, might be another instance ; and it is well put 
 by Dr. Powell in his ninth Discourse‘s; (“Destroy this temple, 
 . and in three days I will raise it up,‘”) where he mentions, Matt, 
 xxiv. 28 , (eagles gathered together) taken from Job xxxix. SO. 
 
 I will only mention one instance more : that is, the 53d 
 ip cliapter of Isaiah, or rather, the passage beginning with the 
 last three verses^ of the 52d chapter and reaching to the end 
 of the 53d. This makes the 12th and last of the passages 
 adduced by Bisliop Chandler, as belonging to Christ in their 
 primary sense. Nothing can well be more circumstantial than 
 this passage is at present, and yet the proof arising from it 
 depends upon the event : till that happened, the person to 
 whom it was to be applied seemed to be somewhat® uncertain. 
 It has been applied by the Jews, since our Saviour’s time, to 
 Jews as a body, to Jeremiah, and Josiah. “ Of whom does 
 Isaiah write “it is an hard lesson,’’’ saith Aben Ezra; but 
 the Jews, before our Saviour’s time, applied the passage to the 
 Messiah'; and Jesus was the only person, “of all the human 
 race, to ^whom the whole of it is applicable.” 
 
 16. The evils of interpreting hastily, without the event as 
 a key, or, in other words, of indulging expectation built on 
 prophecy, have been great : men have by that drawn ridicule 
 upon themselves, and discredit upon the sacred writings^. To 
 this may be reduced the notion of the Jews, that there was to 
 be a tivo-fold Messiah : their prejudices were so fixed, that 
 rather than give them up, and interpret the prophecies calmly 
 and candidly, by the event, they had recourse to this hypo- 
 thesis. I say hypothesis: had it been an event which had 
 made them adopt such an interpretation, the case would have 
 been different ; but it was the event, which we consider as 
 a true completion, that made them altev^^ the course of their 
 
 Powel], p. 138. 
 
 * Chandler. Bp. Pearson on the Creed. 
 Lowth. ® Powell, p. 140. 
 
 ” Bp. Chandler, p. 138, 159, near the 
 end of 2d chapter. 
 
 ^ Powell, p. 140. ^ Bp. Newton. 
 
 That the Jews expected only one 
 Messiah, is shewn by Chapman in his 
 Eusebius, Cambr. (1739), chap. vi. p. 
 497 , from the Scriptural expressions about 
 Cue Christ — o hpyojx^vo's, «Xc. and from 
 
 Voi.. I. 
 
 Trypho in Justin Martyr. That the 
 doctrine of a double Messiah is now in 
 Rabbinical writings, appears from quo- 
 tations in Pearson on the Creed out of the 
 Talmud and the later Targum ; that it is 
 derived only from late Rabbis, is shewn 
 by Pocock in the Appendix to his Com- 
 ment on Malachi; so says Chapman, 
 ibidem. I suppose the time of the he- 
 ginning of the doctrine is not exactly 
 known. 
 
 12 
 
178 
 
 PllOPHECIES, 
 
 [I. xvii. 17. 
 
 expectation ; which is a strong proof both of their obstinacy, I. 
 (and at the same time of their being much pressed) and of the 250 
 correspondence of the life and character of Jesus to the scrip- 
 tural predictions. 
 
 Marcion^ the Christian heretic, professed two Messiahs : 
 one ours, who lived in the reign of Tiberius, and was to 
 redeem the world ; the other not then come, who was to 
 redeem Israel : — but the Jeics make one a suffering Messiah, 
 the other triumphant; that is, they confound the prophecies 
 about the person of the Messiah, with those relating to his 
 government. No doubt the marks and characters are very 
 discordant^ but the more discordant they are, the less likely 
 they are to be invented ; and, if we see such seeming incon- 
 sistencies reconciled in one person, that person is marked the 
 more strongly, and the whole business shews more evidently 
 the Divine interposition h This is also forcibly and well 251 
 insisted on by Dr. Powell in his ninth Discourse^. 
 
 17 . The business of the divine then, with regard to pro- 
 phecies, will partly relate to language., and partly to history. 
 
 He will have every language to study in which any prophecy 
 has been delivered or quoted by authority, with the figurative 
 modes of speech customary to each. But, besides language, 
 properly so called, he will find it necessary to learn the lan- 
 guage of symbols, or hieroglyphics ; which, though less arbi- 
 trary in itself than alphabetical language, has fewer regular 
 helps, such as those of grammars and dictionaries : it must 
 partly be acquired from Oneirocritics, and partly from instances 
 of ancient Divination. But, as prophecies can never safely 
 be interpreted without a knowledge of the event predicted, 
 the divine will be called upon to study history ; with chrono- 
 logy and geography of course. History will shew the primary 
 
 ^ So that every argument in favour of 
 two IMessiahs is a confirmation of our 
 arguments in favour of one. If I was a 
 .Tew, I think I should always avoid that 
 argument. 
 
 To what was mentioned, sect. 4, of 
 the small degree in which the modern 
 .Jews cultivate reason, might be added 
 the speech made by Lord Georfje Gordon 
 (1793) in tlie Court of King’s Bench, in 
 favour of being covered (having hat, or 
 cap on) in a court of justice, do also to 
 synagogue-worship in London, and con- 1 
 
 elude that Christianity is not rational, be- 
 cause those worshippers do not accept it ! 
 
 The only apology for the whimsical 
 disquisitions of the Jews, that I know of, 
 is the distinction, hereafter explained, 
 (sect. 19) between pursuit of truth and 
 entertainment : the Jews, it seems, are 
 entertained with cabalistical fancies re- 
 lating to their law ; but will all fanciful 
 .Jewish writers allow their writings to be 
 mere entertainment 9^ and to contain no 
 doctrine 9 
 
 “ Powell, p. 143, &c. 
 
I. xvii. 18.] 
 
 PROPHECIES. 
 
 179 
 
 I. completions of prophecies, as also their secondary completions, 
 which, having a mutual resemblance, must be compared : the 
 fortunes of the Church must be narrowly watched, and refer- 
 red from time to time to the sacred prophetical books. And, 
 as heathen nations have frequently been noticed in prophecy, 
 profane history must be read as well as sacred ; nay, as it 
 is the distinguishing advantage of arguments from prophecy, 
 that they continue in force to all ages, and as the Christian 
 religion is to be preached to all nations, it is difficult to say 
 what part of history may be totally neglected. 
 
 18. We come now to the subject of types ; which subject 
 is allied to that of double senses. Bishop Warburton treats 
 them together in the 6th book of his Divine Legation of Mo- 
 ses. As there is a prejudice against types, resembling that 
 252 against double senses of prophecies, we will endeavour to 
 proceed in an orderly manner. 
 
 Words are the signs of our ideas; but actions may be 
 so equally ; hence our different modes of expression by words 
 will have modes of expression by action corresponding to them. 
 Expressions by words may be, 1. plain, 2. metaphorical, 
 3. allegorical : — and so may expressions by action. 1. Ges- 
 tures may be expressive of something directly and immediately ; 
 or, 2. by some resemblance or analogy ; or, 3. there may be 
 a series of gestures expressive, by resemblance or analogy, 
 of some incidents in succession, or of some agreement or com- 
 ’pact. These last are called by Bishop Chandler, parables 
 in action f"' by Bishop Warburton, ^^significant actions.'^'' 
 The word Trapaf^oXi], in Scripture, means an allegory, whether 
 expressed by words or by other signs ; i. e. by signs audible 
 or visible. But illustration may be required: — 1. We ex- 
 press things by plain words, when we speak of a field sown 
 with wheat. 2. We speak metaphorically, when we talk 
 of sowing the seeds of discord. 3. We speak allegorically, 
 or by a parable, when we talk of seed sown in beaten paths 
 bringing no fruit, of that sown in thorny ground producing 
 but little, of that sown in good gy'ound yielding a great 
 increase; if we mean, that advice given to those that are 
 hardened does no good ; to those that are much occupied 
 by worldly things, is but of momentary service ; to those 
 who are well disposed and well brought up, is abundantly 
 useful. In action^ we express ourselves plainly, when we 
 converse by om fingers, or send 0 . flag of truce, (supposing 
 
 12 — 2 
 
180 
 
 PKOPHECIES. 
 
 [I. xvii. J8. 
 
 the meaning of such actions to be agreed upon,) or leap for I. 
 joj, or wring our hands through sorrow. We express our- 
 selves metaphorically (as I conceive) whenever the act has 
 a meaning by any kind of resemhlance^ even though that mean- 
 ing be settled. Bowing imdikneelmg\\BNQ some sort of affinity 253 
 or likeness to humility and submission ; and the same of 
 striking a ship, and of doing penance in white linen, and 
 administering the sacraments ; or, if we prefer an instance 
 from profane history, the striking off the heads of the poppies^ 
 
 Liv. i. 54<h But as to the third sort of expression by action, 
 in the way of continued metaphor or allegory, or parable 
 in action, I do not recollect an instance of it, without recur- 
 ring to ancient times. Some historic dances, or pantomimes, 
 may be instances of continued plain expression ; but in the 
 Scriptures we meet with frequent instances of parables in 
 action. The Prophet Ezekiel abounds with them : we might 
 take the 12th chapter and 3d verse, as explained by Bishop 
 Warburton“, or Bishop Chandler^; or Jer. xviii. 1, which 
 may be more interesting, on account of its relation to Rom. 
 ix. 21 ; or our Saviour’s intimation of his design to call 
 the Gentiles into his religion, given by driving^ the money- 
 changers out of the temple. But the most important thing 
 of this sort in the Old Testament seems the sacrifice of Isaac^ 
 according to Bishop Warburton’s interpretation'^, with Abra- 
 ham’s receiving his son from the dead in a figure, cv irapaj^oXfi^ 
 (Hebr. xi. 17); and with John viii. 56’ — ‘‘ Your father Abraham^ 
 rejoiced to see my day ; he saw it, and was glad.” Abraham, 
 having received repeated promises of some great spiritual 254 
 blessing to his posterity, may be supposed to have entreated 
 Jehovah to give him some idea of the nature of it, and Jeho- 
 vah to have replied to his entreaties, ‘I will comply;’ — ‘^take 
 thy son, &c.” If such be allowed to be the opening of the 
 transaction, Abraham must look upon what he was ordered 
 to do as an answer to his inquiry : he must proceed to obey 
 
 ^ Sextus Tarquinius lived among the 
 Gnhiiy and made himself very popular 
 amongst them ; but he and his father, 
 Tarquinius Superbus, who was at Rome, 
 were really only joining in stratagems 
 against them. Sextus sends a messen- 
 ger to Superbus ; no audible answer is 
 given : the messenger returned relates 
 what he has seen. 
 
 2 Div. Leg. B. vi. sect. 5. p. 377j 
 
 {)V0. 
 
 •'* Defence, Chap. iii. sect. 1. p. I 7 I, 
 2d edit. 
 
 ^ Bp. Hurd’s Discourse on the sub- 
 ject would shew several instances. 
 
 ^ Div. Leg. B. vi. sect. 5. 
 
IMlorHECIES. 
 
 181 
 
 I. xvii. 18. J 
 
 I. the directions given him, studying every step as a source of 
 information: sometimes alarmed, but encouraging himself: ‘it 
 is a good God who directs,’ he would say to himself, ‘ and he 
 directs in compliance with my request : I will proceed.’ His 
 proceeding must require a confidence or faith, and therefore 
 this mode of information must be a trial: when he came to 
 the end of it, and had received his beloved son again in safety, 
 he would form some such conclusion as this, though his 
 notion would be obscure : — ‘ that great personage, who is, in 
 some sense, to spring from my loins, is also, in some sense, 
 to be of extraordinay dignity ; he is to undergo a fate analo- 
 gous to that which my son Isaac has undergone ; resembling 
 it as reality resembles a portrait or delineation : he therefore 
 must be really sacrificed ; and he must be received from the 
 dead in reality^ as Isaac was in a parable^'. How great and 
 glorious will be the day"' when all this shall be accomplished ! 
 I have been elated with joy, and have exulted at the thought 
 of seeing it ; and, how^ever faint the vision, I rejoice in having 
 been indulged with it! To see what I have seen, to be placed 
 in the situation in which I am placed, is a most ample reward 
 for every danger I have seemed to incur, for every confidence 
 I have reposed in the God of Abraham.’ — I should hope this 
 255 representation would not only shew, in some degree, how the 
 sacrifice of Isaac might be an information in action, but how 
 it might be rewarded as a trial. For the most formidable 
 objection to Bishop Warburton’s account is, that if the trans- 
 action was an information., it could not be a trial. But, 
 though the instance now given may be the most interesting 
 in the Old Testament, yet we should not here omit mentioning 
 the transfiguration., intended, as a significant action, to en- 
 lighten and clear up the prejudices of the Apostles against 
 the humiliation and sufferings of the Messiah ; as well as to 
 mark, with a splendid boundary, the termination of the Mosaic 
 dispensation, and the beginning of the Christian. You can- 
 not read Bishop Por tens' s account of that solemn transaction, 
 without feeling an illumination of mind, a devout yet rational 
 admiration of the ways of God, and of the figurative mode 
 of communicating heavenly knowledge. 
 
 When we have familiarised ourselves to expression by 
 action, we should be prepared for the admission of types, in 
 ® Bishop Warhurton’'s highest and strictest sense. These are 
 
 ® Heb. xi. 19. ~ John viii. 5(>. ^ P. 456, 8vo. B. vi. sect. 6. of Div. Leg. 
 
182 
 
 PROPHECIES. 
 
 [I. xvii. 18. 
 
 actions expressive of something beyond themselves, which are I. 
 so enjoined that they become duties of themselves, though 
 they are intended to lead the mind to something farther. 
 
 On this account it is said, that their import is no longer 
 arhitrary, but becomes moral ; to neglect them would be vice, 
 or rather impiety. The reason of their institution is sup- 
 posed to be, to give standing^ information not informa- 
 tion for any single business. We could not take any better 
 instance of a type than the Paschal Lamb. It was intended to 
 commemorate a past blessing, to prefigure a future one ; and 256 
 the observance of it was a part of external religion : it was 
 an ordinance tending to nourish religious sentiments, like all 
 other religious instrumental duties. The same reasons which 
 were urged in favour of double senses of prophecies, as suit- 
 able to the Jewish religion, and as proofs of the truth of 
 that and the Christian, when we look back upon them, are 
 applicable to types ; only we find more persons allow of types 
 than of double prophecies ; indeed, they are more undeniable, 
 as being more expressly mentioned in Scripture. Yet there 
 is a prejudice against them, and they have been carried to 
 excess. 
 
 It may serve the purpose both of explaining and defending 
 types, if we observe that the Christian religion makes no use 
 of any of its own ; it leads to no future dispensation ; it has 
 no need of any vaiP. Now, if types had arisen from enthu- 
 siasm, mysticism, or any corrupt religious principle, they 
 would have been continued still ; for we have all perversions 
 of religious sentiments as well as the Jews had : this looks as 
 if types, under the Jewish economy, had been founded in 
 reason and utility. 
 
 Unfortunately Bishop Chandler, a writer of great eminence 
 on types and on double senses of prophecies, uses the word 
 type in a sense somewhat different from Bishop Warburton. 
 
 It is a great imperfection when this happens, but I suppose 
 it happens in morality as well as in revealed religion. Bishop 
 Chandler’s Defence seems to be so valuable a work as to make 
 it worth our while, though no other authors used the same 
 language, to acquaint ourselves with his meaning. ^When 
 things are said of or to David, or are done by him, or to 057 
 him, which do not in strictness belong to David, but to the 
 
 ’ Div. Leg. p. 455, 5{vo. 15. vi, sect. H. j ^2 Cor. iii. 115. 
 
 (libson’s first Pastoral Letter, p. It). 1 ^ Defence, Chap. iii. 
 
I. xvii. 19.] 
 
 PROPHECIES. 
 
 183 
 
 I. Messiah, then David is said to be a type of the Messiah ; and 
 the things so said are called typical prophecies. They are 
 contradistinguished, by Bishop Chandler, to allegorical pre- 
 dictions, which seem scarce to deserve the name of predic- 
 tions ; they are rather facts or events to which allusion is 
 made, after a manner which seems to us somewhat irregular : 
 but of these more will be said under the head of quotations. 
 Bishop Chandler proves that things are said of Solomon 
 which cannot belong to him alone, but must be meant to 
 delineate some much greater character, and are suitable to 
 the Messiah ; that is, he proves that, in his sense, Solomon 
 was a type of the Messiah ; and he proves the same concerning 
 Joshua% the high priest, and Zerubbabel. Elijah, in this 
 sense, must have been a type of John the Baptist. To avoid 
 confusion, we might call these personal types. 
 
 Though we mentioned no personal types but those of the 
 Messiah, yet there might be types of others besides the Messiah, 
 or even types of events, if I understand Bishop Chandler 
 rightly. I suppose he would call all informations in action, 
 or ‘‘ parables in action,” typical prophecies. He calls Ezekiel 
 a type or sign, when he ^prepares for a journey; and by the 
 series of actions which he performs foretells the captivity of 
 Zedekiah. The prophet would in this case call himself, 
 according to ®our translation, ‘‘a sign and wonder,’"' but 
 Bishop Chandler observes, that the Hebrew words should be 
 rendered a type and an exemplar.’"'" 
 
 258 In favour of types, besides what has been already advanced, 
 of their being suitable to the Jewish religion, and their appear- 
 ing to us to connect the two dispensations together, we may 
 allege, 1 Cor. x. 11, in the original, ravra Se iravra tvttol 
 (Tuuej^aivov eKGivois, and ‘‘ they are written for our admonition, 
 upon whom the ends of the world are come that is, for the 
 admonition and instruction of Christians, who can look back 
 and see the harmony of the whole contrivance. Some speci- 
 mens might also be taken out of the Epistle to the Hebrews : 
 as chapter ix. 9, 23, or x. 1. 
 
 19. We next come to the subject of quotations out of 
 the Old Testament found in the New. In these there some- 
 times seems to be an inaccuracy and a misapplication, as well 
 as an indulgence of the imagination, which have afforded 
 
 ^ Zech. chap, ii. 4. &c. chap. iii. ! ® Isai. xx. 2, 3. In the contents of 
 
 ^ Ezek. chap. xii. I this chapter the term is “a type.'"* 
 
PROPIIKCIES. 
 
 [I. xvii. 19. 
 
 18 i 
 
 great occasion for objections, to the enemies of Christianity. I. 
 In considering these, we may unite what Bishop Chandler 
 makes two subjects ; namely, the texts said to be misapplied, 
 and the allegoric method of quoting. 
 
 First, suppose we could give no account of this matter, 
 it does not seem of force enough to invalidate other argu- 
 ments in favour of the Gospel, considering the situation in 
 which v/e are. The business turns wholly upon Jewish lite- 
 rature<i that used to be more traditional than the literature 
 of other nations ; and the books which the Jews had before 
 our Saviour’s time are losth Our MSS. of the Bible have 
 their imperfections, and vary sufficiently from each other 
 to give us an idea that quotations might be made from MSS. 
 differing from ours, (see about quotations from the Septua- 
 gint, chapter vi. section 4. of this book) and that some diffi- 
 culties are likely to arise from those imperfections. Would 
 it not be folly, in such a situation, to let the mere inability 259 
 to solve a few difficulties affect our faith in general? I may 
 say a few^ speaking with relation to the texts of the Old 
 Testament quoted in the New ; for out of near fifty quotations 
 there are not above five, I think, to which Mr. Collins himself 
 objects; and one of those is Isaiah vii. 13, &c. which, accord- 
 ing to Dr. Postlethwaite’s interpretation, is quoted in a manner 
 perfectly regular. Now, will any candid man say it is pro- 
 bable, that an irregular citation of four texts, out of near 
 fifty, has been owing to either fraud or folly? would those who 
 could write the Gospels and quote rightly in most instances, 
 be so weak and childish as to introduce four texts in a 
 manner the irregularity of which must strike every one ? 
 
 In the next place, the seeming misapplication of texts 
 in the Old Testament may only be owing to our not under- 
 standing those texts ; and that evil may be only temporary. 
 
 We now see that the text which has given Bishop Chandler 
 the^ greatest trouble, would not, if he could have read Dr. 
 Postlethwaite’s explanation, have given him any at all; and 
 as we have got a right conception of this text, so we may 
 hereafter of others. 
 
 But as improvements are uncertain, let us not suppose them. 
 
 We have now reason to think that no text, or scarcely any, 
 was ever either cited or alluded to by our Saviour, but accord- 
 
 ^ Chandler, Introd. p. 14, and Cliap. iv. sect. 1, 2d. edit. 
 
 2 Lsai. vii. 13, &c. 
 
I. xvii. ]().] 
 
 PRO PHECIKS. 
 
 185 
 
 I. ing to the notions^ of the Jews tlien j)resent. The Jews 
 loved their law and their prophets; they delighted to refer to 
 them in all ways, to place them in all lights ; it was their 
 taste and the manner of their devotion. Maimonides gives 
 
 260 the right^ account of this matter : — “ Our rabbins are wont 
 
 to be exceedingly delighted with allegories, and to use 
 
 them frequently. Not that they thought the allegoric sense 
 was the mind and sense of the Scripture, but a kind of plea- 
 sant enigma raised upon the text for the entertainment of 
 
 the hearer,"’ 8cc and ^Aben Essra speaks much to the same 
 
 purpose : “ They served partly to refresh the mind wearied 
 with profounder speculations, partly to strengthen those that 
 staggered, and to fill the empty.” Now, if it is the duty of 
 those who teach religion to become*^ all things to all men, that 
 they may by all means save some, how could any one better be- 
 come a Jew to the Jews than by entering into their favourite 
 inode of persuasion? It gave no authority to any sense of a 
 passage of Scripture, because it was not understood to do 
 so ; it implied no error, no falsehood ; (Christians w’ere still to 
 prove all things;) and it made the affinities between the two 
 dispensations, the harmony of the divine counsels, to be more 
 strongly perceived. This reasoning will receive strength from 
 the observation, that this kind of alluding, or arguing if you 
 please, was only used to Jews^ not to the Gentiles. Matthew 
 and John use it, and St. Paul; Lid^e and Mark do not. 
 And it should be considered what difference there is between 
 the topics addressed to Agrippa', a learned Jew, and those 
 to Pelix^, a Roman procurator; as also that St. Paul alludes 
 to heathen authors when he speaks to the Athenians. 
 
 One thing which has occasioned difficulty is, quotations 
 of prophecies being introduced with — '‘Hhat it might he fuljil- 
 
 261 led^;'’"' but this is mere idiom^^: it means no more than apropos 
 does in French; or than our saying, ‘I dreamt of you last 
 night, now I meet with you my dream is out.’ A continued 
 and habitual reference to prophecy might generate or give 
 occasion to such a mode of expression. 
 
 ^ See Judgment of the Jews, &c. (by 
 Allix,) Chap. ii. 3, 4. 
 
 ^ More Nevochim, iii. 43, quoted by 
 Chandler, v. 1. 
 
 ® On Lam. i. in Buxt. Lex. Rabbin, 
 p. 534, quoted by Chandler, ibid. 
 
 6 1 Cor. ix. 22. 
 
 7 Acts xxvi. ^ Ibid. xxiv. 
 
 ^ Whitby has an Essay on 'Lva ttXjj- 
 pw'dp. End of St. I\Iatthew’s Gospel. 
 And consult Chandler, p. 222, 2d edit, 
 note. 
 
 Hor. Art. Poet. 72. Not. in Usum 
 Delph. 
 
186 
 
 PROPHECIES. 
 
 [T. xvii. 19. 
 
 But it may be proper to take a few instances. Matt, ii. I. 
 15 , ‘‘ And was there (in Egypt) until the death of Herod : 
 that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken of the Lord by 
 the prophet, saying. Out of Egypt have I called my sow.” 
 
 One does not see why Bishop Chandler’s account of this 
 may not be admitted till some new discovery shall be made. 
 
 This is a most eminent instance of that proverbial expression 
 for deliverance from danger by the providence of Jehovah — 
 delivering out of Egypt. No wonder the Jews should call 
 all great deliverances deliverances out of Egypt ; and this 
 was such, effected by the same divine power, both in the 
 literal and proverbial sense. Some national deliverances might 
 be forgotten, at least by the lower people ; but the feast of the 
 passover would make the deliverance from Egyptian bondage 
 fresh in every one’s memory. The passages relating to re- 
 demption from Egyptian bondage are well reckoned up by 
 Bishop Chandler : the reference here may either be general, 
 or to Hosea xi. 1, in particular. A^et it may be best to refer 
 to Deut. xxviii. 68. Jer. xniv. 12. Hosea viii. 13 . and ix. 3 . — 
 as only a number of expressions can familiarise the pro- 
 verbk So that the meaning of Out of Egypt have I called 
 my sonf might be something of this kind. What a curious 262 
 correspondence and analogy between Israel the son of God 
 and ‘Messiah the Son of God ! How affecting must be the 
 proverbial expressions of calling out of Egypt., and sending 
 into Egypt, when that analogy appears ! When the two 
 similar events are completed they reflect light upon each other, 
 and give each other new importance. 
 
 In Matt, ii., at the end, are these words — And he (Jo- 
 seph) came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth ; that it might 
 be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be 
 called a Na^arene^ Now it docs not appear at this time 
 that there is any such saying in any of the prophets. The 
 marginal references in our English Bible point out two places, 
 in one of which Samson, in the other Samuel, are said to 
 be Nazarites. Macknight (page 43 ) makes Nazarene to mean 
 
 despised, rejected but I will mention Bishop Chandler’' s 
 solution. He is not content with the solution, that the ex- 
 pression, “ He shall be called a Nazarene,” may have been 
 
 ^ Reference should also be made to | xi. 1, answers in this respect. See also 
 texts, where Israel (which was brought i Exod. iv. 22, 23, Deut. xiv. 1. Jer. 
 out of Egypt) is called God’s So/i. 11 os. i xxxi. 9. Rom. ix. 4. 
 
I. xvii. 19.] 
 
 PROPHECIES. 
 
 187 
 
 I. lost out of the Hebrew MSS. of the prophets ; because the 
 Jews had said, “ Search and look, for out of Galilee" ariseth 
 no prophet,” and had asked, Can there any good thing 
 come^ out of Nazareth This must imply, that no such 
 prophecy as “ He shall be called a Nazarene,” was then com- 
 monly known to the Jews. This learned writer thinks 
 that St. Matthew might refer to Isaiah xi. 1, which all 
 hold to be a prediction of the Messiah : ‘‘ There shall come 
 forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a shall grow out 
 of his roots.” signifies either a branch (or flower), or the 
 
 town Na^areth^ which was the flower of the country, a very 
 beautiful and pleasant place : the name of the town may also 
 denote an inhabitant of it, as Moab signifies the Moabites, Phi- 
 63 listia the Philistines, &c. Hence Isaiah might mean by 
 
 both that a branch or flower would come of the stem of Jesse, 
 and that the person so called might be a Na^arene. It should 
 also be remarked that this is not the word commonly 
 
 made use of, when it is foretold that the Messiah shall be a 
 branch of the root of Jesse; is the common word. This 
 will seem/orce<i, and it should only be adopted as a probable 
 solution ; but it will appear less forced to any one who con- 
 siders the nature of prophetic language, and particularly to 
 any one who considers Hosea i. 4 , 5 , with Bishop Chandler’s 
 explanation. Possibly any Hebrew copy, or Hebrew transla- 
 tion (see chapter vi. section 2, of this book) of St. Matthew’s 
 Gospel might here have the very Hebrew words of Isaiah xi. 1. 
 How 7 iew such introduction of them would appear we cannot 
 certainly determine. That author mentions another passage 
 which seems entirely parallel to Isaiah xi. 1, in his way of 
 conceiving it : that is, Daniel v. 28 : “ Peres ; thy kingdom 
 is divided^ and given to the Medes and Persians.'''' D*l£), in 
 Hebrew, signifies both to divide^ and Persia: and, in the 
 hand-writing on the wall, had two meanings, as is sup- 
 posed to have in Isaiali xi. 1. This authentic interpretation 
 made by Daniel, greatly confirms the fallible interpretation of 
 Bishop Chandler*. 
 
 Of the allegoi'ic method of quoting. Gal. iv. 21, &c. is 
 a remarkable instance. St. Paul does ' not pretend that it is 
 
 2 John vii. 52. ^ John i. 46. 
 
 ^ The instances in Chandler, about 
 Amos’s basket of flowers, &c. are very 
 apt, and come well from a Jeio. Chap. 
 
 iv. sect. 1. (p. 225, in my Chandler, but 
 there is a false print from p. 213, for 223, 
 which runs through the rest of the 
 book.) 
 
188 
 
 rilOPHECIES. 
 
 [I. xvii. lo. 
 
 more than an allegory^ a Jewish mode of persuasion, used I. 
 when more simple methods seemed to fail of success; in en- 
 forcing particular points of Christian doctrine ; for it is 
 always to be remembered that the persons addressed are 
 already Christians, made such by regular proofs. This par- 26‘4 
 ticular allegory was addressed to those Christians who in their 
 attachment to the law of Moses ran into excess — to those who 
 desired to be under the bondage of the law, when they might 
 enjoy the liberty of the Gospel. And must it not be really 
 persuasive to such persons? as lovers of their country, and 
 as lovers of their religion ? However, it is said to have been 
 founded on an “^old Jewish notion, that Isbmael should 
 pierce Isaac with an arrow which would make it more 
 readily received. 
 
 The quotation of the 8th Psalm, 2d verse, in Matt. xxi. l6, 
 on occasion of the children crying Hosanna,” &c. is so harm- 
 less that it will not be suspected of fraud, and therefore it may 
 illustrate the method of quoting. And the same may be 
 observed of 2 Cor. viii. 15, about the manna. Manna is also 
 referred to in John vi. 51. But it should not be omitted that 
 the Jews had a notion that the children*' were to make accla- 
 mations at the triumphal entry of the Messias, according to 
 Psalm viii. 2. Allusions made in this manner would imply 
 diflerent degrees of argument at different times ; but they 
 would always have some effect on the minds of the candid 
 part of the Jews, and for others (besides Jews) they were not 
 intended. 
 
 I must not produce more examples. From these it 
 will appear that, without some knowledge of the subjects 
 of types and quotations, the language of the New Testa- 
 ment, especially that used by St. Matthew and St. Paul, 265 
 will never appear natural and easy. And these will be best 
 understood by one acquainted with the Jewish traditional 
 notions. 
 
 The term accommodation is used on this subject. I believe 
 it means, the first publishers of Christianity accommodating 
 the facts and expressions of the Old Testament to the habitual 
 notions of the Jews with whom they conversed. 
 
 1 AlHx’s Judgment of the Jews, p. f)2. | shews the same. And Lardner, vol. i. 
 
 See Acts viii. 1, and other places, that p. 164. By St. Paul’s allegory, the 
 the Jews did persecute the Christians. 1 become Ishmael, and Christians Isaac. 
 
 St. Paul’s behaviour before conversion | ^ Allix, p. 63. 
 
I. xvii. 20.] 
 
 PIlOPHKCli:?:. 
 
 189 
 
 I This accommodation does not seem to excuse us from 
 
 reasoning accurately and sincerely; it does not justify our 
 urging that'^ as truth which we think to be falsehood. It 
 does not appear to me that Christ or his Apostles ever did 
 this, strictly speaking ; or that their eloquence or persuasion 
 ever was less regular than the argument um ad hominem : if 
 any harm arises from that.^ it must be imputed to those who 
 make the application. 
 
 Mr. Locke’s account of tlie argumentum ad hominem., 
 though just, seems to have occasioned its being thought less 
 valid ^ and less useful than it is. If the nature of it is not 
 mistaken., if it is not taken for an argumentum ad judicium., 
 it may, in its own department, answer many good purposes. 
 Men are particularly attentive to any reasoning upon their 
 own principles ; and when they are convinced of their own 
 inconsistency (which they are by the argumentum ad homi- 
 nem), they grow humble and reasonable, attentive to truth, 
 and willing to admit it. The arguing of which we are speak- 
 ing in quotation from, or allusion to, the Old Testament, is 
 2()6 generally of the nature of the argumentum ad hominem, if 
 not always. 
 
 j 
 
 In the year 1782, Dr. Ra7idolph of Oxford, then Marga- 
 ret Professor"’, published a large quarto pamphlet containing 
 a complete collection of quotations from the Old Testament 
 to be found in the New : the page divided into three columns : 
 one containing the Hebrew of the Old Testament; another the 
 Greek of the LXX; the third the Greek of the New Testa- 
 ment : with notes, &c. at the end. 
 
 20. We are now to observe that miracles and prophecies 
 are suited to different times and circumstances; and that they 
 do not weaken, but mutually conjhmi, each other’s testimony. 
 
 Miracles,” says Bishop Newton, “ may be said to have been 
 the great proofs of revelation to the first ages, who saw them 
 performed ; prophecies may be said to be the great proofs 
 of revelation to the last ages®, who see them fulfilled.” The 
 same thing is said more particularly, and with more argument. 
 
 ^ Dr. Powell’s Charges, p. 305. Dr. 
 Powell is not so satisfactory, to my judg- 
 ment, in this passage as in others. 
 
 ^ Qu. In all actual arguing, are not 
 you generally endeavouring to convince 
 some person whom you address ? espe- 
 cially when you are in the commerce of 
 
 life, not in theory or speculation ? Bp. 
 Pearson says, “which I shall not need 
 here to prove, because those against whom 
 I bring this argument, deny it not.” 
 Creed, His only Son.” 
 
 ® Regius Professor in 1733. 
 
 Bp. Newton, Tntrod. p. 7* 
 
190 
 
 PROPHECIES. 
 
 [I. xvii. 20. 
 
 by Bishop Hallifaxh And Bishop Hurd, speaking of double I. 
 prophecies, adds a new idea : The events which ” both pro- 
 phetic schemes point out are so distributed through all time, 
 as to furnish successively, to the several ages of the world, the 
 means of a fresh and still growing conviction.” The convic- 
 tion grows, because the force of old prophecies, when completed, 
 continues always undiminished, and every new completion 
 adds to the' mass of evidence ; it grows fast, because each 
 new completion illustrates the whole plan. 
 
 That no part of the evidence of prophecy should be lost, 
 seems the great purpose of Bishop Warburton’s Lecture founded 
 at Lincoln’s Inn, which has given rise to so many masterly 267 
 discourses. It is intended to point out the completion of the 
 prophecies relating to the Christian Church, particularly those 
 which seem to describe what is called ‘‘ the apostasi/^ of Papal 
 Rome.” 
 
 If miracles and prophecy are intended for different seasons 
 and occasiojis, it should seem as if there could be no rivalship 
 between them ; yet some writers seem to have endeavoured to 
 create one. This has been founded chiefly on 2 Pet. i. 19, 
 where the Apostle says, after speaking of the miraculous ap- 
 pearance of Christ at his transfiguration, “ we have also a 
 more sure word of prophecy : ” hence, as some have thought, it 
 appears, that prophecy is more convincing than miracles : but 
 Dr. Cooke^ has shewn, that St. Peter sets up no competition 
 between them, but only says, that the prophecies concerning 
 the second coming of Christ are confirmed (or made more sure) 
 by the miracle of his transfiguration. The passage, according 
 to Dr. Cooke’s interpretation, admits of some such paraphrase 
 as this : ^ though you are completely established in your new 
 religion, yet you must not think yourselves wholly free from 
 danger ; you are exposed to trouble and persecution, and to 
 the sarcastic scoffs of infidels, who tauntingly demand, why 
 does not Christ come a second time, according to the expecta- 
 tion of the faithful ? Let them not undermine your faith by 
 either sneers or arguments : think seriously of the assurance 
 you have from prophecy of his second coming; this will be 
 your best stay, and firmest support. They tell you that 
 
 * Bp. Hallifax, Disc. i. p. 4, 5, &c. 
 See also Bp. Hurd, pp. 118 and 182. And 
 Butler’s Analogy, p. 281. 
 
 2 See an extract from a deed of trust 
 prefixed to Bp. Hurd’s Discourses on 
 
 Prophecy. 
 
 ^ See before, sect. 15. Dean of Ely, 
 and Provost of King’s College, in a Visi- 
 tation Sermon preached at Beaconsfield 
 1 in 1750 , against Dr. Middleton. 
 
I. xvii. 21.] 
 
 VllOPHECIES. 
 
 191 
 
 I. I deceive you with cunningly devised fables: no; my senses 
 26'8 did not deceive me ; the second coming of Christ cannot seem 
 doubtful to me^ who was an eye-witness of that glorious and 
 majestic form in which he will probably appear. I saw him 
 tra7isjiguredj and heard the voice of his heavenly Father, 
 saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased : 
 such a sight must needs give me very lively conceptions of 
 Christ’s second comings and must add stability and firmness to 
 my confidence in pi'ophecy. To that let me exhort you to 
 attend as to a light shining amidst the darkness of your present 
 ignorance, till the day of knowledge dawn, and the morning- 
 star arise to cheer your hearts with the rays of assurance and 
 conviction.’ 
 
 21. Upon the whole, the force of the argument from 
 prophecy is wonderfully great. To conceive this, we must 
 look back to the very beginning of time, and watch all the 
 prophecies which have been delivered ; faint and indefinite, if 
 very distant from the completion — more distinct, if nearer to 
 it : numerous, circumstantial, describing events out of the reach 
 of conjecture by analogy, and events seemingly incompatible 
 wdth each other : many of these prophecies fulfilled primarily 
 in one event, and, after many ages, in other events more im- 
 portant and more spiritual : many of them not understood 
 for a while, but at last receiving an explanation by events^ 
 which candour could not deny to be an interpretation ; yet not 
 solved by facts concerning people of different nations at ran- 
 dom, but confined chiefly to one people, or to other nations 
 as connected with them, and to 07ie pm'pose ; continually un- 
 folded, not exactly according to man’s preconceptions, yet so 
 as to excite admiration and applause upon reflection. This of 
 past prophecies. Those pi'esent or subsistmg are always ob- 
 scure enough to exercise the human faculties, intellectual and 
 269 moral, yet able to be a lantern unto our feet, and a light unto 
 our paths ^‘in a dark place f'' gratifying, and at the same 
 time exciting expectation ; rising in greatness and magnificence, 
 till, as we look farther and farther into futurity, our concep- 
 tions are lost in the immensity of the Divine wisdom and 
 knowledge. 
 
 The son of Sirach, a learned and worthy Jew, describing 
 the character which we wish to recommend^, says, He that 
 giveth his mind to the law of the most High, and is occupied 
 
 ^ Ecdesiasticus xxxix. 1—3. 
 
192 
 
 PROPAGATION OF CHRISTl ANIT V. [I. X viii. 1 , 2. 
 
 in the meditation thereof, will seek out the wisdom of all the I. 
 ancient writers, and will be occupied in prophecies. He will 
 keep the sayings of the renowned men ; and where subtile 
 parables are, lie will be there also. He will seek out the 
 secrets of grave sentences, and be conversant in dark para- 
 hlcs.’^'^ 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 270 
 
 OF THE FIRST PROPAGATION OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 
 
 1. We have now considered every thing contained in our 
 Scriptures, from which we derive any argument of their 
 authenticity. We come next, according to our plan, to con- 
 template their gradual reception in the world, and to see what 
 conclusions are to be drawn from it ; — using the precautions 
 before mentioned, that we do not trust too implicitly to the 
 partial accounts of friends, nor turn with disgust from the un- 
 favourable representations of enemies. 
 
 If we wished to make a regular transition from prophecy 
 to the propagation of the Gospel, we need not be at a loss. 
 
 St. Matthew gives us^ a beautiful prophetic parable, predictive 
 of that great and complicated event : a parable which must 
 have been published to the world long before the prophecy 
 contained in it was completed^; and in such plain terms as 
 could have no other signification given them, in case the grain 
 of mustard-seed had not grown up as was foretold : for “ the 
 Kingdom of Heaven” was as well understood to mean the 
 Kingdom of the Messiah, or the dispensation of Christ, as the 
 Roman empire was known to mean the empire of CcEsar^. 
 
 2. A short account of the subject before us is this : — A 
 person, in an humble rank of life, had taught men religion, 271 
 
 as one having authority,” and had pretended to be the 
 expected Messiah ; but he was apprehended and tried, and 
 put to death in a servile and ignominious manner. His fol- 
 lowers had entertained, during his life-time, ambitious hopes 
 of advancement in his supposed kingdom ; but, when he was 
 opposed, one betrayed him, another, though of a most zealous 
 
 * Matt. xiii. M, 32. = 3iatt. xiii. 31. | describing the propagation of the Gospel : 
 
 “ There are other prophetic parables | IMatt. xxii. 1 — C. Matt. xiii. 44 — 4<i. 
 
I. xviii. 3.] 
 
 PllOPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 193 
 
 I. temper, denied him, and ‘‘all forsook him and fled:” and, 
 liad they been perfectly faithful, they had neither riches, 
 power, rank nor wisdom, nor any spirit of fanaticism, to take 
 up the succession ; nor any views, after the death of their 
 Lord, of any worldly advantages. Let us put ourselves in 
 their place, or in that of Jews or heathens: — what was to be 
 expected 9 Why, considering the obscurity, and poverty, and 
 simplicity of the first Christian teachers, and how they were 
 opposed, not only by the heathens whose religion they de- 
 spised, but by the Jews whose religion they honoured as 
 divine ; considering that all those who were distinguished for 
 wisdom affected to treat them with contempt ; it was to be 
 expected that the Christian religion would die away, and be 
 totally lost and forgotten. This was the case on other similar 
 occasions^; but here the contrary happened. There was a 
 pause of some days between the time of the final departure of 
 this Leader, and the famous day on which his teachers pro- 
 fessed to receive their commission ; but, after that, the new 
 religion began to spread; it spread gradually, but what may 
 be called rapidly and irresistibly, on every side : though it 
 had to overcome men's prejudices, and to make them sacrifice 
 their interests ; though it required the most inveterate habits to 
 be conquered, habits corporeal, intellectual, and moral; though 
 272 it sometimes demanded a deo-ree of resolution and fortitude 
 beyond all probable expectation, and though it frequently 
 exposed men to death itself. 
 
 3. What can be thought of such an event as this.^ how 
 can it be accounted for ? There have been three methods of 
 accounting for it, and of applying it, in the way of argument, 
 to the proof of a Divine superintendence over the interests of 
 Christianity. 
 
 Some Christians content themselves with considering the 
 Gospel-history as the cause, and this progress of the Christian 
 doctrine as the effect. If the things related in the Gospel- 
 history were really done, say they, such an effect might be 
 produced ; but the effect is utterly unaccountable if we may 
 not ascribe it to such a cause. That is, the first propagation of 
 Christianity proves the truth of the Gospel history: no such 
 effect could have followed from fiction or imposture. 
 
 But there are some who think something more is wanting 
 to produce phenomena so very extraordinary ; something more 
 ^ See Salisbury’s Bullet, p. 222. Sis instances, from Josephus. 
 
 VoL. I. 13 
 
194 
 
 PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY. [I. Xviu. 4, 5, 
 
 than even the wonders related in the Gospels, supposing the I. 
 accounts of them indisputable. They think, that not only re- 
 lations of past miracles must have been wanted, to accomplish 
 such ends, but, when the evidence of such miracles became 
 difficult to examine thoroughly, by distance of place, and 
 other circumstances, a continuation of miracles must have 
 been requisite, during the whole time that Christianity re- 
 mained unprotected by the civil power. When therefore it is 
 said that miraculous powers did subsist in the Church for 
 some centuries, they think the thing probable, and are inclined 
 to believe that many of the miracles pretended to by the 
 ancient Christians were really performed. 
 
 A third set of men go farther still, and hold that the 273 
 phenomena of the propagation of the Gospel were so great 
 and wonderful, that not even continued miracles were sufficient 
 to account for them, unless some supernatural influence was 
 used immediately upon the hearts of the converts. So long as 
 the reason of those to whom the Gospel was preached was 
 clouded by error, and obstructed by prejudice, whilst their 
 hearts were debased and enslaved by mean and worldly pas- 
 sions, no preaching, however confirmed even by miraculous 
 evidence, could have had its due effect k Still the internal 
 
 influence of heaven on the heart would have been wanted. 
 
 4. Dr. Powell has well observed, that it matters not much 
 which of these suppositions is adopted : from any of them 
 it follows that the Christian religion is divine. The first is 
 the most simple, though all three might be admitted, or any 
 one or two : indeed, the two latter imply the first. The nar- 
 rations of the Gospel-miracles might be true, and yet there 
 might be some miraculous power continued in the Church for 
 three centuries; and the converts might also be influenced 
 from above, or internal influence might have place without 
 continued miracles. The suppositions shew one thing, that 
 the propagation of the Gospel has been thought truly wonder- 
 ful and supernatural; modes of accounting for it are marks 
 of admiration at least, if not of sound judgment. 
 
 5. What has been said already may in some sense be 
 called an account of the propagation of Christianity ; but it 
 is a matter so grand, so interesting, so important, as to merit 
 more particular attention — as to the fact^ the solution of that 
 fact, and the conclusions which may be drawn from it. 
 
 ' Matt. xiii. a}?. 
 
I. xviii. ().]| 
 
 PHOPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 195 
 
 I. 6 . As to the fact we may truly say, that, if we could 
 
 274 get good accounts of it, such as would give us distinct and 
 lively ideas, it would be the most interesting of subjects ; 
 equally improving to the Christian and the scholar; though 
 nothing less than being present at the different scenes would 
 give us a perfect conception. We should see the magnificence 
 of the heathen temples^ the fine workmanship of the statues ; 
 the priests, the victims, superbly adorned ; the attendant youths 
 of both sexes, blooming with beauty, performing all ceremonies 
 with gracefulness, heightened by every ornament ; the magis- 
 trates with insignia; the religious feasts, dances, illuminations. 
 We should hear the concerts of voices and instruments; we 
 should be surrounded by the perfumes ; we should observe how 
 every part of religion was contrived to allure and captivate ; 
 we should see how much all men were attached to it, not only 
 of the lower ranks, but the most improved and the best in- 
 formed; for we, in our improved times, are apt to think Jupiter, 
 Apollo, and Venus, so absurd as deities, that we have no idea 
 or feeling of the attachment of the heathens to their gods^ 
 When we had got some idea of the heathen religion, we should 
 go to a meeting of the first Christians ; plain simple, and in- 
 commodious — concealed in some degree, under alarms from 
 danger of persecution : one such meeting we should see at least 
 in every century, till the end of the fourth. We should hear 
 the heathens conversing about the Christians in private life, 
 
 275 and deliberating about them in councils of state; we should 
 attend the tribunals of the heathen magistrates, and hear the 
 early Christians accused, defended, condemned ; listen to the 
 topics made use of in accusing and defending : we should at- 
 tend the convicts to the stake or the cross, see their mild for- 
 titude, their heroic benevolence ; or first, we should attend 
 them to prison^ and see their fellow-Christians crowding about 
 them, giving up every sort of convenience, in order to afford 
 them relief and support in their confinement. We should enter 
 into the domestic retirements of those families which were 
 wholly converted, and see their amiable virtues and their 
 animated piety ; or of those which were become Christians in 
 part^ and see the conflicts between religious and filial duty — 
 
 2 Libanius Orat. pro Templis might 
 be consulted, Lard. vol. viii. 440, &c., 
 and the petition to restore the Altar of 
 Victory, vol. ix. p. 130, &c. And liard- ' 
 
 ner’s account of Zosimus — this again in 
 sect. 18. And, to the purpose^ B. I. 
 Chap. xii. sect. 10. 
 
 13 2 
 
196 
 
 PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 [I. xviii. 7 . 
 
 between Christian devotion and fraternal affection. We should I. 
 see the zealous labours of the clergy^ their minds enflamed 
 with the greatness^ the novelty, the danger of their situation ; 
 free from worldly views of gain, or rank, or power; wholly 
 fixed upon heaven and the means of attaining it — instructing, 
 persuading, exhorting, convincing. 
 
 And it may here be permitted to observe, by the way, that 
 whoever carries on this train of thought, must perceive that 
 any one who was master of the history and antiquities of the 
 early ages of Christianity, might form fables, /mvOoi, out of 
 them, for epic or dramatic compositions, which would be ex- 
 tremely interesting, affecting, and improving. 
 
 7. The intent of seeing all the things just now mentioned 
 would be, to get as full a conception as possible of what those 
 persons had to give up who determined to embrace Chris- 
 tianity ; but seeing is now out of our power, we must come 
 as near it as we can by reading. The books which it would 
 be natural to consult are Jewish, Heathen, and Christian ; but 
 I will not dwell on what the Jews had to give up in order to 276 
 become Christians — their temple, their solemn rites, their dis- 
 tinction from the rest of mankind; (though it was to them an 
 important and trying sacrifice;) because it is better known to 
 those who are accustomed to the reading of the Old Testament 
 than what we have now been describing ; but every one should 
 reflect upon it, enough to be sensible that the Christian reli- 
 gion must be “ unto the Jews a stumbling-block,” as well as 
 ‘‘ unto the Greeks foolishness.” 
 
 We shall keep therefore the Gentiles chiefly in our view. 
 
 But how is any knowledge of them to be got which shall sup- 
 ply the place of actual intercourse are all the authors, hea- 
 then and Christian, to be read, who wrote between the death 
 of Christ and the full establishment of Christianity ? are the 
 Christians sufficiently impartial ? are they not too zealous and 
 superstitious ? and, as to the heathen writers, how little do 
 they say about Christianity ? We may read Tacitus and 
 Suetonius, Pliny and Dion Cassius, and find very little to 
 our purpose in any of them : even Josephus will only involve 
 us in disputes on the question, whether he has said any thing 
 whatsoever about Christianity h If the student is desirous 
 to get the information here mentioned, and yet thinks himself 
 unable, it may be acceptable to him to find that a collection 
 ‘ Before in Chap. xiv. sect. 12. 
 
I. xviii. 8, 9.] riiorAGATioN of Christianity. 
 
 197 
 
 I. has been made, by Dr. Lardner'^^ of all the passages in hea- 
 then (and indeed in Jewish) authors which have any relation 
 to Christianity; and that all helps have been given by him for 
 the right understanding of those passages ; such as the lives and 
 characters of the several authors, with their connexions, views, 
 and sentiments. 
 
 If reading this work were found too much, the student 
 
 277 might consult Professor Bullefs short history and discourse, 
 with Mr. Salisbury's translation and notes. Dr. PowelVs 
 10th and 11th Discourses should not be passed over: but if he 
 reads these shorter works only, he would do well to consult 
 Lardner for the times and characters of the authors referred 
 to in them. 
 
 We would wish to make use of all authors; but the testi- 
 monies of Christians would be undervalued, and bring on dis- 
 putes; we therefore wave them as much as possible. Nay, we 
 ourselves lament the instances of indiscreet zeal which we meet 
 with in some ancient Christians, and of a desire to persuade so 
 strong as to interfere with truth and just reasoning. As the 
 injudicious parent persuades his child to what is right, and 
 deters him from what is wrong, by every foolish and super- 
 stitious argument, so, it is to be feared, weak Christians have 
 sometimes endeavoured to persuade and deter those whom they 
 wished to convert, or to preserve from heresy ; and a few 
 instances of this sort must hurt a writer’s credit almost irre- 
 trievably. Yet, with caution, we may draw very good informa- 
 tion from Christian writers; and all must allow that they are 
 to be attended to, when they give accounts of events in one 
 country like those which heathen writers give of events in 
 another ; or when they copy Ddiets, &c. 
 
 8. Some heathen writers have written against Christianity, 
 others have only mentioned it occasionally. We have lamented^ 
 the loss of the works of the former, whether owing to violence, 
 or mere contempt and neglect ; it is from the latter that we 
 chiefly take our materials for an history of the propagation of 
 the Gospel. But for making a right use of these and others, 
 some preparatory considerations are wanted. 
 
 278 9. First, we may observe, that Christians were not always 
 called by that name. At first, Jews and Christians were 
 confounded together, or very little difference made between 
 
 2 This work was mentioned before, Chap, xii, sect. 9. 
 
 ^ B. I. Chap. xii. sect. 17. 
 
198 
 
 I'llOPAGATION OF CHllISTIANIT Y. [I. XVUi. 10. 
 
 them : indeed, to neglect distinguishing where two things are I. 
 like each other, and very unlike all other things with which 
 you are apt to compare them, is very natural. The Jews and 
 Christians were like each other in worshipping one invisible 
 God, and in holding no fellowship or communion in worship 
 with any species of idolaters ; and in this they were unlike 
 all the heathen world k Both Jews and Christians came to 
 Borne (and other places) from Judea, and both acknowledged 
 the divine authority of the religion of Moses. The name of 
 Christians was first given to the new sect at Antioch, before 
 the publication of the Acts of the Apostles ; but both before 
 and after that time they were distinguished by several other 
 names. These we should be aware of, otherwise we might 
 read a passage in an heathen author relating to Christians, and 
 imagine it related to some other persons. When we read of 
 Galileans^ or Nazarenes^ we might suspect Christians to be 
 meant ; but not so perhaps when we read of atheists^ of a 
 rabble, of barbarian temerity, of a novelty, of a foreign super- 
 stition^ of persons burning like a stake, having the tunica 
 molesta, being magical, doing things contrary to the laws^ or 
 when we read of Judaism, impiety, &c. However, about the 
 year l60 we are told^ that most prose writers called the new 
 sect by the name which they have at present — Christians; 
 though some thought it came from y^prjaro's, good, not from 
 to anoint. 
 
 10. As these names are many of them opprobrious, and 
 as it seems likely that they have done great harm to Christi- 
 anity, being found in writers of great eminence, and trans- 
 planted into the works of infidels, it may be proper to give 279 
 the account of them which is to be found in Dr. PowelVs 11th 
 Discourse. Christians have been called superstitious, and yet 
 they have been called atheists. When particulars come to be 
 examined, the superstition appears to be professing a religion 
 very different from that of their ancestors ; and the atheism, 
 despising all the heathen gods, and holding no communion 
 with their worshippers, as suchk Christians have been called 
 low, and illiterate, and mean, and yet they have been called 
 
 * Dr. Powell, p. 15o. ^ Lardner. 
 
 Christians have been called weak, 
 flexible, credulous ; and yet they have 
 been called obstinate, and punishable for 
 mere obstinacy. On inquiry, tlieir weak- 
 
 ness and credulity is found to consist in 
 believing prophecies and miracles; and 
 their obstinacy in persisting in their faith, 
 in spite of the persuasions of friends, and 
 _the terrors of the civil power. 
 
I. Xviii. 11.] PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 199 
 
 I. wise, versed in magic and necromancy. On examination, their 
 vulgarity seems to have been nothing more than plainness and 
 industry in useful occupations ; their powers of magic, mira- 
 culous powers. The charge of necromancy might originate in 
 the doctrine of the resurrection^ and particularly in the Apostles 
 being always ready to lay the foundation of their preaching in 
 the resurrection of Christ Lastly, Christians have been 
 called lazy and indolent, and yet they have been called restless 
 and busy. Their indolence was a want of the common endea- 
 vours to get money, so that they had nothing to give the gods; 
 their restlessness, a great assiduity in doing good, in succouring 
 their distressed brethren, and perhaps in converting their ac- 
 quaintance to Christianity. 
 
 11. It seems requisite, for a right understanding of de- 
 tached passages selected from heathen authors, to have a just 
 notion of heathen, and especially Homan ^ toleration. Amongst 
 280 idolaters, each nation was supposed to have its own gods ; and 
 no better argument was expected from any one for worshipping 
 any particular gods, than that they were the gods of his ances- 
 tors®. St. Paul therefore very aptly, when addressing himself 
 to a Roman governor, pleads, that he worshipped the God'^ of 
 his fathers . . . The Romans conquered many nations, but 
 they suffered each to keep its own ® religion ; and even in the 
 city of Rome, when a great number of foreigners resided there, 
 a great number of different deities were allowed. Dion Cas- 
 sius® makes the number of nations who had each its own gods 
 six hundred. The Romans, accustomed to this, thought 
 that Christians ought to be contented, if their God Jesus was 
 admitted on the same footing; but, though the Apostles were 
 remarkably discreet and delicate in their manner of publishing 
 the Gospel, they never dissembled the truth ; and, in after- 
 times, the Christians in general were obliged to declare posi- 
 tively against all intercommunity of gods, and to refuse all 
 kinds of respect to idols. They would not ^®throw a little 
 frankincense upon an altar, or put their hand to their lips, 
 when they passed by a temple.” When “Pliny said, that 
 Christians were punishable for their obstinacy about such mat- 
 
 ^ See Acts xvii. 18,32; xxiii. 6; xxiv. 
 21 ; xxvi. 8, &c. 
 
 ^ See Divine Legation, Index — tole- 
 ration, or religion. 
 
 Perhaps Egypt should be excepted 
 
 from 'those who allowed all to worship 
 their own gods. ’’ Acts xxiv. 14. 
 
 ^ See Lardner’s Credib. Part I. Book i. 
 Chap. viii. ® See Powell, p. 156. 
 
 10 Powell, p. 186. 11 Lib. x. Ep. 97. 
 
200 
 
 PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY. [I. Xviii. 12. 
 
 ters. whether what they persisted in was good or bad, he must I. 
 presuppose that modes of religious worship were in themselves 
 indifferent. 
 
 Mr. Hume^ prefers polytheism to theism, and of course to 
 Christianity, in respect of toleration^ but, as it seems to me, 
 unjustly. 1. The Romans, who, I suppose, were accounted 281 
 as tolerant as any people, seem not to have allowed, in theory^ 
 any strange gods to be worshipped, either publickly or pri- 
 vately, without legal ^authority. 2. They were tolerant only 
 in trifles: the difference between one species of idols and 
 another was not important, scarcely more so than different 
 modes of courtesy and civility. Christians are as tolerant 
 when they allow the omission of water-baptism. Nay, the 
 Egyptians were confessedly intolerant, even about different 
 species of idols, or brutes, as objects of worship. 3. They 
 could not be really tolerant from any principle of duty, because 
 they w’ould not bear any reasoning against their gods, nor 
 even some sorts of neglect of them. They would determine 
 in what degree men should differ from them ; they would not 
 allow men to profess and defend their belief in the Unity ^ of 
 God. And how is the idea of heathen toleration to be made 
 consistent with the barbarous persecutions of Christians 4. 
 Christians, as such, are not intolerant. The Christian emperors 
 did, in early times, lay more restraints upon the pagan religion 
 than we can now approve; and some professors of Christianity 
 have carried persecution to a length which we detest ; but, as 
 the knowledge of Christianity improves, toleration becomes 
 more understood and practised ; which could not be if Christi- 
 anity, or theism, was any way inconsistent with toleration. 
 
 I conceive there are now many Christians who really desire 
 that every man should use his reason and form his opinions 282 
 freely, even of those who are for having the members of the 
 same religious society agree in some things, for the sake of 
 peace and unity, or who are afraid of trusting men of very 
 different religious tenets with great civil power in the same 
 government. 
 
 12. The subject of toleration naturally leads to that of 
 
 ’ Hume's Nat. Hist. Rel. sect. 9. 
 
 2 Separatim nemo habessit deos ; neve 
 novos, sed ne advenas, nisi publice adsci- 
 tos, privatim colunto. Cic. de Leg. ii. 8, 
 quoted in Lardner’s Works, vol. i. p. 190. 
 
 3 Lardner says, (Cred. B. I, Chap, viii, 
 sect. 7,) that the supreme God might be 
 worshiiqied in the Roman empire ; but 
 did not that mean that the Jews might 
 worship the God of the Jews ? 
 
I. xviii. 12.] 
 
 PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 201 
 
 I. the persecutions against Christians, before the time of Con- 
 stantine the Great; of which we should have some idea, in 
 order to understand the progress of Christianity. As disputes 
 have drawn this subject out into a great length, we must be 
 content to let it be treated by others as a separate subject, and 
 only treat it ourselves in a summary way. 
 
 Several writers have endeavoured to lessen the importance 
 of the persecutions. We may particularly mention Dr. Tay- 
 lor^ Mr. Walpole^, and Mr. Gibbon. Even Mosheim® has 
 controverted the common opinion that they were ten in num- 
 ber. Augustin' has given a short account of ten, and so, 
 I think, has Sulpicius Severus ; and Eusebius has reckoned 
 eleven ; Dr. Blair, in his chronological tables, gives ten®. If it 
 be asked, what opinion I should recommend, I should answer, 
 that I am inclined to agree with Lardner^, who follows Euse- 
 bius in admitting eleven. I would observe, at the same time, 
 that some historical disputes might be owing to the persecu- 
 tions having been called general. . Instances of particular per- 
 83 secutions might be, Nero’s from Tacitus, the martyrs of Lyons, 
 and St. Lucian’s martyrdom under Maximian, from Euse- 
 bius’®. I believe that Christians were less persecuted by 
 heathens at first” than is generally thought; but, if we go to 
 Diocletian’s persecution, we shall have cruelty enough. 
 
 If it be asked, for what reason these persecutions were 
 carried on, we may answer, probably because families were 
 disturbed, and things were seen to go out of their usual course, 
 
 Answered by Warburton, Pref. to 
 2d part Div. Leg. 
 
 ® Historic Doubts, Pref. p. vii. 
 
 ^ De rebus Christianorura, p. 97, quoted 
 by Lard. Test. 3. 336. 
 
 ^ Quoted ib. p. 338, from de Civ. Dei. 
 18. 52. 
 
 ^ Snip. Severus gives a short account 
 of the persecutions, Lib. ii. 
 
 ^ Works, vol. VIII. p. 337. 
 
 Translations of these passages may 
 easily be found in Lardner’s Works, by 
 the index^ as also the original passages 
 in Tacitus and Eusebius. Lard. Works, 
 vol. VII. p. 253, from Tacitus’s Annals, 
 15. 44. Also p. 417 , from Euseb. lib. v. 
 pref. and cap. 1. — Also Lard. Works, 
 vol. III. p. 324, from Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 
 8. 13, and 9. 6. 
 
 Diocletian's persecution makes the 40th 
 
 Chapter of Lardner’s Heathen Testimo- 
 nies. Works, vol. VIII. p. 293, &c. It 
 is mentioned here again in sect. 15. 
 
 The reader is to conceive that, at the 
 lectures^ passages were occasionally read 
 out of various authors, as time and oppor- 
 tunity allowed : they were always read in 
 that language which seemed best to con- 
 vey the sense : that is, in English, when 
 a good translation could be found, or one 
 which only required an explanatory re- 
 mark here and there. Lardner’s collec- 
 tion is so large, that, after I became ac- 
 quainted with his works, I frequently 
 used his translations, not unfrequently of 
 passages which I had before used in the 
 original, with imperfect translations, when 
 the case required them, of my own. 
 
 Lard. Credib. Part I. Book i. Chap. 
 
 viii. 
 
202 
 
 PltOPAGATlON OF CHRISTIANITY. [I. Xviii. 13. 
 
 which would have the appearance of disorder and irregularity: I. 
 the priests were probably very clamorous, when they found 
 great deficiencies in worshippers and in victims. Though the, 
 magistrates did not suspect the Christians of ambitious de- 
 signs in increasing their numbers, yet they wished to bring 
 things back into their old train. To do this, they tried gentle 
 punishments ; these being unsuccessful, they became exaspe- 
 rated, and determined to raise a terror by excessive severity^ : 
 
 — all in vain. 
 
 Lardner is of opinion that, in some sense, Christians might 284 
 be said to be under continued persecution for the first three^ 
 centuries : in theory, they probably were, though, in fact, per- 
 secution seems to have been often suspended, and never was 
 universal. It must not be said that Romanists in England 
 are under persecution, because penal laws are in being against 
 them ; for these laws are only of a political sort, intended to 
 prevent revolutions in civil government. No such revolutions 
 were apprehended from early Christians. 
 
 13. No one record seems better adapted to give us an 
 idea of the state of Christians under heathen emperors, than 
 the famous epistle^ of Pliny to Trajan, This therefore I 
 will read, with such remarks as may occur, as well as the 
 emperor’s rescript. Pliny had the government of the pro- 
 vince of Bithynia, or Pontus and Bithynia; but he was not 
 called proconsul,^ only proprcBtor with proconsular power : his 
 letter to Trajan was written from his province, and might be 
 dated in the year 106 or 107. He was augur, and very much 
 attached^ to the religion of his country. I will now mention 
 some particular expressions of this epistle. Cognitiones shews, 
 that taking cognizance of Christians was common ; but yet 
 Pliny’s ignorance shews that he had no edicts to execute 
 against them. It seems severe to doubt whether youth 
 should have no lenity or indulgence shewn it. Flagitia pro- 
 bably were only neglecting the gods, or the injunctions of 
 magistrates about them ; yet it was easier to punish Christians 
 merely for their name, than to have any facts to prove. . . Duel 
 seems to imply punishment of convicts. It is evident that 
 punishment was now inflicted on Christians merely for their 285 
 religion. They were encouraged to apostatize, that is, to be 
 false, and what they thought impious ; and for this they were 
 
 ‘ See Lardner’s Works, vol. viii. p. I ^ Works, vol. viii. p. 335. 
 
 333, 334; and Matt. x. 34, 35. 1 ^ Lib. x. Ep. 97. ^ i. 12. 16. 
 
I. xviii. lo.] 
 
 PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY, 
 
 203 
 
 I. rewarded. Ought mere perseverance to be punished, even in 
 things presumed to be indifferent ? Pliny seems to consider 
 sending Bithynians to Rome as a trifle ; but it would probably 
 ruin those that were sent. Plures species inciderunt, ‘‘ dif- 
 ferent sorts’^ of people fell in my way.” , Attending to anony- 
 mous accusation as evidence, {lihellus sine autore^) is tyran? 
 nical, and justly reprobated by the emperor. We see that 
 no Christian would, upon any account, sacrifice to heathen 
 gods, or blaspheme Christ. Trajan was deified in his lifer 
 time. Pliny took his account from apostates: how wonder- 
 fully favourable, if we consider that they wanted an excuse 
 for their apostasy ! Early Christians seem to have addressed 
 themselves to Christ : tanquam Deo, does not absolutely 
 prove their acknowledging his dimnity, as the expression may 
 admit of an heathen sense. Carmen, a set form, opposed to 
 extempore addresses : Sacramentum, though understood as 
 only an oath by Pliny, probably meant the Eucharist — as 
 the repast also meant an * Ay We see what good morals 
 the Christians had, notwithstanding their great attention to 
 mere religion. The ministree must have been deaconesses; 
 Pliny imagined them slaves, from the name of their office. 
 How cruel to put them to the torture ! they were probably 
 aged, by 1 Tim. v. 9, and how ineffectual ! Christianity Pliny 
 called superstitio, because it- was out of his way, and he was 
 286 out of humour with it: prava, because it was to him perverse, 
 distorted, out of the train of his notions : immodica, because it 
 declared sublime doctrines, and told wonderful things ; of 
 incarnation, resurrection, ascension, future and universal 
 judgment. Victims were expensive ; gain as well as honour 
 was concerned ; both stimulated the priests to foment a perse- 
 cution. That persecution made Christians give '^way — at least 
 for a time. 
 
 Trajan writes like an honourable soldier; not like a philo- 
 sopher, or a lawgiver studying the good of mankind. His 
 
 ® May not species mean different sects 
 of Christians ? many heresies must have 
 subsisted by the year 106 ; or may spe- 
 cies mean Christians in different degrees ? 
 such are described by Pliny ; or different 
 ranks or offices in the Church ? 
 
 ^ Promiscuum, consisting of rich and 
 poor. Does innoxium mean not feeding 
 upon children ? &c. 
 
 It might make men give way, who 
 were before sincere. Human weakness 
 is to be pitied, fortitude to be admired. 
 1793, I introduced here Archbp. Cran- 
 mer's recantation, effected by wearing 
 him down, and then ensnaring him with 
 pleasure. Libanius boasts that he had 
 made some Christians dance round hea- 
 then Mtars. Lard. vol. viii. p. 439. 
 
204 
 
 PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY. [I. Xviii. 14. 
 
 approbation of Pliny'’s general conduct was harsh and severe. I. 
 His saying, that Christians were not to be searched for, shews 
 an opinion of their innocence^ and also some fearo^ them ; 
 his adding, that they were to be punished if brought before 
 him, is scarcely just. Tertullian^ is eloquent upon this in- 
 consistency. 
 
 Upon the edict of Pliny, the Christians left off their lore- 
 feasts ; hence it appears that they thought them not essential, 
 and judged it their duty to comply with the orders of the civil 
 magistrate, as far as they could. 
 
 14. Having given directions for reading heathen authors 
 concerning Christianity, it seems proper to ask, whether all 
 heathen authors who wrote before Constantine the Great have 
 taken notice of Christians ? The truth seems to be, that some 
 have not ; nay, that some have taken little or no notice of 
 Christians, who might have been thought likely to speak of 
 them with attention. We may conceive, I think, that hea- 287 
 thens who had literature enough to write books that should 
 continue to be read, would be perplexed about the Christian 
 religion, if they did not attend enough to it to embrace it. 
 
 At first it would be despised or overlooked ; writers would 
 get no decided opinion about it; it would grow in time too 
 important and too virtuous to be spoken of by candid men 
 with contempt and blame. It pretended to such high and 
 extraordinary things, that it could not be lightly commended ; 
 the easiest way, then, for those who had no particular call to 
 speak of it, was entirely to pass it by. To this the pride of 
 philosophy might contribute, in some cases ; but men are often 
 incurious about sects of religion ; and the heathens, never hav- 
 ing had any idea of any thing but different sorts of idolatry, 
 would be particularly so. How many of near sixty, now 
 present, know the discipline and tenets of the meeting-houses 
 at this time in Cambridge? Suppose any heathen to attempt 
 to give some account of Christianity, he w’ould find it difficult, 
 on account of the multitude of facts and out-of-the-way 
 notions which would crowd upon him, as well as prophecies. 
 Then, those who have been concerned in writing books know, 
 that the principal subject occupies the attention, and that 
 they are obliged to neglect men and things, and even writings, 
 which all the world is surprised at them for neglecting. Be- 
 sides, the number of books which is come down to us, com- 
 
 ‘ Apol. Cap. 2. 
 
I. xviii. 14.] 
 
 PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 205 
 
 I. posed in the first three or four centuries, is very small. I 
 suppose the number of books published in London in one year 
 must be many times greater than all the heathen writings 
 which have come down to us, taken together, published in 
 three hundred years. We may observe, that Pliny takes no 
 notice of the Christians, except as far as he is forced to it by 
 288 some inconvenience: the same might probably be said of 
 Tackus and Suetonius. Whether any of Pliny’s letters were 
 written to Tacitus, &c. after his letter to Trajan about 
 Christians, I do not know. Then he must have had the highest 
 opinion of their morals ; but, before that, had Pliny and 
 Tacitus been duly attentive, or Pliny and Trajan, they must 
 have communicated about so pure a religion as the Christian. 
 (See Lardner’s Heathen Test. Chap. ix. end.) Every instance 
 of blameable carelessness (and we find many blunders and 
 misrepresentations) in heathen writers about Christians, may 
 operate in accounting for the omissions wliich we find in them, 
 for passing Christians by without reason; for, when we wonder 
 at their omissions, we take for granted they would not have 
 omitted any thing without some good reason, whereas we find 
 that they say many things without reason. 
 
 Lardner has mentioned some omissions much to our pre- 
 sent purpose^. From Eusebius he observes that most his- 
 torians, with a view to please their readers, have treated of 
 wars, victories, trophies, blood : Christianity would be far out 
 of the way of such authors. He says that Velleius Pater- 
 culus’s history is not found mentioned in any ancient writer, 
 except Priscian the grammarian ; though Velleius was of a 
 good family, and flourished in the reign of Tiberius, That 
 Lucian has taken little notice of Roman authors, or Roman 
 affairs, though he was a subject of the Roman empire ; par- 
 ticularly he has said nothing of Cicero, though he has a 
 laboured encomium on Demosthenes, and though Plutarch 
 and Longinus have made nice and critical comparisons be- 
 tween those two celebrated orators. That Maocimus Tyrius 
 28g is not thought by his editor (the learned Davies of Queen’s 
 College) to have made any reference to the Roman history, 
 though he wrote (as a Platonic philosopher) several of his dis- 
 sertations at Rome, and flourished under Antoninus Pius. That 
 the emperor Marcus Antoninus had two sons, who are not 
 mentioned by any ancient historian; Mabillon speaks of it. 
 
 " Test. Chap. xii. sect. I?. 
 
206 
 
 PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY. [I. Xviii. 15. 
 
 That La Roche, the abridger of Brandt the historian, observes 1 
 that the best way of stopping the progress of heresies is to 
 seem to neglect them mentioning as an instance, that, in 
 the year 1525, orders were sent to the convents in the low 
 countries, “to forbid preachers to mention Luther and his 
 doctrine, and the opinions of ancient heretics.” 
 
 Dr. Lardner observes farther, that Epictetus may have 
 been afraid of giving occasion to doubts and disquisitions 
 concerning “the popular deities, and the worship paid to 
 themh” These observations seem quite sufficient to take off 
 the effect of a mere negation or blank; especially in times very 
 remote, affording us few circumstances which can be combined 
 and formed into arguments : they seem also sufficient to pre- 
 vent it from weakening the credit of our religion. Josephus's 
 silence has been mentioned^ before. 
 
 I say nothing of the silence of Jewish writers concerning 290 
 the affairs of Christianity, such a very small number of books 
 in the Hebrew language has come down to us^. 
 
 15. What has been hitherto said, in the farther consider- 
 ation of the propagation of the Gospel as a fact, has been in 
 the way of introduction to the reading of heathen authors 
 about the concerns of Christianity ; but yet it has incidentally 
 anticipated the reading of them in some measure, and made 
 it less necessary to be very particular in describing the gradual 
 increase of numbers amongst the professors of the new religion. 
 
 But we will fix upon two eras as specimens, and mention 
 the strength of the Christian interest in them ; leaving the 
 rest to the student of ecclesiastical histo7'y. These eras may 
 be, 1. The close of i\\e first century ; and 2. The time of the 
 Emperor Julian, as he was the last heathen emperor. But 
 
 * All these things are mentioned, Lard- 
 ner, vol. VIII. p. !)4, &c. or Test. Chap, 
 xxii. sect. 3. With regard to Epictetus, 
 see also the last section of Lardner’s Re- 
 view of his Testimony. 
 
 2 Chap. xiv. sect. 12. It appears in 
 Ijard. Cred. Part 1st, that Josephus pre- 
 serves many edicts of Roman emperors, 
 &c. of great importance in themselves, 
 which no heathen historian preserves, 
 because they related only to Jews: the 
 omissions of the heathen historians, in 
 this case, neither lessen the credit nor the 
 importance of such edicts. 
 
 The heathens knew so little of the na- 
 
 ture of Christianity, that when they broke 
 into a Christian church they expected to 
 find the statue of the Christian God. 
 See Lactantius De Mort. Persecutorum, 
 cap. 12, “ revulsis foribus simulachrum 
 Dei quaeritur and Lard. Works, vol. 
 VIII. p. 299. 
 
 ^ This section might be concluded by 
 reading Mrs. Carter's Note on Epicte- 
 tus, lib. vi. chap. 7- It is quoted Lard. 
 Works, vol. VII. p. 355. Indeed the in- 
 attention of the heathens seems to have 
 been very blameable ; and, in reality, 
 more disgraceful to them than to the 
 Christians. 
 
I. xviii. 15.] PKOPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 207 
 
 I. though I fix upon these eras, yet some of the steps should 
 be mentioned by which Christianity grew to the height at 
 which it was when we choose to view it most attentively. 
 Christians had thrown things into some confusion, by preaching 
 and prevailing upon men to quit the worship of the heathen 
 gods, in the time of Claudius^; and they were so numerous 
 that Claudius judged it most advisable to check them, by 
 ordering what he thought would have the greatest tendency 
 
 291 to check them — by forbidding their religious meetings. Ta- 
 citus says they were ingens multitudo, not many years^ after 
 the reign of Claudius; and we learn from another heathen^ 
 writer, that, before St. John wrote his Gospel, there were great 
 multitudes in many cities of Greece and Italy. In the time 
 of Trajan', Pliny’s account gives information concerning a 
 province particularly well situated for our purpose, as being 
 at a great distance, both from the source of Christianity 
 and the seat of empire. If there were such numbers of Chris- 
 tians in Bithynia as Pliny describes, if their religion had been 
 so long there that some had deserted it above twenty years 
 before his time, we may well believe those Christian writers 
 who give like accounts of other countries. We may here 
 mention the Emperor Adrian’s letter from Egypt, in which 
 he speaks of Christians as being equally numerous with the 
 worshippers of Serapis; only making a little allowance for the 
 increase between the end of the first century and the year 134, 
 in which that letter was written. Indeed the state of Chris- 
 tianity described by Adrian, was not above a. century after 
 our Saviour’s resurrection. There is a difference in the style 
 of Adrian’s letter of business to his minister Fundanus, and 
 his familiar letter to Servianus, his brother-in-law. In gather- 
 ing facts from them, some allowance should be made for the 
 flippancy of the latter^. 
 
 In getting an idea of the extent and force of Christianity 
 under the last heathen emperor, Julian^, we should, in like 
 
 292 manner, take notice of a few previous steps. And we must go 
 so far back as to take in the great revolution, by which Chris- 
 
 ^ Claudius reigned A.D. 41 — 53. See 
 Suet, in Claud. 25. Dion Cassius 15. 44. 
 Powell Disc. 10. ® Powell, ibid. 
 
 Julian, as cited by Cyril, lib. x. 
 See Powell, p. 158. 
 
 ^ Trajan reigned 98 — 116. Powell, 
 
 ibidem. 
 
 s See Lardner’s Heathen Testimonies, 
 Chap. xi. sect. 2 and 3. 
 
 ^ Julian was emperor only in the years 
 361, 362, 363 : he had been declared 
 Caesar in 355. Julian was mentioned 
 Chap xii. sect. 16 and 17. 
 
208 
 
 PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY. [I. Xviii. 15. 
 
 tianity became protected by the civil power. Early in the third !• 
 century, Tertullian declared, in his Apology*, as a thing pub- 
 licly known, that Christians abounded in all ranks and orders of 
 Roman citizens ; and, when about a quarter of the century was 
 passed, Alexander^ Severus offered the Christians to put their 
 worship upon the same footing with others, and had actually 
 a representation of Christ, amongst other objects of religious 
 veneration, in his private chapel. By the time of Diocletian, 
 men of high rank and authority were Christians ^ insomuch 
 that some had the government of foreign provinces^ with per- 
 mission not to sacrifice to the gods. This great prosperity 
 of the Christians did harm to their morals ; they began to be 
 loose and careless in their conduct ; ambition and faction began 
 to appear. In the 19 th year of Diocletian^, that is, in the 
 year 303, began the last attempt to exterminate Christianity by 
 terrifying its professors. A desperate and bloody attempt it 
 was — savage and cruel beyond conception ; and it lasted ten 
 years The greatness of the efforts which were made proved 
 the importance of Christianity, as clearly as the prosperity 
 which immediately proceeded them : they extended to Chris- 
 tian scriptures and buildings. When we read of the cruelties 
 of this persecution, nothing but pity could prevent our blazing 
 out into a flame of indignation — nothing but indignation could 
 prevent our melting into compassion ; but we must now re- 
 strain ourselves from indulging either, and attend only to 293 
 matters historical. The two emperors® who set this persecu- 
 tion in motion soon retired from government, though one of 
 them" afterwards appeared for a while, in order to establish 
 his son in the imperial sovereignty. Constantine began to 
 reign in the fourth year of the persecution, when the imperial 
 authority was divided amongst severaP; and he did not at first 
 hold the highest rank, that of Augustus and Imperator. So 
 the persecution proceeded, and raged in very distant parts of 
 the globe. The first relaxation seems to have taken place at 
 
 * Tert. Apol. c. 3G — See Pearson, 
 Creed, Art. 2. - He reigned 222 — 235. 
 
 ^ Euseb. viii. 1. Lard. Test. Chap, 
 xl., beginning. 
 
 ^ Diocletian reigned 284 — 30i. 
 
 This is mentioned before, sect. 12. 
 
 ® Diocletian and Maximian Herculius. 
 See Lard. vol. vni. p. 21)5. 
 
 ^ iMaximian Herculius. Maxentiuswas 
 his son. 
 
 ® At one time there were six emperors, 
 Maximian (Herculius), ( Maximian) Va- 
 lerius, Constantine (as son of Constantins 
 Chlorus), Maximin (of low birth, a re- 
 lation of Galerius), IMaxentius (son of 
 Maximian Herculius), and Licinius (an 
 old acquaintance of Galerius, afterwards 
 married to Constantine’s sister, Constan- 
 tia). Lard. vol. viii. p. 296. 
 
I. Xvili. 15 .] PROVAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY, 
 
 209 
 
 I. Nicomeclia (near the Propontis, in Bithynia) in 311 ; it was 
 probably occasioned by the workings of nature (how often do 
 they effect what no authority, no exhortation, can effect !) in the 
 dangerous illness of the Emperor Maximian, called Galerius^, 
 to distinguish him from Maximian Herculius. This man 
 published an edict, giving liberty to Christians to worship 
 in their own way, and signifying that, in return, the Christians 
 ought to pray for him to their God. He was probably much 
 terrified, and very desirous to get the protection of any super- 
 294 natural power. Though Maximin ought to have executed 
 this edict in the East, yet, being of a cruel and impious turn, 
 he evaded it as much as he could, by giving only verbal 
 orders ; but his minister Sahinus contrived to give written 
 orders, which took effect ; for the generality of men must have 
 become tired of such a continuance of barbarity to harmless 
 people. The next year, 312 , Constantine and Licinius, now 
 become his brother-in-law, published a very favourable edict in 
 Italy, and then Maximin in the East was compelled to write 
 to his minister Sabinus, pretending to have always been 
 against oppressing the Christians, but only to have consented 
 to it from the necessity of hearing petitions of the heathens ; 
 forbidding all men to oppress Christians, but yet not expressly 
 allowing them to hold their usual religious assemblies. This 
 letter or edict the Christians feared to act upon, knowing Max- 
 imin to be false and perfidious. In 313 he (Maximin) was 
 attacked and defeated by Licinius, and became dangerously 
 ill by poison which he had taken : then he published his edict, 
 properly so called, and he died soon after. Christians now 
 (in 313 ) might be said to be/ree; and ere long^*^ the empire 
 was governed by Constantine alone (Licinius having been put 
 to death), and he embraced Christianity. On what motives 
 he embraced it we may not perfectly know : we are sure he 
 dared to embrace it ; and he probably thought that, in the 
 whole empire taken together, the superior force was on the 
 side of Christianity, taking numbers and steadiness, and other 
 principles, into consideration, which would be productive of 
 fidelity. The empire was less likely to be divided, if he put 
 
 ^ He styles himself, at the beginning 
 of his edict, “ Cffisar Galerius Valerius 
 Maximian, Invincible, August (Augus- 
 tus), High Priest,” &c. See Lard. vol. 
 viTi. p. 306. And Maximin uses Vale~ 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 rius as one of his names. Ib. p. 323. 
 So does Constantine. Lard. vol. iv. p. 
 138, Note a. So did Constantine’s father, 
 Constantins Chlorus. 
 
 In the year 324, or 323. 
 
 14 
 
210 
 
 PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY. [I. Xviii. 15. 
 
 himself at the head of the Christian party, than if he followed I. 
 any other plan. Indeed Maximin confesses the strength of 295 
 the Christian party, as much by his dissimulation as by his 
 saying^ that almost all mankind had forsaken the worship of 
 the immortal gods. 
 
 The emperors continued Christian till Julian, (who was 
 indeed only nephew to Constantine the Great), and ever after 
 him. Of Julian we have spoken before"; we are now con- 
 cerned with him only as far as his conduct marks out the state 
 of Christianity in his time. He was brought up a Christian ; 
 but, from conversing intimately with heathen philosophers, 
 or from other causes, when he was about twenty years of age 
 he turned to Hellenism, as he called the heathen religion. He 
 wished very much to extirpate Christianity, but he did not dare 
 to attempt it in any way till he was settled on the throne, and 
 therefore of course he attended Christian worship regularly ; 
 nay, afterwards, he appeared at Christian churches, though he 
 sacrificed to the heathen gods in private. Not that he took 
 this method because he had no turn for war ; as a general he 
 had sufficient ability ; but he was convinced that violence 
 would not answer his purpose. He seems to allow, in one 
 of his^ letters (what had been said by some Christians), that 
 Christians at Bostra equalled the rest of his subjects there 
 in number^; and they were certainly more united than any 
 other large number of men, though not so much as they 
 had been. He did indeed banish^ Athanasius repeatedly, but 
 in other cases he seems only to have taken measures which 
 he thought would have a tendency to hurt the Christian inte- 
 rest. He interfered with the education of their youth, forbad 29fi 
 them to teach the liberal arts, kept them out of offices, tried to 
 destroy their writings, evaded inflicting punishment on those 
 who had killed a bishop at Alexandria ; but his chief view was 
 to excite the Christians to quarrel with one another. He 
 advises the people of Bostra to banish their bishop, Titus, a 
 very valuable man ; because he had presumed to ascribe their 
 quiet behaviour to his own admonitions. Ammianus Marcel- 
 linus, an heathen historian, but very impartial, says^ that 
 Julian called bishops from banishment, on purpose to excite 
 
 ^ Lard. Test. Chap. xLvi. 
 
 ^ Lard. Works, vol. viii. p. 414. 
 
 *'■ See Ib. p. 3G!k 
 
 ' Maximin to Sabinas. Lard. Test. ! 
 Chap. XI.. sect. h. ^ I. xii. IJ. 1 
 ^ Letter to people of Ilostra. I^ard. { 
 Test. Chap, xi.vi. ' 
 
I. xviii. ]6, 17.] PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 211 
 
 I. divisions amonffst them. He had seen the heresies then sub- 
 sisting, and knew the grand controversy between Catholics 
 and Arians, which had occasioned the Council of Nice... 
 But, as his caution shews how strong the Christians were 
 in his time, so his writings shew how good and virtuous 
 they were ; particularly his letter to Arsacius'^, high priest 
 of Galatia, in which he reprimands the heathen priests for 
 not following the example of the Christian clergy, in sobri- 
 ety, humanity, charity, and sanctity of life. This letter 
 contains such extraordinary encomiums (incidental and re- 
 luctant indeed, but the more forcible on that account) on 
 Christians, that it seems necessary to add, that its genuineness 
 has never been questioned. After Julian, there were no more 
 heathen emperors ; would we could say, that all the Christian 
 emperors who followed made the prosperity of their religion 
 to depend on the same intrinsic excellence which had occa- 
 sioned its advancement ! or that the body of Christians had 
 always, in their state of security, continued to be as gentle, 
 297 and pure, and virtuous, and as much united amongst them- 
 selves, as whilst they were under trials and persecution ! 
 
 16. Having thus taken a farther view of the propagation 
 of the Gospel, as a fact ^ we must now enter upon some farther 
 considerations relative to the solution of that fact. That is, we 
 must consider whether Christianity could have been spread in the 
 manner described, if at least the Gospel-history had not been 
 true. And here our thoughts must turn upon the difficulties, 
 humanly speaking, attending such an advancement of such a re- 
 ligion, so circumstanced. If those difficulties cannot be con- 
 ceived to have been surmountable by human means, the reli- 
 gion must have been divine; at least, it must have been thought 
 divine by those who embraced it. How likely they were to 
 be deceived in such a case, may be a subsequent inquiry. 
 
 17 . Difficulties attending the propagation of the Gospel 
 would be either on the part of the hearers, or of the teachers. 
 
 Difficulties on the part of the hearers might arise from 
 their prejudices, their interests, the bodily pains they would 
 have to endure, or from their vices. While we enumerate 
 these, in some imperfect way, we must endeavour to suppose 
 ourselves actually concerned, either as those who had to per- 
 suade others, or as those who were to be persuaded to take a 
 very important step : on the liveliness of our conceptions will 
 ' We have a good part of this letter in English, in Lard. Works, vol. viii. p. 410. 
 
 14 2 
 
212 
 
 PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY. [1. Xviii. ] 8, I 9 . 
 
 depend the force, or the effect at least, of the argument. And, I. 
 to give us lively and distinct ideas, is the principal use of the 
 descriptions which have been now given of the fact. 
 
 18 . When you want to remove a prejudice it is very 
 difficult to gain any attention; ‘you may talk,’ says a pre- 
 judiced man, ‘but you shall never persuade T/ze.’ And, when 
 men are much prejudiced, they lose their sense of their being 
 prejudiced at all : prejudice, in this respect, resembles in- 298 
 sanity; and therefore, as it increases, it grows more difficult to 
 cure on two accounts^ both because the disease grows stronger, 
 and because the patient becomes less disposed to accept a re- 
 medy. In common cases, men are unwilling to give up their 
 prejudices, because it is humiliating to confess that they have 
 not been under the guidance of reason. Prejudice becomes 
 more difficult to remove when it gets mixed with respect, for 
 then it is a species of virtue : if it gets linked with religious 
 veneration and devotion, it is a species of piety. Religious 
 prejudices are the strongest of all, because our religious ideas 
 
 of the Divine nature and heavenly things must be indistinct ; 
 and, where reason has less power, prejudice must have more. 
 Pliny the younger, and Julian, as already described, are strik- 
 ing instances of the force of religious prejudiced And, in the 
 17th century, we of this nation had an instance of the great 
 difficulty of overcoming prejudice, when King Charles I. 
 attempted to force the English form of ecclesiastical government 
 on the Scotch Church. I would not take for granted that the 
 English form is best, but only that either of them might be 
 admitted, in compliance with civil authority d When truth is 
 to be pressed upon the prejudiced, it seems difficult to know 
 what mode to adopt : if you are remiss, you have no effect ; if 
 you are severe, you exasperate and revolt^ The Jews, we 299 
 know, were very strongly prejudiced; and what has been said 
 in the present chapter may shew that the Gentiles were not 
 less so: the calumnies which were spread abroad about Chris- 
 tians would add strength to the prejudices of both. 
 
 19. 1 l\\q interests of those to whom the Gospel was preached 
 
 ^ I here read (see sect. 0) some passa- 
 ges from Libaniu.s's Oration for the tem- 
 ples, and the petition for replacing the 
 altar of victory. Translations of both 
 may be found in Lardner’s Works by 
 tlie indexes. His account of Zosiminf 
 affords good instances. 
 
 - This is what Dr. Powell proves in 
 his Thesis. 
 
 2 Professor Bullet says, “ In the last 
 century, the Chinese, it is well known, 
 chose rather to lose their heads than to 
 cut off their long hair.”— p. 1 10, by Salis- 
 bury. 
 
I. Xviii. If}.] PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY, 
 
 213 
 
 I. would make it very difficult for the preachers to succeed; in- 
 deed, interest raises a strong prejudice against any opinions 
 which seem to threaten it; but we will wave that at present. 
 It is a dreary and melancholy thing to fall from a state of 
 affluence or plenty, to one of indigence ; or, in general, from 
 an higher condition to a lower: to live in a daily, hourly, 
 perpetual disappointment with regard to those accommoda- 
 tions, indulgences, (luxuries, if you please) of which one has, 
 from habit, a constant expectation: not only to have all hope 
 of rising cut off, but to feel continual mortification (heightened 
 by the triumphs of enemies or rivals) from a sense of falling. 
 Men express things as they feel them ; and such a change as 
 this therefore gets the name of riiin^ &c. And though some 
 romantic people may look forward to a low estate, and indulge 
 fond imaginations that they shall be happy in it, yet, I believe, 
 the best judges of human nature hold, that poverty, unknown 
 and untried before, wears ^ out the strength and vigour of the 
 mind, and of the whole human constitution. The evil may be 
 perhaps an evil of the imagination^ and might be relieved by 
 good moral expedients ; but, if it is to be expected, it will be 
 a real evil, no matter from what part of human nature it pro- 
 ceeds. Poverty indeed, to be a difficulty in the present case, 
 must be dreaded as one ; it commonly is dreaded too much ; 
 yet it is to be accounted a real evil. If a few enthusiasts rush 
 300 into it, the evils they find warn others ; and, in general, a 
 man who knows the world would rather have any difficulty in 
 the way of his proposal, especially amongst men who were in- 
 dustrious in different occupations, than be obliged to tell them 
 that they could not accept his proposal without reducing them- 
 selves to poverty. Nay, the prospect of ruin is often consi- 
 dered as a sufficient apology for actions confessedly wrong. 
 
 As to our persuading men to do any thing which would 
 occasion them great bodily pain, the difficulty is too evident to 
 need much explanation — it is very great, but very obvious. 
 The sensibility of human nature to bodily pain is very strong; 
 perhaps the apprehension of future may, at any moment, be a 
 greater evil than the actual sensation ; but that makes nothing 
 against us. Our argument here must depend on any person’s 
 conceiving and representing to himself some particular case of 
 some exquisite bodily torments, inflicted in such a manner that 
 the sufferer could at any time escape, by complying v.dth cere- 
 
 ^ Diderot, Fils Naturel, Act iv. scene 2. 
 
214 
 
 rilOPAGATION OF CHllISTIAXITY. [I. Xviii. 20. 
 
 monies expressive of the opinions of his persecutors: we know 1. 
 that the minds of men and of women unused to pain faint 
 under such sufferings. Insomuch that a person who makes 
 
 use of them would be said to use violence, compulsion, &c 
 
 terms which imply, that all choice, freedom, &c. are overborne. 
 
 It is therefore much more surprising if they do not, than if 
 they do, in such a situation, renounce all claim to distant and 
 invisible rewards. What is called the torture has generally 
 proved successful : while the body is on the rack, and can be 
 any moment relieved by compliance, distant and unknown re- 
 wards appear visionary and romantic. The Christians gene- 
 rally yielded, in some degree, to persecution ; in Pliny’s time 
 we know^ they did: though perhaps, in private, their cause SOI 
 might gain strength by oppression, as but few out of the 
 whole number sunk under it ; and as impartial spectators must 
 be interested in favour of those who suffered wrongfully, by 
 the mere force of humanity. Mr. Addison, in his Evidences, 
 
 &c. has^a strong passage on this subject. 
 
 20. The last difficulty, on the part of those to whom 
 Christianity was addressed, which I shall mention, is that 
 arising from their having indulged ^"vicious habits. I do not 
 mean that any difficulties are absolutely insurmountable; for all 
 those that I mention were actually overcome ; but, if it was 
 not at all likely that they should be overcome, some great 
 power or influence is manifested when they are. Suppose, then, 
 you were to set about preaching holiness to the vicious, or 
 were to exhort those to learn to do well who had been accus- 
 tomed to do evil — ‘‘ Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the 
 leopard his spots'^ With what probability shall we attempt 
 to give a man perfect sobriety of character, who has an in- 
 veterate habit of drinking strong liquors or to purify the 
 heart of a common prostitute? We may sometimes hope that 
 we have reclaimed him who has an habit of speaking falsehood, 
 from lying and slandering ; or prevailed upon the pilferer to 
 keep his hands from picking and stealing ; but when we come 
 to trust them, we find they relapse, and make us feel con- 
 temptible to ourselves for placing any confidence in them. In 
 the case of idolaters, some vicious habits got confirmed by 
 religion ; but independent of that, vice in general, and sensu- 
 
 ' Sect. 13 of this chapter. I •' Prejudice is an habit, but of the in- 
 
 vii. 4, quoted by liardner, M^orhs, ] lellectual sort; we now speak chiefly of 
 vol. VII. p. 437 . ! mom/ habits. ■* Jer. xiii. 23. 
 
I. xviii. 21.] 
 
 [PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 215 
 
 I. ality in particular, benumbs the liner feelings, and sears those 
 
 302 nerves which in the ’good are made to thrill and vibrate by 
 every generous act of virtue, by every instance of rational 
 piety. 
 
 Though these difficulties are great when single, they are 
 much greater when united; which they often are: at least, 
 those who first laboured to propagate the Christian religion 
 would often find prejudice^ interest^ and mce combined against 
 them; so that, in order to their success, they must change men 
 from prejudiced to unprejudiced, from selfish to disinterested; 
 from slaves of habit, to free servants of God: they must have 
 to make the Ethiopian fair, the leopard unspotted : and the 
 convert, in whom prejudice, interest, and vice had been com- 
 bined before his conversion, might have moreover no very 
 distant prospect of being called to endure bodily pain. When 
 a convert underwent such changes, it was indeed like being 
 horn again. 
 
 We see, then, what prospect we should have^ in the ordinary 
 course of things, of prevailing upon a Roman to give up the 
 protection of Jupiter Capitolinus, and openly declare a con- 
 tempt of his godhead before a magistrate, or to abjure all the 
 mysteries of Bacchus and Venus. We see what madness it 
 would be in us, as common men, to attempt the conversion of 
 Egypt, by reviling Serapis, Isis, and Osiris ; or by arguing 
 against devotions offered to an onion, a cat, or a crocodile ! 
 
 21. But it might be useful not only to suppose cases, but 
 to study that which is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles^, as 
 that shews us, in a very lively manner, the effects of the com- 
 bined forces of prejudice, interest, and habits. Great is 
 Diana of the Ephesians!” “the image which fell down from 
 Jupiter!” — “that the temple of the great goddess Diana 
 
 303 should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, 
 whom all Asia and the world worshippeth!” Such were the 
 words of the artists who provided the worshippers of Diana 
 with shrines and other things. They were not only afraid for 
 their interest ; they were zealous also for the honour of their 
 goddess; so at least they fancied. The Jews wanted to be dis- 
 tinguished from Christians; Paul, they urged, was not of their 
 sect; they called out Alexander to explain this matter; but as 
 soon as the multitude knew that he was one of those who 
 were so impious as to say, that they were no gods, which were 
 
 ^ 1 Tim. iv. 2. Ephes. iv. 19. ® Acts, Chap. xix. 
 
216 
 
 PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY. [I, Xviii. 22. 
 
 made with hands, they “ with one voice about the space of I. 
 two hours cried out. Great is Diana of the Ephesians!'*'’ 
 What think you now of making these craftsmen^ these artists 
 and workmen, give up their gain, and this people their great 
 goddess? In fact, these things were afterwards given up; but 
 that is the change which is so unaccountable. The Christian 
 Council at the same city of Ephesus, in the year 431, con- 
 sisted of two^ hundred bishops, and an innumerable company 
 of Christians of different ranks; but that it should be so, will 
 appear the more strange the more we consider what myriads 
 of artists, statuaries, painters, silversmiths, besides priests, 
 victim-sellers, and others, must be what would be called in- 
 jured, ruined, &c. by the establishment of a spiritual religion. 
 These were amongst the most determined enemies of Christi- 
 anity, and from these came probably most of the informations 
 against Christians, and perhaps many calumnies. 
 
 22. Such must have been the difficulties on the part of 
 the hearers, in bringing about the fact above described, the 
 propagation of the Gospel ; supposing the teachers qualified in 
 the best manner possible. Now, we will suppose the hearers 304 
 such as would occasion the fewest difficulties, and see what 
 difficulties must arise on the part of the teachers. Here we 
 must observe, that the first teachers of Christianity set out 
 with professing that they^ were commissioned to convert the 
 whole world, and this profession was soon published. How 
 could such a thought enter the mind of such a set of men as 
 these ? — fishermen, mechanics, without riches, power, art, 
 eloquence, learning, or even (as was said before^) a spirit of 
 fanaticism ! To conceive the difficulties which such teachers 
 must have, first imagine them to begin their preaching in our 
 own country. Let a master of a fishing-vessel or two, at 
 Yarmouth, get some companions of his own rank, and let 
 them proclaim that they mean to have all nations come over 
 to their religion ; let some attempt to stop those who are in 
 the career of 'pleasure ; others, those who are warm in am- 
 hitious pursuits ; what success would they have, even sup- 
 posing them to persevere ? Let others address themselves to 
 plain prudent men in the middle ranks of life, supported by 
 some occupation, exhorting them to leave their counters, and 
 enter upon a new religion ; the Head indeed of the religion 
 had been executed as a criminal some years ago, but he had 
 ' Cave’s Hist. Lit. ® lUatt. xxviii. 19. Mark xvi. 15. ^ Sect. 2. 
 
I. xviii. 23.] PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 217 
 
 I. commissioned his servants to teach, and would come in glory, 
 and reward them hereafter ; nothing was to be gained till 
 after death, every thing here was to be given up, or hazarded. 
 Would the success in this rank be better than in the higher? 
 
 Nor was there anything particularly favourable in the 
 times when Christianity was published. From what has been 
 said of Gentilism and Judaism, the difficulties would not be 
 S05 less under them. The teachers of Christianity had nothing to 
 make compensation to the heathens for the loss of their plea- 
 surable worship, nor to the Jews for giving them a carpenter’s 
 son for their Messiah, instead of a king to sit literally on 
 the throne of David, and procure for them universal dominion. 
 Such teachers would be despicable to the heathens merely by 
 being Jews, especially if philosophers opposed them ; and to 
 the Jews they would be odious, because they would address 
 them as the murderers of that very person whose religion they 
 exhorted them to embrace. Teachers under these disad- 
 vantages go to Rome, Athens, Jerusalem ! — they attempt the 
 whole world. Consider of what the world"^ consists, of what 
 variety of tempers, manners, principles ! surely the difficul- 
 ties, merely on the part of the teachers, must appear insuper- 
 able. 
 
 23. Having then offered^ farther thoughts upon the fact, 
 and upon the solution of that fact, we come to see what cow- 
 clusions may be drawn. First we may say, in general, if 
 such difficulties attended the publication of Christianity as 
 could not naturally be surmounted, and yet were surmounted, 
 there must have been some supernatural power active in its 
 publication. Indeed, when we say difficulties could not natu- 
 rally be surmounted, we speak only on a footing of the strongest 
 probability. How likely it was that such difficulties could be 
 overcome by natural means, every one must judge for himself. 
 I suppose no one would hazard the least part of his worldly 
 interest upon the success of such means. And, when we say 
 there must have been some supernatural power, we need not 
 306 be understood to speak of any thing beyond miracles and pro- 
 phecies. If any persons were converted by arguments taken 
 from miracles and prophecies, I should say that they were 
 converted by supernatural means ; still more if by continued 
 miracles, or the supernatural influence of God upon his heart : 
 on any of these three® suppositions the religion published must 
 be true. 
 
 ^ Salisbury’s Bullet, p. 116. ® For plan, see sect. 5. ® Sect. 3 and 4. 
 
218 PiiorAGx\TiON OF CHRISTIANITY. [I. xviii. 24<, 25. 
 
 But we may say, more particularly, one of the three fol- I. 
 lowing conclusions must be rightly drawn from what has been 
 said. Either 1. the Christian Religion is true; or, 2. the 
 teachers of it believed it false ; or, 3. they believed it true, but 
 were deceived. If we can throw out the last two suppositions, 
 we of course establish the first. 
 
 24. Can it be believed, that the teachers of Christianity 
 thought it a false religion ? That a set of men, without 
 prospect of worldly advantages, should set about an under- 
 taking which must take up their whole lives, the teaching of a 
 religion which they themselves did not believe to be true, 
 seems a notion beyond the reach of the most flighty scepticism. 
 They exposed themselves to losses and persecutions ; possibly 
 they might have to suffer death itself ; and what could they 
 expect? Preaching this falsehood was to be their employment 
 for life ; after this life they had nothing to expect but severe 
 punishment for their deceit and hypocrisy. 
 
 25. We cannot suppose the first preachers of Christianity 
 to have believed their religion to be true, if it had been false ; 
 because the principles of it, speculative or moral, were not par- 
 ticularly adapted to their rank and manner of life : Christian 
 principles were too strict, humble, disinterested ; and too re- 
 fined. Then, as to the miracles, they were as good judges of 307 
 them as any men could be; one sees no way in which they 
 could be deceived about them. They continued a length of 
 time in a course of examining evidence ; they had no tempta- 
 tions to deceive themselves ; they searched the ancient Scrip- 
 tures, heard prophecies explained by the event ; and it seems 
 probable that they never fixed their principles of action till 
 after the ascension of Christ; and then, that they fixed them 
 upon a review of all circumstances, and upon mature rejleetion. 
 And, supposing the very first teachers had taken error for 
 truth, yet by tlie next set the error would have been detected. 
 
 The facts and doctrines had nothing to make them accepted 
 
 in any age, but their appearing to be true ; and at first there 
 was nothing to make them appear true, but their being true : 
 there was nothing to set them off in false colours. 
 
 If then the Gospel could not have been preached by those 
 who thought it false, and if those who preached it could judge 
 of it so as not to be deceived, what conclusion can we draw but 
 that the Gospel is true^ ? 
 
 ' Here might be introduced that fine | ner, near conclusion of Art. Chrysostom, 
 passage of Chrysostom, quoted by Lard- ' Works, vol. v. p. 151, 152. No. 5 and 6. 
 
I. xviii. 26', i^7.] PitorAGATioN of chiusti anity. 
 
 219 
 
 I. 26. But it may be said, the religion of Mohammed spread 
 rapidly, — is it therefore true? We answer, the mere spread- 
 ing of a religion does not prove its truth, if it is spread by 
 human means, or by any means by which it might be propa- 
 gated, supposing it false. The religion of Mohammed, we 
 are told, was propagated by arms ; we have no reason to think 
 success by arms an infallible proof of the Divine approbation, 
 because wickedness has prospered by arms. In some sense, all 
 ^08 events may be referred to God’s government, (the tyrant is his 
 scourge, the fire his minister,) but the manner in which such 
 reference is made must be explained when we hereafter treat 
 of predestination. As to miracles, the Mohammedan teachers 
 did not pretend to them, except in the delivery of the Koran 
 ■ to their prophet ; and, with regard to that, they argue in a 
 circle : proving the excellence of the Koran, by its having been 
 miraculously delivered, and the miracle of its delivery, (which 
 was in private) by the excellence of the Koran 
 
 27 . Again, some sects have spread rapidly without force 
 of arms^; but such have always come to nothing ere long, and, 
 whilst they subsisted, might be accounted for ; by an enthusi- 
 astic spirit, favoured by some peculiar incidents, or in some 
 other human way ; particularly, perhaps, by an eager desire of 
 religious instruction from those who had taken upon them the 
 charge of giving it, but who were settled at their ease, and 
 had turned their minds to other objects, in consequence, pro- 
 bably, of some growing customs, which had prevented their 
 ever gaining a right idea of their duties. For the mind of 
 man requires religious nourishment ; and if such nourishment 
 be not duly administered, an appetite is excited for it, some- 
 times one so strong, as to take any food that is offered rather 
 than none. The account given by Pliny marks a great calm- 
 ness and sobriety and virtue and piety in the Christians of his 
 time, and a perfect freedom from enthusiasm ; indeed we may 
 say, in general, that the spirit of Christianity kept diffusing 
 8 O 9 itself equably ; — though constantly, yet quietly ; it kept rising 
 from the lower ranks to the higher, and gradually found its 
 way into the understandings and affections of the most im- 
 proved and eminent. 
 
 2 Professor White’s Bampton Lectures 
 are so generally read, that it is needless 
 to enlarge upon this objection. Any one 
 might also consult Mr. Bryant’s Trea- 
 tise, p. 188 — 203. 
 
 2 See Leland’s View of Beistical Writ- 
 ers, Letter 14, vol. i. p. 230. Chubb 
 compares the spreading of methodism to 
 the spreading of Christianity. 
 
220 PROPAGATION OF CHPvISTIANITY. [I. Xviii. 28, 29. 
 
 Thus we may answer this objection ; but w-e can do I. 
 more ; we can turn it against the enemies of Christianity, 
 and make it very powerful. To think of the number of 
 founders of religions pretending to divine authority; of those 
 who have professed to be the Messiah promised to the Jews; 
 of the number of lawgivers and moralists who have figured 
 in the world for a time ; and to reflect upon the manner in 
 which their credit has declined and died away, whilst that 
 of Jesus has flourished in the most improved countries, 
 and seems likely to be more flourishing hereafter than ever 
 it has been hitherto, is a very strong confirmation of the 
 other arguments which are urged in its favour. Professor 
 ^Bullet has set this matter in a strong light. 
 
 28. It has appeared that the subject before us is very 
 extensive^ and therefore it may be proper to mark the 
 extent of it, as far as can easily be done. To understand 
 the propagation of the Gospel well, we should be acquainted 
 with matters relating to heathens, Jews, and Christians. 
 
 We should understand the heathen religious rites; the attach- 
 ment of the heathens to their religion ; the nature of their 
 toleration ; their government, and their laws, written and 
 unwritten ; their opinions and sects. With regard to the 
 Jews, we should understand their history, from their first 
 separation down to the destruction of their temple; their 
 dispersion, and settlements; and their notions, received tra- 
 ditions, and expectations. Of Christian concerns we should 
 also have a knowledge ; such as Church government, assem- 
 blies, ceremonies, morals, reputation. All which we cannot 310 
 understand without knowing the views of the authors who 
 mention those subjects, their characters and connexions, with 
 the languages in which they write; to which may be added 
 geography and chronology. The extent of the subject is 
 here mentioned, in order to shew that both arguments and 
 objections should be offered with modesty and diffidence, when 
 we treat of it. 
 
 29- The utility of studying this subject seems great. 
 
 The argument from facts seems likely to weigh more, with 
 the generality, than such arguments as depend upon criticism ; 
 or than those taken from the obscurities of prophesy. Besides, 
 every incident makes us more interested in the cause of Chris- 
 tianity ; and a series of interesting events generates in our 
 
 * P. 140, by Salisbury. 
 
I. xviii. 30.] PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 221 
 
 I. minds an affection for our religion : and, if the events are 
 not miraculous, we adopt them with the less hesitation ; we 
 have no doubts or scruples about believing them ; and for that 
 reason, they have a greater effect upon our hearts^. 
 
 30. Lastly, we should distinguish between the propaga- 
 311 tion of the Gospel, as jjroving the reality of the Gospel- • 
 miracles, and as explaining the design^ of God in those mi- 
 racles, taking their reality for granted. The distinction has 
 been made'^ before, but we had not then seen the manner 
 in which the Christain religion was promulged. We can 
 now say, if we had only the promulgation of the Gospel 
 to render the miracles of the New Testament credible; if 
 the records of those testimonies, which have before^ been 
 produced, had perished; if we had only received a plain 
 narrative or catalogue of the miracles, we should have suf- 
 ficient ground for believing them. But, if we have proof of 
 the New Testament miracles, independent of the promulga- 
 tion of the Gospel, then we can say, that the promulgation 
 of the Gospel, or the conversion of the world from idolatry, 
 was the final cause of those miracles; or, that the promulgation 
 of the Gospel explains their design and meaning. 
 
 But, when we say, that we believe it to have been the 
 design of God to convert the world by miracles, though we 
 know that what he intends must be executed, yet we need 
 not conclude that every miracle compels mechanically the 
 assent of every man. This is a part of the business which 
 we do not see. We know not how God influences and super- 
 intends voluntary actions ; but we conceive, in general, in 
 the ordinary course of things, that miracles do convince, or, 
 in the present case, convert. When Alfred founded semi- 
 naries of learning, it was natural for those to whom nothing 
 
 2 These thoughts may appear better in 
 the following order. The utility of stu- 
 dying the propagation of the Gospel con- 
 sists in its strengthening our faith^ and 
 interesting our hearts.^ in the cause of 
 Christianity. Our faith is strengthened 
 by the propagation of the Gospel, as a 
 strong proof of the truth of Christianity, 
 and as a proof in which the generality 
 readily acquiesce. Miracles and pro- 
 phecies, in right circumstances, are valid 
 proofs ; but they amaze, and having 
 been sometimes feigned, they raise a de- 
 gree of doubt or perplexity ; but the pro- 
 
 pagation of the Gospel seems a train of 
 facts, shewing what must follow from 
 examining the evidences of Christianity ; 
 of facts level to an ordinary understand- 
 ing. Moreover, nothing could interest 
 the heart more than a continued attention 
 to this train of facts : if a fictitious fable 
 (/xCdos) interests us, what must the his- 
 tory of early Christians do (allowances 
 made for the times), in which facts occur 
 so striking, that no one durst insert them 
 in a fictitious narrative ? 
 
 Powell, Disc. vii. pp. 112, 113. 
 
 Chap. xvi. sect. 9. ^ Chap. xvi. 
 
222 
 
 NEED OF IlEVELATION. 
 
 [I. xix. 1. 
 
 had been explained to conclude, that the final cause of such I. 
 foundations was to improve the minds of the people. We 
 conclude, from the make of the bones in which the eye is 
 placed, that the final cause of their formation was to protect 
 the eye. In all our opinions of this sort there may possibly 
 be some error; there will always be much imperfection; yet, 312 
 humanly speaking, we may say they are well grounded. 
 
 The design of God, when sufficiently apparent, might 
 afibrd us a motive to co-operate — to contribute towards 
 accomplishing such design ; as members of universities might 
 be helped in their motives to do their duty, by attending to 
 the design of Alfred. Yet it is sometimes dangerous to take 
 for granted that we are certainly executing the plans of 
 the Supreme Being ; it is like presuming to know the mind 
 of the Lord, and fancying that we have been his counsel- 
 lors; but all well-grounded opinions concerning final causes 
 are foundations of good sentiments and principles; and those 
 arising from studying the propagation of the Gospel must 
 greatly strengthen our Christian faith, and enliven our devout 
 affections. 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 OF THE NEED WHICH MEN HAVE OF IlEVELATION. 
 
 1. If we look back to the short Analysis of proofs of 
 the Christian Religion, contained in the 12th Chapter, we 
 shall perceive that the last proof is the need which men 
 had, and still have, of Revelation. I have classed it as an 
 external proof : Bishop Gibson (near the end of his second 
 Pastoral Letter) mentions it as an internal one. I presume 
 this difference is not important. We have before us a spi- 
 ritual disease, and its remedy : if our views are fixed upon 
 the disease, and the proof occurs to our mind, we shall con- 
 ceive it to be external ; if our views are fixed upon the 
 nature of the remedy, that remedy being inherent in the 
 Christian religion, we shall estimate the proof as internal. 
 
 To whatever class our present argument may belong, it 
 is one which should be used with modesty and caution. The 
 danger is, lest while we say men have need of Reve- 
 lation, and therefore God gave it, we should fancy ourselves 
 
I. xix. 2.] 
 
 NEED OF REVELATION. 
 
 223 
 
 I. in the place of God, and able to judge of his plans and 
 designs. It is presumption in us to say? God determined 
 not to allow this evil, God provided this remedy : we must 
 not say any thing which implies blame in God, either for 
 leaving men at any time to their natural faculties, or for 
 supplying them with supernatural helps ; as we know not 
 the reasons on which infinite wisdom interferes with general 
 laws, or suffers them to take their course. Nor, when we 
 are most inclined to conclude that God provides a remedy 
 
 314 for an evil, must we affirm that he forces that remedy on 
 those who want it, or that he does nothing extraordinary 
 in order to gain it acceptance. 
 
 When we see moral improvement actually take place, 
 in such a manner that we judge it may be ascribed to the 
 Gospel, we may then think ourselves secure ; but here again 
 some diffidence is necessary. Improvements in arts and 
 sciences, and in various regulations of social intercourse, might 
 ‘ possibly bring on improvements in manners; though it ought 
 to be acknowledged, on the other hand, that, in any Christian 
 country, even arts, sciences, and laws, may have owed their 
 improvements to Christianity. Candour, gentleness, a peaceful 
 spirit, would naturally encourage industry and ingenuity, as 
 well as every kind of useful regulation ; and nothing could 
 promote such a disposition more than the Christian religion. 
 
 Though Dr. Powell seems to have intended to make a 
 set of discourses for the instruction of the younger students 
 in divinity, he does not appear to have treated this sub- 
 ject; but many eminent writers have^: and the Founder oi 
 this Lecture has particularly mentioned it as one of the 
 subjects which he wishes to have insisted on. 
 
 2. But though we ought to be very cautious of putting 
 ourselves in the place of the Supreme Being, yet we can 
 never be tpo well acquainted with the facts which seem to 
 throw light on our subject ; nor with the nature and ten- 
 dency of mere philosophy, or of the Christian Revelation. 
 Let us therefore treat our subject in this simple way : let 
 us enumerate the faults and defects of religion and mora- 
 
 315 lity among the heathens; and afterwards consider the te7i- 
 dency of philosophy, and also of the Christia?i 7'eligion, 
 
 ^ Bishop Butler, Bishop Gibson (2d 
 Past. Letter), Bishop Law, Dr. Samuel 
 Llarke. See Locke and Whitby men- 
 
 tioned, Leland, p. 21, vol. i.; not to men- 
 tion foreigners or ancients. 
 
>JEED OF REVELATION. 
 
 [I. xix. 3 . 
 
 to correct those faults, and supply those defects. This will I. 
 not be putting ourselves in the place of God, or judging 
 how far the same good ends might be answered by other 
 means ; how far God has intended to control the choice of 
 man, by causing the Christian religion to be professed as 
 it is ; nor how far the improvements which have taken 
 place are owing to Christianity ; that is, how far it has 
 actually remedied those evils which it has a tendency to 
 remedy. Such diffidence will not stifle our religious gra- 
 titude. In all cases, when we have received good from 
 any dispensation of Providence, we ought to dwell on the 
 particulars ; such reflection will generate gratitude, though 
 we do not peremptorily determine the designs of God in 
 every particular : nay, when we have suffered by any dis- 
 pensation, if we reflect on particulars with a pious mind, the 
 unfavourable events will generate humility, and other good 
 sentiments; but this by the way. When we see evils, which 
 Christianity has a tendency to remedy, and which it seems 
 to have remedied in part, though we cannot draw our con- 
 clusion as in a mathematical demonstration, yet we may 
 reasonably establish a strong probable presumption in its 
 favour ; nay, one as strong as those which we think it prudent 
 to act from in many important worldly concerns ; and one, 
 therefore, from which we may reasonably act in the concerns 
 of religion. 
 
 3. But, before we proceed to enumerate the evils and de- 
 fects which Christianity had a tendency to remedy, it will be 
 proper to conceive in our minds how men might possibly have 
 improved, or continued in ignorance and barbarism, without 
 Revelation. Such conceptions will afford us a kind of standard^ 
 to which we may refer any actual faults and defects, and by 316 
 which we may, as it were, measure their quantity or degree. 
 
 If man had no guidance from Revelation he must guide 
 himself by experience. By making a variety of trials, his 
 knowledge of good and evil would gradually improve, as would 
 his facility of doing things beneficial: what a man has con- 
 sumed a long time in acquiring, he may often^ communicate 
 in a short time; and this extends to practical arts in some 
 degree. And, as morality is nothing but a set of rules, adapted 
 to promote happiness, social and private, established and re- 
 cognized by the moral sense ; and as these rules must arise 
 
 ' Chap. i. sect. 3. 
 
1. xix. 4.] 
 
 NEED OF REVELATION. 
 
 225 
 
 I. from experience, the observation must extend to morality. 
 The constitution of our nature, with regard to habits, must 
 help forward improvement, both in things natural and moral ; 
 for as arts and moral duties grow easier by becoming habitual, 
 the faculties of body and mind can enter upon new fields of 
 action, and multiply the objects on which they may exercise 
 themselves, as well as increase their own efficacy by such exer- 
 cise. Particularly, it seems as if industry and temperance 
 might receive gradual improvements by an attentive experi- 
 ence; and these are the two virtues chiefly instrumental in 
 improving mankind; industry creating new enjoyments, and 
 temperance refining them, and drawing men gradually from 
 the more gross and vulgar, to the more pure and noble. It is 
 scarce needful to say, that under industry is included applica- 
 tion of the mind ; and the mind when simple, sincere and calm, 
 yet active and persevering, can invent, multiply, vary, and, at 
 the same time, regulate, embellish, improve means of happiness 
 without end. And, by supposing men, as they thus advance, 
 317 to refer every thing they observe, to the great First Cause, we 
 may conceive them gradually to acquire competent notions of 
 religion. 
 
 4. Let us now take a different view, and consider how 
 mankind, destitute of Revelation, might get confirmed in igno- 
 rance, barbarism, and depravity. Mere inexperience, or igno- 
 rance of good and evil, does not strike our moral faculty so as 
 to excite disapprobation or abhorrence; but if men were in 
 such a state, and did not improve, they would get into a state 
 which would be worse: they must have some gratifications, and 
 they would be apt to seize upon the most obvious, which are 
 the lowest. There are more ways of getting wrong than of 
 keeping right: there are two vicious extremes to one virtuous 
 mean. Men slide into vice without effort, but do not recover 
 themselves without strong exertions. Ignorance, when men 
 give themselves up to it, will confine them to animal, grovelling 
 indulgences ; and animal gratifications will lessen the pleasure 
 of instruction, or give a disgust for mental application. Habits 
 have here too their influence, and serve to fix and settle men in 
 depravity. Persons so situated soon lose all sense of any thing 
 above their own state, all consciousness of the slavery to vice 
 under which they labour: succeeding generations inherit savage 
 manners, without any idea of their being avoidable, or out of 
 the natural course of things. The principal faculties which 
 VoL. I. 15 
 
226 
 
 NEED OF REVELATION. 
 
 [I. xix. 5. 
 
 distinguish men from brutes are unknown, or little attended I. 
 to ; science, though within reach, is hid, and not thought of ; 
 enjoyments of the noblest sort, like gems under the surface of 
 the earth, lie neglected, though it is always possible to procure 
 and polish them ; the Supreme Being, appearing only as the cause 
 of evils, which no one endeavours to remedy, is an object of 
 terror, if not of hatred; rational and affectionate worship of 318 
 him never once occurs to the mind. 
 
 5. There is one thing, relating to this state of depravity, 
 which seems to require being mentioned separately ; and that 
 is, that man, in such a state, must be conceived to incur the 
 displeasure of God. Man is accountable for his actions ; God 
 is the Judge of all the earth; our being given up to a repro- 
 bate mind, or depraved affections and vicious habits, does not 
 exempt us from punishment. These are truths, but need not 
 now be proved: the mention of them seems to be a necessary 
 part of a description of a state of depravity; the proof should 
 be offered, when it can be insisted on, and treated at large. 
 
 Yet this may be a good opportunity for taking notice of the 
 expression, the displeasure of God, as it is one which has 
 occasioned dispute, and is much more philosophical than at 
 first it may seem to be, and as the apprehension of punishment 
 makes a considerable part of our present subject. The ancient 
 heathen philosophers seem to have held that the gods were' 
 incapable of anger, or of hurting any one; and our Church 
 holds, in its first article, that God is without passions: on the 
 other hand, Lactantius^ endeavours to prove that God is 
 angry, literally speaking. Origen^, in his fourth book against 319 
 Celsus, gives a sensible account of the matter ; but what I 
 would principally observe is, that, when we speak of the dis- 
 pleasure of God, we do not undertake to determine what is 
 really the nature of that displeasure in the Divine mind, but 
 only to describe it, as nearly as we are able, by comparison with 
 
 * See Cic. de Off’, lib. iii. sect. 28, 29. 
 Edit. Pearce. In sect. 28, he seems only 
 to speak in the character of an objector; 
 but in sect. 29, his reasoning implies what 
 is here affirmed. In sect. 28, the notion 
 that Jupiter is never angry, appears to 
 have been common to all philosophers. 
 
 ^ De Ira. See also Theophilus of An- 
 tioch. 
 
 See Spencer’s Index, “ Dei Ira," or 
 p. 211. Spencer’s edition. 
 
 'Opytjv fi'ev ovv ovoiiaX^o/iev Qeov‘ oh 
 7ra6os B’avTov auTiji/ eivai cpapev, dWu 
 'Tt 'TrapaXaim(3av6fJL6vor ets ti;V Bid gkv- 
 dpcoTTOTepwv dycoycov 'TraiBevGiv toTs Ta 
 ToadBe Kal 'roidBe 'ijp.apT'i]K6GLv. We 
 call it the anger of God, but we do not 
 say that it is any passion of his, but a 
 something used for the purposes of dis- 
 cipline, when the more severe kind of 
 methods are to be used against great 
 offenders. 
 
I. xix. ().] 
 
 NEED OF REVELATION. 
 
 227 
 
 I. what we know and observe amongst ourselves. That is as- 
 cribed to displeasure in God, which would be the effect of 
 displeasure in man. And this is the case with every quality 
 of the Divine nature; — knowledge, power, goodness, prescience, 
 will, and so forth. We do not know what these are in them- 
 selves ; but when certain effects would be ascribed to them re- 
 spectively in man, then if the effects are from God, we ascribe 
 them to similar causes in the Divine mind. The displeasure 
 of God then means only the cause, in the Divine mind, of those 
 effects, which, if they came from man, would be attributed 
 to displeasure. According to this, the heathens were right 
 in not allowing men to take for granted anger in the Divine 
 mind, exactly of the same sort with human anger ; and wrong 
 in concluding that no effects were to be expected similar to 
 the effects of anger in man. Lactantius was right in maintain- 
 ing the reality of such effects ; but wrong, seemingly, in taking 
 for granted that punishment must imply wrath of God in 
 a literal sense, exactly of the same kind with anger in man. 
 Origen was right, both as to diffidence about the nature of 
 displeasure in the Divine mind, and as to the reality and cer- 
 tainty of its effects. 
 
 There might be intermediate degrees of improvement or 
 depravity, between the two extremes described in section 3 
 and 4. 
 
 6. We may now proceed to enumerate^ the faults and 
 320 defects of religion amongst the heathens ; after which, we will 
 consider the tendency of the Christian religion to remedy 
 them. 
 
 The heathens certainly ran into many important errors^ 
 with regard to religion and morals. 
 
 They practised openly many vices. 
 
 They had not sufficient ground to expect remission of 
 punishment. 
 
 They had not a provision for the religious and moral im- 
 provement of the people — of the generality of mankind. 
 
 We have already seen something of heathen errors^ in 
 the course of the preceding chapter. All idolatry is a capital 
 error : and all worship of demons, heavenly bodies, brutes, 
 departed heroes. Impurity in religious rites, and human 
 sacrifices, are built on error. And even when the heathens 
 thought of a deity independently of matter, they ran into various 
 
 ^ According to sect. 2 of this chapter. 
 
 15 — 2 
 
228 
 
 MEED OF REVELATION. [I. xix. 7 10. 
 
 errors concerning his attributes and his government ; not all I. 
 into the same error, but each error wanted correcting, who- 
 ever professed it. 
 
 They erred also concerning the nature of the soul, and 
 its immortality; and a future judgment. Indeed, any defect 
 in them, taken collectively, might be reckoned here, as well 
 as any error held by a part, such as that concerning fate, 
 or that relating; to the transmigration of souls. 
 
 7- The heathens ran without scruple into the commission 
 of many vices. Such we may reckon revenge, enslaving cap- 
 tives, exposing children, suicide, community of wives, forni- 
 cation, sodomy, abortion^, incest. This might be in part 
 owing to error; but moral errors, by which the heathens were 
 induced to commit any vices, may be mentioned here. 
 
 8. That they had no sufficient ground to expect remission 321 
 of punishment, will appear more particularly hereafter. Their 
 lustrations or expiatory sacrifices, 'iXacrruid, shewed their want 
 
 of such a thing. 
 
 9. That they made no provision for the people as to 
 religious instruction, seems also evident. We are so accus- 
 tomed to have the people taught the truths of religion, in con- 
 sequence of a provision made by legislative authority, that we 
 have no idea of their being wholly neglected — of their seeking 
 for religious instruction in vain. The whole number of teachers 
 of duties was so ^small, that, supposing them to be evenly 
 dispersed, and every man to have liberty of attending them, 
 it would astonish any one t*o calculate the distance, upon an 
 average, to which a person must go in order to be instructed. 
 Then, only the rich were instructed by any philosophers, and 
 philosophers were not looked upon like our clergy, as under 
 obligation to practise what they taught ; to set any example : 
 moreover, there was no unity of doctrine amongst them, no 
 system. In the temples there were no instructions or exhorta- 
 tions whatsoever ; nor was there any book corresponding to 
 our Bible, containing precepts, hymns, narrations, which the 
 people might peruse and think of, at any hours which they 
 chose to dedicate to religion. No authority of any kind seems 
 to have so much as attempted any plan for the information 
 of the people, relative to the interests of another life. 
 
 10. This enumeration of evils and defects may be suffi- 
 
 ’ See Bishop Gibson’s second Pastoral letter, Grotius on Rom. i. 26, &c. 
 
 ^ Bishop Gibson, ib. 
 
I. xix. 11.] 
 
 XEED OF REVELATION. 
 
 229 
 
 I. cient. But, before we speak of the tendency of the Christian 
 religion to remedy them, we should reflect upon them, and 
 consider how unlikely they were to be remedied without reve- 
 lation ; by mere philosophy. 
 
 322 11. Mere philosophers would And it a difficult and dan- 
 gerous task to convince men of moral and religious errors — 
 dangerous even to the public. The task would be difficult, 
 because moral and religious opinions are particularly abstruse’k 
 It is much more likely that men should rectify an erroneous 
 notion about a rainbow, or about vortices^, than about things so 
 liable to cavil and sophistry, as some parts of morals and reli- 
 gion; and so nearly affecting conduct, about which men are apt 
 to be sore. Moreover, men are most strongly prejudiced in 
 favour of what they reverence; they are the least apt to ques- 
 tion what they much respect. The attachment of such men as 
 the younger Pliny and the emperor Julian to idolatry is a 
 phenomenon well worth mentioning repeatedly. 
 
 The task would be dangerous to the public, perhaps some- 
 times to philosophers themselves, because, when you take away 
 men’s moral and religious principles, you cannot immediately 
 substitute others in their room, with all the strength of habits, 
 sentiments, affections, and moral sense, which have had a 
 gradual increase: and any virtue is better than none; the 
 worst religion is better than a total want^ of religion. The 
 virtue of a savage, for instance, is chiefly military, or intimately 
 connected with military : convince him at once that he ought 
 not to glory in his military exploits, or boast the number of 
 his scalps, and you leave him unprincipled. Nay, I know not 
 v/hether suddenly extirpating the notion, that children may 
 be exposed, if they are likely to become disgraceful or burden- 
 some to the state, might not have endangered, at some tim.es, 
 
 323 the love of country, or the spirit of patriotism. If you take 
 away an old pillar, and are not very expert at substituting 
 a new one, the whole fabric comes down. And, as to religion^ 
 such wise men as Socrates and Cicero, you will say, might have 
 destroyed idolatry. They did not; but suppose them to have 
 done it by reasoning and ridicule, and you must conceive the 
 people, at that time, irreligious ; all those sentiments thrown 
 into confusion, which had for their object superior beings, 
 as the protectors, benefactors, judges, re warders, punishers of 
 
 ^ Dr. Balguy, Charge V. p. 268, 8vo. ^ Keii’s Astronomy, index, or p. 201. 
 
 ® Dr. Balguy, Charge V. p. 258, 8vo. 
 
230 
 
 NEED OF REVELATION. 
 
 [I. xix. 12. 
 
 mankind ^ If, indeed, something rational could be immedi- I. 
 ately substituted, the change would be for the better ; but 
 philosophers would get into disputes and controversies ; and 
 these being very intricate, would only serve to fill the minds 
 of men with doubts and painful perplexity. 
 
 12. Now, as to vices, there is an intimate connexion be- 
 tween wrong practical opinions and vices. The word senti- 
 ment stands sometimes for opinion, and sometimes for that 
 feeling which immediately impels to action, and is considered 
 as a part of active virtue or vice. But our business now is, 
 to consider how unequal mere philosophy is to make men abhor 
 and forsake their vices, when acknowledged^ as such. Indeed, 
 supposing moral errors rectified, then all vices would be ac- 
 knowledged as vices. Now, to conquer vicious habits requires 
 very great force : greater than philosophy can boast. Men 
 sunk in brutal sensuality and indolence contract an insensi- 
 bility about excelling, and a disgust or contempt for instruc- 324 
 tion, and for all refined pleasure. It is only some great shock, 
 some powerful caustic, which can rouse them from their stupid- 
 ity. And, if they for a while attempt to practise some human 
 virtues, they are apt to relapse into their former brutality. 
 
 The proverb mentioned by St. Peter‘d is but too often appli- 
 cable, and has probably been introduced by some idea of the 
 lowness of men’s sensuality — ‘‘ The dog is returned to his own 
 vomit again ; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing 
 in the mire.” The truth of this can only appear by experience. 
 
 To forsake vice must imply to embrace virtue — to bring 
 the moral sense to approve things really excellent^, and dis- 
 approve things really base and pernicious. But I apprehend 
 our moral sense is generated by degrees; and therefore if you 
 could weaken men’s attachment to certain indulgences, you 
 could not immediately make them love what you set before 
 them as virtues ; nor, in like manner, could you at once make 
 them abhor and detest what you set before them as vices. 
 
 To do this requires some influence more than natural: mere 
 man, if he takes to pieces the moral sense, cannot immediately 
 new fashion it, and give it its usual energy. 
 
 1 The sentiments are much the same, 
 though the objects are different : gods 
 are always superior, invisible, powerful, 
 rewarders, punishers, &c. 
 
 2 Men may commit vices through wrong 
 
 opinions, not accounting them vices; cor- 
 recting these would be rather correcting^ 
 errors than vices. 
 
 ^ 2 Pet. ii. 22. 
 
 ^ Phil. i. 10. 
 
I. xix. 12.] 
 
 NEED OF REVELATION. 
 
 231 
 
 I. When any men have persuaded themselves, or have taken 
 for granted, that philosophy might reform men’s manners, 
 they have probably taken detached expressions of philosophers, 
 without comparing them with others of a diiferent tendency. 
 These expressions, say they, must, if duly attended to, make 
 men love virtue, hope for a future state, &c. Here, because 
 they pay no regard to opposite passages, they take for granted 
 no one else will; but the persons in question would be sus- 
 
 325 pended between opposite authorities. However great one 
 authority may be, another equally great may destroy all its 
 efficacy ; and it requires as much strength of mind, or nearly, 
 to determine amidst contending arguments, as to invent the 
 truth originally. Perhaps no sect affirmed the reality of a 
 future state so positively as the Epicureans denied it. 
 
 But, in forsaking vices, the heathens had not only human 
 authorities to reconcile, but divine. Gods might protect 
 virtues, but gods also protected vices. If men were to be in- 
 duced to hold in low esteem the divine protection given to 
 vices, it could not well fail but they must esteem lightly also 
 the divine protection given to virtues. So that the protection 
 of the gods would come to be of little weight in moral delibe- 
 rations. 
 
 How far philosophy is likely to make men forsake their 
 vices, seems to have been tried in the Augustan age. Had 
 the Christian religion been published in an unimproved age, 
 or amongst barbarians®, it might have been urged, that it 
 was needless, for that improvements in other things would 
 have brought on improvements in manners. But when, 
 amidst all the refinements of the Augustan age, the religion 
 was idolatry, with many vicious rites, and the manners were 
 such as Horace and St. Paul® describe them, there was little 
 to be hoped for without some supernatural aid. About eight 
 years ago (Nov. 7, 1780) Dr. Cooks'^., Provost of King’s 
 College, made a remark to me, in conversation, which may 
 shew, that as much was to be expected from the Augustan 
 age as from any. The knowledge of the whole world, which 
 had been collected in preceding ages, is to be found, he said, 
 
 326 in the Roman writers of the Augustan age. All the philoso- 
 phy in Cicero (particularly the Grecian) ; all the general and 
 ideal beauty and perfection (these are my words) in Virgil; all 
 
 ® See before, Chap. xvi. sect. 3. ^ Rom. i. 2(j, &c. Col. iii. 5, G, 7. 
 
 Dean of Ely. 
 
232 
 
 NEED OF EEVELA.TION. 
 
 [I. xix. ]3, 14. 
 
 the active life in Horace. I probably do not do justice to I. 
 the observation ; but if, with these advantages, the Augustan 
 age did not hinder men from being extremely vicious, it seems 
 as if we might fairly conclude, that mere philosophy is un- 
 equal to the work. This is not denying the possibility of 
 greater effects arising from philosophy ; that has been allowed 
 in section 3d ; it is only reasoning, by analogy, from what 
 has been tried and observed; but then it is on such reasoning 
 as this that all our hopes, expectations, undertakings, must 
 in human life be founded. 
 
 13. The next thing to be observed is, that philosophy 
 is incapable of ensuring 'remission of punishment. Men can- 
 not be made secure as to this point, without some particular 
 declaration from heaven. Remission must depend on the will 
 of the Judge or Sovereign; and he only can declare his own 
 purposes. If we attempt to judge from what we behold, by 
 analogy, we shall find difficulty in determining that God will 
 forgive. Will God never punish except when punishment 
 will promote the reformation of the offender ? yes ; we suffer 
 for intemperance^ after we have^ ceased to be intemperate. 
 This could not be, if every man was certainly to be forgiven 
 who did not want reformation. Will God forgive because he 
 is good ? then he would never punish ; for he is always good. 
 Punishment, in every instance, answers the end of publishing 
 the displeasure of God against sinful conduct, and shews his 
 mode of restraining it. 
 
 14. Philosophy is, moreover, unlikely to provide effectual 32 
 means of promoting right conduct in the generality of the 
 people. Right conduct must be produced by right speculative 
 principles or doctrines, and by good practical aids and ex- 
 pedients. Now, it is not to be expected that ordinary men 
 can examine into the grounds of all the notions they act from : 
 they“ must take their opinions partly upon the authority of 
 others. They may form some judgment of the comparative 
 merit of different doctrines, but a very imperfect one : they 
 must proceed, in a good measure, according to their opinions 
 
 of the persons from whom they receive advice. The people 
 have very little intercourse with philosophers ; it is only the 
 wealthy that have that privilege : and philosophers, separate 
 
 * Dr. Powell’s 3cl Charge. Lelancl on 
 Lord Herbert of Cherbury’s 4th Uni- 
 
 versal Principle of Religion. My Poem 
 on Redemption. 
 
 1 2 Uj., Calguy, Charge V. p. 255, 8vo. 
 
I. xix. 14.] 
 
 NEED OF REVELATION. 
 
 233 
 
 I. and disunited, want influence, at least to occasion any thing of 
 an uniformity ; and yet uniformity is one chief thing which 
 makes good principles readily accepted, and good moral expe- 
 dients eflectual. There is another thing. No devotion can 
 arise from doubt; that is, from fluctuating opinions: — not even 
 private devotion, much less social. A man must have some 
 settled religious notions, which shall be taken for true, ere his 
 devout affections will have any force or fervour. Doubt may 
 arise, either from the abstruseness of a doctrine, or from its 
 being much disputed ; and it is not likely that philosophers 
 should furnish settled notions, in which the mind of the reli- 
 gious man would acquiesce. They have been too ignorant to 
 be free from grounds of doubt, each in his own mind ; too 
 much divided to join their influence — too weak to enforce. 
 They seem to have had a consciousness of something of this 
 328 sort, by the many expressions they have thrown out, in the 
 way of ^wishing for some revelation, or of having recourse to 
 some heavenly instruction. 
 
 But, supposing philosophers willing to teach the people, 
 and even to teach the same thing, yet the kind of instruction 
 they would naturally use would be, in a great measure, inef- 
 fectual. It would be too speculative, abstracted, delicate, pro- 
 found : it would not enlighten a common understanding, much 
 less warm the heart. 
 
 Particularly, it seems highly probable that philosophers 
 would chiefly ground their exhortations on moral principles ; 
 whereas religious principles are by much the best adapted to 
 influence the generality ; as being most simple, most strong, 
 and most nearly allied to those principles on which ordinary 
 persons act habitually in common life. I am not certain how 
 far any philosopher has ever taught virtue upon religious 
 motives : pleasing the gods by sacrifices has been common, and 
 so has averting their anger ; but a lustration is a different thing 
 from a course of virtue. If we would have a more particular 
 conception of this matter, we must distinguish virtue from 
 religion, and compare the efficacy of one with that of the 
 other. He who performs his duties from any principle which 
 extends not beyond mankind, acts from motives of virtue^ 
 whether he speaks of rectitude, honour, benevolence, prudence, 
 moral sense, the general good, the law of nature, or the fitness 
 
 ^ See Clarke’s Evidences, Prop. 6 and 7 ; and Gibson’s second Pastoral. Letter, 
 pp. 74, 100. 
 
234 
 
 NEED OF REVELATION. 
 
 [I. xix. 15. 
 
 of things: he who performs his duties from any view to God, I. 
 to pleasing him, gaining rewards from him, or avoiding his 
 displeasure, acts from motives of religion. These latter set of 
 motives seem, in the first place, more intelligible than the 
 former. I think it is evident, that a person who attempted to 
 act from the moral motives just now recited, would get into a 329 
 great deal more intricacy and perplexity, than one who had 
 nothing to think of but how he should please or displease a 
 single personage. In the next place, moral motives seem 
 much more easy to be evaded than Omniscience or Omnipre- 
 sence. And thirdly, moral motives must act much less forcibly, 
 when any difficulties arise, or strong temptations occur, in the 
 performance of duty, than the firm expectation of rewards or 
 punishments, unbounded in their intensity and duration : all 
 this more especially in the case of persons of more ordinary 
 and contracted apprehensions. Moreover, religious principles 
 do not preclude moral ones. On the contrary, religious affec- 
 tions strengthen love of merited praise, sense of honour, 
 beauty, harmony, enlarged prudence ; and they tend to refine 
 benevolence : which, of itself, may suffice to shew the weakness 
 of Lord Shaftesbury’s^ objections to religious motives. 
 
 15. But right conduct among the people depends not only 
 on right opinions, notions, doctrines; but also upon good 
 practical aids and expedients. I conceive the chief of these 
 to be religious society, or men’s being united in religious wor- 
 ship, and in receiving instruction, and in a course of discipline. 
 
 The nature and ends of religious society will be considered in 
 our third book ; but we are, from the experience of common 
 life, enough acquainted with its benefits to proceed in our 
 present reasoning^. Now, from what quarter should we ex- 
 pect any good religious institution of the social kind ? if from 
 any, (except Revelation), it must be from the wisdom of civil 330 
 legislation ; but, useful as we now know social religion to be to 
 states and kingdoms, it is unlikely that any state should, 
 merely by its own internal wisdom, have instituted a good 
 church, with right provisions, laws, religious exercises, and 
 discipline. Politicians would scarce think of such a thing : 
 they would be intent upon wars, alliances, commerce, taxation, 
 and perhaps on public edifices, and the commodious passage of 
 
 ^ Leland’s View, Letter 6. 
 
 2 A short account of the benefit of a 
 Christian church even to natural reli- 
 
 gion, may be seen in Butler’s Analogy, 
 Part II. Chap. 1, paragraph beginning 
 “ Farther." 
 
I. xix. l5.] 
 
 NEED OF REVELATION. 
 
 235 
 
 I. travellers and useful commodities from one place to another ; 
 but it is not likely that they should see the importance of 
 a good ecclesiastical society even to themselves, much less that 
 they should treat it as being, on its own account, the most 
 important institution that could be maintained. No ; religious 
 society, however important, must be expected first from reli- 
 gious zeal, though, when so instituted, the state may court its 
 alliance‘s. 
 
 It cannot be denied that there are and have been heathen 
 priests^ but their cares seem to have been confined to exter- 
 . nals. I do not remember that they have had a superintendence 
 over the hearts and internal principles; or that they have at- 
 tempted to maintain any moral or religious discipline"^. I 
 should conceive, that, if they had attempted any thing of this 
 kind, they would have run into dissensions; they could not well 
 have been orderly and settled enough in religion and morals to 
 have made experiments, and founded improvements upon them. 
 
 16. We now come to consider the tendency of the Chris- 
 tian Revelation to answer these ends, which mere philosophy 
 seems so unlikely to answer. 
 
 331 It corrects errors^ both religious and moral, in a bold and 
 authoritative manner ; which is the manner most likely to be 
 effectual, when the hearer is not very inattentive ; and it is the 
 manner best suited to excite attention. Though some of the 
 Christian doctrines are abstruse, yet they are of such a nature 
 that the mind may acquiesce in them : they arise out of divine 
 declarations concerning the Divine Nature. These must be 
 ever indistinct to man, but they may be accepted. And as to 
 prejudices, there is no way so likely to overcome them as 
 overturning at once the whole system of erroneous notions ; 
 prejudice cannot stand against such an attack as that: it sup- 
 poses a continuance of that condition to which men have been 
 habituated. Revelation puts men into a condition wholly new. 
 Besides, when such a system as the Christian is proposed, it 
 does not leave the mind void of principles ; but immediately 
 substitutes Christian principles in the room of heathen : it 
 cures errors by substituting Christian principles; and those 
 such as fill the whole mind, and occupy the whole attention. 
 
 ^ Neckar has written a book on the I imment looks as if Augustus’s care of 
 benefits of religion to a state. churches had been confined to buildings ; 
 
 ^ The Ancyran monument is mentioned but I do not feel as if I had considered 
 in Apthorpe’s Letters, p. 387. This mo- j this subject enough. 
 
236 
 
 NEED OF REVELATION. 
 
 [I. xix. l6. 
 
 The Christian Revelation has certainly a very strong ten- I. 
 dency to cure men of their vices^ and is as likely to do it as 
 any thing that can be imagined. Its miracles must have been 
 astonishing ; and, when it has been preached in a forcible man- 
 ner, it has shewn itself wonderfully powerful — ^sharper than 
 any two-edged sword.” Felix trembled at it ; and it seems to 
 provide some admirable means for preventing relapses; particu- 
 larly confession, prayer, and renewal of the baptismal covenant. 
 
 Besides, it acts with such efficacy on the whole inward 
 frame, by its miracles, prophecies, and promises and threats all 
 together, that the moral sense does not seem to require so 332 
 gradual a growth as in a state merely natural. If any man 
 should deny or question this, yet he cannot well deny that 
 Christianity gives the moral sense a right direction ; and, as it 
 teaches us to know, so it teaches us to approve things^ excel- 
 lent. And, what is remarkable, the more we improve, the 
 more excellent does Christianity appear in this respect^ ; in 
 teaching us and making us love more and more perfect virtue. 
 What shall we say ? if Christianity was low, mean, narrow, we 
 should discover its meanness, narrowness, as we improved ; but 
 the more we improve, the more are we struck with the excel- 
 lence and comprehensive nature of the virtue which it recom- 
 mends; and all that its enemies can say is, that reason would, 
 upon trial, have recommended the same. It seems to improve 
 our moral sense, by putting us upon cultivating chiefly those 
 virtues which give us a right turn, and make us open to 
 perpetual improvement. 
 
 It neither sets forth men nor gods as protectors of vice^. 
 
 As to the remission of punishment, it is published (on 
 reasonable conditions) plainly, and repeatedly^; insomuch that 
 preaching Christianity is sometimes called preaching repent- 
 ance and remission of sins : and it is made a very strong 
 motive to mutual forgiveness in ^’men. To say more on that 
 head is needless; because the heathens acknowledged this as a 
 peculiarity of the Christian religion, and contrived by misre- 
 presentation (as if Christianity forgave every crime without 333 
 conditions) to make it a subject' of reproach. Neither can it 
 
 j Heb. iv. 12. 2 p^n. i. 10 . 
 
 ^ Before, Chap. xiii. sect. 13. 
 
 Psalm L. 21, “ Thou thoughtest 
 
 wickedly that 1 am even such an one as 
 thyself.” 
 
 ^ Gibson’s second Pastoral Letter, 
 p. 119, w'here is a collection of texts to 
 this purpose. 
 
 ® Ephes. iv. 32. 
 
 7 Lard. Works, vol. ix. pp. 35, 3G. 
 
I. xix. 16 .] 
 
 NEED OF REVELATION. 
 
 237 
 
 I. be necessary to explain particularly the need, which men have 
 of Revelation, in this respect : every man feels himself ac- 
 countable, whatever be the cause of such feeling ; and it is in 
 vain to expect that men of virtue and religion can ever be 
 upon a footing satisfactory to themselves, if they are unsettled 
 in their minds as to the forgiveness of those offences of which 
 they must be conscious. 
 
 Lastly, the Christian religion seems to make good pro- 
 vision for the generality of the people, considered in contra- 
 distinction to the learned or philosophicaP : and this, both 
 in respect of speculation and practice. It gives doctrines 
 on authority, divine and human, which men are not required 
 (if they are able) to see the grounds of thoroughly ; yet 
 they have a liberty of thinking for themselves, as far as 
 their education and opportunities will allow. They are taught 
 carefully, by ministers appointed from the first rise of Chris- 
 tianity, and have much intercourse with their teachers, who 
 have influence over them ; partly as being members of a 
 body of ministers who all teach the same thing. They 
 have indeed sometimes doctrines proposed to them which 
 are above their comprehension ; but, when this is allowed, it 
 does not excite doubt or perplexity: their notions are enough 
 settled for all the ® principal purposes of religion — enough to 
 leave their devout affections free scope. 
 
 334 The kind of instruction which ordinary Christians receive 
 is plain. The Scriptures were composed by ordinary men, 
 like themselves, filled with simple precepts, delivered on occa- 
 sions, connected with facts, which serve to illustrate them, 
 and make them interesting. The credentials of the teachers 
 are also highly interesting ; that is, rational and benevolent 
 miracles. The motives to good conduct offered by Chris- 
 tianity are chiefly of the religious sort, ‘‘ perfecting holi- 
 ness in the fear of God^^,” and some peculiarly powerful, 
 one might almost say, irresistible; yet they are mixed with 
 noble and beautiful morality. Some motives are peculiar to 
 
 ^ “ The poor have the Gospel preached 
 unto them.” Matt. xi.5. Compare Isai. 
 Lxi. 1. 
 
 ® End of Dr. Powell’s first Charge. 
 What he says of systems of divines, 
 seems still more applicable to systems 
 of philosophers — that they have more 
 points which may be strictly called 
 
 doubtful than the Scriptures; though 
 the Scriptures have more points unde- 
 termined. In doubtful points, we have 
 powerful reasons on both sides; in the 
 undetermined we have no reasons on 
 either side; and therefore no burden- 
 some employment for the mind. 
 
 2 Cor, vii. 1. 
 
238 
 
 NEED OF REVELATION. 
 
 [I. xix. If). 
 
 Christianity, such as our being bought with a price our I. 
 bodies being the temples of the Holy Ghost, the love of 
 God in giving^ his Son to die for us ; and so forth : and 
 it is of the greatest moment, that life and immortality are 
 brought to light by the Gospel. 
 
 The Christian religion, moreover, provides good practical 
 expedients for maintaining a spirit of religion ; indeed, mo- 
 tives may be considered in that number, perhaps as well 
 as in the class of opinions or doctrines. It has been here 
 observed (sect. 15) that even civil laws are unlikely to form 
 a good religious establishment of the social kind ; but Christ 
 formed his disciples into a church^, or society, instituting 
 only a very small number of positive duties, expressive, to 
 persons of all nations and languages, of the principal dis- 
 tinguishing truths of his religion. His Apostles laboured to 
 form local societies, providing, as well as possible, for instruc- 335 
 tion, devotion, and discipline : making regulations, yet not 
 precluding improvements. 
 
 Well then might Justin Martyr say, after examining as 
 a philosopher all sects of philosophy, and leaving them all 
 for Christianity, Tavrrjv /xovrjr eupicTKov (piXocroCplav dacpaX^ 
 
 T6 Kai av/uCpopov"^, 
 
 But, as we are mentioning all these things with a view 
 to proving the truth of the Christian religion, I would 
 recommend it to every thinking man to consider the fact 
 of Jesus’s forming his disciples into a regular society, and 
 instituting two positive duties to be perpetual. If he were 
 an impostor how could he see the importance of a visible 
 Church, to both natural and revealed religion ? how could he 
 see that which (if we have reasoned right) lawgivers have 
 ever been unable to see.^^ But this must be left to every man’s 
 reflexion. 
 
 The sum of our argument is, if men, in their moral 
 and religious capacities, found many evils and defects, if 
 philosophy was not likely to remedy them, if Christianity 
 has a tendency to remedy them — we may fairly presume 
 that Christianity is of Divine original. 
 
 * Bishop Hurd’s Sermon on 1 Cor. vi. 
 20. vol. II. Serm. 13. 
 
 2 Kphes. iv. 32. 
 
 •'* Vine, John xv. Sheepfold, John x. 
 Feed my Jiock, John xxi. 15, &c. Lo, 
 1 am with you always, even unto the end 
 
 of the world, Matt, xxviii. 20. These 
 hints will be enlarged upon hereafter: 
 III. xi. 4. and IV. xix. 15. 
 
 ^ Quoted by Lardner at the beginning 
 of his account of Justin Martyr, in his 
 Credibility, See. 
 
I. xix\ 17, 18.] 
 
 NEED OF REVELATION. 
 
 239 
 
 1. 17. One objection naturally occurs, and the consideration 
 
 of it may throw light upon our subject. If Christianity 
 is concluded to be true, because it was published where it 
 was wanted, why may we not conclude it false, because it 
 is not published where it is most wanted, amongst barba- 
 rous nations ? Our first answer must be, that we have dis- 
 claimed every thing like entering into the counsels of God; 
 and therefore we have not obliged ourselves to take any notice 
 
 336 of such an objection. But we may add, our ignorance of 
 any particular case of other men, is no reason why we are 
 mistaken about our own. One does me a favour : I am 
 thankful to him : he withholds the same favour from another ; 
 I do not see why ; does that make my gratitude needless ? 
 We might also ask, would any merit be allowed to a religion 
 for improving those who were very uncivilized ? but rather 
 we may say, it seems agreeable to the idea of human society, 
 that a part of mankind should have beneficial truths com- 
 municated to them, and that they should have charge of 
 communicating such truths to others ; every man improving 
 himself by instructing his neighbour. 
 
 18. But the best solution of this difficulty arises from 
 considering the nature of the Christian revelation. It does 
 not seem adapted to uncivilized nations ; it is of an improved 
 nature. Lardner says^, ‘^men must be rational and civilized, 
 before they can be Christians.” Christianity was preceded by 
 other‘s dispensations, each adapted to the circumstances in which 
 it was published. When Elijah called for fire from’^ heaven, 
 he knew what spirit his religion was of : men were not then 
 qualified to be treated with mildness : but, when J ames and 
 John^ wanted to follow the precedent of Elijah, they were 
 rebuked, and told that they knew not what manner of spirit 
 they were of. Different measures, even of God himself, are 
 suited to different degrees of civilization. “The fulness of 
 time” for Christ to become man was not arrived till the world 
 grew civilized : and, even after he asumed human nature, he 
 
 337 instructed men only as they were able to ^bear it; and his 
 Apostles found hahes^^ in Christ amongst those who, as human 
 beings, were grown up to maturity. 
 
 It may be said, if men must be civilized before they can 
 
 7 2 Kings i. 
 
 ^ Mark iv. 33. 
 
 1 Cor. iii. 1, 2. 
 
 ^ End of Heathen Testimonies. See 
 also about Origen, vol. ii. p. 404. 
 
 ® Bp. Law’s Theory. 
 
 ” Luke ix. 51. 
 
240 
 
 NEED OF IIEVELATIOK. 
 
 [I. xix, 19. 
 
 be Christians, what use is there in our Society for propagating I. 
 the Gospel ? The general views of that society seem rational ; 
 we need not defend every particular measure. We ought to 
 be instrumental in spreading the benefits of Christianity as 
 far as we are able, by prudent and virtuous methods. We 
 are indeed directed not to throw pearls before swine; but we 
 may endeavour to civilize those who are capable of improve- 
 ment, with a view to making them Christians afterwards. Those 
 able prelates who have preached at the solemn meetings of 
 this society have not been averse to such a plan. It has been 
 wished that a few children of the uncivilized could be taught 
 ‘^agriculture, economy, order^ and government,” from their 
 youth, and that they should teach others of their own tribes. 
 Their religion might be in the Christian /orw, and they might 
 be shewn Christian mrtues ; though at first they would know 
 its doctrines only by rote, and would not be sensible of its 
 excellence. As they grew more civilized, they would see more 
 of its meaning and of its worth, (which indeed may be the 
 case of the most improved amongst men,) and at length they 
 might become such both in civilization and in knowledge of 
 Christianity, as those to whom the Christian religion was first 
 published. It is our wish and hope that Christianity may 
 extend to all mankind. Lardner believed^, that, if no prin- 
 ciples of persecution had prevailed (either amongst heathens or 338 
 Christians) the religion of Christ would, by this time, have 
 been the universal religion. We may say, without contra- 
 dicting him, only taking the matter up higher, that the most 
 likely method to make it such, must be, to offer it first to 
 those who were most civilized, and to engage them gradually 
 to civilize others, by way of preparing them for giving it a 
 due reception. 
 
 19. Considering other objections would probably still 
 farther illustrate our subject, and justify our method of reasoning 
 from fact. Indeed, though such reasoning affords only a pro- 
 bable presumption, strong enough to act upon, yet it may 
 appear to some best adapted to answer objections. It is cer- 
 tainly well adapted to that purpose. Though we can with 
 probability, yet we cannot without diffidence, say, that God 
 gave men Revelation, in order to remedy the moral and reli- 
 gious evils under which they laboured ; but, if any one objects 
 
 ' 13p. Lowth’s Serm. pp. 22, 23. Bp. Law’s Theory, pp. 20, 27, 4th edit. 
 
 ^ Vyorks, vol. IV, p. 101. 
 
I. xix. 19.] 
 
 NEED OF REVELATION. 
 
 241 
 
 I. to Christianity, as a superfiaous, needless dispensation, we can 
 much more confidently affirm that such objection is not well- 
 grounded. Does any one allege that men would have found 
 out their duty, and the way to happiness, without it ? we 
 dare repl}^, that such a thing was not to be expected. Is it 
 presumed, that after men had got in any degree enlightened 
 they would never have run back into error or vice ? we do 
 not scruple to pronounce such a presumption vain and irra- 
 tional. 
 
 This is a different thing from professing to know the 
 situation of things when Christianity was first published, so 
 that we could positively say beforehand, that God must publish 
 such a religion ; or that he could not leave men to their natural 
 faculties. It is different from saying, that, in fact, he did 
 339 not leave them their choice about accepting his religion; or even 
 from affirming positively, that what improvements we can 
 observe were solely owing to Christianity, or owing to it in 
 any certain degree. To say, that the wisdom or goodness of 
 God must produce such an effect, is talking the language of 
 Gods ; to refer a blessing actually received to the Divine 
 Wisdom, or Goodness, is talking the language of men. We 
 could not say, that the goodness of God would he the cause 
 of our having a sense of beauty or sublimity ; but, when we 
 have such perceptions, we can say, that we owe them to the 
 Divine Goodness. 
 
 Bishop Butler makes use of reasoning from fact to answer 
 objections against Christianity^; shewing that the same sort of 
 things happen in a course of nature, which are objected to in 
 revealed religion ; yet he does not pretend that he could have 
 told beforehand that such things would happen, in either the 
 one or the other. This seems a perfect defence of Christianity, 
 as to any particular objection ; because all we want to prove is, 
 that Christianity comes from the Author of nature ; and, if 
 the same thing happens in a course of nature, then Chris- 
 tianity may come from the Author of nature, notwithstanding 
 that objection. 
 
 One objection it may be very proper to conceive to be 
 made. If reasoning from fact is suitable to the narrow views 
 of man, why should we not adopt Mr. Hume's reasoning from 
 fact ? why is it commonly blamed ? I mean, that about a par- 
 
 ^ Seq the close of the Introd. to hi's Analogy. 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 16 
 
242 
 
 NEED OF REVELATION. 
 
 [I. xix. 19 . 
 
 ticular providence, and a ^future state. In his Essay on that I. 
 subject, he argues, that we have no right to call God perfectly 340 
 good, so long as there is any evil in fact existing. God is the 
 cause, and can only be known by effects ; whatever evil there- 
 fore is found in fact must be charged to him, and his goodness 
 must be allowed to receive a diminution or abatement, propor- 
 tioned to that evil. The fault of the argument seems to be, 
 that it does not distinguish between necessary evil, and un- 
 necessary ; between what must be, and what is. All evil that 
 must be, all that is necessary, or unavoidable, is to be referred 
 or ascribed to the First Cause; but all evil that is unnecessary 
 or avoidable, should be ascribed to those who might avoid it, 
 and do not. If I were to drink a pint of strong spirituous 
 liquor at a draught, it would give me great pain, and perhaps 
 bring on a lasting disorder ; but surely no one would ascribe 
 that pain to Goc?, as its cause, in the same manner as if I 
 could not have avoided it. If men therefore bring on them- 
 selves a part of the evil they suffer, that part ought not to 
 be charged on God, so as to lessen the goodness of God in 
 our estimation. And, if it could be proved that all the evil 
 which mankind suffers might be avoided by mankind (which I 
 believe to be the case supposing mankind to act unitedly, and 
 for any length of time), then mankind ought to acknowledge 
 the goodness of God to be perfect. 
 
 But has this distinction, it may be said, been made here, in 
 reckoning up the evils which Christianity is likely, and philo- 
 sophy unlikely, to cure ? that is, has a distinction been always 
 kept in view between evils which are, and evils which must be ? 
 
 It has not ; because in some cases the distinction is wanted, in 341 
 others it is not. When we are speaking of the cause of any 
 evil, the distinction should not be forgotten ; when of the 
 remedy, it need not be attended to; except indeed we are 
 speaking of the application of the remedy, as a voluntary act. 
 
 If we were speaking of the cause and origin of the moral and 
 religious evils of the heathen world, we should settle how far 
 they were unavoidable, how far voluntary ; but as we speak 
 only of the remedy, that is, Revelation, we may neglect that 
 
 ^ Essays, vol. ii. 8vo. The observa- 
 tion extends to his Fosihumom Dialo(jncs. 
 See Chap. iv. of this Book, sect. 4. This 
 argument was mentioned there, but with- 
 out any relation to the goodness of God, 
 or the existence of evil. 
 
 2 At least, men might keep approxi- 
 mating to a perfect freedom from evil. 
 The evils of imperfection or defect are 
 cured by a full sense of their being un- 
 avoidable ; that is, v/hen that sense is 
 fully settled, defects no longer give pain. 
 
I. xix. 19.] 
 
 NEED OF REVELATION. 
 
 243 
 
 T. difference. It matters much, as to the proof of the Divine 
 goodness, whether the errors and vices of the heathens were 
 necessary, or owing to themselves ; but it is of little significance 
 with regard to the henejits of Revelation. If a man fractures 
 a limb you apply the best remedy, without inquiring whether 
 the fracture was owing to his own fault or not ; though after- 
 wards you may make such inquiry, and his character may be 
 affected by it. 
 
 Cicero says\ in the character of Cotta, the academic, or 
 sceptic, “ Si, consensu omnium philosophorum, sapientiam 
 nemo assequitur, in summis malis omnes suraus, quibus vos 
 optime consultum a Diis immortalibus dicitis : nam, ut nihil 
 interest utrum nemo valeat, an nemo possit valere ; sic non 
 intelligo quid intersit, utrum nemo sit sapiens, an nemo esse 
 possit.’’’’ Dr. Samuel Clarke commends this passage^, but, I 
 imagine, without perceiving how it might be misapplied: it 
 professedly rejects all distinction between necessary and volun- 
 tary evil ; it is the argument of a sceptic endeavouring to con- 
 found all that Balbus, the Stoic, had been urging. Dr. Clarke 
 himself applies it rightly, that is, when the question is about 
 342 the remedy of evil ; but, by his unqualified manner of com- 
 mending it, he seems not to perceive, that, if it was admitted 
 in all cases, it would destroy the proof of the Divine benevo- 
 lence d posteriori. But, of the argument d posteriori we have 
 spoken in the 4th Chapter of this Book ; and we needed not to 
 have made our present observation, (though it is somewhat 
 different from that made before,) if Dr. Clarke’s commendation 
 had not related to our present subject. 
 
 I am unwilling to close this chapter without some men- 
 tion of Lord Herbert of Cherhury, as he was one of the most 
 eminent, and I believe the first, of the persons called deists; 
 and as his reasonings are directed to prove the contrary of 
 what we have been proving in the present chapter, that there 
 was need of Revelation. He flourished about the middle of 
 the last century, and was a man of literature. He published 
 several works, but I shall confine myself to his Jive short 
 notices, mentioned in different parts of his works, which he 
 says God has inscribed on the minds of all men, and which 
 render all Revelation unnecessary. I take these from Leland^ , 
 not having Lord Herbert’s Book de Religione^ Gentilium at 
 
 ^ De Natura Deorum, iii. 32. j and Prop. 7* marg. reference, p. OJO, fol. 
 
 ‘‘ Evidences, near the end of Prop. fJ, ; ^ Ijetter I. p. 3. ® Cap. I5.#nit. 
 
 16 2 
 
2U 
 
 NEED OF REVELATION. 
 
 [I. xix. J9. 
 
 hand: — 1. That there is one supreme God. 2. That he is I. 
 chiefly to be worshipped. 3. That piety and virtue is the 
 principal part of his worship. 4. That we must repent of our 
 sins ; and, if we do so, God will pardon them. 5. That tliere 
 are rewards for good men, and punishments for bad men, in a 
 future state.” Much might be said upon these articles ; but, 
 after what I have already said on the several subjects of them, 
 
 I will not enlarge in this place. On the first and second of 
 them taken jointly, it seems only needful to remark, that, 
 before Christianity, we know of no people, except the Jews, 
 who worshipped one Supreme God,” and him only ; which 343 
 the expression seems to imply. A mere preference of one God 
 is trifling ; not likely to be inscribed on the minds of all men. 
 
 Only the Jews acknowledged both the unity and spirituality 
 of God, and their religion was revealed. Had only the lowest 
 of the heathen people run into polytheism and idolatry, it 
 would be enough for us, because these notices are said to be 
 inscribed on the minds of all men : but the highest ran into 
 them, as well as the lowest. We have before spoken^ of Pliny 
 and Julian; we may now add the Emperor ^Augustus to the 
 number. 3. If piety and virtue are declared, to the minds of 
 all men, to be the principal parts of Divine worship, the decla- 
 ration must mean rational piety, and improved virtue — not the 
 virtue of a savage. How then could it happen that the piety 
 of millions should be in direct contradiction to every man’s 
 common reason ? and the very ceremonies of worship so im- 
 pure, in several cases, as to be inconsistent with every system 
 of morals.'^ not to mention again the enormities into which 
 even philosophers permitted men to run. But the chief part 
 of divine worship amongst pagans has consisted of modes of 
 appeasing and conciliating deities, without piety and virtue. 
 What Balak says, Micah vi. 6, 7, may be looked upon as the 
 general inquiry of idolaters. 4. That God will forgive men, 
 upon repentance, has been proved to be a thing unknown to 
 the heathens : they themselves reproached Christianity with 
 publishing such a doctrine ; and the Christian religion places 
 remission upon a foundation which was not discoverable by 
 natural reason — I mean, the merits of Jesus Christ. 5. A 
 future state of rewards and punishments was by no means 344 
 universally allowed : we have already said, that the Epicureans, 
 
 * Chap. xii. sects. 1(5 and IJ. 
 
 “ Hee Apthorpe’s liCtters, p. 34 f; ; and nume’s Nat. Hist, of Religion, sect. 12. 
 
I. xix. 19 ] 
 
 NEED OF JiEVELATION. 
 
 245 
 
 who were very considerable, denied it more positively than any 
 other sect affirmed it. 
 
 Strange notices these ! or at least strangely effaced, sup- 
 posing them to have been ever inscribed on the mind by the 
 Creator and Governor of the world. 
 
 I will say no more of Lord Herbert, nor of the need which 
 men have of Revelation. Therefore I here close the first 
 Book : but, as an Appendix^ I will add something concerning 
 tile early Christian sects, or heresies (alpecreis), as the allu- 
 sions to them in the Scriptures and the writings of the Fa- 
 thers are numberless; nor can the Articles of any Church 
 be understood without some knowledge of them. We do not 
 want them yet ; but as remarks on them are common to all 
 sects of Christians, they should be placed here. 
 
[B. I. Append. 1 — 4<. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 CONCEllNING THE EARLY SECTS, OR HERESIES, OF 
 CHRISTIANS. 
 
 I. 
 
 345 
 
 EiTToi/i’ dv (Kal) TOi/ eTTJ/xeXws evi^ov—a Tats ’louoatcr/iou kul 'S.pKTTiavicrfxov 
 alpearecri, (TO<p(MTaToi> X-pLcrnnavov yevecrdaL. 
 
 Ausim affirmare, ilium esse inter Christianos sapientissimum, qui Judseorum 
 atque Christianorum sectas introspexit diligentissime. 
 
 Origenes contra Celsum, Lib. iii. p. 119. ed. Spenceri. 
 
 1. Some account of the early Sects, or Heresies {aipeaei^), 
 of the Christian Church, is wanted : — for the Scriptures, 
 which often allude to them ; for the Fathers, who will seem 
 more reasonable, the more we enter into their views ; and for 
 the confessions of faith of different sects of Christians in 
 latter times, who build creeds and articles upon them, or 
 frame declarations with a design to contradict or renounce 
 them. 
 
 2. Early heresies, those the chief of which prevailed in 
 the first two centuries, may be ranged into two classes. Oriental 
 and Judaical. 
 
 3. We begin with the Oriental; in the accounts of which, 
 given us by the ancients, we find many things which we cannot 
 understand, and many which we cannot believe. Now, the • 
 best way of considering these will be, to take that heresy first 
 which, though last^ in point of time, admits of the most 345 
 distinct^ explication, if it be not the most important, as I 
 believe it is ; I mean, the sect of Manicheans. If we can get 
 
 a tolerable notion of that, we may afterwards get some of those 
 which are more confused and imperfect. The common defect 
 is, that no authentic writings (except perhaps a few fragments) 
 remain, which have been published in support of them. 
 
 4. Let us then, at present, treat of the Manicheans ; 
 considering, i. The name of their leader, ii. His private life, 
 iii. The time his doctrines were spread in the Roman em- 
 pire. iv. His works, v. His followers, vi. His principles of 
 
 ' See Theodoret Heret. Fab. t. iv. I Works, vol. ix. p. 234, top. 
 p. 183 ; or Lardner’s Her. b. i. sect. 0. 1 ^ Lard. Her. has the same thought. 
 
B. I. Append. 4 .] 
 
 EARLY SECTS. 
 
 247 
 
 I. natural religion, (including metaphysics), vii. His morality, 
 viii. His system of revealed religion, ix. His mode of wor- 
 ship. X. His church-government, xi. His pretensions, xii. 
 His imitators in later ages. 
 
 Several writers have treated on this subject — Wolfius, 
 Beausobre, Tillemont, Cave, Lardner, &c.^ I am best ac- 
 quainted with Lardner, and, in collecting my observations, 
 have made the most use of him. 
 
 i. The name of the leader of this sect seems to have been 
 Mani, most properly ; he was a Persian ; and those who have 
 translated from the Persian have written his name in some 
 different ways, (Manes, and Manichseus) ; but this seems the 
 eastern way. Hyde, in his History of the Religion of the 
 Ancient Persians, says, In omnibus Arabum et Persarum 
 libris, constanter vocatur^ Mani. 
 
 ii. The history of Mani is obscure, and many biographi- 
 cal accounts of him are fabulous. He was probably a painter 
 and engraver, and acquainted with other arts, and with 
 
 347 sciences. He was an astronomer, so as to have a notion of 
 antipodes ; and a philosopher. He observed phenomena at- 
 tentively, but often accounted for them in a fanciful manner: 
 indeed fancy was, long after his time, admitted to account for 
 phenomena of nature ; though not always a Persian fancy. 
 Whether he understood physic is doubful. He invented a 
 musical instrument. In philosophizing, he was bold, schem- 
 ing, dogmatical. He was wealthy, and a man of consequence 
 under three Persian monarchs ; by the last of whom he was 
 put to death. 
 
 iii. As to dates, we can say that Manicheism was 7iot 
 known in the Homan empire in the time of Cyprian, who is 
 placed in the year 248 , and suffered martyrdom in 258 ; and 
 that it was known before the Council of Nice, which was held 
 in 325 . So that it became known, probably, towards the close 
 of the third century. Mr. Gibbon thinks that Mani did not 
 begin to teach till the year 270^ 
 
 iv. His works seem to have been pretty numerous ; but 
 they are now chiefly known by quotations from them, made 
 by those who wrote against the sect. However, there are 
 some large fragments. His principal work seems to have been 
 
 3 Besides the writers on heresies, Epi- ^ Hyde, p. 281. Plist. Rel. vet. Pers. 
 
 phanius, Philaster, Augustin, Vincent; ^ Hist. vol. ir. p. 232. 4to. 
 
 see also Cyril’s 6th Cathechesis. 
 
248 
 
 EARLY SECTS. 
 
 [B. I. Append. 4. 
 
 the Epistle of the Fou7idation, shewing the nature of his I. 
 sect ; about which Augustin has written attentively and 
 largely. 
 
 V. He had followers^ who were to be met with in many 
 places, but they were no where numerous. Amongst them 
 were some bishops, and several writers, as Faustus, Fortu- 
 natus, Adimantus, &c., but they were more plausible than 
 solid : they had no great erudition, and but a poor idea of 
 criticism ; yet they were fond of arguing. Possibly they 
 might form a party, in opposition to some followers of Zoro- 348 
 aster^ and take Christianity as an ally. 
 
 vi. The natural religion of Mani may, perhaps, be called 
 the principal thing relating to him. How far it was original 
 must be seen by accounts of Zoroaster, Confucius, Foe : it is 
 fanciful certainly, but let us judge of it as candidly as we 
 are able. Let us suppose his principal view to be, to clear 
 God of being the author of evil : I know not whether every 
 thing may not be deduced from that supposition, and it really 
 seems a ^probable one. Most leaders of sects mean well at 
 bottom, though they may be vain, and fond of their own 
 inventions. 
 
 Evil all comes from matter^ but God is good ; originally 
 therefore, says Mani, there was one God, and there was also 
 matter, or hyle (uXrj); so matter is the worst possible thing. 
 
 God is perfect, and Persian perfection must always have some- 
 thing to do with light, and imperfection with darkness. All this 
 seems to have been taught in Persia, by Zoroaster^, many ages 
 before the time of Mani. The temple of the sun is reckoned 
 a capital ruin. Mani keeps to this as long as he can, but 
 how did this vXy or matter get into being ? The good God 
 did not create such a vile thing^; he would be the author of 
 evil ; nothing else could create it ; ergo, it is a principle, with- 
 out beginning. But there are active powers which produce 
 evil ; there arc evil passions ; therefore vXrj must be personi- 
 fied : a common thing: but then the matter vXrj gets con- 
 founded with the person vXr}, and afterwards the person creates 
 the matter. But we see a mixture of good and evil in the 
 world : true : this is light and its parts, mixed with darkness 349 
 and its associates, or parts. Then good and evil strive and 
 
 ’ Cudworth agrees ; Lard. Her. 
 
 ~ Hyde’s Historia Ileligionis veterum 
 Pcrsarum, Cap. 9 ; filso p. 295. The 
 
 time of Zoroaster seems doubtful ; some 
 say he was as early as Abraham. He 
 does not appear in Blair. 
 
B. I. Append. 4.] 
 
 EARLY SECTS. 
 
 249 
 
 I. contend: (Rom. vii) true: there was a battle between the 
 
 host of ^light and the powers of darkness'^: we must not 
 expect that this battle of Manfs imagining will please as 
 much in plain prose, as MiltorCs battle of angels pleases in 
 poetry. Then, man has a soul naturally pure, united to a 
 gross body : how is this to be solved upon Manichean princi- 
 ples ? why, God made the soul, and Satan made the body ; and 
 body tempted soul to enter in and dwell there, with a view 
 to sensual delights. For body seems to include both matter 
 and sensation. 
 
 Thus, there is but one God; and good and evil effects 
 are instantly resolved into two causes ; one good, and the 
 other evil. The facts seems to be stated fairly enough by 
 Mani ; but he does not think it needful to be nice in his 
 experiments, made in order to account for them. 
 
 vii. This same hatred of matter and body will enable 
 us to give some idea of the Manichean morality ; for the 
 morals of the Manicheans were very spiritual ; even marriage 
 was only tolerated, and not tolerated in the higher rank, called 
 the Elect. Abstemiousness and mortification were as much 
 honoured as amongst any order of modern monks. If matter 
 and body were such vile things, all enjoyments of the senses 
 must be vile, and must be shunned as much as possible. 
 
 viii. Abomination of matter and body affected the repealed 
 religion professed by the Manicheans. The Old Testament 
 tells us, that God created matter. Absurd and impossible ! 
 say the Manicheans; and so they reject the Old Testament 
 
 350 at once, wholly. It recommends too a set of vile men, who 
 indulged some of their senses! To be sure Adam and Eve 
 were the first couple ; but they ran into corporeal familiarity, 
 and that was, in reality, their first offence. In the New 
 Testament some passages are found which are taken out of 
 this Old Testament: — mere Jewish interpolations! The rest 
 indeed of the New Testament is genuine; only we must not 
 conceive Christ to have been a real man, made of matter, as 
 we are ; his body (if body it could be called) could not be 
 of matter. We are told he was crucified, but his crucifixion 
 could not be real, it must have been only ajjparent, and 
 mystical; and such also must have been his resurrection : we 
 observe the festival of Easier to celebrate it as such. A body 
 like ours can never be raised to a state of salvation. 
 
 ^ 2 Cor. xi. 14. Ephes. vi. 12. Col. i. 13, 2 Pet. ii. 4. Jude 6. 
 
250 
 
 EARLY SECTS. 
 
 [B. I. Append, 4. 
 
 The Manichean doctrine of the Trinity supposed the first I. 
 person in heaven^ (I think) ; the second in the sun (to ( pm ) 
 as to his power, and in the moon as to his wisdom ; and the 
 third person in the air (spiritus). 
 
 ix. The Manichean worship was simple ; it was purposely 
 made unlike the heathen worship. The worshippers had 
 prayer, instructions, and sacraments, but that of the Lord’s 
 Supper was celebrated without wine. Scriptures were pub- 
 licly read, and other things, particularly the Epistle of the 
 Foundation. Sunday was kept, but as a fast. It has been 
 said that this sect worshipped the sun and moon; but Lard- 
 ner supposes that notion to have arisen from their turning 
 towards the sun and moon in their worship; yet Eaustus says 
 something like this — ‘ God forbid that we should be ashamed 
 of worshipping the sacred luminaries^.’ This ceremony, how- 3.51 
 ever, naturally followed from the idea just now mentioned, 
 that the second person of the Trinity, to ( pm <, had some sort 
 of residence in the sun and moon. Though, by their virtue 
 and religious worship, the Manichean s endeavoured to purify 
 the soul, yet they conceived that it did not, could not, get 
 sufficiently filtered for the purity of heaven, without going 
 through several transmigrations. 
 
 X. Most of what we have hitherto seen of the Mani- 
 cheans arose from their hatred of matter, and their idea of the 
 vileness of it ; but their chureh-government does not seem 
 to have been founded upon that : the ruling aim was, to 
 resemble the primitive Church. Mani himself was the head 
 of the body (not in any presumptuous or arrogant way, that 
 I know of) ; the next set of officers, or ministers, consisted of 
 twelve ; these appointed bishops and presbyters, with deacons to 
 each. The great division of this ecclesiastical body w'as into 
 elect and auditors. The auditors were kept separate from the 
 elect, though the elect were maintained by them. It has been 
 already observed, that the elect might not marry; the auditors 
 might, but marriage in them was rather tolerated than com- 
 mended. Augustin was once an auditor amongst the Mani- 
 cheans, but never one of the elect ; yet he seems to me to con- 
 trovert points with them, much as if he had never been one of 
 their body. He gives a worse account of them than is thought 
 credible, particularly of their sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.* 
 
 ^ In light inaccessible: see Lard. Works, vol. iii. p. 459., 
 
 2 Aug. contra Faustum, lib. 20. cap. L 
 
B. I. Append. 5.] 
 
 EAllLY SECTS. 
 
 251 
 
 I. The most candid judgment about which account is, that, as a 
 young auditor, he knew very little about the more solemn 
 parts of their worship, and wrote of them, as of other sects, 
 according to what he heard reported. Perhaps the enemies 
 
 352 of the sect might represent them to him as unfavourably as 
 possible, in order to secure his separation from them. 
 
 xi. Mani has, I think, been spoken of as making high 
 pretensions to supernatural powers, and to communication 
 
 "with heaven. The best judges seem to think, that he never 
 made any pretensions whatever to miracles^; whether he pre- 
 tended to any supernatural intercourse with God, is thought 
 very doubtful. In his time, it is probable that few taught 
 any thing that was unknown to the vulgar, without using some 
 language of their own, or applying some language of Scripture, 
 which might be understood as pretending, in some degree, to 
 supernatural power. Chemistry, physics, morals, laws, as well 
 as religion, have often had a mysterious air, when they were 
 taught. Mathematician^ and magician have often been used 
 as synonymous ; and so have astronomy and astrology. The 
 enthusiasm of invention gives an appearance of inspiration; and, 
 when the people take up the notion, and attribute discoveries 
 to a supernatural cause, it may be difficult, and may be thought 
 hurtful, or imprudent, to disclaim high and heavenly com- 
 munications^ But I say this in general: that Mani gave 
 into any pretensions of this sort, has not been proved. 
 
 xii. Some of the abstemious sects of Christians seem to 
 have run into an imitation of the Manichean tenets and prac- 
 tices; (or they and the Manicheans have had one common 
 origin ;) and would probably have done it more, had Chris- 
 tianity been the ruling religion in Persia, It is surprising 
 how far the Cathari^ in the 12th century, carried such iinita- 
 
 353 tion ; and at such a distance from Persia ! in Bulgaria ! but, 
 for particulars, I will refer to Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical His- 
 tory, cent. 12. part ii. chap. v. sect. 4. 
 
 5. Such is our account of the Manicheans. Being pos- 
 sessed of the particulars of it, we shall more readily compre- 
 hend what may be said upon sects or heresies antecedent to 
 it, which are less fully described. To these we are now to 
 come. 
 
 When we consider the various notions and practices of 
 
 ^ See Lardner. ^ j^rd. Her. 
 
 5 Voltaire: see vol. xiv, 4to, p. 347, about Stofiier’s Deluge in 1524. 
 
252 
 
 EARLY SECTS. 
 
 [B. I. Append. 5. 
 
 Christian sects, it is natural to wish to see the origin of such I. 
 as strike us most ; and those are apt to appear the most 
 striking which have been continued down to modern times, 
 though perhaps with some variation ; but when (as is generally 
 the case) we cannot get "distinct ideas of their origin, we are 
 apt to fall into disputes about it. As an instance, may be 
 mentioned monastic life. Some think the origin of it is to be 
 found in the third^, some in t\\e fourtld^ century, some in the 
 eleventh^'., and some trace it up to the Rechahites'^ mentioned* 
 by Jeremiah, some to the Assideans^ mentioned in the books 
 of Maccabees, and others to the Essenes^ mentioned by Philo 
 and Josephus. With regard to whole systems of heretical 
 notions, there seem also to be doubts. Most men agree, that 
 very early Christians mixed such philosophy as they had learnt 
 with the tenets of Christianity ; but from whence had their 
 philosophy been derived ? It is generally thought that there 
 were heresies in the time of the Apostles ; but how far were 
 they new ? Though something might perhaps be said in 
 answer to such questions, I do not think that perfect satisfac- 
 tion is to be attained by any inquiry into antiquity which can 354 
 now be made. I should prefer to strict researches into anti- 
 quity, a simple examination of those general principles of 
 human nature~^ which are likely to produce the opinions and 
 practices we meet with. We shall have much less anxiety 
 about the time when any opinion sprang up, if we are per- 
 suaded that it might spring up at any time®. 
 
 I say general principles, but, when any particular ap- 
 pearances are to be solved, human nature must be taken as 
 it is found in some particular circumstances^ which will have 
 a great effect upon what we call general principles, in making 
 them take different courses at different times. Under circum- 
 stances, may be included regions, climates, diet, forms of 
 government, modes of education, customs, traditions, habitual 
 notions, state of arts and sciences, and forms of religion. 
 
 * Priestley’s Hist. Corr. part xii. In- 
 trod. and sect. 1. " Gibbon. 
 
 3 Forbes. ^ Jer. chap. xxxv. 
 
 5 1 Macc. ii. 42; vii. 13. 2 Macc. 
 
 xiv. 0. 
 
 ® See also IMichaelis, Introd. Lect. 
 4to. sect. 122. 
 
 7 I am happy to find a thought not 
 very diflerent from this in Bp. H alii fax 
 on Prophecy, p. 131. And Ur. Priestley 
 
 says, (Hist. Corr. part. xii. Introd.) ‘^It 
 is the same principle that made Essenes 
 among the Jews, monks among Chris- 
 tians, dervises among Mahometans, and 
 fakirs among Hindoos.” 
 
 ® See the difficulty of this subject, on 
 a footing of fact or history, Michaelis’s 
 Introd. Lect. sect, about Essenes. Sect. 
 123, 4to. And Blaclaine’s Mcsheim, 
 1. 2. 5. 3. about Gnostics, note (r). 
 
B. I. Append. 6.] 
 
 EARLY SECTS. 
 
 253 
 
 I. With such ideas of general principles and particular cir- 
 cumstances, we say, that in religion these three things, con- 
 templative life, mortification^ and belief in angels and spirits^ 
 as constantly affecting human life, are connected together, and 
 promote one another; though there may be particular situ- 
 ations which may strengthen or weaken their natural con- 
 nexion. This would not be affirmed, if the generality of the 
 early oriental Christian sects had not their doctrines compound- 
 S55 ed of these three ingredients*'. In Christian sects we may 
 perhaps be permitted to include those half- Christian inhabit- 
 ants of the deserts, who knew only John’s Baptism^®. 
 
 But, for the sake of distinctness, let us divide our assertion 
 into four propositions. 
 
 6. i. A life of solitary religious contemplation promotes 
 mortification and self-denial ; not only as it removes occasions 
 of luxury and indulgence, but as it naturally produces what 
 may be called punishment for intemperance, and reward for 
 abstinence. 
 
 In contemplative life, several evils, or punishments, arise 
 for intemperance : in it the intemperate are unhappy, in dif- 
 ferent ways. It is impossible for the intemperate to have any 
 tolerable health in a state of inaction ; and every unhealthy 
 person (I believe we may say) is unhappy. And, if a bodily 
 disorder should sometimes be of slow growth, yet perhaps the 
 cure may be equally slow. Intemperance would, in solitude, 
 nourish discontent, as it would give birth to propensities to- 
 wards unattainable enjoyments ; this discontent would act as a 
 punishment. And the desire of prohibited pleasures, when it 
 became habitual, w'ould make the mind vicious — would corrupt 
 it, and so make it feel remorse. A state of rebellion to reason 
 and conscience is never an easy state ; but particularly uneasy 
 when reflection cannot be overpowered by riot and dissipation. 
 It would be easily conceived that luxury must be an abuse of 
 a religious contemplative life ; and the sense of that must 
 356 embitter what gratifications could be attained in solitude. 
 These punishments, ill health, discontent, and remorse, would 
 often be combined; but, if they were not, the mind would 
 grow uneasy under any of them, and of course restless ; which 
 
 ^ See Michaelis’s Introd. Lect. 4to. 
 beginning of sect. 101; the whole of sect. 
 123, and, I think, 124. See also sect. 
 125, p. 324, towards bottom. 
 
 Acts, chap. xix. Micliaelis’s Introd. 
 4to, sect. 125. Voltaire, 4to. vol. xxvi. 
 
 p. 111. 
 
254 
 
 EARLY SECTS. 
 
 [B. I. Append. 7, 8. 
 
 would make it look out for a situation more comfortable and I- 
 satisfactory. 
 
 And it would soon perceive, that, in a solitary, religious, 
 contemplative life, there are not only punishments for intem- 
 perance, but also rewards for abstemiousness. So that every 
 degree of abstemiousness seems to answer to a man in such 
 a life, and to be productive of good. The body, though not 
 robust, becomes free from disorders, supple, light, and unen- 
 cumbered ; not strong, but easily set. in motion, and disposed 
 to agility : and robust and strong enough for all purposes of a 
 contemplative life. The mind is also active, and light ; the 
 sentiments become refined, polished, benevolent ; the intellects 
 penetrating, so that the investigation of truth becomes success- 
 ful and pleasing. And a consciousness of not being refractory, 
 but resigned to the situation of affairs, gives a serenity, and a 
 mild complacency, which makes every thing wear a pleasing 
 aspect. This consciousness grows stronger, as the contem- 
 plative man gets a stronger sense of the sinfulness of the world, 
 and of the merit of retiring from it. All this must greatly 
 promote abstemiousness, in a life of solitary contemplation. 
 What I describe will, I think, be acknowledged for reality by 
 those who have seen Eastern manners, or the behaviour and 
 looks of some monks in popish countries of Europe. 
 
 7* ii. Abstemiousness, when become habitual, promotes in 
 return religious solitary contemplation. This may already in 
 some measure appear ; but it may not be superfluous to ob- 
 serve, that he who has, for a number of years, abstained from 357 
 rich food, grows so feeble and delicate, that he cannot bear the 
 shocks and rudenesses arising in intercourse with worldly men. 
 Coarse mirth, unfeeling selfishness, bold ostentation, act upon 
 him with such a repulsive force, that it requires the utmost 
 efforts of his courage and resolution to continue any time in 
 ordinary society: he retires; he then finds himself at home — 
 sheltered, protected : his fine tastes, his elegant conceptions, 
 his mild and sweet affections, out of the reach of contempt and 
 ridicule, spring forth, bloom, and flourish. And, when he has 
 long continued in this way, he contracts an opinion of common 
 life as very faulty and imperfect; and attaches himself unalter- 
 ably to a contemplative life, as to that in which alone the 
 lower part of man is duly degraded, and the higher faculties 
 worthily honoured and respected. 
 
 8. iii. A temper formed by contemplation and abstemious- 
 
B. I. Append. 9, 10.] 
 
 EAllLY SECTS. 
 
 255 
 
 I. ness will, more than other tempers, encourage notions of the 
 agency of spirits and angels. Such a course of life will 
 strongly enflame the imagination ; and that faculty delights in 
 personifying, and in assigning personal causes of all interesting 
 events. In common life we personify more than we are aware 
 of; — ‘you are Prudence itseU V we say; and we paint Faith, 
 Hope, and Charity. We find also Fear creating spectres and 
 apparitions. This may put us in the way of conceiving how a 
 mind, purged and refined, and at the same time weakened, by 
 a contemplative and abstemious life, may fall readily into 
 notions of angels, spirits, demons; and into solving appearances 
 by their ministry and interference. The idea of their presence 
 and influence must be highly delightful and flattering; and we 
 naturally dwell on what delights and flatters us ; and dwelling 
 358 on any thing disposes us to believe it. Solitude had appeared 
 the least evil, and therefore the contemplative had fled to it : 
 'but he still is glad to have his solitude relieved by angelic 
 society, though only imaginary. Sometimes indeed Reason 
 will interfere; but Reason must allow that there may be 
 superior intelligences, between man and the Great Supreme. 
 He is a spirit, and to be worshipped in spiritk From allow- 
 ing that there may be spirits, it is an easy step to determining 
 that there are ; and from existence, the man of warm fancy, 
 when not checked by intercourse with active life, easily passes 
 on to the manner of existence. But we know so little of su- 
 perior beings, that this can be described only by the imagina- 
 tion ; and therefore systems of angels and spirits, formed by 
 man, must admit of endless variety^. 
 
 9. iv. Lastly, this readiness to account for events by the 
 intervention of angels must, in its turn, promote and encou- 
 rage abstemious and contemplative life ; because, in oUch a life, 
 that turn and disposition will find the greatest encouragement 
 and the freest indulgence. 
 
 10. So much for what were called general principles of 
 human nature. W e might now proceed to see how particular 
 situations would modify and vary the effects of these general 
 principles ; but it may be proper previously to observe, that 
 
 ^ John iv. 24. 
 
 ^ It may be remarked here, though we 
 are in a different train, that one reason 
 why the Easterns always conceive the 
 Deity surrounded with angels, &c. who 
 
 I do all inferior work, is, that a number of 
 splendid attendants makes part of their 
 habitual notion of greatness — as does 
 also freedom from labour. 
 
256 
 
 EAllLY SECTS. 
 
 [B. I. Append. 11. 
 
 the description here given of solitary life, though it may seem I. 
 favourable in some respects, is not intended to imply, that it is 
 right upon the whole. Supposing it were agreed, that the 
 higher faculties of man ought to be supported in their due 359 
 rank and dignity, it would not follow that the lower ones were 
 to be annihilated ; that is not here meant : much less is it 
 intended to represent a solitary life, as if it of course avoided 
 moral and spiritual dangers, as much as it avoids the society of 
 men. Every kind of life has its peculiar dangers, or is liable 
 to its peculiar vices. The ‘‘dangers in the practice of virtue, 
 to which men of retired and studious lives, abstracted in a 
 great degree from the pleasures, the business, and the conver- 
 sation of the world, are exposed,” seem well described by 
 Dr. PowelD ; but a description of such dangers is not a denial 
 of the advantages of such a life ; nor does that most respectable 
 author intend it for such, as he expressly declares^. 
 
 11. Now we come to consider how some 'particular situ- 
 atums may affect these general principles in practice : — laying 
 it down, in order to prevent mistakes, that, at the same time 
 that any certain situation may promote the disposition, which 
 is compounded of a love for contemplative life, abstemiousness, 
 and a belief in the agency of spirits, in some respects, it may 
 discourage the same disposition in other respects : laying it 
 down also, that when a cause is said to be productive of any 
 effect, it is supposed not to be counteracted by any other 
 cause. 
 
 i. If men are situated where sciaice has been little cul- 
 tivated, or has been wrongly cultivated, they will be the more 
 liable to catch the temper now described; — to fall. into con- 
 templative life, to contract notions of the merit of abstemious- 
 ness, and of the agency of spirits and demons. When a 
 general ignorance prevails, virtue is supposed to be something S6(l 
 very wonderful ; it is estimated, not by its utility, but by 
 its distance from ordinary pursuits. And every enjoyment 
 is fancied, indistinctly indeed, to come from some good genius, 
 every calamity, from some malignant demon. Nay, though 
 some parts of science have been attended to, yet, if researches 
 have been made upon fantastic grounds, the matter is not much 
 mended. A man may be an observer of the heavenly bodies; but 
 yet, if he is ignorant of rational and mathematical elements of 
 
 * Serm. 1st. See p. 3, top. I of the vices of “an idle monk,” is p. 19, 
 
 - P.20, near bottom. His description I bottom. 
 
IJ. I. Append. 11.] 
 
 KAllLY SECTS. 
 
 257 
 
 I. astronomy, his imagination prevails ; — he conceives every star 
 either to be the star of some prince'^, or to have its presiding 
 angel — its Lucifer^, or its i^baddon; and he soon neglects 
 all distinction between the material luminary and its immaterial 
 angelic ruler ; — at the same time that he believes the material 
 world to be governed by certain combinations of immaterial 
 agents. There is nothing to stop him from taking up the 
 star of his god Remphaii^^ and worshipping the host of hea- 
 ven. Or a man may attend, in like manner, to chemical 
 operations, and they may only excite his wonder, and serve 
 to confirm his belief of magic, enchantment, and the operations 
 of demons. Or attention, in the state of ignorance here sup- 
 posed, may be paid to numhers^ and those properties be only 
 thought of which please and entertain the fancy. Of these 
 properties — analogies, harmonies — there is great abundance: so 
 that excellence and efficacy has been ® ascribed to some num- 
 bers, in preference to others ; nay, the soul itself has been 
 imagined to be number”. 
 
 061 ii. The form of civil government may strengthen the dis- 
 position we are speaking of. Despotism debases men, lowers 
 their courage, and makes them more liable to fear : gives them 
 so little encouragement for industry, that they are apt to fix 
 their enjoyment in different sorts of indolence. And whatr 
 ever produces indolence favours this temper; iadolence al- 
 ways finds a lion in the way (Prov. xxii. 13 ), and there- 
 fore removes out of the way, to solitudes of one sort or other. 
 Despotic government moreover gives a security to the gene- 
 rality of private individuals, which, when it cannot lead to 
 action, finds comfort in contemplation ; and makes men more- 
 fit for it than they could be, if often exposed to danger, and 
 called upon to make resistance. 
 
 iii. Climate mav have an effect. Heat relaxes and ener- 
 vates : a large and extensive continent is less adapted to ntfvi- 
 gation, and to sea-bathing, than an island, and has probably 
 a tendency to soften men, and make them efieminate. 
 
 iv. The produce of different regions may have different 
 effects, including under produce the breed o^ animals. Abun- 
 dance of rice, with scarcity of barley or vines, and scarcity 
 
 Numb. xxiv. I 7 . Matt. ii. 2. 
 
 ^ Isai. xiv. 12. Rev. ix. 11. 
 
 ® Acts vii. 42, 43. 
 
 ” Voltaire, vol. xxviT, 4to, p. 422, 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 about the number seven, from Clemens 
 Alex. Also Michaelis’s Introd. Lect. 
 4to, p. 317 , 31{). Ficinus on Plato. 
 
 " Tusc. Disp. 1. 10. 
 
 17 
 
258 
 
 EARLY SECTS. 
 
 [B. I. Append. 11. 
 
 of animals for food, might promote monastic life : scarcity of I. 
 vegetables, with plenty of animals, or of nourishing plants, 
 might discourage it. 
 
 V. Popular superstitions of certain sorts generate a timo- 
 rous, scrupulous temper. Through them, men get to be afraid 
 of not doing enough, they will therefore do something more 
 than enough. They are afraid of offending superior beings 
 by being worldly, and therefore they avoid the world ; and 
 gradually more and more. Popular superstitions may also 
 encourage habitual notions of the agency of invisible beings ; 
 
 I speak here of unwritten superstitions, not supposed to be 
 revealed. 
 
 vi. Written religion may have the same kind of effect, if 362 
 either superstitious in itself, or wrongly interpreted. It is 
 not at all unlikely, that men who forge revelations should 
 be flighty and extravagant ; should enjoin abstinence from 
 wine, and innocent enjoyments ; and should recommend very 
 passionate devotion, communication with the Divine mind, 
 annihilation of worldly desires and conceptions. Nor is it 
 impossible that a rational Revelation should be misapplied ; 
 so that seasonable precepts about temperance, retirement, 
 meditation and prayer, and about trust in God and resigna- 
 tion to his will, should be made to have the same effects^. 
 
 More particular situations might be thought of, but we 363 
 do not aim at a full discussion of this matter. We may see 
 
 ^ The effects of retirement on the 'pas- 
 sions do not seem to have been sufficiently 
 studied. Does it, on the whole, diminish 
 their strength ? 
 
 Dr. Powell (bottom of p. 4) says, 
 “ Place a man in a situation where they 
 are not frequently exercised, and he is in 
 danger of sinking into an unfeeling le- 
 thargy. Such is the situation we are 
 considering. For the exercise of the 
 passions arises chiefly from the various 
 turns and accidents in human affairs.” 
 He says, the passions are the chief sup- 
 ports of industry, and that studious re- 
 tirement impairs their vigour (p. fi) ; 
 retirement, abstracted from pleasure, bu- 
 siness, conversation. But are not retired 
 men more passionate, in some things at 
 least, than men in active life ? more dis- 
 composed by shame, more affectionate, 
 more compassionate? more amorous, in 
 
 the purer sense of the word ? would they 
 not feel more indignation, resentment, 
 piety, approbation, remorse? And do 
 not wordly men get hardened are not 
 some men of the world very unfeeling? 
 how is this ? On the other hand, a man’s 
 appetite for wine, women, luxuries, gets 
 blunted by distance and absence; his am- 
 bition seems as if it would be quieter; 
 his avarice, his vanity, but not perhaps 
 his pride. Is there such a distinction as 
 this ? some passions are actually weaker 
 in solitude, but more easily roused ? that 
 is, the man is less irritated, but more ir- 
 ritable? or, could the passions be divided 
 into classes ? one class to consist of those 
 which flourished most in retirement; ano- 
 ther, of those which flourished least ? I 
 cannot now settle this matter. Dr. Powell 
 makes fear^ peevishness^ &c. to flourish 
 in retirement. 
 
B. I. Append. 12 — 14 .] 
 
 EARLY SECTS. 
 
 259 
 
 I. that there are circumstances which strengthen the natural con- 
 nexion between contemplative life, abstemiousness, and the 
 belief of the influence of spirits; and what is said about 
 strengthening we may easily change, so as to have the obser- 
 vation relate to weakening such connexion. 
 
 From a collective view of all the particular situations 
 which have been mentioned, we may conclude, that such people 
 as we are told live in the jEas^ would most easily fall into 
 the kind of contemplative life of which we have been speak- 
 ing. Science has not flourished there in a good form ; civil 
 governments are despotic ; the climate is hot, with large con- 
 tinents ; the ground produces great quantities of rice ; and 
 there are many popular superstitions, of a kind suited to pro- 
 mote a life of contemplation, &c. All this would make our 
 Scriptures to be interpreted in a manner adapted to answer 
 the same end. 
 
 12. There has always been a great resemblance in the 
 opinions of the JEasf and those of Egypt, and a great com- 
 munication between the two countries. Pythagoras^ was in- 
 strumental in this, and the Platonists, and many other per- 
 sons and things. Great numbers of the Jews also lived in 
 Egypt from the time of the first Ptolemy, about 312 years 
 before Christ. But we must not be very particular, when 
 
 364 particulars would carry us into long or doubtful discus- 
 sions... Egypt has always been remarkable for various super- 
 stitions : some have been drawn from the overflowing of the 
 Nile ; some, I think, from the crocodile. If storks were as 
 much venerated in Egypt as they are in Holland, they would 
 be worshipped. 
 
 13. In the mythology of Greece and Rome^ arts and sci- 
 ences, republican government, maritime war, or other causes, 
 seem to have prevented any great progress of the temper which 
 we are considering, except as to superior intelligences. We 
 may call all their gods spirits or demons, or invisible powers ; 
 unless we should make an exception in favour of an Optimus 
 Maximus. Vestals might be mentioned. 
 
 14. In Europe science flourishes, civil governments are 
 limited, climate is temperate, animals and nourishing plants 
 
 “ The ideas of Pythagoras may he had 
 from the Lives of him written by Por- 
 phyry and .Jamblichus: see a specimen 
 or two in Lardner’s Works: Index, Por- 
 
 phyry and Jamblichus. See also, on this 
 subject, Michaelis’s Introd. Lect. 4to, 
 sects. 100, 101, 123. 
 
260 
 
 EAIILY SECTS. 
 
 [B. I. Append. 15, iC. 
 
 are plentiful, and superstition is discredited; but, in some parts, I. 
 interpretations of Scripture prevail which were made in times 
 of ignorance. On the whole, contemplative life and abstemi- 
 ousness are encouraged in popish countries ; but the notion 
 of spirits is in some sort checked ; yet prayer is made to saints 
 and angels^. 
 
 In England, I could almost say, we are too little acquainted 
 with contemplative religion. The monk painted by Sterne 
 may give us a more favourable idea of it than our prejudices 
 usually suggest. I once travelled with a Recolet^ by water, 
 and conversed with a Minime^ at his own convent ; and they 
 both had that kind of character which Sterne gives to his 
 monk — that refinement of body and mind, that pure glow of 
 meliorated passion, that polished piety and humanity. Indeed 
 they both seemed confined in their knowledge, and I do not 365 
 say that, independent of narrowness of information, the monk- 
 ish character implies perfection ; only there seems to be some 
 excellence in it, even supposing that excellence to be over- 
 balanced by faults ; and what there is, is of a kind with which 
 the common sort of Englishmen are not enough acquainted. 
 
 15. But we must mention the Jewish Essenes : they seem 
 to have had the turn we speak of to a great degree. Philo and 
 Josephus^ speak of them. Perhaps some idea of what they 
 professed, with regard to different orders of angels, may be got 
 from the cabalistic doctrine of the ten ^ Sephiroths, or splendors, 
 or irradiations ; as it is highly probable that was settled before 
 the time of Christ, the Scriptures having the same terms which 
 are found in the tables of Sephiroths. Essenes, in Egyp- 
 tian, means physicians (of the soul) ; in Greek, OepaTrevrat, 
 Therapeuta;. 
 
 16. The more instances we see, the more ready shall we 
 be to admit, that the mixture we are considering has existed 
 always, though with some varieties. Though we want to 
 understand it for the heresies which sprang up in the Christian 
 
 ^ Livre de I’Eglise — Reims, p. 579, in 
 the “Litanie des Saints” the three an- 
 gels mentioned in Scripture are addressed. 
 
 2 Aug. 14, 1770. 
 
 3 July 10, 1771. 
 
 ‘ * See IMichaelis’s Introd. Lect. 4to, 
 sects. 122 — 124. 
 
 See Encyclopedic, Art. Sephirolh, 
 taken from Calmet. in Buxt. is 
 
 evolavit, maturavit: as a subst. a bird, 
 a sparrow. Chald. morning; a diadem; 
 and, as a verb, to surround. These Chal- 
 dee senses are not in the younger Buxt. 
 Lex. Chald. Parkhurst makes a con- 
 nexion amongst the senses ; which agrees 
 pretty well with the word of the Encyclo- 
 pedic, splendeurs. From Parkhurst’s ac- 
 count, I am inclined to put irradiations. 
 
B. I. Append. 17 .] 
 
 EAIILY SECTS. 
 
 261 
 
 I. Church, yet we may be sure, that Christianity did not occa- 
 sion such notions as Christian hereticks professed. Christi- 
 anity could not be said to be published till St. Paul had 
 written his Epistles ; and in them he seems to allude to our 
 opinions pretty frequently. 
 
 366 17. Now therefore we come to Christian hereticks. And 
 the first thing to be done is, to consider a few separate words, 
 which are much made use of in speaking about spirits, or 
 angels, or demons, by sacred or other Christian writers. In the 
 order of time, passages of Scripture should come before the writ- 
 ings of Christians ; but it seems as if it would be best to 
 go to the end of our explanations of both sorts of heresies, 
 before we took scriptural instances of either ; especially as 
 most heretical opinions professed by early Christians had ex- 
 isted, in some way or other, before the Scriptures were pub- 
 lished. 
 
 One word very frequently made use of to express one of 
 these invisible beings, is aldov, CBon. How this has happened 
 may be doubtful : I suppose Scripture has, some way or other, 
 been the source from which it has been drawn. Things men- 
 tioned there have been personified: God is called BacrfXei)? 
 Tiav aiwvcov, (l Tim. i. 17 ), King of the ^Enons ; in our trans- 
 lation, “ the King eternal.” alwrios is used for eternal, and 
 applied to God : the etymology of aiwv is, quasi del wv. By 
 some transition or other, aiwi’e^ has been used for angels or 
 spirits, as inferior gods : the Ad7os himself is called by that 
 name, and even the one Supreme God® : and it happens, that 
 some texts will bear that translation. See Ephes. iii. 9 , where 
 the mystery of the Gospel is said to have been hid from 
 alwvoov, ages or ccons, (see 1 Pet. i. 12 ,) in our translation, 
 from the beginning of the world.” Also 1 Tim. i. 17 ? men- 
 tioned above. 
 
 Another word much used is 7r\i]pa)fia ; but, to give a 
 perfectly satisfactory account of it, may not be easy. It seems 
 to mean a system, complete in itself; and H. Stephens, I 
 
 367 see, has a quotation from Philo, TrXyptv/xa /cal crucrTy/xa, &c. 
 Michaelis' uses it for an heaven, that is, a place; but I do 
 not find that sense in H. Stephens, Suicer, or Du Cange; yet 
 Parkhurst comes very near it, if not quite to it. The Easterns 
 
 ^ Suicer's Thesaurus is a proper book ^ Sect. 102, Intod. Lect. also sect. 101, 
 to consult for such words as these. aiwV, p. 246, bottom ; and p. 247, 4to. 
 see Grabe’s Irenceus, p. 9, note. 
 
262 
 
 EARLY SECTS. 
 
 [B. I. Append. 17. 
 
 conceived a nrXi'jpwfxa, in the sense of a system, or complete I. 
 company i made up of God and his attendant aiwve^^ : also in 
 the sense of a space occupied by them : and it would be ge- 
 nerally difficult to say in which of these senses the word was 
 used : for, if a man, or superior being, was admitted into 
 the TrXypcofjLa, in the first sense, he would be also in the second. 
 Being admitted into a company is being admitted into the 
 place occupied by that company ; as admission into a family 
 is admission into the house where that family resides. 
 
 HXypodpa often occurs in the Old Testament: — the earth 
 is the Lord’s, and the fulness (TrXypw/ia) thereof. Some 
 Oriental heretics did not favour the Old Testament, but that 
 did not hinder their believing that they should be admitted 
 into that 'n-XypoDixa^ which they conceived. 
 
 The word TrXypwjma seems sometimes to be used in an 
 indefinite sense, as a word of eloquence or passion, or express- 
 ing something above human emptiness, vacuity, imperfection : 
 see John i. 16. Ephes. i. 23 . and iii. 19. Col. i. 19. and ii. 9- 
 Now, when this is the case, to put a definite meaning on 
 that word, is to misinterpret it. It is conceivable that Reve- 
 lation may use words in an indefinite sense. That ought not 
 to set men upon indulging their imaginations* 
 
 It seems right also to mention some words relating to 368 
 contemplative life. Moi^aarypcoi/, a monastery, was a word in 
 use before the birth of Christ. At first, it was^ probably used 
 for the habitation of one single person, in solitude or reli- 
 gious retirement ; then, perhaps, for a row or set of cells, 
 each of which was inhabited by a single person ; afterwards 
 it seems to have been used as synonymous to Koiv6(iiov, where 
 several contemplatives lived together, having several things 
 in common, as refectory, &c. These persons have been call- 
 ed’^ ava')(fji)prjTa\^ anchorets, as seceding; cpijuiTai^ hermits, 
 as being often in deserts ; ycjv'^acjTalS as being quiet. Those 
 who did extraordinary things in the way of mortification were 
 called ascetics : ''AaKrjais means exercise ; exercise is natural 
 to all who would improve in virtue*^. The proper sense of 
 mortification is abstaining from what is lawful by way of 
 
 ^ How the Church came to be called , Stephens. 
 
 Pleroma, see Hammond on Rom. xi. 12, i ^ Constantine, hut no instance. 
 
 See also Ephes. i. 23. It might be con- ' ^ Not in Constantine, nor H. Stephens, 
 
 sidcred whether TrXijpw/^ia included any i but in Suicer, who conceives these words 
 idea of the Divine immensity. j to imply different degrees of retirement. 
 
 2 Constantine cites Philo; so docs i ^ Acts xxiv. 1(5. 
 
B. I. Append. 18.] 
 
 EARLY SECTS. 
 
 263 
 
 I exercise, in order to acquire the habit of abstinence. ''AcTKrjcri^^ 
 therefore, and mortification, stand for the same idea in reli- 
 gious discipline. 
 
 These are the chief terms which want explanation, for 
 the purpose of considering the notions of the early Christian 
 sects. After the attention which we have paid to the Ma- 
 nicheans, it seems as if it would be sufficient for our purpose 
 to take notice of but few others. We may mention some- 
 
 369 thing of the Valentinians^ and the Marcionites^^ and take some 
 notice of the Gnostics. To speak of more, would exceed the 
 bounds of our undertaking. 
 
 18. Valentinus is said, by Cave, to have flourished about 
 the year 120, to have been born in Egypt, and to have 
 been a Platonic philosopher. Tertullian speaks of him as able, 
 ingenio et eloquio ; but says, that he quitted the regular 
 church through resentment, some one having been appointed 
 to a bishoprick in preference to him, ex martyrii praerogativa ; 
 ut solent animi pro prioratu exciti prassumtione ultionis 
 ascendi; Enough of the Valentinians may be seen in the 
 first book, one might say in the first section, of Grabe’s edi- 
 tion of Irenaeus'. Thirty aeons are reckoned up, which con- 
 stitute a pleroma ; or rather fifteen couples^ male and female ; 
 some have said these were thirty gods ; others, that altogether 
 they formed the true God. But the description of the first 
 aeon, called Buthos, or Propator, or Proarche, &c. seems of 
 itself to approach to a description of a Supreme God. Each 
 of these aeons seems to be something personified, as Life, 
 Truth, Silence, Mind, Happiness, &c., or one of the titles 
 given to the Son of God ; and the genealogies seem not 
 unlike the Theogonia of Hesiod ; who makes Heaven, Earth, 
 Ocean, Morning, Day, Night; Love, Desire, Gracefulness, &c. 
 Sec. to be, in one rank or other, gods ; besides Rivers, Winds, 
 Sec. In some sense, it has been said® that Hesiod makes thirty 
 gods; but certainly Valentinus made his upon scriptural grounds, 
 such as they were ; and they made a system. He said, they 
 
 370 corresponded to the thirty years® which our Saviour passed 
 in private life — to the sum of the number of hours mentioned 
 
 ® Valentinus and Marcion seem to 
 have been cotemporaries, not far from 
 the middle of the second century. Va- 
 lentinus being in Egypt., and IMarcion 
 in Pontus, the order in which they should 
 stand may not have been well ascertain- 
 
 ed, and may not be important. 
 
 7 There are only fragments of Irenaeus’s 
 Works, besides the work against heresies. 
 
 Epiphan. Ha;r. 31. sect. 2. &c. See 
 Grabe’s IreucEus, p. 3. note, top. 
 
 “ Ibid, p. 9. 
 
[B. I. Append. 19. 
 
 264 
 
 KAIILY SECTS. 
 
 in the parable of the labourers in the vineyard : — the sum of I. 
 1, 8,6, 9, 11, is thirty. This seems to be the most distinguishing 
 part of the doctrine of Valentinus; except we should mention 
 his idea, that the body of Christ was real, though not really 
 human; that it was brought from the stars, and returned to 
 them again upon his ascension. This is tlie more to be noticed, 
 as it is one mode of rejecting the scriptural accounts of our 
 Saviour’s nativity. He held many things in common with 
 other Oriental heretics, concerning the inferior or malevolent 
 nature^ of the Maker of this world, and the necessity of reject- 
 ing some Scriptures commonly held Divine ; but these we shall 
 meet with, in better order, in the doctrines of Marcion. Both 
 Valentinus and Marcion were very eminent : had many disciples 
 of eminence, in different parts of the world ; who, as well as 
 themselves, were probably acquainted with literature and phi- 
 losophy. 
 
 19. Marcion was the son of a bishop in Pontus~; he is 
 thought to have flourished about the year 130. In his youth, 
 he is said to have been excommunicated by his father, but 
 whether for immorality, or his doctrine, has been disputed ; 
 probably the latter. He might be unsettled in bis way of life. 
 
 His doctrine sets out on the eastern notion of two 'prin- 
 ciples^ and on each of these principles is founded a set of no- 
 tions ; and the different notions in each set correspond to each 
 other. His good principle was the Father of Christ; he was 
 benign, forgiving, merciful ; — he was the giver of the Gospel. 371 
 The other principle, which could not be so properly called 
 an evil principle, as one less good, was the ArjiJiLovpyog, De- 
 miurge, Creator of this world. He was not merciful, but 
 strict and severe, in justice at least, if not beyond justice. 
 
 He was the giver of the Law — of that severe law, which 
 allowed of retaliation, &c. So that the Father of Christ 
 was opposed to the Creator of the world ; the merciful, to 
 the severe ; the giver of the Gospel, to the giver of the 
 Law. 
 
 As to the person of Christ, Marcion was accounted one 
 of the Phantasiasts, or Doceta) ; that is, one of those who 
 thought that the body of Christ was only apparently human ; 
 
 ’ Cave mentions a fragment of Valen- 
 tinus in a Dialogue about him, ascribed 
 to Origen, which is to account for the 
 origin of Evil, and docs account for it by 
 
 two principles ; after the manner supposed 
 by us, when we spoke of 3Iani. 
 
 2 lie is sometimes called, not Marcion, 
 but Ponticiis. 
 
B. I. Append. 20.] 
 
 EARLY SECTS. 
 
 265 
 
 I. yet he seems not to have carried this notion so far as some; 
 at least, he believed in the death of Christ, and in his resur- 
 rection. Possibly he might conceive the flesh of Christ to be 
 somewhat different from common human flesh, without denying 
 it to be solid, or material. 
 
 The Oriental heretics seem to have made a great differ- 
 ence between Jesics^ and Christ — to have thought Jesus of a 
 lower nature, and Christ of an higher. Marcion allowed that 
 Jesus was Christ, but he expected another Christ to come, 
 to restore the Jewish state'^. 
 
 No heretic ever took greater liberties with the Scriptures 
 than Marcion ; but the liberties he took are accounted for 
 by his tenets. He rejected the Law of Moses ; and he made 
 antitheses, in order to expose its inferiority to the Gospel, 
 and to shew that they did not come from the same God. He 
 372 rejected many and very considerable parts of our New Testa- 
 ment ; the temptation of Christ in particular. He also new- 
 modelled the scriptural account of the Incarnation. 
 
 The 7norals of Marcion were strict and pure; he was a 
 favourer of virginity. I have already said, that his followers 
 were numerous and of importance. On the whole, he seems 
 a signal example of the rashness of following human notions 
 of what is best, in accepting and applying ^divine dispensa- 
 tions. You will say, Marcioffs fancies ought not to be repre- 
 sented as human reason : but they were so to him ; and the 
 notions of the wisest of men, being infinitely short of Divine 
 intelligence, may be conceived as on a footing with his, in 
 such a comparison. And he who sets the most improved 
 human reason in competition with Divine Wisdom, will err in 
 the same form with Marcion, though not perhaps in the same 
 particulars. 
 
 20. The Gnostics might have been noticed first; but I 
 was naturally led, by my train of thought, to mention them 
 here, in like manner as to produce scriptural examples, after 
 the whole explication of Christian heresies. Wliatever method 
 brings the ideas to our minds with the least confusion and 
 embarrassment, seems the best method. The general name 
 will always seem most intelligible, after the particular species 
 have been enumerated. 
 
 ^ See amongst many instances Michae- 
 lis’s Introd. Lect. quarto, p. 247. 
 
 ^ Before, Chap, xvii, sect. 16 of this. 
 
 Hurd’s 1st Discourse on Prophecy. 
 Powell’s 6d Charge. 
 
266 
 
 EAllLY SECTS. 
 
 [B. I. Append. 21. 
 
 Bishop Warburton observes^, that (To<p'ia means all the I. 
 great principles of natural religion;” and yvtocri^, ‘‘all the great 
 principles of the revealed.” This being settled, we can con- 
 ceive that any persons, who thought their own knowledge 
 of the meaning of Scripture particularly profound, would 
 imagine themselves excellent in this yvwcn ^ ; and, if formed 
 into a body, which wanted a name, would call themselves 373 
 Gnostics. In fact, the persons who did pride themselves 
 on their superior knowledge of Scripture ran into mysticaP^ 
 figurative, fantastic interpretations of Scripture; and adopted 
 many maxims and notions of Oriental philosophy, which they 
 followed in settling their canon of Scripture, as well as in 
 giving to expressions their own sense. This was not a real 
 yv(jo(jL<s>) but a false and spurious one — yvtocri^ \j/€uS(Jvviaop. 
 Gnostics came, after some time, to be the general term for 
 the Oriental sects taken collectively ; and DocetcB^ or Phan- 
 tasiastce^ was used in the same sense ; because all those who 
 affected mysterious interpretations of Holy Writ, and adopted 
 Oriental philosophy, held that the body of Christ was not 
 what it appeared to be^. Hammond seems to use the word 
 in this general sense ; and he uses it very frequently. But 
 we may now quit the Oriental sects, and proceed to the 
 Judaical. These will take very little time. 
 
 21. The Judaical sects seem to have been but two, 
 which may be called Ehionites and Na%arenes. I suppose 
 both these sects, though undoubtedly professing the religion 
 of Christ, were much attached to the Jewish religion, having 
 been bred up in it, and believing it to be of Divine original ; 
 but they are distinguished by their different opinions concern- 
 ing the person of Christ. The Ehionites supposed him a 
 mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary; but those who were 
 called by the name given sometimes to Christians in general, 
 the Nazarenes, though they believed him to be real, perfect 
 man, supposed him to be supernaturally born, of the virgin, 374 
 by the sole operation of the Holy Spirit ; yet the Nazarenes 
 do not seem to have allowed the pre-existence of Christ ^ As 
 
 * A Discourse concerning the Holy 
 Spirit, p. 25. 
 
 2 See Hammond on Hebr. v. 14. 
 
 3 1 Tim. vi. 20. 
 
 ^ Tert. uses Marciondi^ a. term 
 for Oriental heretics ; (see l^ard. Works, 
 vol. IX. p. 234, note.) They are also 
 
 often said to originate all from Simon 
 Magus. 
 
 ® Except as a man: according to John 
 ix. 1, 2, they allowed, that Christ might 
 have a remembrance that he, as man, had 
 conversed with God before his birth. See 
 Macknight on John ix. 1, 2. 
 
B. I. Append. 22.] 
 
 EAllLY SECTS. 
 
 267 
 
 J. the Oriental sects had general names, so the Judaical were 
 collectively called Ehionites^. I think we cannot much won- 
 der that the Jews should be inclined to reckon their Messiah 
 a mere man. All the persons whom they had most reverenced 
 had pretended to nothing higher than human nature : Christ 
 was to be the son of David; Jesus was born of a certain tribe, 
 nay, of an inferior person in that tribe; Christ was to be power- 
 ful, but only as a prince. But, though the Jews in general 
 might have been habituated to expect a mere man for their 
 Messiah, yet the Nazarenes might have attended to the cir- 
 cumstances in which Jesus was born^, to the prophecies, and 
 the star, so much as to adopt the opinion that his birth was 
 miraculous. The Judaical sects are said to be older than the 
 Oriental, though the ® Oriental subsisted in the times of the 
 Apostles. 
 
 22. Some heresies have an appearance of being mixed — 
 their doctrines compounded of Oriental and Judaical tenets; 
 if we include in the Judaical such as arose amongst the 
 
 O 
 
 Essenes : and the Essenes were certainly a Jewish sect, 
 though they adopted Egyptian or Oriental philosophy. The 
 heresy of Cerinthus, a Jew of Asia^ may be of this mixed 
 375 sort. What he held concerning spirits, &c. may be solved, 
 possibly, either from Oriental philosophy, or from Jewish 
 cabalistical Sephiroths^ . And this remark may, perhaps, be 
 
 applicable to Carpocrates. Some Jewish Christians had some 
 notion of the world’s being made by some inferior Demiurge : 
 but, if Essenes drew their notions from Egyptian or Oriental 
 philosophy, as they were Jews, it seems a matter of course 
 that the Oriental and Jewish tenets should get mixed. Gene- 
 rally, when Oriental heretics are opposed to Judaical, it is 
 not, I think, meant to reckon the Essenes amongst the Jews; 
 though they might be as much for retaining the Law of 
 Moses as the Ebionites. I should conceive, that, when any 
 difficulties arise from a seeming mixture of Oriental and Ju- 
 daical tenets, the best solution would be, to ascribe that 
 mixture to the Jewish sect of Essenes having adopted some 
 
 “ Eusebius makes two sorts of Ebion- 
 ites. (Hist. 3. 27.) 
 
 7 They might also attend more to current 
 notions of Aoyos, Son of God, as explain- 
 ed by Allix — Unitarians— but of this more 
 in the fourth book. They might also see 
 some very lofty expressions in some of the 
 
 Prophecies : see Apthorpe’s Warb. Lect. 
 
 ^ Lard. Works, vol. iii. p. 541, 542, 
 inch notes. 
 
 9 See Lardner’s account of Cerinthus, 
 
 particularly sect. 4 Works, vol. ix. p. 
 
 325. See also Mich. Introd. Lect. quarto, 
 sect. 101. p. 247. 
 
268 
 
 EAllLY SECTS. 
 
 [B. I. A})pend. 23 . 
 
 Oriental tenets, at the same time that thc}^ continued attached I. 
 to Judaism. 
 
 23. Having now gone through the particular tenets of 
 the Oriental and Judaical heresies, we may take some notice 
 of the extent of those tenets. We may observe, that some 
 opinions seem to have been held generally ; others only by 
 particular sects, or persons. All seem, in early times of Chris- 
 tianity, notwithstanding the prevalence of Polytheism in the 
 world, to have acknowledged one supreme benevolent Deity. 
 Nay, those who maintained two principles only maintained 
 an evil one, in order that they might clear the good God from 
 all blame. Most Eastern and some Jewish heretics seem to 
 have had unfavourable ideas of matter.^ which would natu- 
 rally lead them to doubt the reality of the body of Christ, 376 
 as human flesh ; and to question first his resurrection, and 
 then the general resurrection ; and lastly, to suppose the ma- 
 terial world made by subordinate beings, with only the tacit 
 consent or connivance of the Supreme. Then, these subordi- 
 nate beings must be spirits, which would require classing, 
 and so must have names. The belief, that Christ would 
 be received into those heavenly or&s, from which he was 
 thought to have been taken, was more general than we should 
 easily imagine. 
 
 All sects seem to have been charged with immoralities, 
 and none collectively to have been guilty. 
 
 Making free with Scriptures was very general, but much 
 more so amongst the Oriental sects than amongst the Judaical. 
 
 It appears more strange to us, that men should reject Scrip- 
 tures, than it would do if separate Gospels were handed about 
 in manuscript, and those such that a much greater number 
 ought to be rejected than received’. 
 
 Though some opinions were held generally, yet we find 
 several varieties amongst those of whom we are speaking. 
 
 By some Christ was called a mere man^ by others a real 
 person ; some believed in a number of ceons, others matter 
 eternal, and no aeon ; some held two co-eternal principles ; 
 others one eternal principle, who created a second principle : 
 some made Melchisedec to be an aeon ; and who can expect 
 uniformity, or an end of varieties, where the imagination does 
 all, and has free scope The ideas of the Valentinians and 
 Alanichcans occur most frequently, and therefore have been 
 
 ’ 8ce before, Chap. xii. sect. 4. 
 
I>. I. Append. 2-k] 
 
 EAItLY SFXTS. 
 
 269 
 
 I. here most particularly described. As there were varieties in 
 doctrinal points, so there might be some in practical or moral ; 
 but imputations are seldom to be credited. Basilides, it is 
 
 377 said, made all actions indifferent: jjerhaps, at bottom, this 
 might be nothing more than that he thought a man might 
 be a good Christian married as well as unmarried. He was 
 charged with slighting the fear of God, and the fear of God 
 sometimes means religion in general. Nothing more, perhaps, 
 was strictly true, than his exhorting his followers to aim at 
 some love of God, perhaps, ultimately, at that perfect love 
 which “casteth out fear. Nevertheless, it seems possible, that 
 some Gentile converts might attempt to retain some impure 
 rites of Paganism, when they turned to Christianity ; but 
 I have not seen it proved that any did. The ^ Nicolaitans are 
 spoken of as having committed some wicked “ deeds ” — as 
 having, in some sense, committed fornication, (if ver. 20, of 
 llev. Chap. ii. relates to them), but fornication often means 
 only idolatry"^. 
 
 Varieties in rejecting Seripture have already appeared. 
 But the principal observation, relative to the differences of 
 opinion amongst the early sects, is this : those who asserted 
 tv/o principles denied the humanity of Christ; those who held 
 one single principle allowed his humanity, but denied his 
 divinity. The reason of this might not be intuitively clear 
 to those who had not entered into our present subject; but, if 
 we reflect on what has been said, ,we may see how hatred 
 of matter leads to denying that Christ had a material body ; 
 and how the Jews, who were distinguished by their belief in 
 the unity of God, might be led to think their Messiah nothing 
 greater than a powerful man. 
 
 24. We now come to look at a few texts of Scripture^ 
 with the ideas resulting from what has been said. But it may 
 
 378 be as well to resume our division of early heretics, into 
 Oriental., Judaical^ and mixed. 
 
 First, we will mention a few passages, which seem to refer 
 to Oriental heresies : these passages may be either such as are 
 of considerable length, or single texts. St. John's Gospel 
 seems to have been written under a sense of Oriental errors ; so 
 does his first Epistle, and his Book of Revelation. St. Paul 
 seems to allude to them, in his Epistles to the Ephesians, 
 
 2 1 John iv. 18. ^ Eev. ii. 8, If), 20. 
 
 ^ I^ard. Her. Book I. sect. 8. 
 
270 
 
 EARLY SECTS. 
 
 [B. I. Append. 25. 
 
 Philippians^ Colossians, and to Timothy, and Titus; and I. 
 these compositions will seem the less obscure, if we are ac- 
 customed to Oriental notions. Particular single teocts, to be 
 read in the original^ as well as the translation, may be the 
 following: — Ephes. i. 21; iii. 10; vi. 12. Gobi. l6; ii. 18. 
 
 1 Tim. i. 4; iv. 1, 7; ^^i. 20. 2 Tim. ii. 16 — 18. Tit. iii. 9. 
 
 1 John iv. 2, 3. 
 
 In these, we may observe several of the orders of angels 
 mentioned in the Jewish Sephiroths ; references to the gene- 
 alogies of aeons, spoken of here as taught by Valentinus^ and 
 to the doctrine of demons ; and other profane and silly fables. 
 
 In 1 Tim. vi. 20, besides spurious we find mention 
 
 of Antitheses, which may have been such as Marcion is said 
 to have composed^. The DocetcB seem to be clearly pointed 
 out, 1 John iv. 2, 3. 
 
 It might answer the same purpose with looking at these 379 
 texts, to read some part of Parkhursfs exposition of TrXfjpcopa; 
 particularly the 9th and 10th senses of that word; also Sir 
 I. Newton on Prophecies^, Part I. Chap, xiii ; and Lord 
 King’^s Critical History of the Creed, quoted by Benson, on 
 1 Tim. i. 4. 
 
 25. But, having only mentioned in a cursory manner, that 
 St. John’s Gospel seems to have been written with a feeling of 
 heretical errors, it seems proper, and likely to make our ideas 
 of our present subject more definite, to resume that obser- 
 vation ; especially as some very learned and respectable writers^ 
 have been of a different opinion. The first question which 
 occurs is concerning the time when St. John wrote his gospel. 
 John the Evangelist is supposed to have died about the end 
 of the first century, at a great age, some say 94?. Many have 
 been of opinion that he wrote and published his gospel very 
 late in life ; but Lardner seems to give good reasons for 
 judging that it was written and published before or about 
 the destruction of Jerusalem, in the year 70. He thinks that 
 
 1 See Hammond on Phil. iii. 2. But, 
 if it should be doubted whether any pas- 
 sages in the Epistle to Philippians do 
 allude to Oriental heresies, a doubt in 
 that case might lead to remarking, in ge- 
 neral, the difference between those epistles 
 whichareaddressedto European churches, 
 and such as are addressed to the churches 
 in Asia : — I mean in respect to the allu- 
 sions now under consideration — allusions 
 
 to Oriental notions. If the Epistles to 
 Corinth, Thessalonica, &c. contain no 
 such allusions, and those to Ephesus, 
 Colossae, Crete, (where Titus was bishop, 
 as Timothy was at Ephesus,) contain 
 several, we probably do not imagine al- 
 lusions where there really were none. 
 
 2 Sect. PJ. 
 
 ^ Vol. V. p. 410. ed. Horsley. 
 
 ^ Lardner, Lampe, &c. 
 
B. I. Append. 25.] 
 
 EARLY SECTS. 
 
 271 
 
 I. it probably was written and published about the year 68, after 
 the other Gospels and the Acts, which last, he thinks, might be 
 published about 63 or 64 ; and after St. PauFs Epistles, 
 which, he thinks, might have been published between the 
 years 52 and 63. He is of opinion, that St. John’s Epistles 
 and his Book of Revelation were published late in life, from 
 the year 80 to 95 or 96. Out of this question arises that with 
 which we are chiefly concerned. 
 
 One objection to the opinion, that St. John’s Gospel was 
 
 380 published so early as the year 68, is, that the ancients thought^ 
 he wrote against heretics, against Gnostics more than other 
 sects, and against Cerinthus more than other heresiarchs ; 
 whereas the year 68 was too early for this. Now, to this ob- 
 jection two answers might be given : — the first, that he did not 
 write against heretics; the second, that, if he did, he might 
 write as early as the year 68. It seems to me, that St. John 
 did write with some reference to heretics, and yet that he did 
 publish his gospel before the destruction of Jerusalem, or 
 about that time. He might write, as Lardner, &c. say he did, 
 in order to prove that the Jews were blam cable in rejecting 
 Jesus as their Messiah, and yet, at the same time, he might 
 endeavour to rectify wrong conceptions concerning him. 
 
 The time of Cerinthus is uncertain. There is a story, that 
 St. John went to a bath at Ephesus, but finding Cerinthus in 
 the bath, retired, with some expressions of indignation or 
 horror. This story is told by Irenaeus''’, as having been heard 
 (by some uncertain persons) from Poly carp whom Iren^us 
 had known something of in his youth, and who had been a 
 disciple of St. John. The story does not gain universal 
 credit, but yet it seems as if Irenasus would not have told it 
 
 381 if it had contained a gross anachronism ; and he was near 
 enough to the time of St. John to form a pretty good judgment 
 of that. His telling the story seems also to aflbrd a pre- 
 sumption that St. John did consider Cerinthus as an heretic; 
 
 ° See Lard. Works, vol. ii. p. 161. 
 vol. VI. pp. 210, 211. Lardner says, that 
 heresies may be refuted by St. John’s 
 Gospel, and yet it may not have been 
 written on purpose to refute them. Ire- 
 nacus says expressly, in one place, (see 
 Lard. Works, vol. vi. p. 211,) that St. 
 John wrote after Cerinthus; in another, 
 he says, St. John wrote, foreseeing the 
 errors which then, in the time of Iremeus, 
 
 (178), would prevail: but does the latter 
 saying contradict the former? why might 
 not St. John foresee the heresies which 
 would prevail in the time of Irenaeus, 
 from the errors of Cerinthus ])revailing 
 in his own time ? A supernatural foresee- 
 ing is not to be supposed; non est dignus 
 Deo Vindice nodus. 
 
 Placed A. D. 178. 
 
 7 Placed A.D. 108. 
 
272 
 
 EARLY SECTS. 
 
 [B. I. Append. 25 . 
 
 and a proof that, in the judgment of Irenaeus, he did. On I 
 the whole, the opinion that St. John might write against 
 Cerinthus, seems full as probable as the contrary opinion. 
 
 And it is generally thought that there were heretics before 
 Cerinthus — as the Ebionites, and the followers of Simon 
 Magus: St. John himself mentions the Nicolaitans. The 
 writings of Ignatius^ help to prove the antiquity of heresy. 
 
 But, let us put the supposition, that there were no heretics 
 known by name when St. John wrote his Gospel, whenever 
 that was, it does not seem to me to follow that St. John did 
 not write against heretics. Heretical opinions flourish, before 
 they are formed into a system, and professed by such a number 
 of people that it is inconvenient for them to be without a 
 name. There is more unwritten heresy (and we might say 
 the same of superstition, enthusiasm, and even of notions and 
 principles unconnected with religion,) than written, at any 
 time. There can be no doubt but that, before our Saviour 
 began to teach, there were followers of the Oriental philosophy, 
 and there were Essenes : these would give attention to religion, 
 especially to a teacher in the wilderness, like John the Baptist, 
 who lived a life of religious austerity ; these would incline 
 to receiving Christianity, but would not give up entirely their 
 old notions and habits. Nor can I conceive any time, after 
 the beginning of our Saviour’s ministry, when there would not 
 be Jews inclining to become Christians, yet thinking with re- 
 luctance of deserting their old religion. It does not seem to 382 
 be sufficiently attended to, that Jews would not think of be- 
 coming Christians, if they were not religiously disposed ; and, 
 if they were so, they could not but be strongly attached to the 
 religion in which they and their fathers had been bred up ; 
 especially as it was a religion strikingly preferable to any in 
 the then world, and indisputably divine : add, that Christianity 
 might be imperfectly published. When we reason in this 
 train, it must seem very probable, that the doctrines of 
 Cerinthus, and of the Judaizing converts, Ebionites, existed 
 before St. John wrote his Gospel, whether Cerinthus himself 
 professed them so soon, or not. I have no doubt but St. Paul 
 wrote against Gnostics, as well as against Judaizers; yet 
 Lardner considers the last of St. PauFs Epistles as written 
 five years before the Gospel of St. John : and, if Lardner is 
 the author of the last section of the first book of the work on 
 
 ’ Placed A. D. 107. 
 
B. I. Append. 25 .] 
 
 EARLY SECTS. 
 
 273 
 
 I. Heresies^, he favoured the opinion, that the heresies had their 
 origin in the times of the Apostles ; which opinion is con- 
 firmed by the passages quoted in the 6th section of the same 
 book, before referred to^ in this Appendix. Particularly, Ter- 
 tullian says, Haec sunt, ut arbitror, genera doctrinarum 
 adulterinarum, quae sub Apostolis fuisse, ab ipsis Apostolis 
 discimus mentioning the two sorts, under the general names 
 of Marcion and Hebion, 
 
 We have before just mentioned a sort of half Christians, 
 who had received only the baptism of John, possibly under 
 383 Apollos% a Jew of Alexandria, where the Essenes flourished 
 much. Though these might have some notion of preparing 
 themselves for Christianity, yet it is probable they had an 
 high veneration for the Baptist, and would be inclined to 
 mould the religion of Christ into some form like that to which 
 they had been accustomed. It has been thought that they 
 had lived in some desert, and had been some kind of solitaries 
 or monks ; a sort of Encratitce. There might not be any 
 others who had never heard of the effusion of the Holy Ghost ; 
 but there might be many who had too great a veneration for 
 John Baptist, and who mistook his rank and office. In allusion 
 to these, St. John the Evangelist might say those things 
 which occur in his gospel, and which have seemingly a ten- 
 dency to lower^ some ideas of the Baptist entertained by his 
 disciples. 
 
 The great difficulty, after all, is that which arises from 
 certain words being found in the Gospel of St. John, used as 
 a sort of titles^ which are the names of the Valentinian CBons : 
 such as Logos’^, Zoe, Monogenes, Charis, Aletheia. Are 
 these terms first used by St. John ? are they borrowed by 
 Valentinus from St. John ? or did both St. John and Valen- 
 
 2 Mr. Hogg wrote part of the v/ork 
 upon Heresies. See the Preface to it. 
 
 3 Sect. 20. 
 
 Sect. 5. See Acts xix. Voltaire, 4to. 
 vol. XXVI. p. 111. Michaelis’s Introd. 
 Lect. sect. 125, quarto. 
 
 ^ The connexion between Apollos, Acts 
 xviii. and the tv/elve who had only had 
 John’s baptism, Acts xix. is not, that 1 
 see, expressed, but it seems probable ; it 
 was surely a singular thing: these twelve 
 must have lived in some remote place, 
 otherwise they would have heard of the 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 effusion of the Holy Ghost at Jerusalem; 
 and what place so likely as the neighbour- 
 hood of Alexandria, the country of Apol- 
 los ? 
 
 ^ John i. 20, to ii. 11. See Michaelis, 
 sect. 102, 103, quarto. 
 
 ^ Logos, John. i. 1. Zoe, i. 4. Sc pas- 
 sim. vi. 63, xi. 25. xiv, 6. Monogenes, i. 
 14, 18, 0W5, i. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9. Charis, i. 
 14, 16. Aletheia, i. 14; xiv. 6. Plcroma, 
 i. 16. Law opposed to Christ, i. 17. 
 Spiritus, vi. 63. Anastasis, xi. 25. 
 Hodos ? xiv. 6. 
 
 18 
 
274 
 
 EARLY SECTS. 
 
 [B. I. Append. 26. 
 
 tinus take them from some system ? (heathen, Jewish, or I. 
 made by some Christian before St. John wrote I own I 
 am most inclined to the supposition, that both St. John and 384 
 Valentinus took names from the same system. Why may 
 not the case of St. Paul be a parallel one? We find in 
 St. Paul orders of Angels called thrones, dominions, prin- 
 cipalities^ powers ; we find the same in the Jewish Sephi- 
 roths : were these names first used by St. Paul ? are they 
 borrowed from him by the Jewish cabalists ? or did he bor- 
 row from them? or have both drawn from some common source ? 
 
 As it is not credible that the Jewish cabalists should borrow 
 from St. Paul, or St. Paul from them, we must conclude 
 that both borrowed from some common stock. Why then 
 may we not look upon the cases of St. John and St. Paul 
 as similar? especially as St. John wrote later than St. Paul. 
 
 I must own, that the expressions in question seem more natural 
 to me in the way of allusions, than in the light of original 
 expressions. I would not be understood to mean, that the 
 Valentinian aeons are exactly the same with the titles in St. 
 John. Variations easily arise in such matters; and I do not 
 find (pm in the system of Valentinus, which occurs frequently^ 
 in St. John; but (pcora are spirits in the Egyptian philosophy^, 
 which is still more to our purpose, as it points out the 
 common source. Besides, the Valentinian system might easily 
 differ from that of other Gnostics. 
 
 On the whole it seems to me, that a person who kept 
 in mind the tenets of the early heretics would read St. John’s 
 Gospel with more of the spirit in which it was written than 
 one who did not. 
 
 26. We might ask, whether St. Peter and St. Jude^ when 
 they mention fallen angels, are to be considered as referring 
 to any system of philosophy, or of Judaism ? or to some 385 
 revealed truth? if to the last, where that revealed truth was 
 found ? or how it may be supposed to have been communi- 
 cated to the Apostles^ — if to some system, whether the Apostles 
 urged the fall of Angels in the way of an argumentum ad 
 hominem ? But we will content ourselves with saying, that 
 no regular history of this fall seems wanted by Christians, 
 
 ‘ Col. i. 10. 
 
 2 Chap. i. 4, 5, 7, 0, 9. 
 
 3 See Mich. sect. 100, 101, quarto. 
 ^ 2 Pet. ii. 4. Jude 0. 
 
 ® Voltaire (4to. vol. xxvii. p. 408, 
 and elsewhere) says, that no history of 
 the fall of the angels can be found any 
 wliere but in the Hook of Enoch. 
 
B. I. Append. 27, 28.] early sects. 
 
 275 
 
 I. or by men ; though he who composed the Book of Enoch 
 might think such an history desirable. It might not be amiss 
 for any one, who was thinking on this subject, to read Locke 
 on Ephes. i. 10; hi. 10; and vi. 12. Bishop Watson, as 
 Regius Professor of Theology, has maintained in the schools, 
 that the fall of angels is taught in Scripture, and is not 
 contrary to reason^ 
 
 27 . But it is time that we should take notice of parts 
 of Scripture which refer to Judaical heresies. Of these there 
 
 - can be no doubt. The whole Epistle to the Galatians is in- 
 tended to rectify the error of those who would mix Judaism 
 with Christianity ; and the same may be said of the Epis- 
 tle to the Hebrews. We may also look at Phil. iii. Col. 
 ii. 11. &c. ; at Titus iii. 9 . and Heb. vii. 12; but this is 
 reasoning, not allusion, and therefore need not be insisted on 
 at present. As to texts against the Ehionites, I am not 
 S86 aware of any but the declarations of the dignity of the Person 
 of Christ ; and such as are of a mixed nature, that is, such 
 as allude to both Oriental and Jewish heresy. The decla- 
 rations of the dignity of Christ are so general, that any per- 
 son, inclined to dispute, might question their particular re- 
 ference to the Ebionites. But it seems to me, that Scripture 
 is all, or nearly all, occasional, and therefore that a good 
 interpreter will always be ready to admit particular applications 
 of general expressions. 
 
 28. I look upon those inferences in Scripture to early 
 heresies, which we should call miwed^ as being the most 
 numerous ; because in most, or all newly-settled churches, 
 there would of course be Judaizing Christians, as well as 
 those who were tinctured with the Eastern philosophy ; and 
 because those who had been Essenes might be considered as 
 holding the principles of Oriental and Judaical heresy united. 
 The same general expressions in the sacred writings might 
 include both : angels would imply both those of the Jews and 
 those of the Easterns, or Egyptians, and the same is true 
 of abstinence, mortification, celibacy, &c. It seems to have 
 
 I see now (in 1796), from Mr. Marsh’s 
 Translation of Michaelis’s 4th Edition, 
 vol. I. p.237, that Michaelis set aside, or 
 rejected out of the canon of Scripture, 
 the Epistle of Jude : but I cannot think, 
 that so ignorant as we are of the parti- 
 cular notions of those to whom Jude 
 
 wrote, any mere allusions can afford suf- 
 ficient ground for setting aside the evi- 
 dence of antiquity in favour of the Epistle ; 
 even though those allusions contain some- 
 thing of persuasion, or argument, ground- 
 ed upon what the persons addressed would 
 be ready to allow. 
 
 18 — 2 
 
276 
 
 EARLY SECTS. 
 
 [B. L Append. 29 , .SO. 
 
 been the mixture we are speaking of which has occasioned I. 
 difficulties and disputes ; one interpreter referring expressions 
 to one kind of heresy, another to another kind ; and this 
 mixture, if once understood and admitted, would solve diffi- 
 culties, and seemingly would remove all occasion of dispute. 
 
 St. John’s Gospel may be intended to refute Ebionites 
 as much as Gnostics. Cerinthus was probably something of 
 both, and, if we review the passages already cited, we shall 
 find some mixture in most of them ; and, if we look into 
 comments, we shall find that such mixture has’ occasioned 
 controversy, but that it has not been observed and allowed. 
 Here, therefore, we close what we had to say upon Scripture, 387 
 as receiving explanation from ancient heresies. 
 
 29. But, when we set out with this subject, we observed, 
 that it would prepare us for reading, not only the Scriptures, 
 but the ancient Christian Fathers : a very great part of 
 their employment was opposing heresy, therefore a knowledge 
 of heresy must throw great light upon their expressions. More- 
 over, a mature consideration of the nature of ancient here- 
 sies would prevent our being misled by those calumnies and 
 misrepresentations which indiscreet zeal has occasionedk A 
 right idea of the purity of Oriental morality would make 
 us very backward to credit accounts of impurities in the 
 Gnostic sects ; though we might admit, that their very purity 
 might make them, thinking no evil, use the assistance of female 
 disciples in preaching, or in any of the sacred ministerial func- 
 tions. 
 
 30. An insight into the nature of heresy would make us 
 candid to those writers who differed from us. We should 
 acknowledge, that no other cause of heresy needs be assigned, 
 than a desire of solving difficulties, which have perplexed the 
 generality of those who have considered them ; at least, no 
 other than this, helped forward with a little vanity, and par- 
 tiality for one’s own inventions. 
 
 And reflexion on our present subject would make us, as 
 we were reading any ancient Christian author, constantly dis- 
 tinguish between an error professed, and one charged by 
 adversaries upon those who did not profess it. Nay, such 
 reflexion would suggest apologies for the very authors whose 
 accounts we thought ourselves obliged to set aside. Wlien 
 we compared times, places, customs, traditions, and saw the 
 
 ‘ See Bayle’s Cainites ; Lard. Works, vol. ix. p. 24G. 
 
B. I. Append. 31.] 
 
 EARLY SECTS. 
 
 277 
 
 I. imperfect records they had to judge from, and how natural 
 
 38S it was for them, in their trying situations, to be agitated 
 with zeal, we should feel an apprehension that we, under the 
 same disadvantages, might have run into more faulty excesses 
 than they did. 
 
 31. We may conclude this Appendix, by letting our 
 eye glance from remote antiquity to heresy of more modern 
 date. Montanus, Praxeas, and others, ran off gradually from 
 the Eastern philosophy, though one somewhat less visionary 
 remained. Indeed Mani persevered in the old philosophy, 
 but his attachment was singular : he was a Persian. There 
 seem always to have been heresies about the Person of Christ, 
 because his Incarnation is something above our comprehension. 
 Had that been acknowledged, perhaps controversy and heresy 
 might have ceased ; but it only occasioned new endeavours to 
 solve and explain, and therefore new heresies. Regular, pro- 
 fessed disputes about the consubstantiality of' the Son of God 
 with the Father, did not rage till the lime of Arius, pretty 
 early in the fourth century ; and the different solutions of 
 the Incarnation, offered by Nestorius and Eutyches, occupied 
 the fifth and sixth centuries, with the help of the Pelagian con- 
 troversy concerning the principles of human agency. About 
 the same time many heresies were new formed and fashioned 
 out of those which had gone before. In the seventh century 
 the orthodox notion of “ One Christ,” or of the Unity of his 
 Person, pressed forcibly, struck out the sect of Monothelites^ ; 
 
 389 in the eighth, the difficulties attending the Incarnation gave 
 rise to the Adoptionarii. In the ninth, the Christian world was 
 divided about the procession of the Holy Ghost, and the Pela- 
 gian controversy sprung up, revived. Afterwards, controversy 
 turned upon the Sacraments, and various heresies sprung up. 
 Since that time, the growing errors and oppressions of the 
 Church of Rome have divided men into parties; and those have 
 been most branded as heretics who have separated from her. 
 
 In our own days, we are only reviving old heresies, and 
 saying the same things over again, with as much spirit and 
 animosity as if they had never been said before. 
 
 ^ Cave’s names of the sixteen centuries. 
 1. Apostolicum. 2. Gnosticum. 3. No- 
 vatianum. 4. Arianum. 5. Nestorianum. 
 6. Eutychianum. 7* Monotheliticum. 
 8. Eiconoclasticum. 9 Photianura. 10. 
 
 Obscurum. 11. Hilclebrandinum. 12. 
 Waldense. 13. Scbolasticum. 14. Wick- 
 levianum. 15. Synodale. 16. Reforin- 
 atum. 
 
[II. i. 1,2. 
 
 BOOK 11. 
 
 OF POLEMICAL DIVINITY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 OF THE NATURE AND EFFECTS OF CONTROVERSY. 
 
 1. The right method of conducting debates or contro- 
 versies seems to be one of the subjects which every man should 
 attend to, who means to study all things useful for a Divine. 
 Suppose him never to engage in controversy himself, yet, in 
 reading with a mere view to acquiring knowledge, he must 
 peruse many controversial writers ; arguments of the greatest 
 weight, urged with the greatest spirit, are to be found in them; 
 and he will not fail to receive some sort of bad impressions 
 from them, if he comes to read them without any fixed prin- 
 ciples ; impressions of party malevolence, of indiscreet zeal, 
 or perhaps of disgust for religion. 
 
 But if he, at any time, engages in the defence of reli- 
 gious truth, (what he thinks such,) against error and heresy, 
 he will want right notions of controversy still more : without 
 them, he will be sure to hurt the general interests of religion, 
 if not the particular interests of that cause which he under- 
 takes to defend. 
 
 Whether, therefore, controversy be thought an evil or 
 a good (it may be made either), the nature and effects of 
 it should be considered ; and no opportunity seems better for SQ} 
 us to consider it than the present : after we have gone through 
 that part of theology which relates to all Christians in com- 
 mon, and before we come to the distinguishing doctrines of 
 particular sects. In what is past, we have some controversy 
 with infidels ; in what is to come, we may have much more 
 with our Christian brethren. The rules of controversy, before 
 we had seen any thing of religious dispute, would have been 
 uninteresting; and to delay them till we had finished all sub- 
 jects of discussion, would be to lose many good opportuni- 
 ties of using and applying them. 
 
 2. Controversy may be made a good or an evil, as it is 
 used. All seem to allow that it has its advantages and its 
 
II. i. 3 .] 
 
 CONTROVERSY. 
 
 279 
 
 I. mischiefs. What would be most desirable would be, to avoid 
 the mischiefs, and to acquire the advantages; but it may be 
 questioned, whether that be possible, in the nature of things. 
 Dr. Powell delivered a Charge, on the subject of lessening the 
 faults of controversy, to his Archdeaconry, in which |he says, 
 ‘‘it does not seem possible to remove the mischiefs, and at 
 the same time preserve the advantages^:” which may rather 
 mean, that it is not to be expected, or that it is inconceivable, 
 on a footing of experience and probability, than that it is, 
 strictly speaking, impossible. “ The advantages,” says this 
 most able writer, “arise from the debates themselves; the evils, 
 wholly or principally, from the faults of those who conduct 
 them^:” as nearly, therefore, as those faults can be conceived 
 to be remedied, so nearly can we conceive ourselves to approach 
 to perfect controversy. The conception of a controversy 
 392 wholly beneficial, is not an absurd conception : in theory there 
 is such a controversy, whatever there may be in practice. 
 
 I do not see that this assertion contradicts any thing that 
 Dr. Powell says ; but the very appearance of contradicting 
 him is unpleasant, as I have a much greater opinion of his 
 judgment than of my own. Permit me to recommend his 
 work to your perusal : it is worthy of a perusal of the most 
 attentive kind. Indeed, we scarce ever see the merit of his 
 writing on the first reading ; but, when we look back calmly 
 on what he has said, and examine every expression, as well as 
 the manner in which his thoughts are connected together, then 
 we perceive that nothing could be said more properly, more 
 clearly, more convincingly, or more beautifully. We find all 
 the discretion and accuracy of age, and all the warmth of 
 youthful benevolence ; all the precision and correctness of 
 the man of science and erudition, with all the propriety and 
 practicability (if I may so speak) of the man of the world. 
 I am at all times ready to pay this tribute to his worth, but 
 most desirous of paying it when I seem in any way to differ 
 from him. It is but of little consequence to add, that what 
 I shall say will resemble what he says, in many things, though 
 taken chiefly from some papers which I wrote ten years, I 
 suppose, before his volume was published. But to return. 
 
 3 . Though the idea of a controversy wholly beneficial 
 may not be absurd, yet, perhaps, it may be thought useless. 
 Where is the good, many are apt to say, of amusing ourselves 
 
 ^ Powell’s Discourses, p. 298, ^ Ibidem. 
 
280 
 
 CONTROVERSY. 
 
 [11. i. k 
 
 with Utopian schemes of imaginary perfection.^ But it seems I. 
 to me, as if studying ideal perfection might generally be made 
 useful, even when the actual attainment of it is not to be 
 expected. This seems to be allowed in physics, where we 
 speak of bodies as perfectly elastic ; of the air-pump, and of 393 
 the flight of projectiles, as if there was a perfect vacuum, 
 when really the effect of the atmosphere is considerable. It 
 is also allowed in the fine arts ; as appears from the discourses 
 of Sir Joshua Reynolds, which are capable of being extended 
 beyond painting, to poetry, music, or to the fine arts in gene- 
 ral. I do not see why studying ideal perfection would not 
 be equally useful in researches concerning civil government \ 
 laws, education. Practical rules, formed upon ideas of per- 
 fection, would be the most effectual and successful ; would be 
 most likely to promote perpetual improvement, and a perpetual 
 approach towards perfection in reality. Nor does any reason 
 appear why the same effects should not follow from studying 
 ideal perfection in controversy. To press forward^ to ideal 
 perfection in morals seems to be an endeavour truly Christian. 
 
 In the last chapter of the preceding book, we ventured to 
 imagine how men might possibly have improved by reason and 
 experience, without Revelation, thinking that even such imagi- 
 nation might have its use. If we settle what perfection is, 
 we may still fall short of it; but all our endeavours will be 
 rightly employed ; whereas, if we aim at something wrong, 
 then even our diligence will lead us farther and farther from 
 what is right. 
 
 4. There is the more need of imamnino; to ourselves a 
 faultless controversy, as prejudices have been entertained 
 against religious controversy in general. Some men seem to 
 speak of it as if it were essentially and radically evil ; and, 
 while such prejudices prevail, it will be difficult to get men 394 
 to study it calmly, and regulate it to the best advantage. 
 Common-place abuse weighs but little with a thinking man, 
 but we would wish all men to join in improving religious 
 controversy. Sometimes we hear even the clergy^ inveighing 
 against polemic divines, as if they were public nuisances, and 
 
 ^ I look upon Mr. Hume’s “ Idea of a 
 perfect Commonwealth,” to be an useful 
 political Essay. The Americans may 
 liave found it such. I once wrote on 
 penal laws, on the same plan. 
 
 2 See Luke xvi. IG; and 1 Cor. iii. 1, 
 2; also Phil. i. 9 ; and iii. 13, and the con- 
 clusion of St. Peter’s 2d Epistle. 
 
 ^ See Warburton on the Holy Spirit, 
 p. 309. 
 
II. i. 4.] 
 
 CONTROVERSY. 
 
 281 
 
 I. as if nothing good was to be attained but by a total forbear- 
 ance from debate and discussion. 
 
 How is this prejudice to be cured? those who entertain 
 it should be called upon to think whether there is really 
 any thing wrong or hateful in discussing the difiSculties which 
 attend researches into religion ? or whether what disgusts 
 them is any thing more than the incidental evil which arises 
 from such discussion, when carried on in a faulty manner? 
 There is, to be sure, much acrimony in religious dispute; 
 and much perplexity arises from it to the reader, and much 
 scandal to the people but needs this be so? may not men 
 speak the truth ^ in love ? may they not peaceably oppose each 
 other in argument, and, when they fail of mutual conviction, 
 practice mutual forbearance'’’? If this were done, no scandal 
 would arise, and perplexity would soon be changed into mild 
 resignation to the ignorance necessarily attendant on limited 
 faculties. 
 
 There have been disputes on other subjects besides religion, 
 without so much being said against them; even on mathematics 
 themselves ; and seemingly, the more loose and indefinite dis- 
 putes have been, the greater acrimony they have occasioned. 
 
 395 That is, where the most diffidence has been required, there 
 the least has been shewn. This is observable of political 
 disputes in particular. It is folly, no doubt; but shall it 
 hinder men from trying the force of each others reasonings 
 by opposition ? no, the faults should be proscribed, but the 
 reasonings preserved. 
 
 Though there is incidental evil arising from religious con- 
 troversy, there is also incidental good. This is so well de- 
 scribed by Dr. Powell, that I cannot do better than refer you 
 to his Charge’. Now, as we suffer the incidental good of other 
 disputes to take off our prejudices against them, it seems hard 
 that we should not do the same in religious disputes. Oppo- 
 sition to the measures of the English ministry, in whom is 
 lodged the executive power, when shewn in parliamentary 
 debates, according to theory, must seem inconsistent with 
 loyalty and allegiance ; but our feeling, that it has incidentally 
 been the means of preserving many rights of the subject, and 
 
 ^ Our Homily must be supposed to 
 refer to fact, when it says, among all 
 kinds of contention, none is more hurtful 
 than is contention in matters of religion.” 
 
 Homily 12th. 
 
 ® Ephes. iv. 15. 
 
 ® Ephes. iv. 2. 
 
 7 Powell’s Discourses, p. 295—297. 
 
282 
 
 CONTROVERSY. 
 
 [II. i. 5, 6. 
 
 occasioning much improvement, mitigates our aversion to it, 1. 
 and almost clears it of blame. Attention to the incidental 
 good effects of religious disputes might produce the same 
 indulgence. 
 
 5. There seems to be an inconsistency in our manner 
 of treating those who are advocates in courts of justice. The 
 popular clamour is, that they will maintain any thing, right 
 or wrong, &c., and yet they are not, in fact, abhorred or 
 avoided ; they are received as private friends, and promoted 
 to be public deciders of contentions about our most important 
 rights. How can this be accounted for, but from some secret 
 persuasion in our own minds, the nature of which we do not 
 distinctly see, that what appears wrong at first sight is capable 
 
 of some justification ? Let us suppose an advocate to make S 96 
 an apology for his conduct; it may be the means of intro- 
 ducing into our minds a favourable idea of controversy in 
 general. 
 
 ‘ You accuse me of neglecting truth ; I have no concern 
 with truth; the care of that belongs solely to the judge. The 
 business of the whole court of judicature is, indeed, to see 
 to the bottom of a difficult question ; but that end will be best 
 attained if I am employed merely to search out arguments 
 on one side, and the advocate who is opposed to me, those 
 on the other; and the judge has no labour but that of com- 
 paring our arguments together. The judge must wish it 
 to be so ; it cannot be his desire to have both to find out the 
 arguments and to balance them : and the advocate must wish 
 it so ; as it would be very difficult, and very rash, for him 
 to attempt a balancing of arguments, before he knew what 
 would be thrown into the scale opposite to his own. Besides, 
 to plead and to judge require di^exeYit faculties. If I attempt 
 to judge I damp my invention, and some forcible argument 
 will be lost, or missed. Inventing, enforcing, arranging, may 
 occupy the mind, so as to leave it very little power of judging. 
 
 And if the judge attempts to invent, or enforce, he becomes 
 prejudiced in favour of his own inventions, he gets heated, 
 and his powers of judging are greatly impaired.’ 
 
 6. What has now been said in the person of the advocate, 
 with regard to controversies in courts of justice, may be made 
 general, or applied to controversies of all kinds. In debating 
 any question, there are three departments: the /or, the against^ 
 and the determination. If he who has the first committed 
 
II. i. 7, 8.] 
 
 CONTROVERSY. 
 
 283 
 
 I. to him has nothing to do but to find out and enforce argu- 
 
 397 ments on one side, he will exhibit a stronger body of argument 
 on that side than could be furnished in any other way ; and 
 the same is true of him whose task is to produce arguments 
 on the other side. Both these persons may be heated, and may 
 be prejudiced, each in favour of his own arguments; but such 
 prejudices will be, in a great measure, removed by him who 
 has the third department. If he has his judgment perfectly 
 cool, his mind free from all fatigue and hurry, his opinion 
 unbiassed, he will be able to make a much better decision, 
 than if he had taken all the departments to himself ; besides, 
 that his views will be much more deep and comprehensive k 
 
 7 - For the sake of simplicity, we speak as if one depart- 
 ment was of course committed to one person only : but this 
 need not be always the case ; sometimes great advantage may 
 -be reaped from a number being concerned in each department 
 In a number there will be animation, and at the same time 
 discretion : each individual catches spirit from the rest, by 
 sympathy or emulation ; and yet each hinders the others from 
 indulging their peculiar fancies. Besides, it sometimes hap- 
 pens that, in order to spread truth, you must overturn^ error. 
 This may require great courage and force ; for men are often 
 tenacious of their errors, and exasperated when their prejudices 
 are attacked. A single individual may fail in this task, when a 
 number may succeed. 
 
 8. It is possible that considerable good might be attained 
 in the investigation of truth, by the for and against and the 
 determination being kept separate, though we suppose the 
 
 398 three parties to have different interests ; but it does not seem 
 as if controversy would arrive at perfection, till these three 
 came to co-operate, and to act as different members of the 
 same society, under the guidance of a common understanding. 
 The only difficulty would be, to give them sufficient force 
 and energy ; there would be a temptation to remissness, if no 
 real opposition of views and interests subsisted. And this may 
 be the ground of the opinion, that we cannot have the ad- 
 vantages of controversy without its mischiefs. 
 
 ^ In making watches (the nicest of 
 machines), I suppose one man gives 
 himself up to one part, another to an- 
 other, and at last one is wholly employed 
 in putting the parts together. The separa- 
 
 tion of tasks seems still more needful, 
 where some of them disqualify the mind 
 for others. 
 
 2 Dr. Powell says something to this 
 purpose, pp. 296, 297. 
 
281 
 
 CONTKOVERSY. 
 
 [II. i. 9 . 
 
 On account of this difficulty, it may be worth while to dis- I. 
 tinguish controversy into vohmtary and involuntary. Volun- 
 tary is when the parties do not decidedly differ as to the 
 matter in question, but have doubts in common, which they 
 wish to have cleared up by debate: involuntary is when, from 
 the beginning, there are two opposite opinions, and each party 
 expects his own opinion to appear the most true, after the 
 discussion. This sort I call involuntary ^ because no party 
 chooses to have his opinion controverted ; and each is driven 
 into a dispute by a desire to defend what he thinks the truth. 
 Voluntary controversy has been often made a part of educa^ 
 tion; or an exercise for minds grown to maturity, which may 
 be considered as a sort of education in a more extensive sense h 
 From what may be seen (especially in foreign countries) of the 
 spirit with which scholastic disputations are carried on, we may 
 form an idea how even voluntary controversy may be ani- 
 mated, or even raised to the vigour and energy of involuntary. 
 There seems to want nothing but public celebrities, in which 
 emulation and love of honour or fear of shame .are called 
 forth ; where applause and victory are rewards, followed some- 
 times, perhaps, by what are commonly thought more sub- 399 
 stantial distinctions. Involuntary controversialists seldom want 
 a spur ; but if at any time they should, they might be made 
 the champions of two opposite parties. In the natural course of 
 improvement, involuntary controversy would keep approach- 
 ing nearer and nearer to the form and disposition of voluntary ; 
 in which form it ought, if possible, always to be carried on. 
 
 9. We will conclude this chapter with giving, from what 
 has been said, an idea of an useful controversy ; though a 
 controversy may take place in such various circumstances, that 
 it may be difficult to use general expressions which shall not 
 belong to one sort more than to another. A controversy may 
 be verbal or written ; or it may be partly one and partly the 
 other. It may take up a few hours, or it may take up twenty 
 years, and so on ; but the candid will make allowances for 
 expressions that seem to suit one sort more than another. All 
 the parties concerned, then, set out with a strong and ardent 
 love of truth : they are all sensible of difficulties, and they 
 think a free debate would be the most likely means of clearing 
 them up. They agree to unite in trying this method. They 
 
 ' Is an amicable suit in Chancery any | it mere form, as to the controversial 
 thing like voluntary controversy ? or is | part ? 
 
II. i. 9.] 
 
 CONTllOVERSY. 
 
 285 
 
 I. lay down a proposition^ containing the subject to be discussed : 
 they give to a due number of persons, duly qualified, the task 
 of inventing and enforcing all possible arguments for that pro- 
 position ; and they take the same care, with regard to argu- 
 ments against it ; and they look well to the person or persons 
 who shall compare and balance the arguments adduced, and 
 give a final determination. A competent time having been 
 employed in preparation^ the arguments for are produced and 
 enforced : these being examined, and any weaknesses in them 
 ox fallacies exposed, the arguments against appear in like man- 
 400 ner : a reply is made on one side and the other, till there 
 appears to be a waste of time and attention in proceeding 
 farther ; and then the determination begins. Sometimes, per- 
 hapsj it may begin according to some rule formed on a num- 
 ber of instances, which becomes customary : this determination 
 is dispassionate and candid, neat, orderly, precise ; free from 
 bias to one side or the other ; assuming an air of dignity and 
 superiority, which may have the effect of silencing the advo- 
 cates, in case they shall have contracted any prejudices by the 
 earnestness of pleading; and marking such a benevolent anxiety 
 for truth (and justice, which may be considered as a species of 
 truth), such an elevated respect for what is right and generally 
 beneficial, as may render mere victory and superiority in dis- 
 pute contemptible. Such a determination would seldom fail, 
 if ever, of promoting improvement ; and it would, in some 
 sense, always give satisfaction : because it would leave every 
 one satisfied that every thing had been done which could be 
 done, with the faculties and opportunities afforded, at the 
 time, by Divine Providence. 
 
 It must be owned that such disputations and conferences 
 as have been hitherto instituted, for the purpose of deciding 
 doubts and dissensions respecting religion, have not been 
 attended with success. We might instance in the Disputations 
 at Oxford, in the reign of Queen Mary, and the Hampton- 
 Court Conference, in the reign of James the First; but it 
 would not be very difficult to assign reasons for the failure 
 of such discussions. Sterne may have had an idea not unlike 
 ours when he said, ‘‘ I reverence truth as much as any body ; 
 and, when it has slipped us, if a man will but take me by the 
 hand, and go quietly and search for it, as for a thing we have 
 both lost, and can neither of us do well without, Idl go to the 
 world’s end with him : — But I hate disputes.” 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 401 
 
 OF THE QUALITIES OF A CONTROVERSIALIST. 
 
 1. In each controversy we suppose three characters, 
 though it is possible that one man may assume more charac- 
 ters than his own ; two advocates and a judge. In order to 
 make controversy as useful as it may be made, we must con- 
 sider those qualities which each of these persons ought to 
 have^ or to acquire ; and those which each ought to avoid. 
 If it be asked, whether we suppose controversy here to be 
 voluntary or mvoluntary, we may answer, that all involuntary 
 controversy ought to be carried on as if it were voluntary, 
 or as nearly as possible ; and, therefore, that we have the idea 
 of the voluntary sort. 
 
 Our two advocates ought to have the same qualities ; and 
 therefore we may say, that we will first treat of the qualities 
 of the advocate, and then of those of the judge. Qualities 
 may be good or bad. We will first treat of the good qualities 
 of an advocate, or of the qualities of a good advocate ; and then 
 of his bad qualities, or faults ; that is, of the faults which 
 he ought particularly to study to avoid, as being those to 
 which he is most liable. 
 
 An advocate may have some good qualities respecting 
 himself (as it may be called), and some relating to his adver- 
 saj'y. And he may have faults respecting both. Those which 
 respect himself may be conceived as subsisting in his character 
 before he becomes an advocate; or such as appear in his pre- 
 paring himself for controversy ; or such as appear in the 
 actual controverting ; or such as appear in his hearing objec- 
 tions to what he has advanced, and in his answering. 
 
 First, then, as to the good qualities of an advocate respect- 
 ing himself, in his character, before he becomes an advocate. 
 He ought to be one who has been brought up to feel a strong 
 love of truth, though he does not judge finally what is truth ; 
 so as to prevent his using any argument in which he sees 
 a fallacy distinctly, though he may use arguments which 
 he faintly and imperfectly sees what he thinks a possibility 
 of answering. He ought to have had a regular improvement 
 in knowledge; to be in habits of industry, patience, perse- 
 verance; to have powers of inventing and distinguishing; na- 
 tural animation, or warmth, tempered with prudence ; powers 
 
 402 
 
Il.ii. 2, 3.] QUALITIES OF A CONTROVERSIALIST. 287 
 
 I. of pleasing ; and, if he has some ambition and love of honour, 
 we will not reckon them amongst the bad qualities, but the 
 good, so long as they are not perverted or abused. 
 
 In preparing for controversy, he should have keen pene- 
 tration ; should acquire comprehensive views of various sub- 
 jects communicating with each other ; he should have power 
 of bringing shapeless hints and surmises into form ; neatness 
 of conception and arrangement, so that the series of his topics 
 should have force from the manner of their succession : he 
 should have strength of mind to bear suspense of judgment, 
 TO € 7 re")(€Lv, because a temporary suspense of judgment is 
 frequently necessary, in order to acquire an opinion which 
 needs not afterwards be given up. 
 
 In the actual pleading, he should have copia verhorum, 
 used so as non obstrepere sihi ipsi; perspicuity, so as non 
 offundere nebulas ; he should have ornament to attract, cfirov^i^ 
 to rouse, to interest and affect : yet all this, without 
 
 4-03 departing from simplicity, without giving up the form of 
 reasoning and precise argument. 
 
 During the time that he was to be the hearer, he should 
 give unremitting attention ; he should be acute in discerning 
 fallacy, ready in turning a thought into a new shape, and 
 bringing it round to his own side; yet not afraid to appear 
 stupid when he is dissatisfied with what is urged as allow- 
 able : open to conviction, and frank and brave in acknow- 
 ledging it. 
 
 So much for the good qualities of the advocate respecting 
 himself ; now we come to those respecting his adversary. 
 
 2. I should reckon amongst the good qualities of an advo- 
 cate which relate to his adversary, a generous emulation. This 
 should be softened and ennobled by a benevolent and respect- 
 ful carriage and manner, as to one engaged with himself in the 
 pursuit of truth and rectitude. Yet, at the same time that 
 an advocate’s manner was kind and respectful to his adversary, 
 it should be undaunted, open, and frank. He should, how- 
 ever, be patient, not easily provoked ; and if, at any time, his 
 opinion was necessarily such as seemed harsh and hostile, still 
 he should keep strictly to those laws of war which the nature 
 of the contention required. 
 
 3. The faults of the advocate arise in the same circum- 
 stances with his good qualities. 
 
 His character may be such that he may habitually love 
 
288 QUALITIES OF A CONTllOVEllSI ALIST. [II. ii. 4 
 
 victory more than truth. Instead of having acquired know- I. 
 ledge, he may be one who thinks to succeed by a display 
 of v/ords ; it may be his turn to affect strokes of genius, and 
 look upon application as illiberal drudgery : or, on the other 
 hand, his character may be such that he may be pedantic, 
 rely wholly on dry cold argumentation, without thinking of 404 
 making his arguments assume a pleasing form. 
 
 In preparing for controversy, he may give way to any 
 faulty bias in his character. He may content himself with 
 superficial or narrow views ; the topics that he hits upon he 
 may leave unfinished, or ill arranged ; and he may be so 
 impatient as to adopt any crude notion, rather than bear a 
 state of suspense till he has maturely considered the grounds 
 and reasons upon which he should proceed. 
 
 In pleading, he may want words; or if he have them, may 
 throw them into confused heaps. He may want perspicuity, 
 ornament, force, sentiment ; or, having these, he may shew 
 too clearly that they are the principal objects of his attention. 
 
 While he is hearing or receiving the arguments of his 
 antagonist, he may be sometimes inattentive ; or too easily 
 confounded by a specious argument ; or, dreading the appear- 
 ance of stupidity, he may pretend to understand an argument 
 when it is really unmeaning; he may catch at any seeming 
 advantage, which, when he has got it, turns out to bring him 
 more harm than good. It will be also a great fault if he be dis- 
 ingenuous, and shews that he wishes not to be convinced of any 
 error ; or if, when convinced, he be too cowardly to own it. 
 
 4. The faults of an advocate respecting his opponent may 
 be, in like manner, conceived from his good qualities already 
 mentioned. Instead of emulation he may shew envy ; he may 
 be unkind, or disrespectful; or, on the contrary, he may affect 
 a too fawning and effeminate politeness. When an opposition 
 of opinions seems unavoidable, he may be too petulant or 
 impatient; and, in his attacks, which he deems necessary, 
 he may make use of unfair methods, answering to poisoned 
 weapons in war. 
 
 Though these faults must be the opposites to the good 405 
 qualities, yet I look upon the mention of them as far from use- 
 less ; the descriptions of the good and the bad qualities throw- 
 ing light upon each other. Our enumeration of qualities does 
 not pretend to be complete, but is only such, as to open the 
 subject before us, and put the attentive into a train of thinking. 
 
II. ii. 5, 6.] QUALITIES OF A CONTROVERSIALIST. 289 
 
 I. 5. The qualities of the judge, good and bad, may be more 
 briefly described ; his character being more even and uniform 
 than that of the advocate. He should be more knowing than 
 the advocates ; so, at least, as to have no new elements to 
 learn. He should be superior to them, (or be made so), 
 by age, rank, or other things. He should have a greatness 
 of mind which would make him disdain all partiality^ and nar- 
 row views. He should be capable of making the nicest dis- 
 tinctions, as very few ingenious arguments can be solved 
 without them. As he has to judge from the whole of what 
 he hears, a strong and nice retention must be requisite, and 
 a power of throwing out superfluous matter, and setting the 
 forcible parts in direct opposition to each other. Nor is it any 
 trifling talent to make that which has been urged in pompous 
 and inflated language, easy and familiar, clear and popular. 
 
 It may be doubted how far ornament and refined wit, 
 attic salt, should be reckoned a quality of a judge. If all 
 people loved truth heartily, and were capable of understanding 
 and relishing nice distinctions, it would not be necessary ; but 
 a love of truth does not sufficiently animate the generality, and 
 40fl nice distinctions often give disgust, by wearing an appearance 
 of sophistry and evasion ; therefore, it were rather upon the 
 whole desirable, that the judge should have something lively and 
 entertaining in his manner. His wit, or fancy, should be of 
 a lofty, polished, refined nature, never condescending to mean- 
 ness or vulgar buflbonery. It should be a wit seeming to dis- 
 dain wit. 
 
 T\\q faults into which a judge is most likely to run, not 
 to speak of any so plain as ignorance, confusion, inattention, 
 insensibility to truth, are, interfering with the advocates, or 
 becoming in some degree an advocate himself; connecting 
 opinions with his own person, or making them, in some sort, 
 his own ; using a multitude of words, in order to shew him- 
 self fluent, without a view to new arrangement, shortening, 
 familiarizing. According to what has been said, we may add, 
 that it is a fault of a judge of controversy to be dull. 
 
 6. It follows easily, from a review of the qualities of ad- 
 vocate and judge, now enumerated, that the best advocate would 
 be the worst judge, and the best judge the worst advocate. 
 But we will not again compare their qualities. The point 
 
 ^ The professors at Helmstadt used to I was a great moderator. Mosheim, vol. 
 take an oath to be of no party. Calixtus j ii. quarto, p. 480. 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 19 
 
290 
 
 QUALITIES OF A CONTROVERSIALIST. [II. ii. 7-9. 
 
 will be sufficiently clear from suggesting, that, in general, I. 
 parents would be the best possible advocates for their children, 
 and the least able to judge in any causes relating to them. 
 
 7 . So far the qualities of controversialists have been taken 
 from the nature of the thing — from suppositions of theory ; 
 and the observations made upon them have been such as might 
 suit any time or place. We shall now find it worth our 
 while to speak of them, more with a view to fact; but, as 
 the chief purpose of doing so must be, to see what regulations 
 ought to be made in controversy, we need not dwell on any 
 good qualities which are at present observable in controver- 
 sialists, but may confine ourselves to those faults which seem 40 
 to require a reformation. 
 
 8. All the faults which are observable in our own times 
 in the conducting of controversy, seem as if they might ori- 
 ginate from our wrong principles in undertaking it ; from our 
 making it an hostile contention amongst different sects for 
 superiority, instead of an amicable contention amongst brethren 
 for the clearing up of truth. Or, if some of these faults 
 seem as if they might subsist, even in amicable controversy, 
 yet they would in that subsist in a less degree, and would 
 be much more easily rectified. More particularly, the faults, 
 which principally strike us at present, may be divided into 
 such as the controversialist has belonging to himself, or such 
 as he has towards his adversary. Of the former sort, are, 
 i. Various ways of missing the question, ii. Various modes 
 of presumption^ or want of diffidence ; or, what comes to the 
 same thing, of carelessness about falling into error. The 
 faults of the latter sort may be considered as different spe- 
 cies of hostilities., where no hostility ought to take place. 
 
 9. i We find amongst disputants various ways of miss- 
 ing the question. In order that a controversy should subsist, 
 there must be supposed some proposition laid down, which 
 one side takes in the affirmative sense, the other in the nega- 
 tive : I apprehend all questions might be put into this form. 
 Now, if we have no ideas to such proposition, we cannot affirm 
 or deny any thing about it ; and therefore the whole dispute, 
 in such case, may be looked upon as missing the question. 
 Disputes of this nature are merely verbal ; that is, contro- 
 versies about unintelligible doctrines are controversies about 
 nothing. Notwithstanding this, there may be some intelligible 
 disputes relating to unintelligible doctrines, as, concerning 408 
 
H. ii. 10.] QUALITIES OF A CONTROVERSIALIST. 291 
 
 expressions of Scripture on which such doctrines are founded ; 
 but the fault of which we are speaking has place at any time 
 when men speak without ideas, as if they had distinct concep- 
 tions. Sometimes the use of learned terms is apt to make 
 men deceive themselves, and take for granted that they have 
 ideas, because they use high-sounding words. 
 
 Sometimes disputants miss the question, by supposing a 
 question to be more extensive than it is ; or by getting beyond 
 the limits of that which is properly in agitation : — as when, in 
 disputing about the use of ceremonies or habits in religious 
 worship, they urge arguments as if the question was about the 
 use of religious worship. To this there may be an opposite 
 fault, which must consist in arguing as if the subject were 
 less extensive than it really is ; as if, for instance, the ques- 
 tion was only about the rights of a single individual, when it 
 really affects every individual ; or the whole Church of Christ. 
 
 Another way of missing the question is, urging that such 
 an opinion is held by some person generally disapproved, instead 
 of proving that the opinion is false. ‘ This is the doctrine of 
 Spinoza, Toland, Tindal, Hobbes, Hume so say disputants, 
 insinuating thereby that it is to be reprobated : as if there 
 was any of these writers who had not written many truths. 
 The question is not, whether Mr. Hume wrote such an opinion, 
 but whether it is true. 
 
 10. ii. We find amongst controversialists various modes 
 of presumptuous confidence, or taking opinions for granted, 
 or want of carefulness about running into falsehood and error. 
 
 They will sometimes presume so much upon the truth of 
 their own tenets, that they will defend them by arguments 
 which they themselves think inconclusive. The danger of 
 this is well described by Hr. Powell^. Something of this sort, 
 we formerly said^, was once allowed amongst Christians, and 
 called disputing naT oiKoro/uLiav^’ 
 
 It is frequently seen that men use arrogant language, and 
 declamatory expressions, setting aside all doubt that the truth 
 is on their side. But why may not their adversaries do the 
 same ? and, if they do, one arrogant and declamatory expres- 
 sion is as good as another ; and they all together are so many 
 hinderances to the settlement of the truth. It is sometimes 
 found that people even commend declamatory expressions on 
 their own side, as if what they hold for truth must be ac- 
 
 ^ P. 305. 2 Book I. Chap. xii. sect. 15. ^ Mosheim, Cent. iii. 2 , 3, 10. 
 
 19 — 2 
 
292 QUALITIES OF A CONTllOVERSIALIST. [II. ii. 11. 
 
 knowledged truth. But this is not of the nature of regular I. 
 contention, even amongst enemies. Though every one reckons 
 himself in the right, and his enemy in the wrong, when he 
 declares war, yet in carrying on war, one party is to be 
 esteemed as much in the right as another : no one party must 
 use any mode of attack which he will not allow to be used 
 against himself. The rules for carrying on contention do not 
 at all intermeddle with the question, who was right in begin- 
 ning contention. Bigotry is being so blindly attached to one 
 religious persuasion as to think that it is to be enforced by all 
 methods whatsoever : by methods which would be thought very 
 oppressive if made use of to enforce some different persuasions. 
 
 Want of diffidence makes disputants forget that we may 
 have a probability to act upon, and yet be very far from 
 certainty : whatever is only probable may be false^, and yet 
 superior probability, however trifling the superiority, is suffi- 
 cient to determine our action. Though men, therefore, may 
 have evidence enough to act upon, they may not have enough 410 
 to entitle them to insult others, or triumph over them, as 
 being certainly in error. Indeed, those who are clearly con- 
 vinced seldom insult : satisfied with themselves, they are kind 
 and candid to others. 
 
 11. The second sort of faults observable in controversies 
 is, that by which a man does something wrong towards his 
 adversary. The faults of this class have here been said^ to 
 be all different species of hostilities. All hostilities are faults, 
 where no hostility is necessary. 
 
 We have already mentioned the folly of using expressions 
 on one side which may be used with equal right on the other, 
 as not forwarding, but rather hindering the settlement of truth; 
 and what was said may serve to shew the fault of using any 
 unfair methods of attack ; of doing any thing against an 
 adversary, and blaming him for doing the same in return. Se- 
 veral hostilities being of this kind, this idea may accompany 
 the mention of them. 
 
 It is a common fault of controversy to run into personal 
 reflexions — to endeavour to throw disgrace upon a cause by 
 disgracing those wlio defend it. If the person of an adver- 
 sary can be made contemptible, or odious, it is reckoned a 
 great thing; and therefore all sinister motives are ascribed 
 to him. Sometimes the reviling is made to extend to his 
 
 ^ Book I. XV, 15. 
 
 - Sect. 8. 
 
II.il. 12 .] aUALITIES OF A CONTROVERSIALIST. 293 
 
 I. profession, liis family, his country, as if defects in these, or 
 in himself, could make his arguments defective. Sometimes, 
 in religious controversy, the solemn duty of prayer has been 
 made the vehicle of detraction. In other things, the same 
 persons would not run into the same absurdities : they would 
 411 listen to arguments, abstracted from all personal considerations, 
 if even a murderer was to urge any in his own defence. 
 
 It is also a common fault, to charge upon an adversary 
 consequences drawn from his doctrines, as if he professed 
 those consequences as much as the doctrines from which they 
 were drawn. Yet it may be easily understood, that, if I do 
 not acknowledge a deduced doctrine or maxim to be true, 
 whatever evil there may be in it, I am free from that evil 
 at present. Perhaps, sometimes, the deduced doctrine may 
 be of a dangerous sort, so that a person might wish to hold 
 it secretly; still, till I shew some marks of holding it, I 
 cannot be justly charged as its favourer. 
 
 It is a common fault in controversy, to throw odium upon 
 an argument, by referring it to an odious 'party. ‘This is 
 rank popery ; ’ or, ‘ it is reviving the scepticism of Pyrrho^ 
 the fatality of the Stoics,’’ &c as if no man thought for him- 
 
 self, independently of party. 
 
 This approaches near to what was before mentioned, as 
 a mode of missing the question in debate ; and it may be 
 observed of the other faults towards the adversary, that there 
 is inaccuracy in them, as well as malevolence. 
 
 By the combination of these faults we find controversy, 
 especially in books, very different from what it ought to be : 
 a kind of illiberal scolding and fighting, a mutual buffeting 
 of reputations ; sometimes a mere effusion of personal enmity ; 
 sometimes a wretched disingenuous trial of skill — a literary 
 prize-fighting, exhibited to certain spectators, who afford it 
 their attention : the prize, perhaps, a few followers, or a 
 little applause; or, possibly, the patronage of some powerful 
 bigots, who have rewards to bestow. 
 
 412 12. According to our idea of controversy, there should 
 
 be three parties concerned, two advocates and a judge: but, 
 in written controversy, we seldom see more than two parties ; 
 these are to be called advocates; but each of these takes upon 
 him something of the character of the judge ; and, of course, 
 their duties will vary from those of the perfect advocate. Each 
 must be less the advocate than a perfect advocate, and less 
 
294 
 
 aUALITIES OF A CONTROVEFSIALIST. 
 
 [II. ii. 13. 
 
 the judge than a perfect judge. Each should endeavour to I. 
 assume the qualities of an advocate when he is doing the 
 business of an advocate, and the qualities of a judge when 
 he is performing the part of a judge. An attempt to do this 
 would lessen prejudice, partiality, passion ; and would generate 
 an increase of candour, benevolence, and reason : would make 
 the parties more desirous of coming to an agreement ; and, 
 for that purpose, more earnest to discover the real truth h 
 
 13. It may be proper to distinguish here between some 
 of the ways of reasoning which have been reprobated in this 
 chapter, and some which bear some resemblance to them, and 
 are allowed by logicians. 
 
 We have here proscribed all personal reflections in con- 
 troversy : is that proscribing all use of the argumentum ad 
 hominem? no; that is a way of arguing which may be very use- 
 ful for certain ends, and in its proper place To argue in this 
 way is, according to Mr. Locke, “ to press a man with conse- 
 quences drawn from his own principles or concessions.” And, 
 though Mr. Locke speaks of its inferiority to the argumentum 
 ad judicium, he owns it may dispose''^ a man “for the reception 413 
 of truth which seems a very important matter. Those who 
 are disposed for the reception of truth seldom fail to embrace 
 it. When our Saviour had only to overcome the prejudices 
 of the Jews, it was surely right reasoning to convince them, 
 that, in rejecting him as their Messiah, they acted an incon- 
 sistent part. And it is now right to shew the same (as Bishop 
 Butler does) to those who object to Christianity what they 
 allow in natural religion. “ Out of thine own mouth will 
 
 O 
 
 I judge thee’^,” is a very fair method in practice, though not 
 so well adapted to speculation ; but it may often remove all 
 difficulties which actually lie in the way at any particular 
 time. But personal reflections are not conclusive in any 
 circumstances whatever : they are so many meteors, which 
 only dazzle and mislead. An argumentum ad hominem may 
 sometimes imply a personal reflection accidentally ; as, when 
 it is urged, ‘ you, who are a papist, superstitious, and intole- 
 rant, have no right to speak in such a manner.’ 
 
 Sometimes, perhaps, men may be induced to use the 
 method of charging consequences, by its likeness to what is 
 
 1 Truth, or justice; either word might 
 do. All virtues have been considered as 
 species of truth, and also as reducible 
 
 to justice. 
 
 - See before, I. xvii. 19. 
 ^ Luke xix. 22. 
 
II. ii. 14.] QUALITIES OF A CONTROVEllSI ALIST. 
 
 295 
 
 I. called in logic reductio ah absurdum ; but that is as strict a 
 demonstration as any whatever. If you lay down a proposition, 
 and from it deduce consequences, till you come to any pro- 
 position which is undeniably false, then it follows, that the 
 proposition with which you set out was false, and its con- 
 tradictory true. But the consequences charged in the kind 
 of controversy which we are speaking of, are no consequences 
 in the nature of things : they are only practical consequences, 
 presumed to follow ; such as need not follow, and, in fact, 
 generally do not. 
 
 414 It might be considered, how far the arguments of superior 
 to inferior beings are necessarily of the nature of the argumen- 
 turn ad hominem. God cannot reason with us fully: ‘‘His 
 thoughts are not as our thoughts.” And the same may be ap- 
 plied, in a less degree, when wise men reason with the ig- 
 norant. Yet, reasoning with men according to their concep- 
 tions, answering fools according to their folly, is not exactly 
 the same thing as reasoning with them from their concessions ; 
 or requiring them to act on the same principles in all cases. 
 Yet it will often happen that, when you are obliged to con- 
 descend to men’s conceptions, you can only argue with them 
 on their own principles. As far as higher principles are ne- 
 cessary, they must be left unconvinced. 
 
 14. The last thing to be taken notice of in this chapter 
 is, the scriptural idea of controversy. 
 
 Misapplication of Scripture has done much harm in con- 
 troversy ; and there is some excuse for it. In the Old Testa- 
 ment we find nations exterminated as being idolaters; idolatrous 
 priests cut off ; curses denounced. In the New, we meet with 
 instances of such imperfect controversial reasoning as the 
 argumentum ad hominem; and several seemingly harsh ^ex- 
 pressions. 
 
 To give particular answers here to all the arguments 
 which might be drawn from this source, would carry us 
 too far. Something has been said, in speaking of the Chris- 
 
 415 tian ^Fathers; something will occur on the 18th and 3Sd 
 Articles of the Church of England. At present we must con- 
 
 ^ Matt, xxiii. 27, whited sepulchres. 
 Luke xiii. 32, go tell that fox. Acts 
 xxiii. 3, whited wall, (but compare xxiii. 
 5). Gal. V. 12, cut off that trouble you. 
 Phil. iii. 2, Dogs, concision. Tit. iii. 
 10, an heretic, &c. reject. 2 Pet. ii. 1, 
 
 damnable heresies. Jude 8, and 10, filthy 
 dreamers — as brute beasts. Labhe makes 
 these texts, &c. his apology for using 
 harsh expressions in controversy about 
 Pope Joan. Script. Eccl. vol. i. p. 1004. 
 
 5 I. xii. 14. 
 
296 QUALITIES OF A CONTROVEESI ALIST. [Il.ii. 14^ 
 
 tent ourselves with general answers. Of the argiimentiim ad I. 
 hominem I need say nothing more. Many of the difficulties 
 taken out of the Old Testament, are only parts of Divine 
 government, in separating the Jews from their idolatrous 
 neifrhbours. In which we are to consider that the established 
 morality of the times must be supposed to be permitted. God 
 had probably no more plan of revealing moral than natural 
 philosophy. Many of those in the New Testament are in- 
 stances of accommodation, allusion, and the kind of quotation 
 explained. Book i. Chap. xvii. sect. 13. Some may be solved 
 by custom, and Homer’s^ oiuo(3ap€s, kvvo^ ojjifiaT might 
 
 assist in the solution, as well as expressions in ancient English 
 writers. Some harshnesses are descriptions of sects, some im- 
 ply rules of ecclesiastical discipline. Some would go off on 
 examination — as Jude, ver. 10. 
 
 The removal of these difficulties will be illustrated by the 
 texts, where no such circumstances arose. These being plain 
 texts, for the most part, shew the true scriptural meaning. 
 
 ‘ 2 Cor. ii. 6‘, 7* “Ye ought rather to forgive him, and 
 
 comfort him.” Here the occasion should be clearly seen. 
 
 The fornicator- had been censured by the majority. St. Paul 
 is very delicate in avoiding personalities. 
 
 Gal. vi. 1. Restore, “ in the spirit of meekness.” 
 
 Ephes. iv. 15. “ Speaking the truth in love.” 
 
 1 Tim. iii. 2. A bishop must be &§«/cTt/cds', have all the 
 temper &c. of a good teacher. 
 
 2 Tim. ii. 24, 25, is strong and full. For the occasion, see 
 Michaelis’ Introductory Lectures, p. 363, quarto. 
 
 Tit. iii. 2, shews what an ecclesiastic should teach men 416 
 to be. 
 
 Jude, ver. 9, even that is against “railing accusation.” 
 
 One might argue, moreover, from the New Testament 
 putting men upon a footing of brethren. And, lastly, one 
 might urge, that the exhortations to forbearance being plain, 
 the more difficult parts of Scripture are not rightly inter- 
 ])reted, if they are not made consistent with them, allowance 
 beinf]: made for different occasions. 
 
 ^ 11. lib. i. V. 225. 
 
 " See Jioeke on the place. 
 
II. iii. 1, 2.] 
 
 RIDICULE. 
 
 297 
 
 I. 
 
 417 CHAPTER III. 
 
 OF INTRODUCING RIDICULE INTO CONTROVERSY: AND FIRST, 
 OF RIDICULE IN GENERAL. 
 
 1. Having seen the nature of controversy, and the quali- 
 fications of controversialists, I might now proceed to deduce 
 rules, and give instances of the need there is of them ; but 
 a subject of magnitude, the subject of ridicule, stands in my 
 way. To pass it by would be to omit what has sometimes 
 been made a considerable ingredient in controversy: to treat 
 it fully would require a separate work, especially as I know 
 not any author^ who has written upon it in a manner perfectly 
 satisfactory. I must say something of it, and be as concise 
 as possible. 
 
 Ridicule may be used either as a friend or enemy to true 
 religion. There are some extravagances in the practice of 
 piety for which it has been thought the only remedy k That 
 it can be an enemy ^ need scarce be mentioned. As a friend, 
 we should secure it, and cultivate it, and also learn how to 
 employ it to advantage; as an enemy, we should learn how 
 to ffuard against it. 
 
 o o 
 
 2. The ridiculous takes in whatever excites laughter, 
 or the inward feelings usually accompanied with laughter. 
 Now this is found to be, most frequently, some trifling ab- 
 surdity, inconsistency, turpitude, or something of like na- 
 ture. The word ridicule, like other words, is not used with 
 great precision and steadiness ; sometimes expressing what is 
 seen in the objects, sometimes what is felt in the mind; but 
 we may leave the senses of it to custom. It is a subject not 
 yet understood ; insomuch, that the arguments for and against 
 it seldom seem directly opposed to each other. The way to 
 improve it must be, to make a great number of experiments 
 with care, and class them with nicety ; with as much as we 
 should use in experiments relating to magnetism, fixed air, 
 or electricity®. Our error is thinking the subject trifling. 
 
 ^ Hartley, in his Essay on Man, has 
 clone much on this subject. Bp. War- 
 burton has treated it, with a view to reli- 
 gion, in his Dedication to the Free- 
 thinkers, and in his Preface to his Book 
 on the Holy Spirit. 
 
 ^ See Provincial Letters, by Pascal : 
 
 Moliere’s Tartuffe: Swift’s Tale of a 
 Tub: Foote’s Minor; &c — and we might 
 look back to Lucian. 
 
 ^ See Leland’s View, &c. vol. i. pp. 
 02, 03. 4th edit. 
 
 Cic. de Or. 1. 2. might furnish ex- 
 periments. Sect. 54 — 71. 
 
298 
 
 RIDICULE. 
 
 [II, iii. 3, 4. 
 
 If we studied and improved it regularly, we should probably I. 
 find it important, both to truth and virtue. 
 
 3. Let us begin with experiments on infants. Some of 
 these we may find mentioned in Dr. Hartleys Essay on Man ; 
 and we may improve upon them by new trials and observa- 
 tions of our own. Not that infants have ideas of absurdity, 
 turpitude, &c. but their feelings are undisguised, and not 
 complicated. They do not laugh aloud for some monthsh 
 They are made to laugh by the gentle touching of certain 
 nerves (or of the skin which immediately covers them) in the 
 more sensible parts of the body. The sensation seems be- 
 tween pleasure and pain, or to be pleasure nearly bordering 
 upon pain. 
 
 Infants are made to laugh sometimes without contact, by 
 a certain degree of surprise ; which seems again to give a 
 certain degree of motion and vibration to the nerves^ such 419 
 as will be in some small degree painful. Increase the degree 
 of surprise, or the shock, you make the infant cry; which it 
 will do with the same shock, if the irritability of the nerves 
 is increased by sickness or weakness. In this experiment, we 
 observe that the shock or surprise does not produce the laugh- 
 ter instantaneously ; but that the laughter ensues a moment 
 after, upon the removal of the shock, or of the fear which the 
 attack occasions. 
 
 These experiments are in a rude state at present. 
 
 4. So long as our experiments are confined to the hody^ 
 we can speak a tolerably plain language ; but, in order to 
 deduce any thing from bodily phenomena, with regard to 
 mens laughing at absurdity^ &c., we must suppose that the 
 nerves may be made to vibrate in the same manner by the 
 stroke or shock which absurdity, &c. make on the brain, the 
 source of the nerves, as by bodily contact, or by surprise. 
 
 This supposition seems so probable that we may admit it, till 
 something arises in our experiments to contradict or disparage 
 it. Besides, as ridicule belongs to the mind, we are obliged 
 to speak by comparison, or metaphor. Our terms must be 
 borrowed from sensible objects ; and transferred, according to 
 some confused notions of resemblance between acts of mind and 
 acts of body. Thus, the mind is said to reflect, or bend back, 
 to weigh, to be elated or dejected, to have precepts inculcated 
 or trod in upon it, and so on. We, in like manner, speak 
 
 ^ Hartley, vol. i. p. 437. 
 
II. iii. 4.] 
 
 RIDICULE. 
 
 299 
 
 I. of trains of thought, and of the tide of affections, and Jlow 
 of sentiment. 
 
 With the help of such terms as these we may express 
 a sort of an hypothesis concerning ridicule. Let it not be 
 taken as any thing distinctly conceived, and it may be of 
 some use. A sense of ridicule, or laughter, arises, when two 
 
 420 currents of feelings meet suddenly in the mind, striking the 
 moral sense^ and by their concourse make an effect on the 
 mind (and therefore on the nerves) resembling the confusion 
 and ebullition caused by the meeting of two real currents ; and 
 still more of two currents of fluids, which effervesce and repel 
 each other. Out of this hypothesis we must never leave the 
 moral sense : there must be some shock or surprise upon that ; 
 and such shock must be of a limited strength. If an oppo- 
 sition of two trains of thought is, in any case, much expected, 
 then a sudden, unexpected coincidence may give the moral 
 shock, and excite laughter. 
 
 The man of the world, and the man of strict science, may 
 here cry out jointly, what mere hypothesis ! It pretends to 
 be nothing more. But the language of hypothesis is often 
 convenient ; and when the real nature of it is understood, it 
 does not lead into error. I had rather have men talk to me 
 of attraction than not, so long as they are aware of its being 
 only the name of the unknown cause of known effects ; and 
 the same of phlogiston, and electric matter ; nay, I am no 
 enemy to animal spirits^ so long as they are not spoken of 
 as if they were understood. Framing an hypothesis is saying, 
 such things happen, as if they had such a cause; which is 
 the best way of arranging them for the mind to see them 
 clearly, and proceed upon them easily and freely. Caution 
 indeed is always needful, lest the as if should get changed 
 into an affirmation of fact. Experiments in Optics proceed as 
 if small particles of light came from the heavenly luminaries 
 in right lines, with very great velocity : do we know more 
 of the fact ? As to our hypothesis about ridicule, it certainly 
 wants much clearing up. I should be willing to abandon 
 
 421 it; and, indeed, no one could be tenacious of an hypothesis, 
 who knew what an hypothesis was. Find another supposed 
 cause of the phenomena of laughter which shall combine 
 more facts or experiments, and you are perfectly at liberty to 
 adopt it. 
 
 But, at present, let us see more of our two currents. If 
 
300 
 
 RIDICULE. 
 
 [II. iii. 5, 6. 
 
 I respect a man, I feel something answering to such an expres- I. 
 sion as this — ‘ my sentiments of respect Jloiv on account of 
 such a man;’ on the sight or mention of this man my sen- 
 timents are put in motion. And the same is true of contempt. 
 
 Now it might happen, that, on some accounts, I might feel 
 respect for a man, and, on others, contempt ; at least, in par- 
 ticular circumstances. His general character might be respect- 
 able, his dress might have something mean in it, or contempt- 
 ible; if these two sentiments were suddenly set in motion 
 at the same time, and gave a shock not very strong, to that 
 faculty of mine which judges of rectitude, propriety, con- 
 sistency, &c. I should be made to laugh}. 
 
 5. It will generally happen, that what excites laughter 
 will be something absurd or improper, in a degree ; but our 
 emotion, being sudden, will depend upon those notions of 
 propriety which are most familiar to us, and habitual. Now 
 
 we may, by custom and fashion, think many things indeco- 422 
 rous, which will not appear so when we have time to reflect. 
 
 And the same is true of other notions and sentiments, even 
 respect itself; we may feel respect at first sight, which goes 
 off on farther acquaintance. Hence, we should always be 
 aware.) that a thing may make us laugh and yet not be ab- 
 surd, nor appear so, when we come to consider it^. An 
 apparent absurdity will excite laughter for a moment ; but 
 if it does not appear to our reason to be real, the ridiculous 
 effect will go off*. We ought not, therefore, to trust to our 
 feeling of the ridiculous, where any thing material is at stake, 
 but give it a thorough examination. This is important. 
 
 6. By way of confirming what has been said, we may apply 
 it to account for a few appearances*^. We may conceive the 
 
 ’ See Mr. Cole’s Latin Dissertation, 
 which got an Academical prize in 1780, 
 p. 8, and 16. 
 
 II. Fielding makes his Philosopher 
 Square ridiculous, by putting on him 
 the woman’s night-cap ; and exposing 
 him in a situation strongly contrasted 
 with philosophy. 
 
 W e feel both respect and contempt, in 
 reading Swift’s Tale of a Tub ; but they 
 are not strong sentiments there; neither 
 is their effervescence strong. 
 
 By the way, as Peter, Martin, and J ack, 
 represent three leading sects, so I con- 
 ceive Fielding to mean that Thwacknm 
 
 shall represent religion, when careless 
 about virtue ; and Square^ virtue when 
 too negligent of religion. 
 
 2 Hartley, vol. i. p. 441. 
 
 ^ Suppose a young courtier of Queen 
 Anne’s court to come in amongst us, 
 ready dressed, in his enormous peruke, 
 large cuffs, &c. for court, and to act the 
 gay, easy, chatty courtier, though unaf- 
 fectedly. Or, an eager and absent phi- 
 losopher in his night-dress, to publish 
 his evpi]Ka. Or John Moody, in the sim- 
 plicity of his nature. The instance of 
 the ministers of Charles II. mimick- 
 ing Lord Chancellor Clarendon, might 
 
II. iii. 7.] 
 
 IlIDICULE. 
 
 301 
 
 I. state of mind of that man who naturally does not laugh much, 
 and also of him who laughs very readily. The former has 
 extensive knowledge of things, and their consequences, their 
 
 423 uncertainties, dangers, perplexities, &c.: he discerns their real 
 nature ; and, besides that ridicule loses its effect and requires 
 to be heightened like other poignances, he gets a general dis- 
 trust of ludicrous representations. The latter is, for want 
 of reason and reflection, struck with trifling incongruities; such 
 as are cleared away, as it were, and solved by the reason and 
 good sense of the other. This latter approaches to that boyish 
 unthinkinfTness which occasions such bursts of lauo;hter at 
 theatrical entertainments, when any thing of an absurdity or 
 incongruity is introduced"*. So just is the observation made 
 in Ecclesiasticus, xix. 30 : A man’s excessive laughter (witli 
 other things) shews “ what he is\” Also Chap. xxi. 20 : “ A 
 fool lifteth up his voice** with laughter, but a wise man doth 
 scarce smile a little.” Nevertheless, serious persons, when 
 they do laugh, laugh intensely : the reason seems to be, their 
 very strong sense of decency and propriety, and their very 
 high respect for decorum, mixed wdth some degree of good 
 humour, which hinders them from flying out into anger and 
 indignation. 
 
 7 . It may be objected, that ridicule gives us pleasure, 
 
 424 and absurdity pain, and therefore that absurdity cannot occa- 
 sion ridicule. But the pleasure of ridicule is of the pungent 
 kind, like that of taking snuff, mustard, &.C., which gives a 
 
 be suitable here : mentioned in Rapin, 
 vol. II. p. 646; mentioned also in War- 
 burton’s Dedication to Freethinkers, p. 
 xvii. 4to ; and the passage from liord 
 Shaftesbury, p. xii. 4to, receives an an- 
 swer from this paragraph. In mimicry^ 
 the sentiment excited by the original 
 effervesces with that excited by the copy. 
 
 I have known the German name for 
 the Deity, Gott, strike an Englishman as 
 ridiculous : would our name strike a 
 German as equally so ? 
 
 The King of Pegu, when he heard 
 from one Balbi that there was no king 
 at Venice, burst into a fit of laughter so 
 great, that a coughing seized him, &c. 
 See Spirit of Laws, 19. 2. 
 
 ^ This is remarkable in a pantomime 
 farce, during the Christmas holidvays. 
 
 5 Plartley, vol. i. p. 439. 
 
 ® Vulgar people laugh at bodily de- 
 formity. ‘‘ My lord,” is a common nick- 
 name for the hump-backed : also at deaf- 
 ness ; a deaf man once said to me, “a 
 mort of folk laugh at me.''* Most men 
 are inclined to laugh at wrong answers 
 from deaf men, if there is an affectation 
 of seeming to hear ; or,, if the answer 
 given makes a clashing, a contrast or 
 coincidence with that which ought to 
 have been given. Contrasts are fre- 
 quently made in the mind by means of 
 one visible or audible object; but then 
 that object is opposed to some abstract 
 idea already formed in the mind by habit. 
 Deformity is contrasted with the abstract 
 idea, in the mind, of an human shape; 
 or, perhaps, of a beautiful and perfect 
 form. 
 
302 
 
 IIIDICULE. 
 
 [II, iii. 8,9. 
 
 shock, bordering upon pain, to the olfactory nerves, and those I. 
 of the palate. Increase this shock, and such pain ensues as 
 we try to avoid. In every small pain,, there seems to be 
 something of pleasure ; every lesser evil seems to be under- 
 gone voluntarily, as a species of goodh 
 
 It may be also objected, that the effect of ridicule is 
 immediate, whereas, according to ^one of our experiments, it 
 ought not to be till after a small interval. It seems possible, 
 that the pleasure of ridicule may be of that species which Mr. 
 Burke calls delight ; it may arise from the removal of pain ; 
 of that pain which is occasioned by the first shock upon the 
 nerves. I have seen some few persons laugh heartily after 
 a moment’s pause ; but that may be a mere unaccountable 
 custom. The best account of the matter seems to be, that, 
 by a great number of instances, we get to feel and expect 
 that the shock will immediately go off, and then the effect of 
 ridicule upon our minds and bodies becomes instantaneous. 
 
 The case may not be the same in children : they may feel 
 fear ; that fear may soon go off, and be followed by security, 
 or a sense of safety, which, opposed to the fear, may occasion 
 the laughter ; yet the impression of the fear may remain for 
 a short time: they have not yet learned to laugh. We see 
 instantaneously and judge of distances and shapes; but it is 
 because we have learned to see. 
 
 8. From what has been last said, and from what is re- 
 marked of the laughter of infants being turned into crying by 425 
 a little increase of the shock, we may conceive how smaller 
 absurdities^, faults, &c. may excite laughter, though greater 
 faults excite abhorrence and detestation^ even where there 
 
 is some kind of contrast or coincidence ; and how a man of 
 nice moral feelings may abhor, what one less delicate, or more 
 hardened, may only laugh at : or how even the same man may 
 be differently affected in different states of his nerves. 
 
 9. And, though we have yet ascribed gravity to only 
 one cause, comprehensive views of the nature of actions, yet 
 we may now perceive other causes, i. A man will be habitu- 
 ally grave, if he has not from nature much moral sensibility, 
 or very irritable nerves, ii. If he has moral sensibility par- 
 ticularly quick and strong ; in which case he will detest what 
 
 * Instances to the purpose appear in 
 IMr. Jkirke’s Essay on the Sublime and 
 Beautiful. 
 
 2 Sect. 3. 
 
 3 Smaller faults are called in French 
 by the name of Ridicules. 
 
II. iii. 10, 11.] 
 
 RIDICULE. 
 
 303 
 
 I. others only laugh at. iii. If the moral sensibility which he 
 has in his constitution has not been exercised, but has been 
 overpowered by other feelings ; — by affliction, earnest pursuits, 
 of riches, honours, &c. or by any passions or appetites, iv. If 
 his moral feelings have been hardened and seared by much 
 wickedness : the Avicked man will laugh, indeed, sometimes 
 at what others detest, but, when others laugh he will be in- 
 sensible. V. Gravity will sometimes arise from a persuasion 
 that ridicule is sinful. 
 
 10. Sometimes an absurdity of the ridiculous sort raises, 
 in men of refined minds, only a sort of internal laughter^ or 
 a sentiment corresponding to laughter : this sentiment has 
 not a name. Dr. Brown^, I think, calls it contempt; and 
 it may be so like contempt, as to make it natural for that 
 name to be borrowed and used, when there is occasion to 
 
 426 express it : but contempt is often an elated, lofty, and a 
 serious sentiment. The sentiment (or the contempt if you 
 please) of ridicule is not inconsistent with kindness to the object 
 of it, nor even with respect to his character upon the whole. 
 Contempt seems also simple, or unmixed — ridicule to be 
 always compound ; contempt takes profound views of things ; 
 the views of ridicule are always superficial: if an object be 
 purely contemptible, you do not laugh at it. When contempt 
 helps to excite laughter it is by effervescing with respect : a 
 man who despises public worship does not laugh at church ; a 
 man who respects it in a certain degree is apt to do so : a still 
 stronger respect would prevent his laughing. 
 
 11. If it were to be asked, then, what it is to ridicule a 
 subject, we might give some such answer as the following : it 
 is to give two different views of it, at the same time, which 
 sliall excite opposite feelings ; one view shall excite some sort 
 of respect, or approbation, the other some sort of disrespect or 
 disapprobation, which shall be rather predominant. The mind 
 shall attend to both views, and experience the joint effect of 
 both feelings, which shall be a shock upon the moral sense, or 
 sense of propriety, decency, &c. ; but not strong beyond a cer- 
 tain degree. To give the two different views here required, 
 there will be various ways of combining ideas belonging to the 
 subject, in such a manner as to form images^ suitable to the 
 purpose; contrasts, coincidences, &c. Avhich cannot be specified 
 beforehand. Nay, even when these images, &c. have been 
 
 ^ In his Essays on the Characteristics of Lord Shaftesbury. ® Cole, p. 10. 
 
304 
 
 HIDICULE. 
 
 [II. iii. 12, 13. 
 
 formed, and have had their effect in exciting laughter, it will I. 
 be often very difficult to mark out, in a very minute and satis- 
 factory manner, how that effect has been produced. 
 
 12. Man is the only risible animal : why.?^ because he only 427 
 has a conscience, or moral faculty ; he only seems to have a 
 sense of propriety, and to be shocked by absurdity or turpitude, 
 
 as such. If this be a right representation, ridicule ought not 
 to be held in very low esteem : this seems sufficient to rank it 
 above all those parts of our constitution which we have in com- 
 mon with the brute creation. The monkey, to be sure, grins, 
 but he is perfectly grave even when he does ridiculous tricks; 
 this makes us, when once persuaded of the gravity, the more 
 inclined to laugh at them. A ridiculous action, with a per- 
 fectly grave countenance’, makes a striking contrast. 
 
 13. But the principal question, which has arisen concerning 
 ridicule, is, how far it is the test^ of truth ? It does not seem 
 to be either more or less a test of truth than any other species 
 of eloquence. Some kinds of eloquence are best adapted to 
 expose great and important faults, incongruities, &c. : ridicule 
 is best adapted to expose such as are more trifling. Ridicule 
 must be examined, but must not also serious eloquence ? Ridi- 
 cule, therefore, cannot be a test, of itself merely, but still it may 
 assist in discerning falsehood : a pair of scales is an useful test 
 of weights, though not till they themselves have been examined. 
 
 When ingenious writers assert any thing which seems 
 strange to me, I conclude that they have sbme meaning which I 
 do not at first conceive. Possibly those who say ridicule is the 
 test of truth, mean, that people are sometimes so prejudiced 
 that they will not hear reason, and nothing can reach them 428 
 but ridicule; which, they take for granted, is well-grounded 
 ridicule. When men say that ridicule is not the test of truth, 
 they generally conceive the ridicule to be ill-grounded. Both 
 may be right, in some measure. On the one hand, well- 
 grounded ridicule does make men feel follies in superstition 
 and enthusiasm ; on the other hand, ill-grounded ridicule ought 
 not to make any man give up any religious notion or principle. 
 
 But still, comic and serious eloquence are upon the same foot- 
 ing; for serious eloquence may give the alarm, and afterwards 
 be attended to or not, according to the dictates of reason : 
 
 ^ Jocus CO salsior, quo sevcriordicentis 
 vultus. Pearce’s Cic. de Or. Index 
 rerum, jocus. 
 
 2 See a short specimen of Lord Shaftes- 
 bury’s reasoning, in Warhurton’s Ded. 
 to i’rcethinkers, p. 12. 8vo. 
 
II. iii. 14.] 
 
 IIIDICULE. 
 
 305 
 
 I. if well-grounded, it will be effectual; if ill-grounded, in- 
 effectual. 
 
 Serious eloquence may not lower or debase our feelings; 
 but does it not do much harm if it perverts them ? 
 
 14. Ridicule may be useful to truth and virtue^ To 
 truth it may be useful, by preventing pedantry, and that affec- 
 tation of mystery and pomp, which has so much impeded the 
 progress of useful science. It can make high-sounding terms 
 lose all their virtue, and set the practical knowledge of the 
 common people on a rank equally high with the fine-spun the- 
 ories of fanciful philosophers. It is too great veneration for 
 notions and persons which is apt to make error too lasting ; and 
 veneration may be lessened by ridicule. 
 
 To virtue ridicule is useful by curing smaller follies and 
 foibles, and by hindering men from carrying the nobler passions 
 to excess. These, when indulged too seriously, generate ca- 
 prices and singularities: the worst excite abhorrence. Forti- 
 429 tilde may make a man a Quixot or a Colonel Bath^ ; justice 
 may run into misanthrophy or scrupulousness ; patriotism may 
 form a chimerical politician ; piety an enthusiast ; and so on : 
 but a man disposed to moderate ridicule will run into none 
 of these follies ; he will be unaffectedly and rationally brave, 
 just, public-spirited, devout. And, at the same time, he will 
 keep clear of being effeminate, proud, vain, selfish, sensual, 
 peevish, dejected, anxious, cunning, hypocritical, &c. : that is, 
 ridicule may be made useful to virtue, by its influence both on 
 the virtuous and vicious passions. 
 
 I have, indeed, no notion of any one’s studying or acting 
 better than a man would do if he kept continually trying his 
 reasonings and his actions by ridicule. 
 
 His knowledge would be easy, unaffected, cheerful, yet 
 accurate ; free from pedantry ; constantly corrected, and there- 
 fore constantly improved. 
 
 His virtue would be genuine and simple, natural and 
 pleasant. Fie would not have a pomp and parade of serious 
 humility, but that virtue would flourish in his mind: he would 
 not be continually preaching on temperance, but practise its 
 various duties as matters of course. He would not keep 
 
 ^ Bishop Warhurton asserts the con- 
 trary. Ded. to Freethinkers, p. 21. 8vo. 
 ‘Mts natural effect is to mislead the 
 judgment, and to make the heart disso- 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 lute.” But are we clear about the force 
 of 
 
 ^ A duellist in Fielding’s Amelia. 
 
 20 
 
306 
 
 RIDICULE. 
 
 [II. iii. 15. 
 
 boasting of his generosity, but, after shewing the most noble I. 
 instances of it, he would set them all in a familiar^ light, so as 
 to claim no merit from them. 
 
 A friend might, by kindly setting oner’s actions in a 
 ridiculous light, act as a sort of second self. 
 
 15. We must not conclude this Chapter, without some 
 notice of the passage quoted by ^Aristotle from Gorgias of 430 
 Leontium, who affirms rjyV fxev G'lrovh^v ^lacpOeipeiv twu 
 evavTicov, yeXwTi^ top yeXcoTa cnrov^^. Aristotle adds, 
 opOcos Xeycov ; Aristotle is of opinion that Gorgias spoke very 
 justly when he said, that we ought to confound the serious 
 argument of our adversaries by ridicule, and their ridicule by 
 serious argument. This idea seems to agree with the repre- 
 sentation here given ; the serious argument which may be 
 ridiculed is only here supposed to be argument used at the 
 bar. I look upon the plan of the ancient to be better than 
 either slighting ridicule, or being afraid of it ; especially as it 
 provides against its running into extravagance. 
 
 We might inquire, whether the remark, here confined to 
 ridicule, is not capable of being carried farther whether, at 
 least, one something like it might not be proposed thus : ‘ we 
 should correct our reason by our feelings, and our feelings by 
 our reason?’ Sometimes our feelings conduct us right when 
 our reason would not, as when our reason is too serious, and 
 too remote from common life; and sometimes our feelings 
 would tell us things of which our reason would leave us igno- 
 rant. Sometimes, indeed, our reason is quite necessary to cor- 
 rect the suggestions of our feelings. But, if we use first one, 
 then the other, and that repeatedly, we profit most : for each 
 of them, besides correcting the other, improves upon it — steps 
 forward, and makes a little advancement. 
 
 ^ Dr. HaiTison in Amelia. Qu. So- 
 crates ? - 
 
 2 Aristot. Rhet. L. 3. C. 13. ad finem. 
 See the passage quoted in Brown’s Es- 
 says, p. 43. 
 
II. iv. h 2 .] 
 
 RIDICULE IN RELIGION. 
 
 307 
 
 I. 
 
 431 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 OF USING RIDICULE IN DISPUTES ABOUT RELIGION. 
 
 1. If the question were proposed, whether Ridicule should 
 ever be used in religious controversy, we may conceive sensible 
 people to give different or opposite answers. Some might say, 
 if ridicule is a means of getting at the truth, let us not neglect 
 to use it ; let us have our religion as free from error as pos- 
 sible ; the more pure our faith, the more rational our practice : 
 and besides, if ridicule can prevent those follies which are apt 
 to arise from a too serious indulgence of even the best passions, 
 let us apply it, and make our virtue as unaffected and rational 
 as we are able. There is no perfect religion without perfect 
 virtue. 
 
 On the other hand, some might say, you ought to use 
 serious argument about important things : never use ridicule 
 to convince men — never let that which ought to be held 
 sacred be made the subject of contempt and derision. And, 
 if you laugh men out of their religious principles you leave 
 them unprincipled. What is the harm of profaneness but its 
 loosening men’s good sentiments, taking from them those feel- 
 ings which would make them act rightly, and making them 
 careless and light-minded about their religious obligations.^ 
 what is corruption, but debasing men’s minds, or dispositions, 
 and, in consequence, their principles of action ? 
 
 There seems to be force in both these arguings, and, as 
 
 432 far as they are founded in reason, they must be reconcileable 
 to each other. Our business, in the present chapter, is, to 
 consider how they may be reconciled; — and we may lay it 
 down in general, that, whenever two propositions, which are 
 true, seem inconsistent, it is owing to their implying some 
 different situations and circumstances. How far general ex- 
 pressions are capable of interpretation by a reference to parti- 
 cular circumstances, we have seen in the 10th and 11th Chap- 
 ters of the first Book. 
 
 2. First, There is a great difference between a plan drawn 
 for a particular state of things, and one drawn for mankind at 
 large. If you provide rules for mankind at large, you have 
 only to study the general principles of human nature ; if for 
 any particular people at any particular time, you must 
 estimate the effects of all their particular qualities and habitual 
 
 20—2 
 
308 
 
 RIDICULE IN RELIGION. 
 
 [II. iv. 3 , 4. 
 
 opinions. The difference here is of the same kind with that I. 
 between a system of morals, and a code of civil laws. 
 
 Dr. Powell, in the Charge which I have recommended, 
 seems to ^ speak, without reserve, against the use of ridicule in 
 religious controversy ; but he seems also to write with a view 
 to present use, and therefore he would of course only allow so 
 much liberty as may be safe and salutary in the present state 
 of things. It may be, that he would have expressed himself 
 differently had he been speaking with a view to mankind at 
 large, and to that perfection which they should endeavour gra- 
 dually to attain. It is possible that his meaning may not be 
 contradictory to ours, as expressed in the preceding chapter ; 
 and I hope that, hereafter, that will appear to be the case. 
 
 3. We now proceed to other considerations, tending to 
 reconcile the opinions for and against using ridicule in reli- 433 
 gion, by shewing when it ought to be used, and when it 
 ought not. 
 
 The fundamental maxims on which the contending parties 
 build their opinions seem to be these : truth and virtue ought 
 to he cultivated and improved: men^s minds ought not to he 
 corrupted. No one can oppose either of these maxims. If, 
 in the imperfection of human affairs, if, amidst the dangers 
 which attend even doing things right without reserve, both 
 maxims cannot be practised freely, and without restraint, our 
 view must be, to see how we can approach nearest to gaining 
 the joint benefit of both — how we can make a compromise 
 between them. 
 
 Here again, for the sake of distinctness, I fear we must, 
 for a while, make a supposition, to which fact does not quite 
 come up, and that is, that mankind may be divided into philo- 
 sophers and people ; nay, moreover, that philosophers can say 
 and do things independently of the people, so as not to hurt 
 their principles. But, if such a division is really the best 
 means of arriving to a knowledge of what we ought to do, 
 we should not refuse it our attention. We therefore proceed. 
 
 4. It is useful that the opinions of some persons should 
 be under establishments, as well in religion as in morals, law, 
 physic, agriculture, &c. : that is, that ordinary men, in their 
 ordinary actions, should not have to look to first principles, 
 but should act readily, from principles or rules already settled. 
 Such principles or rules must indeed be supposed to have been 
 
 » P. 30G. 
 
II. iv. 4.] 
 
 RIDICULE IN RELIGION. 
 
 309 
 
 I. duly examined by some persons, before they were so settled, 
 and to be continually revised by the same : these persons must 
 be such as have been able and rightly qualified to give them- 
 selves up to an attentive consideration of first principles. It 
 431< seems implied in the idea of every establishment^ that some 
 persons take the lead in it, and are the depositaries of the set 
 of established maxims from which common men are to act. 
 And to follow these persons and these maxims is, ordinarily, 
 the truest prudence. This is founded on the plain principle, 
 that those who understand a subject best can best direct what 
 is to be done with regard to that subject ; and that any man 
 stands the best chance of going right by following an opinion 
 of one much better skilled than himself ; and that no common 
 men are capable of examining first principles before they act. 
 This is so generally acknowledged in all men^s actions, when 
 they are really in earnest, that not to act upon it, in any case, 
 proves them not to be in earnest, but desirous of evading 
 their duty. It is most useful that the generality should not 
 judge for themselves in medical matters, but take the opinion 
 of 3i physician. This is not denied when men are in earnest. 
 What family would give the father of it a medicine against 
 the advice of a physician? If a family did venture, and the 
 father died, they would be blamed for his death, though they 
 had the best opinion of the medicine : if he died after receiving 
 the medicine of the physician, they would not be blamed, how- 
 ever wrong the physician judged ; because it is a general rule, 
 for tlie general good, that the physician should judge in 
 physic. 
 
 I have said establishments. There are establishments, or 
 sets of established maxims, in every thing. In physic, there 
 are such a set : they admit of some latitude, and some variety ; 
 and sometimes men, who wish to distinguish themselves, will 
 affect to depart from them, as far as they dare : but variations 
 of this sort are not great. Sometimes, however, very con- 
 siderable changes will take place in the way of general re- 
 435 formations ; as has been the case in the established manner of 
 treating the small-pox, in our own country. 
 
 In agriculture there is an established set of maxims in 
 each country, which also admit of some varieties, and some 
 changes and reformations. What farmer could invent theories 
 or rules for himself.^ In law prudent men go much upon 
 the authority of others. And men do really go by established 
 
310 
 
 RIDICULE IN RELIGION. 
 
 [II. iv. 5. 
 
 rules in morality^ though they may not always be aware of I. 
 it. The best of these rules are far short of perfect virtue; 
 and the rules differ much in different ages and countries. 
 Conscience also seems to follow established virtue. Par- 
 ticular professions have peculiar moral maxims, as soldiers 
 have rules of honour, merchants rules of prudence and fair 
 dealing, &;c. 
 
 There is no stronger reason for following established rules, 
 in any of these things, than there is for following them in 
 religion ; because the ordinary people are as little capable 
 of judging for themselves in religion as in any thing. And 
 religion cannot be carried on effectually without uniformity, 
 
 (as we shall see more clearly hereafter), nor uniformity main- 
 tained without constant submission to authority^. 
 
 5. Having thus laid open the reason why our proposed 
 division into people and philosophers should be made, we may 
 proceed with greater satisfaction to get a definite idea of the 
 difference between them. Those who only learn and practise 436 
 established rules, may be called the people ; those who examine 
 and reform such rules, divesting themselves of prejudice, 
 are philosophers. According to this, philosophers should 
 search freely for truth wherever they are likely to find it. The 
 people want only to be taught what has been already approved 
 and ratified ; and to have such sentiments inculcated as will 
 make them practise established duties with spirit and con- 
 stancy. Philosophers should know ^good and evil; the people 
 should know nothing that will corrupt them. Both should 
 keep continually improving; philosophers by their own re- 
 searches — the people by whaf philosophers think it right to com- 
 municate to them, after their researches have been thoroughly 
 digested^. 
 
 * Art. XX. of the Church of England. 
 
 But are there here sufficient remedies, in 
 case philosophers should want to enslave 
 the people ? Philosophers should be ac- 
 countable finally to the people, as minis- 
 ters of state are to the main body of the 
 citizens. 
 
 Du Pin., in his negotiation with Arch- 
 bishop Wake, seems to make too great a 
 difference between philosophers (as tee 
 call them) and people. Appendix to 
 IMosheim. 
 
 ^ Cen. iii. 5. 
 
 The necessity of some such distinction 
 
 I as this has been felt in different ages ; 
 I see Wotton’s Misna, p. 22, about Fools 
 j awd Wise Men. Warburton’s Div. Leg. 
 j about exoteric and esoteric doctrines 
 I (Index). The Manicheans were divided 
 j mio Elect ?iX\A Auditors. It should, how- 
 I ever, be remarked, that we do not wish 
 to keep any persons in entire and per- 
 pe trial ignorance of any thing valuable ; 
 but only (like our Saviour and St. Paul) 
 to communicate knowledge to the people 
 i as they are able to bear it ; to let them 
 I grow <iradually^ from being babes in 
 1 Christ, to a fulness stature. 
 
II. iv. 5.] • 
 
 HIDICULE IN IIELIGION. 
 
 311 
 
 I. It must not be thought to be here affirmed, that, in fact^ 
 you can choose one set of men who are always to guide and 
 direct, like these supposed philosophers, and another set who 
 are always to be guided^ in evsery thing. This is not even 
 a part of our supposition. Most men, if not all, have occasion 
 sometimes to assume one character, and sometimes the other. 
 He who is a philosopher in this matter will be one of the 
 
 437 people in that; nay, in one and the same matter, at different 
 
 times, it may be right for the same person to act in different 
 capacities ; sometimes as a philosopher, sometimes as one of 
 the people. When I am in my study, and thinking of a 
 subject within my profession, I look upon myself as bound 
 
 to search for truth, simply, plainly, and without reserve; 
 
 to take no doctrines on trust : I am there the philosopher ; 
 
 (a lover of wisdom no one need be afraid to call himself). 
 
 When I go to church for public worship, I am one of the 
 people, a mere man, making use of the establishment to which 
 I belong, of its doctrines and its ceremonies, to excite in my 
 mind right sentiments for the purposes of life and action. 
 I am neither theologian nor critic. If I had a much meaner 
 opinion of Sternhold and Hopkins than I at present have, 
 I could sing their Psalms v/ith devotion and edification. And, 
 surely, if a divine makes himself one of the people in religious 
 assemblies, much more should a lawyer, a physician, a states- 
 man ; indeed, if they are treated as philosophers in law, physic, 
 and politics, so ought a divine to be in religion. It will never 
 improve mankind to have more done on the authority of 
 lawyers and physicians in law and physic, than on the autho- 
 rity of divines in religion. The Religio^ Laid should be 
 founded on the authority of divines, as much as the regimen 
 of a sick person on that of physicians. 
 
 There may indeed be divines, who are not such by profes- 
 sion, worthy to be reckoned philosophers in that branch. No 
 one would deny that title to Mr. Locke, Mr. Nelson, Sir Isaac 
 Newton. On the other hand, there may be divines by pro- 
 fession, who have not sufficiently studied religious truth to 
 
 438 be entitled to take the lead. Both these things, however, 
 may happen, with regard to other professions or branches 
 of knowledge. 
 
 O 
 
 4 . i_ 1 now mentioned, in the note immediately 
 
 feuch, however, seems to have been, ’ ^ 
 
 in some measure, the notion of those just , tt i 
 
 ® Title of Lord Herbert s book. 
 
312 
 
 RIDICULE IN RELIGION. 
 
 [II. iv. 6, 7. 
 
 Let every one be always either improving his opinions I. 
 as a philosopher, or learning to practise them as a m.an. 
 
 6. One of the principal conclusions which we would draw 
 from what has been said, on this division into philosophers 
 and people, is this : were there a set of men who w^ere merely 
 philosophers, in any matter, religion by no means excepted, 
 it would be their duty to use every means, ridicule amongst the 
 rest, of exploring and clearing up the truth. The other prin- 
 cipal conclusion is, w^ere there a set of men w^ho were merely 
 people, it would be their duty to take their knowledge and 
 rules of action from the authority of philosophers; and it 
 would be the duty of philosophers, and of the v/orld at large, 
 to refrain from using ridicule to them, and from doing or 
 saying any thing w'hich could loosen their attachment to their 
 duty, or make them negligent or light-minded about it. 
 
 The former of these conclusions seems most likely to be 
 contested. But to me it appears, that mere philosophers, 
 if such they were, ought to examine patiently all kinds of 
 profane and blasphemous ridicule; nay, rather seek for such 
 methods of trying serious truth. But this is no privilege^ it 
 is rather a duty. The process might be almost as loathsome 
 as searching for the philosopher’s stone, or making phospho- 
 rus; but the interests of truth would be promoted. And, 
 if men properly qualified avoid doing this, they are shutting 
 their eyes: they are presuming to lay aside an instrument 
 which God has put into their hands, lest they should do 
 mischief with it, though they are particularly prepared for 
 using it beneficially. They make themselves wiser than the 
 Creator, and become punishable for the mischiefs arising from 43 
 that error which they might have escaped. 
 
 It will be more easily granted, that the people ought to 
 be secured from the influence of profane and blasphemous 
 scurrility, and every sort of prudence observed which could 
 nourish in their breasts a serious veneration for religion h 
 
 7 . On the whole then, we ask, shall religion be ridiculed ? 
 to philosophers it may ; to the people it may not. But this 
 answer is only satisfactory on suppositions which are not 
 perfectly agreeable to fact ; that men can, in practice, be di- 
 
 ^ Since this was first written, thing's 
 seem to have been taking a turn, with 
 regard to the people’s judging for them- 
 selves ; the people are now reckoned 
 
 judges of every thing. All I would say 
 is, we must watch the eccperiment ; in 
 what has appeared hithcrio there is no- 
 thing convincing us of error. 
 
II. iv. 7.] 
 
 RIDICULE IN RELIGION. 
 
 313 
 
 I. vided into philosophers and people; and that ridicule can 
 be published to philosophers, and concealed from the people. 
 Something, therefore, must be farther deduced from what 
 has been said, which shall be more applicable to the actual 
 state of things. But first let us consider an illustration of 
 our subject, as it may confirm what is already said, and pos- 
 sibly furnish us with some hints which may be of use in our 
 last practical conclusion. 
 
 Many laws have been made against the dissection of 
 human bodies: some, perhaps, on account of men's veneration 
 for the dead, others, possibly, on principles of decency. With- 
 out dwelling on the reasons of such laws, suppose we put the 
 question, shall the human body be exposed to view in all its 
 parts ? the answer is, to the philosopher it shall, to the people 
 it shall not. Any reserve to the philosopher would be a great 
 harm to a very useful science ; perfect freedom to the people 
 would be a means of promoting vicious sentiments. 
 
 440 This instance may serve to illustrate every thing which 
 has been said in the present chapter. A person who wrote 
 with a view to mankind at large, would endeavour to reconcile 
 reasons for and against the exposure Ave are speaking of : one 
 who wrote merely for the present state of things in ordinary 
 life, would press the duties of decency and purity, and pass 
 over the improvements in science as smoothly as possible. 
 It is useful that common persons should comply with the set 
 of maxims established in their own time and country, with 
 regard to purity and the mutual reserve of the sexes. These 
 may vary ; be different here and at Otaheite ; in this age and 
 in the ages of chivalry ; but that does not affect the general 
 remark. The philosophers, in this case, are the anatomists 
 and surgeons ; with the addition of some who are in pursuit 
 of philosophical knowledge of an extensive sort. Yet these 
 ought to be under establishments in other things — law, politics, 
 religion; in which they cannot get the knowledge of philoso- 
 phers without neglecting their own department. And the 
 same person who, in the dissecting-room, examined all the 
 parts of the body without distinction or reserve, should, in 
 the common scenes of life, use caution, in order to preserve 
 his mind uncorrupted, to keep at a distance from vicious 
 disorder and irregular desire. To use reserve in the dissect- 
 
 o 
 
 ing-room would be to neglect his duty, and would make him 
 accountable for any disorders which his unreserved search 
 
314 
 
 RIDICULE IN RELIGION. 
 
 [II. iv. 7. 
 
 might have prevented. To act as an anatomist in the common I. 
 scenes of life would render him obnoxious to punishment for 
 corruption and seduction. 
 
 The illustration which we have adopted naturally leads 
 us on farther to an useful remark — that, when exposure is 
 dangerous to the people, partial exposure is more so than 
 total. Because imagination heightens and colours beyond the 441 
 reality, and takes no notice of what might disgust. Nor is it 
 checked by scruples of the moral sense. Indecency, in partial 
 exposure, gets licensed and authorized by decency. Curiosity 
 too reasons — ‘ how well worth knowing must that be which 
 is so carefully concealed !’ but expose totally, and all false 
 colouring vanishes ; all is plain downright fact ; disappointment 
 ensues, if not disgust. Let no flimsy coverings then be 
 allowed : if an exposure is likely to be troublesome, prevent 
 it wholly, or not at all. In matters relating to sensuality, 
 
 I have always found that young persons could bear in plain 
 language what, in affected figurative language, would have 
 debauched their minds. 
 
 It follows, that if ridicule be entered upon at all, it should 
 be examined to the bottom : but I do not look upon ridicule as 
 equally dangerous with sensuality. Strip ridicule of its flimsy 
 coverings, and it is usually a mere skeleton, a mere jointed 
 baby. Ludicrous things may be thrown out about a friend 
 or a parent : if they do not affect you, let them pass ; if they 
 do, examine them, and they will vanish like vapour. One 
 should not read such a book as the history of the Man after 
 God^s own heart slightly: one should either read it carefully, 
 or not at all. 
 
 Now, having offered some illustration, and deduced from 
 it an useful rule, we come to apply what has been said to the 
 actual state of things, and modify our theory for present prac- 
 tice ; and therefore we must recollect, that, in reality, philoso- 
 phers and people are intermixed. How shall we compromise 
 between them, not fettering philosophers, and not corrupting 
 people? In the first place, we must never entirely neglect 
 either: we must rather let the people be a little shocked, than 
 absolutely confine philosophical researches; and we must rather 442 
 restrain philosophers in some degree, than suffer the people to 
 be set quite loose in their principles. At different times the 
 line of our conduct may be different. We must search and try 
 what the people will bear : though, in some sense, they are in- 
 
II. iv. 8.] 
 
 RIDICULE IN RELIGION. 
 
 315 
 
 I. termixed with philosophers, yet they often know but little of 
 what is going forward, or even of what is made public, in the 
 philosophical world. It may be right not to have recourse to 
 ridicule, when it can easily be avoided : the people should not 
 be hurt, when no compensation is made to the public. If seri- 
 ous argument will answer the purpose, it is more simple and 
 definite, usually, than comic ; especially as ridicule is to be 
 examined by serious argument. Ridicule may sometimes pre- 
 pare the way for serious argument. If at any time ridicule be 
 thought needful, it should not be coarse or low ; as that lessens 
 the respect of the people more than refined humour: nor should 
 it be applied so as to affect particular seasons of devotion; not 
 in the time of public worship, or near it ; before or after ; 
 then, even the philosopher makes himself one of the people. 
 Neither ought it to be levelled at persons particularly revered — 
 parents, civil governors, priests; respect towards whom faci- 
 litates many important duties. Elderly people too are often in 
 respectable stations. These are the means of their losing the 
 advantages of that free raillery which so much improves young 
 persons. They are often spared on account of their connex- 
 ions; and the principle on which they are spared should be 
 made as extensive as possible. Were I to go into a Ma- 
 hometan country, I would never drop any thing slighting of 
 Mahomet, to the people; nor did I ever ridicule relics in 
 France, or encourage papists to do it. It seems also wrong, 
 443 and contrary to principles of general utility, to interfere with 
 seminaries of education, and endeavour to root up the doctrines 
 which a young person has had planted in his mind, before they 
 come to maturity. I would not, on any account, try to sub- 
 vert the established principles of the youth in a seminary of 
 Protestant Dissenters ; (I wish Dr. Priestly had acted from the 
 same principle to our universities) ; though I would use the 
 utmost frankness in controversy with the leaders of any sect. 
 
 8. This is the best decision, concerning the use of ridicule 
 in religion, to which we seem capable of arriving at present. 
 I feel desirous to have it appear not wholly irreconcileable with 
 Dr. PowelVs^. He excludes ridicule on supposition that it ex- 
 cludes serious argument: we only suppose it to open men to 
 serious argument, and we examine it by serious argument. He 
 proscribes it as dangerous : we allow it to be used only when 
 the greater danger would arise from setting it aside ; and we 
 ^ Charge 1st. Discourses, p. 300. 
 
316 
 
 IIIDICULE IN RELIGION. 
 
 [II. iv. 9. 
 
 attend to that danger to which it might expose the ordinary I. 
 people. He speaks of it as being for practice more than specu- 
 lation : we represent it as useful to virtue, and as tending to 
 cure men of follies of every sort. 
 
 Yet I must confess, employing ridicule to make men 
 ashamed of their /oZ/?/ in religious tenets, seems to me to be, in 
 effect, employing it in controversy. You cannot make them 
 ashamed, without convincing them in some sort : you cannot 
 well reprove, without instructing in one way or other. 
 
 9. The business of this chapter seems now finished: but, as 
 ridicule is rather a nice and disputed subject, it seems as if it 
 might be worth our while, now we have entered into it pretty 
 fully, to add a few considerations, not confining ourselves to the 
 proper subject of this chapter — which is, the application of 444 
 ridicule to disputes about religion. 
 
 In calculating the efficacy of ridicule in corrupting the 
 mind, we should take care not to make our calculation too 
 high. The bad effects of ridicule are really less durable than 
 they appear likely to be. Our thinking them likely to be du- 
 rable, is, owing to our want of experience about ridicule. It 
 seems generally true, that, when we are not accustomed to any 
 sentiment, we think it less transitory than we shall find it. La 
 passion^ voit tout eternel. A boy thinks that, if a thing once 
 pleases him, it will always please him; and, where we are inex- 
 perienced, we are boyish. Disgusts are on the same footing with 
 pleasing sentiments ; they wear off before we have had good time 
 to fight against them. It hurts one to see a respectable magis- 
 trate set in a ridiculous light, but let him appear and be atten- 
 tive to the important business of his office — let him smile at 
 himself — and the matter is quite at an end. Lord Chaneellor^ 
 Clarendon might set at nought the bellows and the fire-shovel, 
 when he had conducted one debate in the House of Peers. George 
 the Third of England has been attacked with ridicule, about 
 making buttons, wearing a rustic dress, speaking in a quick 
 way, &c. in a manner, which would have been considered as 
 treasonable, or at least libellous, in some reigns ; but the ridi- 
 cule has had much less effect by being suffered to die away, 
 than if it had been resisted. Could he now ^appear in any 
 public place, what has been said of him would be so far from 
 stopping the acclamations of his subjects, or their effusions of 
 
 ^ Pere (le Famillc, par Diderot, Acte I. | Nov. 24, lyCd. The King dangcr- 
 Sccne G. ^ 2, 13, 5. 1 ously ill. 
 
RIDICULE IN RELIGION. 
 
 II. iv. 10.] 
 
 317 
 
 I. joy and affection, that it would never occur to the mind of a 
 single person. , 
 
 44-5 Some think that ridicule, if not well founded, does not only 
 miss its intended effect, but recoils upon the author of if^. 
 
 10. The instances now alleged may be sufficient to prove 
 that the bad effects of ridicule are transitory ; but the case of 
 Socrates is so particularly interesting, and has occasioned such 
 disputes, that it seems worthy of particular mention. It is said, 
 that, when Anytus and Melitus, the accusers of Socrates, could 
 not make their accusations take effect against him, they hired 
 ^Aristophanes to set him in a ridiculous light, by introducing 
 him in an humorous comedy. This comedy, called the Clouds, 
 so let Socrates down in the eyes of his judges, so took off 
 their respect for him, that they condemned him ; and he was 
 afterwards put to death. Bishop Warburton, in his Dedi- 
 cation to the Freethinkers, gives spirited account of this 
 affair; which he afterwards defends in a Postscript, I think 
 against Dr. Akenside. Pie mentions it as a proof, that ‘‘rail- 
 lery in defence of vice and error'”* will be “an overmatch for 
 that employed on the side of truth and virtue.”’”’ To account 
 for what happened at Athens 400 years before Christ, may be 
 difficult; we may however observe, that eloquence, serious or 
 comic, may at any time raise a storm, whose effects may be im- 
 mediately fatal, if there is no way of resisting them ; but that 
 this does not seem a sufficient reason for proscribing any sort of 
 eloquence. Moreover, it is easy to see, that coarse ridicule will, 
 at first, be more powerful than refined ; and Aristophanes might 
 consider Socrates as a rival in wit, and a favourer of Euripides, 
 
 446 and expose him the more on that account”^. But our plan has 
 
 ^ Martnontel says, (Le Bon Mari, 
 vol. III. p. 74.) Quand le ridicule n’est 
 pas fonde, il retombe sur ceux qui le 
 donnent. 
 
 " See the last Argument to the Nubes 
 of Aristophanes. 
 
 c P. 19, 8vo; p. 16, 4to. 
 
 ^ The Nubes of Aristophanes might 
 operate upon the Athenians in several 
 ways : 1. It might debase their taste in 
 general, and so give them a dislike to all 
 refined lively reasoning. 2. It might 
 give them a general prejudice against 
 Socrates ; against every thing belonging 
 to him : especially it would have this 
 effect on such as were not used to correct 
 
 their feelings by their reason. It re- 
 quires a good deal of care to avoid a 
 disgust against those who are made to 
 appear before us for a good while toge- 
 ther in an odious, contemptible light. 
 
 3. It might make Socrates appear an 
 enemy to those gods which they had been 
 most used to revere, as Jupiter Pluvius, 
 Jupiter Tonans, Apollo Patrius ; (Pot- 
 ter, vol. I. p. 75 . ) and to prefer to these 
 very silly gods, the clouds, air, &c. 
 
 4. It would make Socrates odious, by 
 representing him as teaching men the 
 ways of evading common justice and 
 honesty, by sophistical reasoning. In 
 Strepsiades’s evading the demands of his 
 
318 
 
 RIDICULE IN RELIGION. 
 
 [II. iv. 11. 
 
 not been to oppose ridicule to ridicule ; but to confound ridi- I. 
 cule by serious argument ; tov yeXwTa, aTrov^fj. If, then, 
 any people follow the impressions made by ridicule, without 
 serious examination, they do not prove any thing against us. 
 
 Whatever might be the cause of Socrates’s deaths there 
 seems nothing more clear than that no ridicule rests upon his 
 character ; though the Nuhes still subsists, and, is allowed to 
 have great vis comica: nay, in the time of Cicero, Socrates was 
 admired as well as now. Lucian attacked him in a dialogue ^ 
 but the modern admiration of his character seems to be higher^ 
 than even the ancient. The Nuhes would not probably have 
 the effect now which it had formerly, even if it were well per- 447 
 formed. 
 
 It is natural to mention, that the attacks of Celsus upon 
 our Saviour have now as little effect as those of Aristophanes 
 upon Socrates. Celsus has some ridicule upon wood, with 
 allusion to the cross, and to the residence of Jesus in the 
 house of a carpenter, but it is vapid ; and we should be very 
 glad to have the works of Celsus entire, whatever profane buf- 
 foonery they may contain. 
 
 11. It seems worth while to say a word or two more^ on 
 ridicule, as being peculiar to man. Mr. Cole, in his elegant 
 Dissertation, when he sums up his considerations relating to it, 
 ^exhorts us to cultivate reason in preference to it, alleging, 
 that reason is assigned us by God, and distinguishes man 
 from brute. But may not this be said of ridicule, as much 
 as of reason ? The reason of animals has at least been con- 
 sidered by a philosopher^ as a subject of discussion ; but we 
 have settled, that brutes have no pretensions to ridicule worth 
 speaking of. Whatever is peculiar to human nature must 
 surely deserve the serious attention of mankind. Experience 
 gives us no room to conclude, that we have any faculty which 
 is not worthy of cultivation ; indeed, every faculty we have 
 seems capable of endless improvement. Had we only a pro- 
 
 creditors, there is as much implied as if 
 Aristophanes had said, ‘ Now you think 
 this very absurd reasoning of Strepsiades, 
 when he is trying to escape his creditors, 
 yet it is the very same kind of sophistry 
 by which Socrates evades the sentence of 
 the Areopagus:’ (that Socrates would be 
 tried by the Areopagus, see Potter, vol. i. 
 pp. 102, 105 ; but he had 281 voters against 
 him, besides what he had /or him : these 
 
 might easily be affected by the play, and 
 the eloquence of the accusers.) 
 
 ^ Between Menippus and Cerberus. 
 
 2 See Warb. Ded. to the Freethinkers, 
 as before. Diderot’s Comedies, vol. ii. 
 p. 203. 
 
 ^ See before, '^Chap. iii. sect. 12. 
 
 4 P. 16. 
 
 ® Mr. Hume. See his Essays. 
 
II. iv. 12.] 
 
 RIDICULE IN RELIGION. 
 
 319 
 
 I. boscis, that was peculiar to us, we ought to study it ; but, 
 if a peculiarity turns upon the highest part of our nature, 
 (which the moral part certainly is,) is it not right to conclude 
 that it is intended for good ends of an high and important 
 sort ? What these ends particularly are must be found out by 
 trials ; and the immediate view of these trials must be, to 
 
 448 extract all possible good from ridicule, and to clear that good, 
 as much as possible, from all evil which may at first seem 
 to adhere to it. We might, even now, expect to find such 
 good as present cheerfulness, and alleviation of care and 
 anxiety ; an antidote against calamity, when it would poison 
 the sources of our happiness ; a preventive against folly and 
 absurdity : and we should soon allow, that there could be 
 nothing essentially evil in that which makes men mutually 
 attract each other; which gives a strong impression of impro- 
 priety ; and which makes the powerful sentiment of shame act 
 in support of decency and good sense. 
 
 12. Those however who wish to suppress ridicule allege 
 evils which it has in fact occasioned. There seems no doubt 
 that it has occasioned evils ; but the question is, whether those 
 evils arise out of ridicule itself, or only out of abuses of 
 ridicule^ ? In general it must be allowed, that the abuses 
 of any faculty do not justify the suppressing of it: if that 
 were the case, all our faculties must be suppressed ; for they 
 are all made so as to be liable to abuse — (in that consists our 
 probation) — and they all are abused frequently. Reason, 
 imagination — every passion, appetite, sentiment — comes under 
 this remark. When laws are made they are abused, but they 
 are not therefore repealed. When liberty is given it is abused, 
 but not on that account wholly taken away, though sometimes 
 regulated in different degrees. 
 
 We may, therefore, enumerate some abuses of ridicule. 
 It will not follow, from the enumeration, that ridicule is to be 
 entirely suppressed; but only, that those abuses are to be 
 considered, and prevented as much as possible. Till ridicule 
 
 449 permitted we cannot make experiments upon it, nor therefore 
 
 can we get to understand it. We may make the enumeration 
 serve as a sort of recapitulation. If ridicule is thrown upon 
 any subject, and those to whom it is addressed accept and 
 acquiesce in it without examination by serious argument, such 
 acquiescence is an abuse. ^ 
 
 ® In the Heads of Lectures there is | printed instead of abuses of ridicule^ in 
 here an error; abuses of religion is [ one edition. 
 
320 
 
 RIDICULE IN RELIGION. 
 
 [II. iv. 13. 
 
 If faults which, in a well-regulated mind, would excite I. 
 abhorrence or detestation^ are ridiculed, there ridicule is mis- 
 applied. Ridicule may always be said to be abused, when 
 it is not used with a mew to promoting truth or virtue: one 
 might add, that such view, or purpose, should not be design- 
 edly concealed ; and farther, that we can scarce conceive any 
 one to have this view who ridicules a subject at random^ 
 before he understands much of it. As ridicule is to examine 
 serious argument, and serious argument ridicule, it may be 
 considered as an abuse, when ridicule is applied to answer 
 ridicule ; — a thing which generally appears to be ineffectual 
 as to all useful purposes. To neglect^ or refuse to apply, any 
 good remedy, may, in some sense, be called making a wrong 
 use of that remedy. In this sense, those whom we have 
 called philosophers abuse ridicule (abuse at least the goodness 
 of the Creator) when they neglect or refuse to apply it. One 
 of the principal and most striking abuses of ridicule is, when 
 it is used at wrong times and seasons^ so as to hurt the prin- 
 ciples of those in particular to whom it is addressed : as when 
 it makes the parent contemptible to the child, the instructor 
 to the pupil, the magistrate to the subject, the master to the 
 servant, and so on ; or when it occasions levity, or negligence, 
 about the only obligations of religion, or morality, whose force 
 is acknowledged. Allied to this will be that abuse which 
 
 O 
 
 takes place when ridicule only works by hints and insinua- 
 tions ; seeming tender about exposing, and affecting decency, 450 
 and yet making the object appear more ridiculous by the use 
 of reserve. There seems none of these abuses which might 
 not be remedied ; and, if that were the case after a perfect 
 enumeration, we might say, that all the evils of ridicule are 
 capable of being prevented or removed^. 
 
 13. Perhaps the most effectual method of removing the 
 evils of ridicule would be, for men of parts and taste, virtuous 
 at the same time and religious, to give specimens of the right 
 
 ^ These abuses might be thus briefly 
 enumerated ; and in a different order : 
 1. Neglecting the instrument committed 
 to man by Providence. 2. Using ridi- 
 cule when an action ought to be detested. 
 
 Using ridicule in return for ridicule. 
 4. Using it for any ends but ])romoting 
 truth and virhie ; which would include 
 using it at random. Here too our motive 
 should be professed and visible. 5. Af- 
 
 fecting reserve and decency, so as to 
 make a partial exposure of a fault. 6 
 Using ridicule unseasonably; so as to 
 hurt particularly those to whom it is 
 addressed. 7* In the above, a man is 
 active: when he is passive., or receives 
 ridicule, it is an abuse, if he does not 
 give it a serious examination ; which in- 
 cludes making a partial exposure to be 
 total. 
 
II. iv, 13.] 
 
 RIDICULE IN RELIGION. 
 
 321 
 
 I. sort of it ; in religious subjects, or others ; though some care 
 might moreover be requisite, to have them rightly received 
 and applied. We have not many instances of the sort here 
 supposed. Addison'^s humour is the nearest perfection of any 
 I know; but Swift is very masterly. Lucian and he put me 
 in mind of each other, in their easy dryness ; but Lucian runs 
 into the abuse of undermining the principles of the people. 
 Eachard is well worthy of mention. Sterne aims to ridicule 
 false science ; and, indeed, as far as he does it properly and 
 effectually, he is a supporter of truth: which observation 
 applies to the authors of the Memoirs of Martinus Scrihlerus. 
 Sterne has powers of ridicule, but I believe those who have 
 read Bahelais think Sterne less original than he is generally 
 4 .j 1 thought. His chief services to virtue and religion have been 
 in those parts of his writings which are not humorous. The 
 story of Le Fevre has great merit ; and the speech to the fly, 
 ‘‘go thy way,” &c. has, I believe, saved the lives of m.any 
 hundreds of animals. Indeed, he has drawn a character of a 
 clergymen who attacks, with delicate and benevolent ridicule, 
 every luxuriancy of truth and virtue. The fate of Yorick was 
 not totally unlike that of Socrates : delicate ridicule brought 
 on them both the envy and enmity of the coarse and vulgar, 
 to their destruction. 
 
 But Sterne makes this personage wish there was no ^such 
 thing as a polemic divine ; and he introduces^ a piece of 
 humour, which I may not rightly understand : — a contest 
 between Gymnast {yu.avacrT^^ was the teacher of the youths 
 who were to contend in the Gymnasia) and Tripet, in the 
 style perhaps of ancient chivalry or horsemanship ; to shew 
 that controversy is all made up of useless contention and osten- 
 tatious flourishes. We have only to remark, that he only 
 ridicules controversy in its worst state ; not such as we have 
 conceived, nor such as we believe to be practicable. 
 
 Bishop Warburton observes^ as has been before men- 
 tioned, that whatever good Cervantes and Butler may have 
 done by writing Don Quixote and Hudibras, they have done 
 much harm; the one to “real honour,” the other to “sober 
 piety.” Without denying the fact, we may ask whether they 
 did not do much more good than harm upon the whole It is 
 a common thing, when a person has received benefit in sick- 
 
 - Vol.iv. (Edit, in GvoIs.)Chap. xxviii. i ^Dedication to Freethinkers, p. 18, 
 
 ^ Chap. xxix. j 8vo. 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 21 
 
322 
 
 RIDICULE IN RELIGION. 
 
 [II. iv. 13. 
 
 ness from a course of medicine, to say, he is well, but he is I. 
 weakened by the discipline which he has been obliged to 
 undergo : but this is not always thought a reason against 
 administering the same remedies again on similar occasions. 452 
 It seems the condition of our nature, that we receive evil with 
 good ; at least we find this in every thing at present, though 
 it does seem in the power of man to keep diminishing the 
 evil, without limit. Ridicule is often found arm in arm with 
 profane levity and vicious licentiousness. Our friend gets 
 connected with our enemies ; but we are not, for that reason, 
 to attack the group promiscuously. We should first separate 
 our friend, and then treat our enemies as the case may require. 
 Whatever incidental evil may have arisen from the comic work 
 of Cervantes, so judicious a writer as the author of the Tatler 
 has since said, that duelling should be attacked with ridicule 
 first, before it is attacked with grave reasoning ; and I think 
 Fielding has shewn, by his Colonel Bath^ the justness of the 
 remark. 
 
 We must not quite pass over Mr. Foote. He has a festi- 
 vity vhich is very enlivening, and he knew prevailing manners 
 so well as to ridicule them very happily ; but he was too 
 ignoranC of religion to ridicule even its abuses with pro- 
 priety. When he ridicules abuses of the scriptural doctrines 
 concerning the influence of the Holy Spirit, the shock which 
 he gives is too strong. He seems not only to want theological 
 knowledge, but knowledge of the human mind; or attention in 
 entering into the feelings of rational Christians. Still, I would 
 not fly from his ridicule; I would examine it gravely, in order 
 to form an useful judgment from it; as a medical person 
 would examine some thinijs disffustin^ in their nature. I can 
 conceive the very abuses which he ridicules, to be ridiculed 
 by Addison, or others, in such a manner as not to hurt my 
 feelings. Eachard’s^ account of Parson Slipstocking relates 4.53 
 to the influence of the Holy Spirit, as well as Foote’s ridicule, 
 but it does not give me a very painful shock k 
 
 I conclude this account of authors with the mention of 
 
 * Sect. 12. No one who is ignorant of 
 the rules of (jood hreedinc)^ can ridicule 
 false politeness with effect. 
 
 2 Contempt of the (’lergy. 
 
 ^ IMr. Sheridan’s Joseph Surface, in 
 the School for Scandal, is, in my judg- 
 ment, an hurtful piece of humour : senti- 
 
 ments are expressed as ridiculous, which 
 really every honest man feels. I think 
 this is the case; but the play has not 
 been published, and I have only seen it 
 once, and that in the year 1777- Ridicule 
 is, in this play, very useful in exposing 
 censoriousness pretending to candour. 
 
II. iv. 14.] 
 
 RIDICULE IN RELIGION. 
 
 323 
 
 I. one or two now living : Madame De Sillery-Brulart (late 
 Madame de Genlis) and Mons. Berquin, In their pleasing, 
 moral, affecting dramas I find a mixture of comic and ethic, 
 which is peculiarly powerful : it has, from many readers, drawn 
 tears of the most delicious kind. I wish some student in the 
 higher parts of criticism (which include the emotions of the 
 mind,) would examine this mixture. One may see that the 
 comic makes the virtue so unaffected and unpretending as 
 greatly to heighten the merit and the effect of it. But the 
 more it was examined, the more clearly would the use and 
 excellence of ridicule appear, when rightly refined and judici- 
 ously applied. 
 
 14. In private life I think I have known ridicule employ- 
 ed much as I should wish it to be in controversy ; not amongst 
 the licentious, but amongst the most virtuous and religious 
 persons I ever had the happiness to converse with : employed 
 with cheerfulness and kindness, with frankness, but with deli- 
 454 cacy and respect, mutually offered and received. Such ridicule 
 is rather flattering than wounding, as it implies great candour 
 and sweetness in those to whom it is addressed. 
 
 Men are often thought to be more offended by raillery 
 than they really are. They shew some confusion, and that 
 is thought to be merely anger, when really it springs from 
 various causes. Sometimes even the fear of seeming offended 
 will occasion it; sometimes, mortification at discovering an 
 unknown fault, or vexation at the misrepresentations of the 
 world. This kind of confusion often interrupts mutual raillery, 
 when the person who is confused would, after a very short 
 interval, shew an earnest desire to continue it. 
 
 I fear Dr. Brown, who is commended by Bishop War- 
 burton’^ for writing well upon ridicule, wanted a little of its 
 help himself towards the latter part of his life. Some nego- 
 ciation about his furnishing a set of laws for Russia, with 
 other causes, made him, if I remember right, run into an 
 excess of seriousness. I fear he became seriously vain and 
 proud; I fear, — but I will only add, that ridicule well applied, 
 and applied in time, might have been his best medicine. Some 
 
 ^ Particularly those contained in the 
 4th vol. of the Theatre of Education ; 
 and the larger pieces in L’Ami des 
 Enfans. 
 
 I have met with instances of the same 
 kind of mixture now and then in other 
 
 writings, hut I have seen nothing so 
 efficacious. The humour of sailors in 
 the midst of danger makes something of 
 the same sort of mixture; but the com- 
 pound is less refined. 
 
 I)ed. to Freethinkers, page 20, 8vo. 
 
 21 2 
 
324 
 
 RIDICULE IN RELIGION. 
 
 [II. iv. 15. 
 
 of the clergy who live retired, are apt also, I fear, to become I. 
 too serious. The moderate use of delicate and respectful ridicule 
 might, in some cases, take olF that seeming moroseness, that 
 apparent rancour, with which they are sometimes apt to speak 
 of the faults of their neighbours ; meaning only honest indig- 
 nation ; and perhaps be a means, in other instances, of prevent- 
 ing the contrary ecctreme; for he who prevents one extreme 
 often prevents another. Socrates must have been very pleas- 
 ing in private life, and his wit must have had a great tendency 
 to check such excesses as these. I should be curious to know 
 whether Sterne thought of Socrates in drawing YoricJc, or 455 
 Fielding in drawing^ Dr. Harrison? Some of the greatest 
 men I have ever heard converse, have excelled in delicate 
 and well-bred ridicule^. 
 
 15. The Scriptures have, I think, been considered by 
 some as adverse to the use of ridicule. If \hcy forbad the use 
 of it, we must conclude ourselves mistaken in our reasoning ; 
 but that does not appear to be the case. All Scripture seems 
 to be occasional, and the occasions on which the different 
 parts were written are serious; so that men might have written 
 gravely upon them, who, in common discourse, did not dis- 
 card humour entirely. It has been said^, that Jesus never 
 was known to laugh. It may be so: extensive views, business, 
 sufferings, compassion, might possibly prevent it. At the 
 marriage at Cana^ he must have been amidst festive conver- 
 sation ; and he miraculously provided wine, whicli maketh 
 glad the heart of man. Though he was sometimes indignant 
 at hypocrisy, he says of it what may be taken in a ludicrous 
 light. The gnat^ and the camel were both unclean animals 
 amongst the Jews; the swallowing of the latter was exaggera- 
 tion, and of a kind not very serious : the picture of hypocrites 
 scrupulously filtering, lest they should be so unfortunate as 
 to swallow an unclean insect, and then gobbling down a great 
 unclean beast, has not much gravity in it ; and what is repre- 
 sented by it, namely, great nicety in some things, and great 455 
 want of nicety in others, makes a contrast of itself, w'hich 
 mificht excite some feeling of ridicule. Our Saviour, in his 
 
 * In Amelia. 1 of instances ; though 1 have some in my 
 
 ^ Mr. Charles Townshencl, Chancellor j mind’s eye, equally apt, if not equally 
 of the Exchequer; Lord North, when i known. 
 
 lirst minister; Sir George Savile, Ur. j ^ In the Spectator, I think; or some 
 Ualguy, Mr. (fray, Mr. Mason, Ur. Pa- other work of great excellence. 
 
 Icy; not to venture upon a greater number ; ^ Matt, xxiii. 24. 
 
II. iv. 16 -.] 
 
 RIDICULE IN RELIGION. 
 
 325 
 
 I. teaching, did not want to make slight and superficial impres- 
 sions; however, he sa 3 ’'s nothing against the use of ridicule, 
 as we wish it to be used. Nor do his Apostles. EerpaTreXia 
 is forbidden^; but it was probabl}" low buffoonery and ob- 
 scenity, or what we call double double entendre. Let any 
 one read the context, and Parkhurst’s account of eiirpaTreXm, 
 and Locke’s note on liKeove^ia : they both refer to Hammond, 
 who is learned and judicious upon the subject. Christians 
 are repeatedly told that they are to rejoice evermore, that is 
 habitually ; an habitual cheerfulness cannot well be conceived, 
 without some mixture of comic pleasantry ; it must be fre- 
 quently The righteous are to be glad and rejoice 
 in the Lord ; and the true® of heart to be joyful. This, indeed, 
 is from the Old Testament. In the Old Testament there 
 are several passages about idolatry, which contain humour ; 
 and their being controversial, as it were, makes them the more 
 to our purpose. We might instance in 'Elijah’s mocking the 
 priests of Baal, and several passages® of Isaiah. 
 
 As to Lord Shaftesbury'' s^ saying that the Scriptures are 
 humorous, I only look upon that as his method of treating 
 them with derision. 
 
 The Church of England cannot be supposed to look upon 
 ridicule as contrary to the Scriptures, because she uses it with 
 regard to the superstitions of the Church of Rome^®. 
 
 457 1^- We need be the less discouraged about using ridicule; 
 
 as it appears, I think, pretty plain, that all use it when they 
 are able. Even those writers who condemn the use of it in 
 others use it themselves. I have always conceived that Mr. 
 John Wesley would be shocked at any levity concerning 
 theological subjects, (though, to say the truth, I am not 
 acquainted with any part of his works in which he directly 
 says so ; I am not well read in his works ;) — but I once heard 
 him preach concerning demoniacs a discourse, the controver- 
 sial part of which was humorous ; that is, contained comic 
 strictures of a refined and ingenious sort upon his adversaries. 
 And I am told, from good authority, that he has great comic 
 powers^k But Bishop W^arburton is more to our purpose. 
 
 ® Ephes.v. 4. ® Psal. xxxii. 11 or 12. 
 
 ’’ I Kings xviii. 27. 
 
 ® Isaiah XLiv. 10, IJ. 
 
 ° Characteristics, vol. iii. Miscellany 
 II. Chap. iii. or Lcland’s View, p. 57, 
 4th Edit. 
 
 See Homily on good works. Part 3d, 
 pp. 43 and 45, 8vo. 
 
 “ Since this was written Mr. John 
 Wesley is dead, but that does not seem 
 to make the instance less apt. 
 
326 
 
 RIDICULE IN RELIGION. 
 
 [II. iv. 17. 
 
 as we have seen him contending against the use of ridicule. I. 
 
 I will select a few passages from that very Dedication to the 
 Freethinkers, in which we have already found his arguments. 
 
 He compares^ the Freethinkers to a Sir Martin^ in a comedy 
 of Dryden’s, on account of their continuing, through imitation 
 and affectation, needlessly to complain of want of liberty ^ — 
 
 “all the rest, says he, is merely Sir Martin; it is continuing 
 to fumble at the lute, though the music has been long over.” 
 
 He commends a fine piece of controversial irony^ written 
 against Freethinkers ^ He compares the mixture of serious- 
 
 ness and ridicule found in their writings, to the character of 
 Bayes’s actor in the Rehearsal^. He compares ridicule in 
 controversy to chewed bullets^; and to Marius’s darts®: indeed, 
 he owns that the “ disposition towards unseasonable mirth 
 drives all parties upon being witty, where they can, as being 458 
 conscious of its powerful operation in controversy^. 
 
 17- The result of what has been said on the subject of 
 ridicule seems to be this: ridicule ought to be studied; ex- 
 perimentally, as far as possible : that is, its abuses, and the evils 
 arising from them, should be marked and defined ; and its 
 uses brought to light, and made clear and evident. In speci- 
 fying its abuses and mischiefs, we should condemn all vicious 
 levity, all incautious allusion, or painting, which could occa- 
 sion scandal to the well-meaning, or loosen principles not 
 likely to have others immediately substituted in their room ; 
 though we should own, that more hazard might safely be run 
 than would at first be imagined. 
 
 In settling the uses of ridicule, we should determine that 
 it might be the means of shewing to ourselves and our friends 
 those faults which most impeded our advancement in useful 
 knowledge, virtue, and religion. It might hinder us from 
 being pedantic, selfsatisfied, proud, hypocritical ; or from 
 running into fanatacism or superstition. And, if it were cul- 
 tivated by men of abilities and talents, of polished minds and 
 amiable dispositions, it might, when mixed with worthy and 
 pious sentiments, give such a grace and beauty to virtue and 
 religion, as would make them universally loved and desired. 
 
 1 P. 4. 8vo. 2 Jbid. ^P.5. ^ P. 8. 5 p, 22. e p. 10 . 7 ibid, 
 
II. V. ].] 
 
 CANONS OF CONTIIOVEIISV 
 
 327 
 
 I. 
 
 459 CHAPTER V. 
 
 CANONS OF CONTEOVERSY 
 
 IIaving examined the nature of controversy, and the good 
 and bad qualities of those who engage in carrying it on, and 
 having spoken pretty largely of the use and abuse of ridicule, I 
 come now to mention, as the result of our disquisitions, some 
 rules or Laws of Controversy, to which recourse may be had, 
 when any doubts arise concerning the rectitude of any manner 
 of disputing. 
 
 When laws are proposed, it is natural to ask, how are they 
 to be enforced ? where do you find an authority or power to 
 carry them into execution ? I fear we have nothing to trust to, 
 in fact, but the apprehensions which most men have of going 
 against the general sense of reputable and judicious people. 
 We know, that, in what are called affairs of honour, nay, in 
 public as well as in private war, the ignominy arising from 
 general blame and contempt acts very forcibly ; why might 
 we not hope for the same kind of obedience and submission, if 
 we could get laws of controversy as well established as laws of 
 honour already are ? It would contribute something to this de- 
 sirable end, if laws were only defined and published. 
 
 But it might assist our imagination^ and give a greater dig- 
 nity and consequence to each law, if we conceived some great 
 synod which should recognize our laws, and pronounce sen- 
 tence on such as should violate them. Louis XIV. of France 
 had some idea of forming a great council by delegates from 
 
 460 different states, in order to settle and enforce the rights of 
 nations : why may not we imagine a council formed by dele- 
 gates from different national churches? Were such a council 
 actually to meet, their laws would probably be called canons ; 
 we will therefore use that term. Our council might be both 
 legislative and judicial: its punishments might be disgrace, 
 expunging blamable expressions, &c. The very idea of such a 
 council might have its use : it would occasion the greater inte- 
 rest, and greater distinctness^ when it was said, that A had 
 broken the 4th Canon, B the 6th, and so forth : and those might 
 submit to a rule or law made hejorehand, who would not sub- 
 mit to an observation made in their own particular case. 
 
 Canon 1. Let no one be allowed to take any part in con- 
 troversy who will not at all times be ready to proclaim, when 
 
328 
 
 CANONS OF CONTllOVEllSY. 
 
 [II. V. 2,3. 
 
 called upon, “ I may be in an error or even to wear some- I. 
 thincr on which these words should be inscribed. In the heat 
 of controversy men forget the numberless sources of error which 
 are really in every controverted subject, especially in theology^ 
 and metaphysics. Hence presumption, confidence, arrogant 
 language ; all which greatly obstruct the clearing up of truth. 
 
 Any expedient to set these in their true light, and make men 
 sensible of the folly of them, must be very serviceable; and 
 it seems scarcely possible for men to persist in them, who ac- 
 knowledged, in a solemn manner, that they were continually 
 liable to error. 
 
 To obviate mistakes, we will just observe, that there may 
 be cases in which the opposite language may be held. A priest 
 may say to one of his own catechumens, I am not to be con- 
 sidered by you as liable to error ; that is, ‘ you are most likely 
 to keep free from error, if, for the present, you follow my 46l 
 advice and judgment.’ But here the case is very different 
 from that which is supposed, when we speak of controversy. 
 This is the case of one of the people receiving his opinions 
 from a philosopher ; but in controversy, contending parties 
 are equally philosophers. 
 
 Canon 2. All expressions of selfsujfficie7icy shall bring 
 disgrace on him who uses them. He uses such expressions 
 who calls his own cause the cause of God, and his own in- 
 terpretation the word of God ; who insults others, and de- 
 means himself as if he acted upon demonstration, instead of 
 probability. Selfsufficient expressions are hurtful, as they 
 tend to prevent the chief end of controversy, which is, the 
 ascertaining of truth, by the removal of all that error which 
 is apt to get intermixed with it. They have also some mis- 
 chiefs in common with some other faults. 
 
 Should any one think this second canon too nearly allied 
 to the first, let him reflect, that the faults implied in them 
 are distinct, and would require distinct charges. A person 
 may possibly own himself fallible, in form, and yet may use 
 selfsufficient expressions ; or he may use them when he has 
 never been called upon to declare himself fallible. 
 
 Canon 3. All expressions, which are judged unmeaning 
 as to the matter in dispute, shall be expunged by authority, 
 with disgrace to him who uses them. 
 
 All expressions are unmeaning which contain no part of 
 ^ Dr. Balguy, Charge V. as before. 
 
11. V. i, 5.] 
 
 CANONS OF CONTKOVEKSY. 
 
 329 
 
 I. an argument ; which are declamatory ; which one side has 
 as much right to use as the other. And those might be 
 added which are used as technical, pedantic, ostentatious, 
 or are borrowed from systems not understood', or which, in 
 any way, miss the question. 
 
 462 All these throw a mist over the truth, and hinder it from 
 being clearly discerned. They set the ideas which ought to 
 be compared at a distance from each other ; and interpose 
 objects which prevent their agreement^ or disagreement from 
 appearing distinctly. 
 
 Canon 4. Whoever uses personal reflections in contro- 
 versy shall be deemed an enemy to truth. What these are, 
 needs no explanation. Archbishop Sharp says, “ Mens^ per- 
 sons are sacred things.” And what if A were a dull man, 
 B a pert forward man, C a sot, D an hypocrite, and so on ? 
 all men have faults, and men who have different faults have 
 written truths, and men with different good qualities have 
 written falsehoods. So that personal reflections, though found- 
 ed in truth, help nothing forward. In effect, they greatly 
 retard and obstruct mental improvement. They prevent even 
 just reasoning from being accepted by common men; and 
 when any one is so uncommonly candid as to examine argu- 
 ments in which he is abused, he must meet with difficulties 
 and hinderances ; he must have a shock of resentment and 
 indignation to overcome, which cannot but require time and 
 attention, and so divert his attention from the argument. 
 
 How much better than using personal abuse would it be 
 for a man to say to his adversary, ‘ you think this way, I think 
 that ; there is no need for us to feel the least personal ill will 
 to each other ; let us, as friends, go hand in hand, and see 
 if we cannot find out what it is that occasions our difference 
 of opinion.’ 
 
 Canon 5. Let no one accuse his adversary of indirect 
 motives. 
 
 463 It is not unfrequent in controversy for men to speak as 
 if an adversary did not really believe what he said ; as if he 
 used arguments, not from opinion, but because it served some 
 purpose of interest — because it supported some cause in which 
 he was joined. To speak thus is, in reality, to make a per- 
 sonal reflection, but it seems proper to observe separately, that 
 
 - See Dr. Balguy, p. 193. ^ Locke iv. 1, 2. 
 
 Sermons, vol. i. Serm. 1. 5thly. 
 
330 
 
 CANONS OF CONTROVERSY. 
 
 [II. V. 6. 
 
 arguments are to be answered equally, whether he who offers I. 
 them is sincere or not : nay, if we knew him to be insincere, 
 we must answer them. We cannot do so the less, when we 
 reflect that we have no way of knowing whether he really be 
 sincere or not. To inquire into his motives then is useless; 
 to ascribe indirect ones to him, is worse than useless — it is 
 hurtful. 
 
 Sometimes, however, the case is such, that it seems as if 
 we were not bound to take men in the literal sense, when they 
 profess their motives for writing. They make pretences which, 
 to a private friend, they would undoubtedly own are not to 
 be understood literally. These are sometimes intended to 
 ward off* danger, or prevent legal prosecution. Of this sort 
 is the conclusion of Mr. Hume’s Essay on Miracles ; Lord 
 Shaftesbury’s account of the pleasantry of the Scriptures, 
 referred to before k I used to think Woolston’s profession 
 a strong instance of this ; but, from farther consideration of 
 his life and character^, I doubt whether it is: I rather think 
 it is not : which may be a warning (to me at least) against 
 judging hastily in such matters. In action we must follow 
 probahility. We must not, in defending ourselves, run into 
 such excess of candour as to think men better than they are ; 
 but whatever they are, when we come to contend with them, 
 we must observe and obey the laws of contention. 
 
 Canon 6. They are to be censured who charge the con- 464 
 sequences of doctrines upon those who only hold the doctrines 
 themselves. 
 
 This is one of the most common faults of controversy ; but 
 though the consequences are rightly drawn, it is unjust to 
 take for granted that our adversaries hold them^. How does 
 it appear that they ever drew any consequences? Perhaps 
 they might rather give up the original doctrine than embrace 
 that which has been deduced from it. The deduction might 
 to them disprove the doctrine: and the injustice is still greater 
 if the consequences are not rightly deduced; which may 
 frequently be the case. Moreover, the consequences charged 
 are generally of a practical nature, and they are said to be 
 held when they really are not. In this way, the fault gets to 
 be an imputation of vice; and therefore provokes (at the same 
 time that it perplexes) in the manner of a personal reflection. 
 
 * Chap. iv. sect. 15. ^ See I. xvi. 7 - 
 
 ^ See Abp. Sharp, vol. i. Serm. 1. 4thly. 
 
II. V. 7, 8.] 
 
 CANONS OF CONTROVERSY. 
 
 331 
 
 I. Men are led into this imputing of consequences, by reason- 
 ing against their adversaries in the way of the reductio ad 
 absurdum^. If from any proposition absurd propositions 
 follow, it is rightly concluded that the original proposition 
 is false ; but it cannot be rightly concluded that the adver- 
 saries maintain those absurd propositions ; that is a question 
 only of fact. The ^ Manicheans held that the Gospels were 
 not written by apostles, or even by apostolic men : to disprove 
 this opinion, it has been urged, if so, the Gospels must be 
 of no validity ; which is an absurd thing for any set of 
 Christians to maintain. The reasoning seems right ; but it 
 seems equally right to say, that “ if that be the consequence 
 465 of their principle, they did not see it.” They reasoned ill ; 
 but still they did not maintain, or mean to maintain, that the 
 Gospels were of no authority. 
 
 Canon 7* It is unlawful to refer any saying of an adver- 
 sary to a party. 
 
 This is done when it is said — this is downright Popish 
 superstition, Scotch philosophy, Irish blundering ; these are 
 rank Tory principles, fine high-church doctrines. 
 
 That this is wrong appears from hence : it scarce ever 
 happens that when an opinion is referred to a party, it is not 
 first distorted, stretched, in short, changed^ in order to make 
 it fit the place where it is to be put. Or if, at any time, 
 the opinion is not changed, it gets to be differently esteemed. 
 If you see a person for the first time in bad company, you 
 have a very different idea of him from what you would have 
 if you had seen him in good company ; thus the judgment 
 gets biassed by prejudice, and free and candid inquiry is 
 prevented. Throwing odium upon any person has, moreover, 
 the effect of provoking ; which obstructs the investigation of 
 truth, in the manner before ® described. 
 
 Canon 8. Whoever shall be convicted of the misappli- 
 cation of ridicule in controversy shall be censured^ according 
 to the particular circumstances of his case. 
 
 The abuses of ridicule having been very lately enumerated, 
 I will give no description of them here. Suffice it to say, 
 that, as men will bear more freedom of ridicule at some times 
 than at others, and ridicule will be more refilled at one time 
 than another, there should be conceived a separate set of rules 
 
 ^ Chap. ii. sect. 13. ^ See Lardner’s Works, vol. iii. pp. 519, 520. 
 
 ® Sect. 4. 
 
332 
 
 CANONS OF CONTEOVEllSY. 
 
 [II. V. 9, 10. 
 
 relating to ridicule, to be changed from time to time. The I. 
 general principles, on which they should be founded, are, not 46G 
 to debase or corrupt the minds of the people ; and to apply 
 ridicule in such a manner as to rouse men from their prejudices 
 and faults, and set them on thinking for themselves ; and, at 
 the same time, make them open to the advice of those who are 
 best qualified to think for them. 
 
 9. We will not proceed any farther in forming canons of 
 controversy ; that would look as if we really meant to compile 
 a complete set ; whereas, our intention is rather to suggest an 
 idea, than to execute a plan. To make an useful code of laws 
 many counsellors seem required, and an exact knowledge of 
 the state of things. Even when these are to be had, and laws 
 are made, evasions and new modes of offending will require 
 new laws continually. 
 
 In the canons which we have proposed, we have not kept 
 up to the strict notion of three parties in controversy ; we 
 have rather conceived two parties, for the sake of coming 
 nearer to the kind of controversy which actually prevails : to 
 regulate that must be the most useful. What change is made 
 by transferring controversy from three to two, has been shewn 
 in the second chapter k Upon the whole, it seems as if it 
 would be best for controversialists, when there are but two 
 parties, to consider themselves merely as advocates, making 
 the world the judge. A mixture of characters, which occa- 
 sions a confusion, so that none of them are thoroughly sup- 
 ported, seems to do more harm than could arise from advocates 
 regarding only one side of a question, professedly. 
 
 10. Nothing can so well prove the want of some canons 
 of controversy, as giving instances of the violation of those 
 which we have proposed. But I will not refer you to a 4?S7 
 multiplicity of authors ; I will select chiefly from one ; an 
 author deservedly admired for both genius and learning: I 
 mean the author of the Divine Legation of Moses. I con- 
 ceive this author to be as able an advocate as ever wrote. 
 
 In the light of what we call a judge, he seems somewhat less 
 estimable. 
 
 Canon 1. Against denying the possibility of error. 
 
 There may be the fewer instances of violating this canon, 
 as it is levelled chiefly at the general style of controversy. 
 
 Bishop Warburton mentions^ an author who has evinced 
 ^ Sect. 0. - Div. Leg. vol. iv. p. 122. 
 
II. V. 10.] 
 
 CANON'S OF CONTROVERSY. 
 
 333 
 
 I. a truth ‘‘beyond the possibility of a reply.” It would have 
 been an hard matter to evince any truth so to Bishop War- 
 burton: his fertility in reply was infinite. 
 
 Canon 2. Against expressions of self sit fficiency . 
 
 Bishop Warburton'^ says, “ All that has befallen me in 
 defence of religion is only tlie railings of the vile and im- 
 potent.” No one should be so selfsufficient as to call himself 
 a defender of religion^ so as to imply that other Christians are 
 not defenders of religion. All sects of Christians defend what 
 they think true religion. 
 
 The same author speaks^ of his adversary as opposing 
 him, “ in open defiance of the Prophets and the Apostles, 
 of Moses and of Jesus Christ.” That is, the Bishop implies, 
 that he had these imdoiihtedly on his side ; whereas, the end 
 and purpose of the debate was to determine what was their 
 real meaning. Both sides acknowledged their authority. 
 
 Canon 3. Against unmeaning expressions. 
 
 Bishop Warburton uses frequently declamatory expres- 
 4()(S sions, which his opponents have an equal right to use. 
 “ Something^ is to be allowed to a weak cause.” The Free- 
 thinkers are charged with “an unnatural mixture of scepticism*^ 
 and dogmatizing.” He says to them, “ You have done your 
 worst; you should think of growing better".” An expression 
 equally declamatory is this : “ But what follows is such un- 
 accountable jargon®!” Such instances as these might easily 
 be multiplied. It is as easy for any one to call Bishop War- 
 burton ‘ our holy prelate^’* as it is for him to say, ‘ our learned 
 doctor, or professor.’ It is as obvious for one side as the 
 other to use that common form, “ If you have given your- 
 self the trouble to examine, you must have been convinced.” 
 
 With regard to missing the question^ see Dr. Jortin’s six 
 Dissertations^. 
 
 Unintelligible expressions are exposed in the Provincial 
 Letters, and in Voltaire’s History oi Jansenism, and Quietism, 
 in his Age of Louis XIV. See also Mosheim, 12th Cent. 2, 
 3, 15, about the sense in which an incarnate God might be 
 at the same time the offerer and the oblation. 
 
 Mosheim says, that “ the opinions of Nestorius and the 
 council which condemned him, v/ere the same in effect.” To 
 
 “ D. L. vol. IV. p. 134. 
 
 * Ibid. vol. IV. p. 123, note. 
 ^ Ded. to Freethinkers, p. 7- 
 
 « Ibid. p. 40. 7 Ibid. p. 44. 
 
 8 D. L. vol. IV. p. 137. ^ P. 51, 52. 
 
 >0 Mosh. 5th Cent. 2, 5, 9. 
 
334 
 
 CANONS OF CONTROVERSY. 
 
 [II. V. 10. 
 
 bring about a condemnation, when this is the case, the expres- I. 
 sions must have been unmeaning. 
 
 Canon 4. Against personal reflections. 
 
 We do but find too many instances of the violation of 
 this canon. We may take one from a passage already referred 
 tok All that has befallen me, &c. is only the railings of the 
 vile and impotent : and all that is likely to befall him, is only 
 the ridicule of all besides.” The person meant by 469 
 
 was the very respectable Dr. Rutherforth. 
 
 Bishop Warburton, speaking^ of a writer in favour of 
 Christianity, and of the Freethinkers as his accusers, says, 
 
 ‘‘ the word of his accusers is not apt to go very far with me.” 
 
 Jonathan Edwards., speaking ^about Hobbes, says, “this 
 great truth, that Jesus is the Son of God, was not spoiled 
 because it was once and again proclaimed with a loud voice 
 by the devil.” He is here defending himself against the 
 charge of being an Hobbist : perhaps he might not mean to 
 abuse Hobbes ; but only to argue with his opponents on their 
 own suppositions. 
 
 The ^ Socinian controversy affords still too many instances 
 of violations of this canon. See Letter to Bishop Hallifax, 
 p. 29, and his reply, naming Mr. Blackall as the writer. 
 
 Mr. Frend is adding to the number. 
 
 Canon 5. Against ascribing indirect views to adversaries. 
 
 Such insinuations” (says Warburton^ to the Freethink- 
 ers) are amongst your arts of controversy.” 
 
 He also charges them® (whether truly or not, does not seem 
 to be the question) with the “low cunning of pretending still 
 to lie under restraints.” 
 
 But there is so capital an instance in Dr. Priestley’s 
 History" of the Corruptions of Christianity, that we need 
 produce no other. It is too long to transcribe, but it makes 
 the concluding remark of the three first parts of his work. 
 
 I will read it to you. 
 
 “You industriously keep out of sight all the limitations,” 470 
 &c. Blackall to Dr. Hallifax, p. 29. 
 
 Canon 6*. Against charging the consequences of doctrines 
 upon those who only maintain the doctrines themselves. 
 
 • Div. Leg. vol. iv. p. 134. 
 
 2 Ded. to Freethinkers, p. h. 
 
 ^ On Free-will, p. 322. Part. iv. sect. 7. 
 See a short Defence of the Doctrine 
 
 of Atonement, p. 92, from Graham, 
 about having as much occasion for gibbets 
 as churches. ^ P. 7, 3vo. 
 
 P. 4. 7 Vol. I. p. 320. 
 
II. V. 10.] 
 
 CANONS OF CONTROVERSY. 
 
 335 
 
 I. The Socinians keep constantly, in spite of all answers, 
 charging the Trinitarians with denying the unity of God, and 
 the humanity of Christ®. 
 
 Archbishop King, in his Sermon on Foreknowledge has 
 a passage to our purpose. 
 
 Stillingfleet, Bishop of Worcester, opposes Mr. Locke 
 on identity, as if Mr. Locke brought into doubt the Christian 
 doctrine of the resurrection of the body ; though Mr. Locke 
 maintained that doctrine. 
 
 See Archbishop Sharp, vol. i. Sermon 1. 4thly. See a good 
 recommendation of this canon in Gilpin’s Lives of the Re- 
 formers from Bishop Taylor’s Liberty of Prophesying. 
 
 Nestorius suffered through want of attention to this canon. 
 See Mosheim, 5th Cent. 2, 5, 9. 
 
 If the Epicuveaiis had been charged with the consequences 
 of their doctrines, Cicero observes that they would have been 
 very different persons from what he found them. For Epicu- 
 reans and Stoics see Encyclopedic, vol. i. p. 8O9, col. 2. 
 and 810". 
 
 If we are Christians we must be slaves. This is, in sub- 
 stance, the remark of Machiavelli, quoted in Mr. Hume’s 
 Natural History of Religion 
 
 A Chinese philosopher, reasoning against the doctrine of 
 Foe, viz. that the body is only a dwelling for the soul, urges 
 471 that Foe must wish to root out of the heart the virtue of 
 love of parents ( ; he must make their persons 
 despicable. 
 
 It would seem odd to ns to charge those who preach the 
 immortality of the soul, with encouraging suicide ; yet we are 
 told that suicide has, in fact, been the consequence of that 
 doctrine. It generally happens that the consequences charged 
 do not follow in fact; but, though they do sometimes, they 
 may not always. I do not know, after all, whether the Pre- 
 destinarians and Necessitarians, as good Christians and as 
 good men as any others, have not suffered most by having con- 
 sequences of their opinions charged upon them. 
 
 I have given the more instances under this canon, as it 
 has seemed to want explanation ; and as instances under it 
 
 « Racov. Cat. p. 99. 
 
 9 Sect. 33. 3f). 10 P. 82. 
 
 " See something to the purpose of this 
 canon, Lardner’s Heresies, B. i. sect. 17. 
 
 Essays, 8vo. vol. ii. p. 455. 
 
 Spirit of Laws, Book xxiv. Chap. 19. 
 Note. 
 
336 
 
 CANONS OF CONTROVERSY. 
 
 [II. V. 11. 
 
 seem to improve and enlarge the mind; and to have a ten- I. 
 dency to prevent that fault in controversy into which reason- 
 ing and well-meaning men are most likely to fall. 
 
 Canon 7. Against referring things to party. 
 
 Bishop Warburton says^ of Dr. Rutherforth : “This, 
 though the language of Toland, Tindal, Collins, and the 
 whole tribe of Freethinkers, yet comes so unexpected from a 
 professor of Divinity,” &c. 
 
 Calixtus, a Lutheran in the 17th century, tried to recon- 
 cile contending parties^. The zealous Protestants charged 
 him with favouring Popery; and a book was published against 
 Ills new theology with this title, Crypto-papismus novae 
 Theologiae Helmstadiensisk He was also charged by Luther- 
 ans with favouring the reformed. He met with opposition 
 from opposite parties. 
 
 Archbishop Fenelon’s book, called Maxims of the Saints^ 472 
 was condemned"^ when it got charged with Molinism. 
 
 Jonathan Edwards was accused of beino; an Hobhist. 
 CudwortKs famous work was charged with Atheism and 
 Arianism^. 
 
 Pope was ranked with Tories by Whigs, and with Whigs 
 by Tories. Like good Erasmus. ^ 
 
 Canon 8. Against the misapplication of ridicule. 
 
 The ridicule thrown by Bishop W arburton on Dr. Ruther- 
 forth might have been avoided, without hurting any argument. 
 
 It can scarce be conceived to have sprung from a desire of 
 promoting truth or rirtue. Take particularly the quotation 
 from the monk of Chester about Leon Gawer^\ 
 
 See also the conclusion of the Dedication to the Free- 
 thinkers, about the Egyptian” swine — tending to exasperate, 
 rather than convince. 
 
 Instances might be taken from the character of the pro- 
 curess in Foote's Minor. 
 
 11. Having seen that controversy is in an imperfect state, 
 the last business we have, after laying down some rules, 
 is to endeavour to conceive some other expedients for im- 
 proving it. 
 
 * Div. Leg. vol. iv. p. 131. 
 
 2 jMosheim, Cent. IJ. sect. 2. Part II. 
 Cliap. i. sect. 21. 
 
 •* Calixtus was of the university of 
 Ilelmstadt, where professors take an oath 
 that they will endeavour to diminish dis- 
 
 sensions amongst Christians. Mosheira, 
 ibidem. ^ Volt. L. 14. Quietisme. 
 
 ^ See D. L. Pref. to vol. it. Part i. 
 
 pp. 4!), rjO. 
 
 ‘‘ 1), L. vol. iv. p. IHI. 
 
 " End of Bed. to Freethinkers. 
 
IL V. 11.] 
 
 CANONS OF CONTROVERSY. 
 
 337 
 
 I. i. We should consider vvliat a wretched figure our contro- 
 versies must make in the eyes of those who are not zealous 
 Christians — of plain men in active life, who have not time 
 to examine into the grounds of different Christian tenets; or 
 in the eyes of those who have a turn for philosophy, but 
 have not studied Christianity. I fear Lord Bolingbroke 
 
 473 gives^ but too just an account of the matter in his first 
 Essay on Human Knowledge, sect. 4. Till we make a better 
 figure in the eyes of thinking men, we must expect to lose 
 the assistance of many who would be very powerful in pro- 
 moting the Christian cause^. 
 
 ii. We should study the causes of past miscarriages, in 
 history, as well as in modern times. It seems likely that the 
 Christian religion would have been successfully taught in 
 China., had not the different sects of Christians there got into 
 controversy with one another, and carried it on in such a man- 
 ner as to disgust the emperor. He had a very great respect 
 for the missionaries, on account of their skill in mathematics 
 and philosophy. These had not been so much cultivated in 
 China as it was seen they deserved. The people, however, 
 were not unimproved in morals., which are chiefly wanting 
 for the reception ^^of Christianity. 
 
 iii. It might prevent our being over-heated in present 
 controversy, if we considered how very frivolous and con- 
 temptible some past controversies have been, about which 
 prejudices no longer subsist. That might be mentioned about 
 the immaculate conception ; that about the question agitated 
 in the l6tli century, whether original sin is to be placed in 
 the class of substances^^ or accidents? But, perhaps, the 
 heresy of Galileo might be as interesting as any to us. The 
 decree of the Inquisition against him, and his abjuration, are 
 
 474 in Ladvocafs short Biographical Dictionary. Any dispute 
 about an opinion deemed heretical may come under religious 
 controversy, 
 
 iv. As we shall be called visionary, and perhaps derided 
 as chimerical, for speaking of improved controversy, as if it 
 
 Works in quarto, vol. in. pp. 423, 
 
 425. 
 
 ® The texts of Scripture which enforce 
 a prudent regard in Christians to those 
 who are not so, to those that are without, 
 should here be noticed : 2 Cor. vi. 3. 
 Col. iv. 5. 1 Thess. iv. 12. 1 Tim. iii. 7. 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 Titus ii. 7, 8. 1 Pet. ii. 12, 15. 
 
 17th Cent, middle: see Voltaire, 
 Louis XIV. Ceremonies Chinoises. 
 Book I. chap. xix. sect. 20. 
 Mosheim, Index, FU^pius, or Kith 
 cent. sect. 3. part II. chap, i. §. 33. 
 
 22 
 
338 
 
 CANONS OF CONTROVEIlSy. 
 
 [11. V. 11. 
 
 could ever be in fact established, we should fortify ourselves I. 
 against such attacks, by conceiving clearly the nature of the 
 thing. 
 
 A man may talk and converse as if he were of no party : 
 worldly politeness makes men converse so, not uncommonly : 
 why might not a regard for religion ? why might not this be 
 extended to controversy ? Why might not a person use him- 
 self to speak in religious subjects as an historian, a moderator, 
 or what we have called a judge? this would prevent heat and 
 animosity. It is by no means impossible to speak of natural 
 religion, so as not to offend any set of heathens; of revealed, 
 so as to shew no disrespect to any thing that pretended to 
 come from Heaven ; of Christianity, so as to seem to despise 
 neither Greek Church, nor Latin Church ; and of reformed 
 Christianity, so as to displease neither Lutheran, Quaker, nor 
 Baptist. Such language, become general and habitual, would 
 make men regard one another in a favourable light, and dis- 
 pose them to unanimity and brotherly agreement. 
 
 V. Lastly, we should look out for instances of good con- 
 troversialists, and make them the objects of our imitation. 
 Augustin^ in his controversy with the Donatists, speaks very 
 handsomely of Cypriari^ at the same time that he opposes his 
 opinions. Those who do not incline to go to the fountain- 
 head may find specimens in Forbes. Instruct. Hist. Theol. 
 lib. 10. Cyprian himself was amiably moderate and candid. 
 Cypr. Ep. 69. Oxon. translated in Wall’s Bapt. chap. ix. 
 
 2d part, or p. 464, quarto. 
 
 The amiable Fenelon got up into his own pulpit in the 475 
 cathedral of Cambray, where he was archbishop, and con- 
 demned himself. It was in consequence of an act of authority; 
 but his manner might shew that he preferred the unity of the 
 Church to his own private notions. His manner was such, 
 that it has been^ said of him, though vanquished, he became 
 the conqueror, by his noble candour. The emperor of China, 
 Camhi^^ made the missionary speak openly against the Chinese 
 religion, and in favour of the Christian. 
 
 Mr. Hume’^s note at the beginning of his Essay on the 
 Populousness of ancient Nations is very candid : — Fas est ab 
 hoste doceri. 
 
 We have an interesting account of Dionysius of Alexan- 
 
 * Voltaire, Louis XIV. Qui(;tisme. 
 
 ® Ibid, Cer, Chinoises. 
 
II. V. 11.] 
 
 CANONS OF CONTROVEllSY. 
 
 339 
 
 I. dria, in Lardner’s Works, vol. iii. p. 102; and of Didymus 
 of Alexandria, p. 389, of the same volume^. 
 
 I must not omit mentioning the Letter of Tillemont to 
 Lami, about our Saviour’s having eaten the Passover the 
 evening before he was crucified. Mons. Nicole speaks of this 
 Letter^ as a perfect model of Christian controversy. It does 
 indeed seem a very good letter — simple, frank, benevolent. 
 It is in the 2d vol. of Tillemonfs Memoirs, pp. 678 — 754. 
 Specimens might be taken from p. 679- 2. (which is like 
 Sterne’s going hand in hand). Two first paragraphs of section 
 1st — neatness of method; sect. 20; sect. 97? conclusion of first 
 paragraph ; and p. 753, col. 2d, to the end\ 
 
 476 Did I recollect, at this moment, a Protestant Divine who, 
 when engaged in controversy, has come up to Tillemont® in 
 liberality and candour, I would mention him with pleasure ; 
 but my memory is imperfect, and my reading has been 
 confined. 
 
 ^ Voltaire says, in his Candide, (chap, 
 iv. p. 17 .) that Europeans are different 
 from others in something belonging to 
 this matter. 11 faut encore observer que 
 jusqu’aujourd’hui dans notre continent, 
 cettemaladienous estparticuliere, comme 
 la controverse. 
 
 ^ Ladvocat under Le Nain. 
 
 ® The passages here only referred to 
 were most of them or all read at lectures. 
 
 END OF VOL. I. IN THE PRECEDING EDITIONS. 
 
 ® Dr. Burges says, in his Dedication 
 to Charles the First, (1631,) “Hee that 
 is overcome of the truth, parteth victory 
 with him that overcometh, and hath the 
 better share for his part.” The sentiment 
 is good; and Dr. Burges was probably 
 sincere ; though by truth he here meant 
 his own opinions ; and though he was to 
 be conqueror, not conquered. 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 PREFIXED TO THE SECOND VOLUME IN THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 The Author thinks it necessary to declare^ that the 
 patronage of the Syndics of the University Press was 
 founded on their confidence in him, and not on a previous 
 perusal of his manuscript. This declaration seems requi- 
 site^ lest the Syndics should he considered as giving a 
 sanction to some opinions advanced in the first thirteen 
 Chapters of the third Book* 
 
 22 — 2 
 
[Ill.i. 1,2. 
 
 BOOK III. II. 
 
 1 
 
 OF EELIGIOUS SOCIETIES IN GENERAL. 
 
 The title of this Book must be understood as opposed to 
 that of the Fourth Book, Of particular Religious Societies?'' 
 
 As the particular societies with which we are chiefly con- 
 cerned are Christian societies, our general observations may 
 sometimes relate only to such, and may set forth things which 
 are common to them only. It is natural to use the enlarged 
 expression, because Christian societies have really many things 
 in common with other religious societies ; though, in strictness, 
 no observation should be made under our title which is not 
 applicable to every religious society whatsoever. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 ARllANGEMENT OF THE SUBJECT MATTER. 
 
 1. In treating of religious societies in the present times, 
 the great business seems to be, to give a right account of what 
 are called Articles of Religion ; including under that name, 
 creeds, confessions of faith, and all declarations of opinion or 
 doctrine by which one religious community is kept distinct 
 from another. These therefore must be considered as the 
 principal objects of our attention. They may be so considered 
 safely, as their nature cannot be explained without introducing 
 all subjects which relate to religious society. 
 
 2. It is sometimes found useful to consider a subject in 
 two different and opposite methods. According to the first, 
 we begin with the present fact, inquire the cause of it, and 
 mount up, from cause to cause, till we come to first principles: 
 according to the second method, we begin from first principles 
 as the original cause, and trace out a series of effects^ till we 
 come to that which is the object of our researches. Let us 
 not neglect either of these methods. 
 
 We find articles of religion subsisting; we ask, what is the 
 cause of their being made ? The first answer is, because 
 without them we could not have one body of doctrine taught 
 to all the people. We next ask, why do we want to have such 
 unity of doctrine? in order to keep men from dissensions. 
 
III. i. 3-5.] ARRANGEMKNT OF SUBJECT MATTER. 
 
 341 
 
 II. Where is the great good of keeping men from dissensions 
 because while they are disputing and doubting, their principles 
 
 3 are unsettled, and they cannot have right religious sentiments. 
 And what is the great importance of their having right senti- 
 ments.? because from their sentiments men act, 
 
 3. If we begin from first principles, we say, to bring men 
 to rif^ht conduct is the desi 2 :n of all religious institutions : 
 
 C) O 
 
 (religious conduct, when regulated by reason, will be right 
 conduct). In order to bring about religious actions we want 
 religious sentiments ; or, trying to form religious sentiments 
 is the effect of endeavouring to bring about religious conduct. 
 To form and strengthen religious sentiments, we want the 
 mind to be free from doubt and perplexity ; we want an uni^ 
 formity in teaching ; in order to secure uniformity in teaching, 
 we want assent to one body of doctrines from every teacher 
 belonging to any one society. 
 
 This latter method we shall, in effect, pursue ; though we 
 shall sometimes seem for a while to deviate from it. 
 
 4. According to this method, then, we must first mention, 
 a little more particularly, the general end or design of religious 
 societies. It is, to make men perform all their several duties 
 with spirit and constajicy ; to give them motives^ and inspire 
 them with sentiments and affections, for that purpose: — affec- 
 tions so well directed, as never to carry them into any hurtful 
 measures; so strong and powerful, as to enable them to over- 
 come all difficulties and temptations. This supposes that men 
 can be brought to agree in using the same modes of religion : 
 when they cannot, the end or design of forming a particular 
 religious society is to associate as many as can agree, so far 
 as to use the same form of worship and instruction, and to 
 abstain from all disputes. 
 
 If any one says, what need is there of religion in order to 
 
 4 make men perform their duties? why cannot morality and laws 
 answer the purpose ? we refer him to what has been said before 
 in the ipth chapter of the first ^ book. 
 
 5. Articles of reli.o-ion must be considered as means of 
 
 o 
 
 answering the ends of religious society ; if they are used for 
 any other purpose they are abused. When men are called 
 upon 'Therefore to join in one form of instruction, and, as a 
 security, to give their assent to a collection of opinions, every 
 thing ought to be done with a view to the end now described, 
 
 ' Sect, llj and 17. 
 
34)2 ARRANGEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER. [III. i. 6 . 
 
 And as they should be called upon by those in authority to II. 
 declare their opinions with this view, so, when they do declare 
 them, they should give some attention to the same purpose. 
 Indeed, all men should be as open and frank as possible; and 
 when they can choose their expressions, they should take those 
 which are the most simple and proper ; but if forms are fixed 
 upon for them, and one and the same form for many different 
 ranks and sorts of persons, they should then consider the 
 reasons for which they were fixed upon. Expressions seem- 
 ingly absolute have very frequently a particular reference, and 
 by that they are to ^be limited and interpreted; so that assent 
 must be guided by the purpose which men in authority have 
 in view when they require it. This will be seen more plainly 
 hereafter : it is now affirmed chiefly with a view of properly 
 laying out our subject. 
 
 6 . There is one difficulty which may be mentioned now. 
 Assent must depend upon the design and purpose of articles of 
 religion ; but who is competent to judge of articles of religion 
 as means of promoting right conduct ? Is every man to take 
 for granted that he understands their end and design, and the 
 manner in which they attain it ? or are there but few that can 
 limit and interpret the expressions contained in them by such 5 
 considerations ? Perhaps the best answer which we can give 
 to these questions may partake of the imperfection of human 
 things. The common people should be directed by the in- 
 formed, (or philosophers^), both as to doctrines and the man- 
 ner of assenting to them ; and such common people will, in 
 effect, treat a body of doctrines only as a discriminating mark 
 of the community to which they belong. The best informed 
 should search to the bottom of the matter : intermediate per- 
 sons must go partly upon the judgment of others, and partly 
 upon their own, in different degrees, according to the degrees 
 in which they are informed. 
 
 The greatest nicety seems to arise in the case of the minis- 
 ters of religion. They seem to have pretensions to judge of 
 reasons, and yet their chief business is to teach what is pre- 
 scribed by authority. In reality, they seem likely to be in 
 three different capacities at different times : they will some- 
 times he philosophers, sometimes teachers, sometimes me7i. 
 When they are to act as philosophers, they should examine 
 into the foundations and reasons of things ; when as teachers, 
 
 ' Book I, chap. x. 2 j5ook I. chap. iv. sect. 3, | 
 
Ill.i. 7.] ARRANGEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER. 
 
 343 
 
 II. they have only to deliver established doctrines; when as men, 
 they must avoid doubts and perplexities as much as possible. 
 It will require some fairness of mind to distinguish the occa- 
 sions on which they are to assume these different characters. 
 We can only say, they must distinguish them as well as they 
 are able. And, I should imagine, that they should give dif- 
 ferent sorts of assent in these different capacities. When they 
 are so old and so informed as to come into our class of philo- 
 sophers, their assent will imply their having examined into the 
 grounds of the opinions to which they subscribe ; when they 
 6 are less informed, but sufficiently so to commence teachers, 
 their assent will imply that they have considered the opinions 
 in a competent degree, that they are willing to teach according 
 to them as far as their teaching goes, and that they have not 
 any decided opinion against any of them. When they attend 
 public worship as mere men, they will repeat creeds chiefly for 
 edification and devotion. A creed will become a kind of 
 hymn — a grateful recollection of God’s mercies. On this 
 principle it may be, perhaps, that creeds are sometimes stmg-. 
 Yet even the ordinary people may give a wrong assent ; and 
 their assent will be wrong if they do not really prefer, on 
 religious considerations, their church to others. 
 
 7 . But a plain honest man will say, I can tell when I 
 speak truth and when I speak falsehood ; and that is the main 
 matter in giving my assent to any thing. We answer, we 
 certainly are not to forget the duties of veracity whenever we 
 make any declaration. We are sincerely to say whether the 
 meaning of the articles is our meaning, so as to deceive no 
 intelligent person whom we undertake to inform; but the 
 meaning of the articles will depend upon circumstances as 
 well as upon words ; and veracity itself, though plain in many 
 cases, is not so in all. There is real falsehood, and there is 
 apparent falsehood which is not real. 
 
 If this is a right representation of the case, (whether it is 
 or not will appear better hereafter,) assent to articles of 
 religion must be regulated by the nature of veracity in general, 
 and by the particular ends for which articles were contrived : 
 or, to speak more fully, by the nature of veracity, and the 
 nature of religious societies; that is, on the nature of reli- 
 gious sentiments, the efficacy of unity of doctrine in pro- 
 moting such sentiments, and the need there is of articles^ 
 of religion in order to maintain such unity. Let us then 
 
344 
 
 VERACITY, 
 
 [III. ii. 1, 2. 
 
 take our subjects in the order here mentioned, beginning with II. 
 veracity. 
 
 But if any one will persist in saying, that nothing can 
 properly be concerned in assenting but veracity, I would not 
 directly contradict such person ; I would indulge him so as 
 to express the thing differently ; and I would say, that the 
 occasion and purpose in view make a jmrt of the sense, and 
 therefore, that speaking according to them makes a part of 
 veracity. Still it will suit us best, in examining the nature of 
 religious society, to take the occasion of it, and its end and 
 purpose separately from other parts of veracity. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 OF VERACITY. 
 
 1. Veracity may perhaps be most conveniently defined, 
 ‘‘an habitual abstinence horn falsehood f"' though that defini- 
 tion will bring on another; ^\falsehood is deceiving those 
 whom v/e undertake to inform, by the use of signs agreed 
 upon between us.” 
 
 2. This manner of defining, will shew us the difference 
 between real and apparent falsehood ; which it is often of 
 great importance to know. For it follows, from the defini- 
 tions, that we cannot be guilty of real falsehood if we de- 
 ceive no one; (nor attempt to deceive): nor if we only 
 deceive those whom we have not undertaken to inform : 
 nor, lastly, though we do happen to deceive those whom we 
 are engaged to inform, if it be by the use of signs whose 
 meaning has not been sufficiently agreed upon between us; 
 or without those signs whose meaning has been sufficiently 
 determined. Yet we may be guilty of apparent falsehood, 
 even though we deceive no one, though we do not attempt 
 to deceive, if our words, or other signs, are such as appear 
 likely to deceive; such as might through custom deceive, if 
 some particular circumstances did not prevent it. We may 
 be guilty of apparent falsehood, if we deceive persons who 
 depend upon us, though in reality we have not, expressly 
 or tacitly, undertaken to inform them ; or if, when it is 
 clear that we do address ourselves to them, the signs which 
 
III. ii. 3,] 
 
 VERACITY. 
 
 345 
 
 II. we make use of are hastily and rashly interpreted, on a 
 
 9 presumption that their meaning is known, though in reality 
 nothing has passed to settle it. In the first case, we ap- 
 parently intend to deceive; in the second, we seem to under- 
 take to inform ; in the third, we seem to use signs in a 
 sense agreed upon ; though we really do not any of the 
 three. 
 
 That we are not guilty of real falsehood in the three 
 cases now mentioned, may farther appear from the consider- 
 ation, that confidence^ the mutual confidence of men, is not 
 hurt or diminished in any of them. He who is not deceived 
 will continue to trust what men say ; he who is deceived 
 by listening to what is said to other men, or by relying on 
 information for which no one is accountable to him, will 
 soon recollect that he has deceived himself ; and so will he 
 w’ho has trusted to signs, the purport of which has been 
 conjectured, not agreed upon. He may be vexed for a while, 
 but his disappointment will generate caution and prudence, 
 not distrust. Now the great evil of real falsehood is, that it 
 destroys confidence, and hinders men from uniting with each 
 other, or profiting by each other's experience. 
 
 Another material deduction from our manner of definino* 
 
 O 
 
 is, that no one can speak real falsehood but io some particular 
 person. No one can be charged with falsehood absolutely. 
 The charge must exhibit a misleading of some person whom 
 the speaker has undertaken to inform ; and with whom he 
 has agreed, expressly or tacitly, about the meaning of certain 
 signs. I use person in the singular number, but our person 
 may be an artificial person, a society or body of men, consisting 
 of any number of individuals. 
 
 3. One cause of error, with respect to veracity, is, that 
 custom is apt to pass for nature. I mean, that the connexion 
 between ivords and the ideas annexed to them, which is 
 
 10 merely arbitrary^ and the work of custom, is looked upon 
 as some thing in the nature of things. Not that persons 
 do not know and understand the contrary, when they think ; 
 but they suffer habit to prevent their thinking. Even visible 
 signs are arbitrary, and so may emblematical actions be 
 called properly, though there is some faint analogy between 
 the sign and the thing signified ’ — some sort of natural con- 
 nexion ; but between w'ords and ideas there is none at all : 
 
 ^ See Book I. chap. xvii. sect. 6 and 18. 
 
346 
 
 VERACITY. 
 
 [III. ii. 4. 
 
 (for it is not worth mentioning that some few words are made II. 
 to express something by a sound, so that the sound is an 
 echo to the sense). Yet custom ties words and ideas so 
 closely together, that thinking men do not always separate 
 them ; the unthinking scarce ever. 
 
 When those who have not been used to examine into 
 these matters, are put in mind that any sound might have been 
 made to stand for any thing, or idea, they will be apt to ask 
 — how has an agreement been made that a certain word shall 
 be a sign of a certain thing ? and what is the nature of such 
 agreement? We may answer, probably a word has come to stand 
 for a certain idea imperceptibly, by a great number of trials, 
 the nature of which cannot be described. It is most likely 
 that those who made such trials could not have described 
 them, even at the time they were made ; so that the manner 
 in which words were fixed upon as signs makes a separate and 
 curious subject k It is enough for us, that the connexion 
 between a word and its meaning has been very frequently 
 recognized ; and the reasonable expectation which men have, 
 that it will be continued, is a claim to have it continued, 
 when nothing is said to the contrary. An agreement very ii 
 frequently executed, is an agreement ratified. The agreement 
 of which we now speak is, in its origin at least, of the tacit 
 sort; but that tacit agreements are valid, both moralists and 
 lawyers teach. If every idea had its own sign, I do not 
 see why this agreement would not be strict and definite ; 
 but as far as the senses of words are indefinite, so far must 
 the agreement be indefinite, by which any word is made a 
 sign : but agreements not well defined are valid, though more 
 easy to be evaded than such as are definite. 
 
 4. The agreement (that a certain word shall be a sign 
 of a certain idea) may be changed, either tacitly or expressly. 
 The tacit changes in the allowed sense of a word are brought 
 about in the same manner in which a sense is first given to 
 a word ; perhaps not without some falsehood in those who 
 begin changing. Words in old English have very different 
 meanings from what they have in modern English. The 
 word knave used to signify merely a servant; St. PauP was 
 once the knave of Jesus Christ: and villain^ meant formerly 
 
 ^ The precious metals have, by a like 
 series of trials, come to be given and 
 taken in exchange for all valuable com- 
 
 modities. 
 
 2 Rom. i. 1. 
 
 3 Blackstone, Index, Villein. 
 
VERACITY. 
 
 III. ii. 5 .] 
 
 347 
 
 II. only a very low kind of tenant, not indeed very much above 
 a slave — something like one of the Spartan helotes. 
 
 Express changes may be made for various purposes, as for 
 that of writing in cypher. And for whatever purpose they are 
 made, if the rules expressed are observed, (and affirmations are 
 according to fact) no falsehood can ensue. Suppose you and 
 I agree to call the sun by the name of moon, and the moon 
 by the name of sun, then I speak truth, to you, if I say, ‘The 
 moon is many times greater than the sun ; the sun is an opaque 
 body, and shines only by the light falling upon it from the 
 moon, and reflected to the earth but if I say, ‘ The sun is 
 12 many times larger than the moon ; the moon is opaque, and 
 visible only by means of light coming from the sun,’ — I speak 
 falsehood. Cyphers might thus be made, so that known words 
 should be used in interchanged senses, or that negative expres- 
 sions should be understood affirmatively ; and these might 
 happen to deceive those who accidentally saw them, but if 
 the agreement made was observed, they would contain no 
 falsehood, on that account. 
 
 Hence we may see, how some propositions may be true, 
 which according to the letter are false. In this case customary 
 words are used, but not in their first customary sense. They 
 have acquired a new sense by some agreement, (probably of 
 the tacit sort,) and yet they have not quite lost their old 
 one: an habitual feeling remains, by which the old one is 
 deemed the right one. ‘My master is not at home,'' says a 
 servant, when his master is really within. This proposition 
 is false according to the letter, that is, according to the old 
 customary signification ; but it is true according to the new 
 meaning, which fear of offending has forced upon the words : 
 this new meaning is, ‘my master cannot receive you at this 
 time;’ — in which a doubt is left, whether real absence, or 
 business, &c. is the cause of the refusal. I have been told that 
 Archbishop Seeker, being asked about this matter, answered, 
 ‘The first man that used this excuse when he was really at 
 home told a lie.'' Ironical expressions may be ranked under 
 this head, and such writings as Gulliver's Travels. 
 
 5. If any one imagines that I lightly esteem the duty of 
 veracity, or that I look upon it as any mark of an improved 
 mind to be careless about it, he mistakes me exceedingly. 
 Nothing is farther from my wishes, than to lay any founda- 
 
348 
 
 VERACITY. 
 
 [Ill, ii. 6. 
 
 tion for subterfuge or evasive pretences’. I should be sorry to II. 
 have any man in the world thought a warmer friend to sincerity 13 
 and simplicity than myself. I honour and adore them. I 
 abhor deceit ; I never deceive any one ; at least it is my 
 study to avoid deceiving; I would not deceive a child, nor, 
 when many other men would, a sick person. When I think 
 of the evils which mankind bring on themselves by duplicity 
 and artifice, by simulation and dissimulation, I feel greatly 
 dejected ; when I think of the happiness which they might 
 procure by an universal sincerity, nay, which they might 
 immediately enjoy, by a general openness, frankness, and a 
 genuine effusion of their hearts and minds, I feel myself 
 filled and elated with pleasure. Let no one think so ill of me 
 as to conceive me saying this through ostentation. It is a neces- 
 sary declaration : made necessary, first, by the likelihood that 
 the scope of my reasoning may be misapprehended ; and, next, 
 by the alarm which this Third Book has actually given to 
 some persons of great learning and eminence, who judged 
 of it from the printed Heads of Lectures^ 
 
 6 *. This apology will receive great help from considering, 14 
 in the last place, the consequences of not seeing clearly the 
 distinction between real and apparent falsehood. They seem 
 to be these ; that those who are not scrupulous run the more 
 easily into real falsehood, and that those who are scrupulous 
 suffer poignant unhappiness because they have been almost 
 unavoidably drawn into that which is only apparent. First, 
 when m.en find that they are in some sense violating the obli- 
 gations of veracity, and yet that they did not mean to do 
 wrong, and are not blamed — if they have not an idea of the 
 
 ^ Bishop Law talks of leading the 
 members of the Church ‘‘into all the 
 labyrinths of a loose and a periidious 
 casuistry.” On Subscription, p. 22. 
 
 - lYhen published in 1783. — Bishop 
 Porteus and Bishop Hallifax in parti- 
 cular expressed themselves, in letters to 
 me, as entertaining apprehensions con- 
 cerning some parts of the heads relating 
 to veracity. And I have been lately 
 advised to omit some things which had 
 been reported from the lectures. No one 
 can be more willing to retract any mis- 
 taken position than I am. I claimed the 
 liberty of retracting at the opening of the 
 
 Lectures; (see book I. chap. i. sect. G) ; 
 but, if I have publicly delivered any 
 thing, it seems best either to retract or 
 publish it. All 1 say in this book 
 about veracity seems to me quite a plain 
 series of arguments or observations. Not 
 being able to retract what I deem to be 
 such, I think it best to submit them to 
 the judgment of others. I once had a 
 glimpse (in a Review, I believe,) of 
 something said by Mr. Dyer against this 
 book, and I had intended to examine it; 
 but, in country retirement, I have not 
 opportunity ; and, as I remember, the 
 expressions were chiefly declamatory. 
 
III. iii. 1.] RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS. 349 
 
 II. boundaries between real and apparent falsehood, they pass 
 imperceptibly from apparent to real, and then think they are 
 as little wrong, and will be as little blamed, as before ; and so 
 they get confirmed in habits of real falsehood. It is the same 
 thing m justice, or honesty. Injustice may be, and is often, 
 apparent Avhen it is not real; and seeming injustice gets ex- 
 cused, till men who have not studied the difference, come to 
 allow themselves in that which is real. Nothing could better 
 serve the cause of justice than to mark out the distinction be- 
 tween real and apparent, so plainly that no one could avoid 
 seeing it ; for real injustice would not then be tolerated. In 
 like manner nothing can be of greater service to truth than to 
 shew plainly the nature of apparent falsehood ; for when that 
 is clear, real falsehood has no excuse. 
 
 Those who are very desirous of doing their duty in all 
 things, and are scrupulously anxious about every seeming 
 transgression, suffer as great unhappiness about any apparent 
 falsehood which they may have run into as if it were real — if 
 they are not duly aware of the distinction. The case of a 
 person in this situation is truly worthy of compassion, whether 
 he forgoes advantages which he might lawfully enjoy, or 
 
 15 possesses them with secret misgivings, or under compunction 
 and self-condemnation. And that man who should neglect to 
 comfort the feebleminded^, and support the weak, when so 
 worthy of relief, or who should avoid describing apparent false- 
 hood lest he himself should be suspected of insincerity, would 
 deserve a greater torment, if greater there can be, than that of 
 a mind disquieted by unsettled scruples and fluctuating re- 
 morse. 
 
 16 CHAPTER III. 
 
 OF RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS. 
 
 1. In the first place we may take notice of the effects 
 of sentiments in general. If we speak of mankind from a 
 general view of them, and found our observations upon ex- 
 perience, we may say, that they act from their habitual senti- 
 ments. Their vices arise from vicious sentiments, indulged 
 so as to be unduly prevalent ; their virtues arise from good 
 
 ^ 1 Tliess. V. 14. 
 
350 
 
 RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS. 
 
 [III. iii. 2, 3 . 
 
 sentiments, to which habit has given power and authority. II. 
 Religious sentiments, of various sorts, have been found by 
 experience uncommonly forcible. 
 
 This is so clearly seen, that corrupting a man’s sentiments 
 is regarded by lawgivers as causing him to commit wickedness; 
 and therefore punishments are decreed against the cause, as 
 ' well as against the effect ; and those are deemed offenders v/ho 
 seduce^, bribe, suborn. 
 
 Not that there is an absolute necessity that a man to 
 whom a bribe is offered should be dishonest, or wicked in any 
 way. When we look at the nature of things, and at actions, 
 beforehand, we see a possibility that an impulse of passion or 
 sentiment may be resisted and overcome; but, when we look 
 hack upon facts, we naturally eocpect that which has happened 
 to happen again ; and all provisions should be made on proba- 
 ble expectations — provisions, of public laws, and private pru- 
 dential maxims. 
 
 2. The sentiments which arise in the human mind are 
 innumerable, and, we might say, of innumerable kinds, if vve 17 
 made every minute difference to constitute a new kind. Lon- 
 ginus was sensible of this, and expresses it clearly^: TroXXd 
 yap Kai arapiOiirjra nraOri, Kal av enrelv Ti? OTTOora ^vvaiTo. 
 
 In order to treat of them we divide them into classes ; which 
 indeed is the case in many other things ; no two individuals of 
 any class being perfectly like each other. 
 
 3. Religious sentiments seem as if they might most com- 
 modiously be formed into two classes ; one called, in an exten- 
 sive sense, Fear, the other, Love. All sentiments of the 
 respectful sort might be ranked under fear; all those of a 
 more kind and tender sort, under love. The former sort 
 would arise from contemplating the power and justice of God ; 
 the latter, from attending to the Divine benevolence. 
 
 The Church of England seems to acknowledge such a 
 method of classing. In the Litany we beseech God that it 
 may please him to give us an heart (the seat of the sentiments 
 and affections) to love him, and to dread him ; and in the 
 Collect for the second Sunday after Trinity, we beg that he 
 would “ make us to have a perpetual fear and love of” his 
 “ holy name.” By putting fear and love so close together, the 
 compilers of our Liturgy might have some idea of a senti- 
 ment compounded of them as being proper for general use. 
 
 ‘ IMentioned B. II. chap. iv. sect. 1. De Subl. Sect. 22. de llyperbatis. 
 
III. iii. 4—6.] 
 
 RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS. 
 
 351 
 
 II. Under the head of Fear^ then, we rank respect, re- 
 verence, veneration, admiration, awe ; besides what we call 
 fear usually. 
 
 And under the head of Love, complacency, gratitude, con- 
 fidence, resignation, and love properly so called. 
 
 18 4. It may be as proper here as any where to take notice 
 of the effect of doubt upon the sentiments and affections'^. 
 When doubt and perplexity set the understanding at work, 
 the affections will not rise to any considerable height : they 
 flourish in tranquillity of mind, and security. 
 
 This observation may seem to contradict one of Mr. Hume'^, 
 that suspense and uncertainty heighten the passion of fear ; 
 but in the sort of situations from which Mr. Hume draws his 
 opinion, the intellectual powers are not strongly exerted. A 
 person just makes suppositions, which instantly excite passion : 
 ‘ My friend is in pain and misery — ‘ he is attacked and over- 
 come — he is gone, lost for ever.’ These are so many views of 
 misery — so many scenes which must move and affect ; but if a 
 man under such fears were to set himself fairly to reason, or to 
 estimate probabilities, I doubt not but the mere exertion of his 
 understanding would moderate his apprehensions. 
 
 5. We must now consider how a due strength of the 
 religious affections can be attained. Our proper business being 
 with social institutions, we must not dwell on the measures to 
 be used for this purpose by the private individual. We must be 
 content with briefly observing, that he has it in his power to 
 use methods which may be called internal and external : he 
 has a power of turning his mind to such meditations as will 
 warm his affections ; and he has also the pow’er of throwing 
 himself into such scenes^ and such society, and of reading such 
 books, as will answer the same end. 
 
 19 But if we think only of our own proper business, of 
 the manner in which social authority shall be used in order to 
 excite devout affections in numbers of men, we must consider 
 and study chiefly the principles of association and sympathy, 
 
 6. Two ideas are said to be associated, when, if one of 
 them comes into the mind, it will bring the other along with 
 it. That ideas do get to be so associated, is plain from 
 
 ^ We have had occasion to hint at this 
 before. 
 
 ^ Essay on the Passions, near end of 
 Sect. 1 — No. 8. 8vo. vol. ii, pp. 189, 
 
 190. In Mr. Hume’s quotation from 
 Hor. Lib. v. Od. 1, for pullus read pullis. 
 
 ® Contemplation of the heavenly bodies 
 raises and sobers the mind. 
 
352 
 
 RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS. 
 
 [lll.iii. 7. 
 
 experience. The association is formed after the manner of II. 
 habits ; and, considering the innumerable and perpetual in- 
 stances which we have of it, it is wonderful that Mr. Locke 
 should be the first philosopher who made regular observations 
 upon it. This seems to have been the case, by his manner 
 of introducing the ^subject. When we come into any place 
 where we have conversed with a person, the idea of the person 
 recurs with that of the place. And not only ideas recur thus, 
 but they revive the old sentiments and affections. We feel 
 terror'^ at the appearance of an object which we saw when 
 we were terrified ; we feel pleasure at the sight of any thing 
 which once made us happy. Love and hatred seem to be 
 generated by habitual associations between pleasure and a 
 certain person, and pain and a certain person. Grief is some- 
 times so strong, on coming into a room where one has attended 
 a dying friend, that many persons have been obliged to avoid 
 such scenes, for a great length of time, or for their whole 
 lives^. 
 
 Association seems to be one foundation of our habits. 20 
 
 7 . Sympathy need not be defined. It is feeling as others 
 feel, or having a seiisation or sentiment merely because an- 
 other person has the same, or something very near it ; some- 
 thing rather stronger of the same sort. When a stroke ^ is 
 aimed at another, we draw back our own leg or arm : when 
 a dancer on a rope twists himself, those of his spectators who 
 are quite artless do the same. Even robust men have, on seeing 
 inflamed eyes, felt their own eyes in some degree as it were in- 
 flamed. Grief and joy, welP expressed, excite grief and joy. 
 When we see benevolent actions we sympathize both with the 
 benefactor and the object'*; and these sympathies forward each 
 other. Sometimes we first conceive others to sympathize with 
 us, and then we feel with them. A son who, by distinguishing 
 liimself, gives his parents pleasure, sympathizes with their 
 
 ’ Hum. Uiid. li. II. Chap.xxxiii. See 
 also Prelim. Diss. to King’s Origin of 
 
 Evil, Sect. 14 ascribed to I\Ir. Gay ; 
 
 and Hartley’s Preface. 
 
 2 A friend of mine used to be under 
 terror during an high wind: the house 
 where he had boarded when at school 
 had been blown down ; he had left it a 
 few minutes before. 
 
 ^ I remember when I was a boy seeing 
 a young man fall into a lit on the sound 
 
 of the word Dantzick. He had been very 
 ill, with lits, and a soldier had amused 
 him with stories about Dantzick; after 
 he got better, the mention of that city 
 recalled the stories, and with them the 
 illness, repeatedly. 
 
 ^ Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, 
 p. 3, bvo. 
 
 ^ Ib. p. 0. Rom. xii. 15. 
 
 « Ib. p. 81. 
 
III. iii. 8.] 
 
 RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS. 
 
 353 
 
 II. sympathy, or congratulation. Pleasures are heightened by 
 sympathy. We relish music, prospects, painting, poetry, or 
 the chace, more — in company with those who have the same 
 tastes with ourselves, than with others. And if a man dislikes 
 what we like he lessens our pleasure : this, being opposite to 
 sympathy, might be called antipathy. Seditions are the more 
 violent through sympathy. I think sympathy is spoken of as 
 having had great effects in the Crusades. Sympathy seems to 
 be the ground of our principle of imitation. 
 
 But we must not proceed farther with association and 
 sympathy in general. Whoever wishes to see those subjects 
 treated at large, may consult Hartley on Man for the former, 
 21 and Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments for the latter. Both 
 these works seem very useful for analyzing sentiments ; and 
 each author finds so much matter, as to think that what he has 
 is sufficient; but united.^ they would be still more useful than 
 separate. Probably, most of our sentiments and affections 
 would be found, upon examination, to be owing to a great 
 number of both associations and sympathies. 
 
 8. If we apply to religion what has been said about 
 association, we observe, that whatever has been used, for 
 purposes of religion only, will immediately bring religious 
 sentiments into our minds ; or, in other words, our ideas of 
 such a thins* will be associated with our ideas of lovinsr or 
 fearing God. This is applicable to buildings, vessels, robes, 
 persons. If, for instance, a church had been always used 
 by any one simply as a place of worship; if his mind had 
 always, whilst he was in it, been wholly given up to thoughts 
 of God and religion ; if his thoughts had never wandered to 
 other subjects ; if he had never considered the building as in 
 any manner connected with his worldly interests, &c.; — every 
 part of it, every pillar in it, would seem to be in a manner 
 animated ; every part of it would seem to breathe a spirit of 
 devotion : — one might almost say, it would be as a body, of 
 which the Divinity himself was the soul. 
 
 It may be asked, would not a particular closet in an house, 
 if set apart, answer the same purpose? In some degree it 
 would ; but we have previously a general association between 
 the rooms of a family mansion, and the cares, riches, pleasures, 
 follies of this world. However, this would have some effect. 
 
 In short, association is that on which we must chiefly 
 depend for getting our attention at any time taken from 
 
 VoL. I. 23 
 
354 
 
 RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS. 
 
 [III. iii. 9, 10. 
 
 worldly and sensual objects, quickly, immediately; and for II. 
 getting it at once fixed on the business of devotion ; though 22 
 its effects by no means end here. 
 
 9. Sympathy serves to heighten our affections, in a variety 
 of ways. Not only in prayer, but in receiving instruction. It 
 acts powerfully, not only on those who pray or give thanks 
 with one mind, but on those who hear with one mind. Nay, 
 instructors themselves are animated by a good audience; and 
 the audience sympathize with their animation ; so that new 
 sympathies between the hearer and the speaker keep continually 
 arising. 
 
 It is a remarkable effect of sympathy, that it not only 
 hinders our affections from being too dull, but from being 
 ^wild and violent ; from running into any extravagant vehe- 
 mence, any impotent or effeminate excesses. In solitude, a man 
 will be at one time phlegmatic, or melancholy ; at another, 
 enthusiastic, or frantic ; but when many others arU present 
 with him, the idea of their presence will both rouse him 
 from lukewarmness, and restrain him from excess of passion : — 
 will make him ashamed of stupidity, and yet afraid to venture 
 beyond the boundaries of sobriety and common sense. 
 
 One cause of public worship might in fact be, that desire 
 which men naturally have of communicating and sympathizing 
 with one another in all matters of importance — in all transac- 
 tions which have any thing noble or sublime in them. 
 
 10. Lastly, association and sympathy heighten one another, 
 in religion as well as in other things. If a man came into a 
 church, and it had its proper effect upon him in the way of 
 association, he would more freely sympathize with the rest of 
 the congregation ; and, on the other hand, the recollection of 
 his having sympathized, would add strength to the association 
 between the building and the worship. 
 
 The sect called Quakers'^ have sometimes silent meetings; 23 
 that is, they assemble together, and in buildings appropriated 
 to religion. Such meetings may have all the benefits of as- 
 sociation, and some of sympathy, though none of instruction ; 
 and one does not see why a public meditation in a place of 
 worship might not nourish religious sentiments, though I am 
 at a loss to conceive why it should be preferred to instruction 
 
 ^ Book II. chap. i. sect. 7. sects, heathen or Christian, as examples, 
 
 ^ Though we are upon religious society for the sake of illustration, 
 in general, we may mention particular 
 
III. iv. 1.] 
 
 UNITY OF DOCTllINE. 
 
 355 
 
 II. and express worship of the Deity. The benefit of such a 
 meeting may afford a sufficient answer to those who plead 
 mediocrity of talents, &c. in the officiating minister or preacher, 
 as an excuse for absence from church. 
 
 2^ CFIAPTER IV. 
 
 OF UNITY OF DOCTRINE. 
 
 It is a satisfaction to find that this expression. Unity of 
 Doctrine^ which when I first used it arose from the nature 
 of the thing to be expressed, is one which was used at the time 
 of the Reformation. This appears by the Orders, or Adver- 
 tisements, or Articles, published by Queen Elizabeth in the 
 year 1564^ 
 
 1. Our first business, in treating of unity of doctrine^ is 
 to distinguish between that and unity of private opinion, 
 Sterne says. All who think, think alike; we say, no two men 
 think alike ; but he means in one thing, we mean in all things, 
 or at least, in all the doctrines of any one sect. Probably 
 he would not have asserted, that in fact many are to be found 
 who in his sense can be said to think; if any: his assertion 
 seems rather to belong to theory than practice. That the 
 nearer men approach to thinking with simplicity and precision, 
 the nearer they are to unanimity, I doubt not ; but we are more 
 remote than we are aware of from pure and accurate reasoning, 
 free from rhetoric and declamation. If men thought alike in 
 one thing, they might possibly in all things ; but in the present 
 state of things, experience forbids us to hope that any two 
 men will think so reasonably as to agree in such a number 
 of opinions as generally constitute the body of doctrines of 
 a religious society. 
 
 25 This being the case, it follows, that if men must hold all 
 the same opinions in order to worship together, no two men 
 could join in religious duties. But, properly speaking, it is 
 not unity of opinion that we want, but united action. Adopt- 
 ing, by social authority, a certain set of ceremonies, instructions, 
 repetitions, and obeying that authority, is properly action. It 
 is acting as politicians act, who agree upon, and follow one set 
 of measures, though they think and judge differently from one 
 
 ^ See Bishop Sparrow’s Collection, pp. 122, 123. 
 
 23 — 2 
 
356 
 
 UNITY OF DOCTRINE. 
 
 [III. iv. 2, S. 
 
 another. Governors of armies and of communities of different II. 
 kinds act in the same manner. 
 
 Some likeness of opinion may be wanted in every one of 
 these cases, but not a total coincidence. We may say some- 
 thing more on this hereafter k At present, the business is only 
 to conceive that you and I and five thousand more may agree 
 to unite in public worship ; may jointly enact, that a certain 
 mode of instruction shall be pursued, that no confusion or 
 wrangling shall be allowed in religious assemblies ; and yet that 
 each of us may differ from the rest in several opinions^. 
 
 2. We need not have a more proper place than this to 
 mention the good of uniformity in ceremonies. Uniformity in 
 ceremonies is extremely useful, and in a manner necessary to 
 religious worship. Without it all things cannot be done “decent- 
 ly^ and in order.’’ A ceremony affects both him who performs 
 it, and him who sees it ; and in congregations each person is 
 both a performer and a spectator. If in one’s closet kneeling 
 generates humility, it will, by the help of sympathy, generate 26’ 
 a stronger sentiment when many join in the same posture ; 
 though a weaker, if many are present, and some kneel whilst 
 others stand : in that case, there will be what we have called an 
 antipathy. A ceremony regularly performed by a large num- 
 ber, if mild, simple, expressive, has a fine effect on all minds, 
 from the most rude to the best informed : it pleases, it ele- 
 vates, yet it calms or checks any turbulent emotions ; it sobers 
 the thoughts, and makes them orderly and decent. To those 
 who cannot read, or are apt to be inconsiderate, it affords a 
 species of instruction. What the Psalmist says^ about the 
 language of the heavenly bodies, might be said of the language 
 
 of ceremonies : “ There is neither speech nor language, but 
 tlieir voices are heard among them.” In whatever way men 
 speak or write, the language of ceremonies is intelligible to 
 them and affectino-’^, 
 
 O 
 
 3. We come now to the principal proposition, that unity 
 of doctrine is necessary towards procuring the benefits of social 
 religion. The truth of this will appear from considering, that 
 
 * Sect. 4 of this chapter. 
 
 “ Baxter is very unwilling to suppose, 
 tliat tliough men differ about such a doc- 
 trine as that of 'perseverance.^ a doctrine, 
 in his estimation, very important, they 
 should not be in every thing as members 
 of tlte same church. On Persev. prop. G. 
 
 What is meant by this doctrine, will ap- 
 pear under Article IG of the Church of 
 England. 
 
 ^ 1 Cor. xiv. 40. 
 
 Psalm xix. o. 
 
 ® It is a pity wlicn peivs destroy the 
 uniformity of the Church ceremonies. 
 
III. iv. 4.] 
 
 UNITY OF DOCTRINE. 
 
 357 
 
 II. dissension in public teaching, 1. Deprives us of the benefit of 
 those principles which were before spoken of as instrumental in 
 promoting religious sentiments ; 2. That it obliges men to 
 exert their intellectual powers; and 3. That it often raises 
 passions which are incompatible with devotion. 1. Where 
 dissension prevails, it is evident that sympathy cannot have 
 place : strings in unison help each other'’s vibrations, but when 
 discordant they check and obstruct one another. I might not 
 run so immediately into this illustration, were there not a possi- 
 
 27 bility that it might prove more than a mere illustration, as we 
 became better acquainted with the nervous system, and saw 
 more distinctly the manner in which vibrations of the nerves 
 and emotions of the mind are connected. 
 
 Association would not answer our purpose if the place of 
 worship reminded us only of perplexity, dispute, and acrimony. 
 While these filled the mind, we should have little feeling of the 
 divine power or goodness. 2. Dissension must, moreover, set 
 our reasoning powers in motion ; and, as the arguments used 
 would be very subtle, must put them upon the ^stretch. And 
 S. It is scarce conceivable, that we should keep clear of party 
 zeal and bitterness ourselves : these would effectually prevent 
 any devout affections from springing forth and flourishing in 
 our breasts. 
 
 We have three capital Discourses from Dr. Balgny on 
 things relating to religious society. In these there are several 
 passages, on our present subject, highly worthy of our atten- 
 tion. In the octavo vol. of 1785, see pp. 91, 92, 93. 99. 121. 
 255, 256, 257. 259. 
 
 In the above-mentioned Orders, &c. of Queen Elizabeth, 
 published in 1564, provision is made in the first page against 
 dissension in the congregation ; yet we find an instance of it in 
 1597, when Bishop Bilsoii preached one doctrine about the 
 descent into hell, and another minister an opposite one in the 
 same pulpit^; and with a design of disputing. 
 
 4. As dissensions then are of so much importance, we 
 should consider the nature and effects of them more particu- 
 larly, and how they may be avoided. Though unity of doctrine 
 
 28 does not require perfect unity of private opinion, yet it requires 
 some likeness^. There are some differences of opinion which 
 may be deemed inconsistent with unity of doctrine. Sup- 
 
 ^ B. III. chap. iii. sect. 4. I gift, p. 502, 
 
 7 At Paul’s Cross; see Strype’s Whit- 1 ^ Dr. Balguy, Serm. vii. p. 119. 
 
358 
 
 UNITY OF DOCTRINE. 
 
 [III. iv. 4. 
 
 posing any such differences, of a striking sort, there must be II. 
 a separation; and then each of the differing opinions may 
 perhaps find favourers sufficient to form a society. There is no 
 very great difficulty in this ; but there may be some cases 
 where dissensions need not occasion a separation, and others 
 where it may be doubtful whether the differences in private 
 opinion are consistent with unity of doctrine or not. Let us 
 consider what may be done in doubts and difficulties of this 
 nature. 
 
 You and I may differ about some one point which we may 
 think essential to right worship, or right conduct — the Unity 
 of God, worshipping him in spirit, human sacrifices, &c., or 
 we may differ about so many points, that omitting them all 
 might leave us too few subjects of public instruction, or too 
 few expressions for public devotions; which would give too 
 much to private devotion and meditation. In such cases we 
 had best see whether we can form two religious societies. If 
 numbers are insufficient, that will be reason enough for our 
 uniting, though we differ very considerably, as Christians 
 would do in a heathen country. Breaking the unity of the 
 Catholic Church lightly, or without sufficient reason, is what 
 has been called schism^ and is an important offence. 
 
 In general, separations are apt to seem more necessary 
 than they really are. It is not about fundamental doctrines, 
 or about doctrines level to the human judgment that men are 
 apt to divide ; but about those which are most peculiar to a 
 few, and most obscure and difficult : yet it can scarce ever 29 
 be really important to divide about these. It is rather im- 
 patience under our own ignorance, and pride disdaining to sub- 
 mit, than reason, which occasion dissensions about them, and 
 therefore which occasion separations. We should avoid sepa- 
 rations, if possible ; especially as religious societies, like others, 
 have many advantages by being extensive. Let us then con- 
 sider the best methods of preventing separations, and such dis- 
 sensions as have been shewn to hurt religious sentiments. 
 
 1. Those whose business it is to frame any body of doc- 
 trines, or forms of devotion, ceremonies, &c. might contribute 
 a good deal towards uniting men, and keeping them united, by 
 being discreet in their expressions, and liberal in their notions ; 
 not encouraging contracted ideas, but the most enlarged and 
 comprehensive. 2. When those who had framed doctrines, &c. 
 had been too confined in their notions, separations and hurtful 
 
Ill.iv. 4.] 
 
 UNITY OF DOCTRINE. 
 
 359 
 
 II. dissensions might sometimes be avoided by moderation in en- 
 forcing or carrying into execution. 3. Some good might fol- 
 low from prudence in the public teachers, particularly in choos- 
 ing such topics^ as were least likely to give offence. 4. Sepa- 
 rations and hurtful dissensions might be avoided by patience, 
 forbearance, and candour, on the part of private individuals. 
 When any thing occurred, in a religious assembly, which they 
 wished to have been omitted, as bearing hard on their private 
 opinions, they might be contented to suspend their assent and 
 concurrence for a time ; as is done in the Church of England 
 by some, when the Athanasian Creed is read, or the Com- 
 mination. 
 
 It could not but tend to keep men united in society, if it 
 was generally considered, by all ranks and orders, what great 
 30 force there is in speaking alike ; how much it contributes either 
 to make men think alike, or to forget that they differ, which 
 comes much to the same thing in the present case. Such is the 
 habitual connexion between our words and ideas, that those 
 who use the same words cannot easily persuade themselves that 
 they have not the same ideas. Sometimes this connexion is an 
 evil, when disputes want deciding, and you wish to shew that 
 the same words are used in different senses ; but here it would 
 be a good. 
 
 Archbishop Sharp shews^, that if men would speak alike 
 they would ere long find that they had already thought alike ; 
 and that they had been hindered from perceiving it by different 
 modes of expression, and by the different points of view in 
 which they had placed the same thought. 
 
 Dr* Powell opens his second Discourse with a remark to 
 our purpose; and the earnestness of St. Paul in his^ text 
 should not pass unnoticed. One of the Fathers asks% rogo 
 VOS, cum sensu incolumes sitis, cur vocihus insanitis.^ Those 
 whom he addresses might be safe as to their meaning, if they 
 did not materially differ from each other : some difference it is 
 evident they had. 
 
 We have before'^ mentioned, from Mosheim, that the fol- 
 lowers and opposers of Nestorius held opinions the same in 
 effect. 
 
 ^ Dr. Balguy allows this, Disc. vii. 
 
 p. 118. 
 
 2 Vol. I. Serm. i. 3d rule. This is not 
 the expression of Abp. Sharp, but what 
 he says slieios this. ^ \ (jgr. i. 10. 
 
 ^ Vigilius ad Eutych. L. 2. quoted 
 in Pearson on the Creed, Art. 2, p. 141, 
 fol. 
 
 5 B. II. chap. V. sect. 3; or Mosheim, 
 cent. 5. 2. 5. 9. vol. ii. 8vo, p. 70. 
 
360 
 
 UNITY OF DOCTRINE. 
 
 [III.iv.5,6. 
 
 5. As what has here been offered, or recommended, may be II. 
 thought more difficult in practice than it really is, it may be 
 proper to mention a few instances. 
 
 In primitive times, though men had different ideas when 31 
 they^ said that Christ was the Logos., yet they called him so, 
 and agreed in expression as if they had agreed in idea ; so that 
 no dissension ensued. 
 
 The Ebionites and Nazarenes called Christ the Son of 
 God^f but in different senses. 
 
 Some persons understand the petition in the Lord’s Prayer, 
 deliver us from evilf as if the evil were natural evil, con- 
 tradistinguished to temptation or moral evil ; others as if evil 
 meant the evil one., or Satan ; yet these join in the prayer with- 
 out inconvenienced 
 
 Bishop Burnet, speaking^ of those who held different 
 opinions concerning predestination, adds, how much soever 
 they may differ and dispute in the schools, their worship being 
 the same, they do all join in it.’' He tells us also that the 
 Lutherans and Calvinists agree in acts of worship'^'' with re- 
 gard to the Eucharist, though they differ in opinion as to the 
 manner in which Christ is present. 
 
 Clement the Ninth made peace in his church by only sub- 
 stituting the words sincerely, in a declaration of faith, for the 
 words purely^ and simply. The question related to the 
 Divine decrees, and influence on the human will. In such 
 questions as the three last referred to, if dispute begins, there 
 is nothing likely to end it ; therefore discretion should be used 
 to prevent its beginning. At such a time the alternative is, 
 perpetual peace or perpetual discord ; or, in effect, perpetual 
 encouragement or perpetual discouragement of religious prin- . 
 ciples. 
 
 6. One thing which has stood in the way of such unity of 32 
 doctrine as we are treating of, is the right of private judgment ; 
 the defence of which is always very popular. On this right 
 there has been much unsatisfactory arguing. Some have argued 
 
 as if this right was always infringed when men were required 
 to submit to the rules of the society to which they belonged ; 
 though those men enjoy the greatest possible freedom who live 
 
 ^ See Michaeli's’s Introd. Lect. sect. 
 ]00. end. Quarto. 
 
 2 See Lard. Works, vol. iii. p. 541, 
 transl. from Beausobre. 
 
 ^ People differ about charity covering 
 
 sins, yet worship together, and use 
 prayers, «&.c. concerning charity. 
 
 ^ Pref. to Art. p. 17 and Id, 8vo. 
 
 ® Voltaire’s Louis XIV. Jansenisme, 
 p. 276, 12mo. 
 
Ill.iv. 7.] 
 
 UNITY OF DOCTRINE. 
 
 361 
 
 II. in well-ordered society: (Dr. Balguy, p. 121.) — some, as if it 
 was violated when men were refused as 7nmisters in certain 
 churches whose doctrines they would not teach ; that is, were j^ro- 
 hibited in certain societies from teaching their own opinions: — 
 some, as if no man could have right of private judgment who 
 judged it best to act after the opinion of another. But such 
 reasoning seems subversive of all religious society ; nay, of all 
 social action whatsoever. Are the rights of private judgment 
 violated because a man cannot speak as long as he pleases in 
 certain clubs ? or because a farming servant may not use a 
 drill-plough.'^ or because a messenger is forbidden to deliver any 
 message but that which his employer sends. ^ 
 
 Neal, in his History of the Puritans, has something upon 
 the right of private judgment, which seems to me inapplicable 
 to religious society. (Vol. i. 4to, p. l6l.) Is each man to wor- 
 ship alone ? are a thousand men to worship, each in his own 
 way, and call themselves a society? a church? Suppose a 
 man to speak in favour of private judgment about the diseases 
 of the body, it would be immediately asked, do you mean that 
 no man shall follow the judgment of a physician? that every 
 shopkeeper shall dissect ? every farmer study the materia me- 
 dica ? chemistry, botany, &c. ? No one would think it reason- 
 SS able. Therefore it is not merely truth and equity that those 
 persons aim at who plead for private judgment in religion 
 There is either interest or ambition at the bottom, though they 
 may not know it ; or a plan of evading duties, and indulging 
 in vice ; or of recommending particular alterations under gene- 
 ral expressions of liberty and right®. Any one who is really 
 desirous of keeping clear of error must be aware, when he hears 
 encomiums spoken generally of religious liberty, that they may 
 mean no more than liberty to change a present establishment 
 into a new one. 
 
 7 . Another thing which has been a great hinderance to 
 mens acquiescing, in the kind of situation here recommended, 
 is the notion, that establishments, by cramping men’s free- 
 dom of inquiry, prevent improvement ; that they are modes 
 of tyranny exercised by priests ; and that under tyrants no 
 powers of improving can be exerted. Whereas, establishments 
 
 ® I have heard Unitarians speak much 
 of liberty, right of private judgment, &c. ; 
 but, on asking them whether Papists 
 were to be free from all tests and re- 
 straints, I never found them consistent 
 
 with their own principles, generally ex- 
 pressed. See Dr. Balguy, pp. 273, 278, 
 279 , and the opening of my 5th of No- 
 vember Sermon. 
 
302 
 
 UNITY OF DOCTRINE. 
 
 [III. iv. 7. 
 
 seem as if they were in reality the best means of improvement. II. 
 They may have been abused, and may be liable to abuse. 
 Bigotry and priestcraft may have tyrannized over consciences, 
 and kept them confined in fetters, though even this has 
 been chiefly in times of ignorance, when priests possessed 
 most sorts of useful knowledge in being, and the people were 
 very little able to guide themselves ; but now no mischief of 
 this kind is to be apprehended from them. Suppose no 
 establishment, all is confusion, from which no improvement 
 can arise ; suppose an establishment, all is orderly and quiet : 
 the people follow their several occupations, and improvement 34 
 comes into the hands of those who are best qualified to pro- 
 mote it. Some of these may be too forward to reform, others 
 too backward ; but, when improvement has been made by 
 the most enlightened, it will be sure to descend to the people, 
 as they are able to bear it ; a little sooner or a little later. 
 Other things are under establishments as well as religion^; 
 they improve, and the more for being so ; why may not re- 
 ligion ? In physic, men have kept observing received maxims 
 in most things, and improving them in something. Heat, in 
 the small-pox and fevers, used to be prescribed generally ; but 
 compliance with established rules has not prevented their being 
 improved. Those established rules were always capable of 
 improvement ; but to follow them was always better than 
 to set them wholly aside. I have met with persons who 
 look upon the Newtonian philosophy as only established for 
 a time ; who think that it will be superseded, as the Cartesian 
 has been. It is needless to enter into the question. Sup- 
 posing this not improbable, yet still I should nov/ say, study 
 the Newtonian philosophy ; it is the established philosophy : 
 whatever improvements it may hereafter receive, you will 
 profit most by learning what it teaches : if you neglect it, 
 you will, comparatively, know nothing. The same kind of 
 reasoning might be applied to agriculture. If I wanted to 
 educate a person even for the very purpose of making im- 
 provements, I would put him first under some steward or 
 farmer, who followed established rules. Established agriculture 
 cannot be improved till it is practised ; neither can established 
 virtue, or religion. In religion, men have or affect something 
 of a false pride or a false shame about being directed ; but 
 there seems no reason for being more ashamed of trusting to 35 
 ^ Book II. chap. iv. sect. 4. 
 
Ill.iv.S.] 
 
 UNITY OF DOCTRINE. 
 
 363 
 
 II. a priest than a cobler ; from whence it is natural again to 
 conclude, that, when men are more ashamed, it is not merely 
 through reason. The result of what has been said seems 
 strongly in favour of religious establishments. 
 
 8. It follows, from this view of religious establishments, that 
 a man may, reasonably and lawfully, live under any one, and 
 conform to it, who is not against reforming it, and who allows 
 that it has imperfections ; for one use of establishments is, to 
 promote improvements, or reformations, with the least disturb- 
 ance possible. 
 
 But moreover, many persons have two capacities to im- 
 prove in, indeed all those have who are likely to improve 
 establishments — those of the man and the philosopher. As a 
 religious philosopher, it has just now appeared, that I may im- 
 prove myself under an establishment ; but, as a man, I stand 
 no chance of improving without one. My principles can in no 
 other way have any likelihood of being nourished and supported: 
 were I ever so desirous, in the character of a philosopher, to 
 reform and improve the establishment to which I belong, yet 
 I must act under it regularly, as a man. Nay, I must take 
 care, while I am pursuing improvement in the former capacity, 
 that I do not forget my interests in the latter. A man may 
 look so much beyond his establishment, as to lose a great 
 deal of private improvement ; and indeed he may so give 
 himself up to his private improvement, and confine his views so 
 so much to his present establishment, as never to improve that. 
 
 But suppose a man had not these views to improvement, 
 in becoming a member of religious society, but only found 
 himself settled in an establishment, he knew not why, by 
 36 birth, education, &c. imperfections in it would not, always at 
 least, afford any good reason for his removing ; yet, whenever 
 he finds an imperfection, he must wish it altered. All human 
 institutions will be imperfect^, and the particular regulations of 
 every religious society are human. He is under establishments 
 in law and physic ; these are imperfect, but that is no good 
 reason for throwing them aside. Who dare break through all 
 established rules of what we call fashion, in dress, &c. on the 
 plea of their being imperfect ? A man may be thoroughly 
 convinced that it is absurd to cut away the beard, to throw‘s 
 
 ^ Dr. Balguy, p. 125. Discourse vii. 
 
 2 In the days of Clemens Alexandri- 
 nus, the Christians thought it a very 
 
 horrible thing to wear false hair ; and 
 Calvo turpius est nihil comato, 
 said Martial to Marinus,” &c. (Lib. x. 
 
 Epigr. 
 
364 
 
 UNITY OF DOCTIIINE. 
 
 [III.iv.9. 
 
 Ybitc dust into the hair, and use a tenacious fluid to keep IT. 
 it there; but a wise man will judge, that more good will arise 
 from compliance than from singularity ; yet, at the same 
 time that he complies, he will be making some advances to- 
 wards reformation. 
 
 Men of the world seem very unreasonable in not submitting 
 to act under religious establishments. They think themselves 
 above it : all are quacks in divinity. Men in active life will 
 talk as reformers, lightly and frivolously ; and they would not 
 scruple to undertake the task of reforming, without judgment, 
 knowledge, or any consistent plan ; and without any probability 
 of not falling into great errors. Would they not act more 
 reasonably if they conformed to establishments, and only men- 
 tioned their ideas of improvement to those who were prudent 
 and informed enough to judge of them maturely ? only press- 
 ing them if they saw that they were opposed more through 37 
 indolence than reason. 
 
 9. When a body of doctrine is to be fixed upon, in order 
 that unity of teaching may have place, it may happen that 
 several doctrines will be set up or proposed, in competition 
 with each other. In this case it may sometimes promote unity 
 to have different parties enter into a compromise. It seems odd 
 at first that men should presume to settle truths,' as if they 
 could order a proposition to be true or not true, as they 
 pleased ; and Mr. Voltaire ridicules such kind of compromise. 
 Speaking of the Jansenists and Jesuits, and of one Jesuit 
 Achilles Gaillard^ in particular, he says, “II proposa grave- 
 ment d’acceptcr la predestination gratuite, a condition que les 
 Dominicains admettraient la science^ moienne; et qu’on ajuste- 
 rait ces deux systemes comme on pourrait.’”’ This at first has 
 the air as if the Jesuits could allow predestination to be true in 
 what degree they chose, and in like manner the Jansenists the 
 doctrine of grace ; but, though this might be ridiculous in 
 theory, yet in practice something of the sort might reasonably 
 take place. Suppose the Jesuits not to allow gratuitous pre- 
 destination in their private opinion, they might agree, for the 
 sake of peace, not to oppose it, or require subscriptions or 
 declarations in contradiction to it; and so might the Jansenists 
 
 Epigr. 83.) see Taylor’s Doctor dubi- 
 tantium, 3. 1. 5. p. 434. 
 
 Did not Charles the Second write some 
 letter against perukes to the University 
 of Cambridge? 
 
 • Siecle de Louis XIV. Jansenisme^ 
 not far from the beginning, p. 283, 
 12mo. 
 
 2 For scienlia media sec Vitringa 
 Tlieol. vol. I. De attribulis (Sapientia). 
 
III. V. ].] 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 365 
 
 II. do with regard to the Jesuitical notion about the assistance of 
 the Holy Spirit. And accordingly, in consequence of this 
 38 compromise, we are told, “^On composa im corps de doctrine 
 qui contena presque les deux partis.” 
 
 Allied to mutual concessions, is obedience to injunctions of 
 the civil power to put an end to disputes on speculative doc- 
 trines. In this, the open profession and maintaining of opinion 
 is sacrificed to good order, and to that good turn of mind which 
 arises from order and peace. It might seem as if no earthly 
 governor had a power to silence the preacher of truth — as if 
 he might follow the example of ^ Peter and John, who preferred 
 the command of God to that of the council ; but the business 
 of the ordinary teacher, in the cases we speak of, is not to 
 propagate a system of religion like the Christian ; nor has 
 he miraculous power to shew that he is to judge for himself. 
 He should think what is the least evil, to obey the magistrate, 
 or to destroy the peace of the church. 
 
 Injunctions of the kind we speak of are, that of Charles"’ 
 the First, prefixed to our Articles ; and those of several popes, 
 who endeavoured to bring the Jansenists and their oppon- 
 ents to teach the common moral duties. The title of our 
 Articles shews that they were made “for avoiding of diversities 
 of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true 
 religion.” 
 
 Dr. Balguy should be read — particularly his seventh 
 Discourse. 
 
 39 CFIAPTER V. 
 
 OP ARTICLES OP RELIGION. 
 
 1. We have now, according to our plan, shewn, that the 
 way to promote right conduct is, to study the nature of senti- 
 ments^ religious ones in particular ; and that the way to pro- 
 mote good sentiments is, to maintain unity of doctrine. The 
 last thing is to shew, that the way to maintain unity of doctrine 
 is, to require, from those who are to teach, some kind of assent 
 to that which is to be taught. 
 
 ^ See Voltaire’s .Jansenisme, in Louis 
 
 XIV. towards end, p. 296. 12mo Dr. 
 
 Balguy allows of ‘‘mutual concessions:” 
 p. 125, in Disc. vii. 
 
 ^ Acts iv. 19. Dr. Balguy, p. 119. 
 
 ^ That this was by Charles I. see 
 pamphlet called “A Diss. on the l/th 
 Art.” &c. Oxf. 1773. 
 
366 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGIOX. 
 
 [III. V.2. 
 
 Attempts have been made to shew that such assent is need- IT. 
 less^'^ if it is so, it must be owned that they do wrong who 
 insist upon it. The Remonstrants in Holland^, a very re- 
 spectable set of people, made one attempt of this sort; the 
 ministers of our own church made another, not many years 
 ago : but I consider both as mere expedients of reformers, 
 aiming to change particular doctrines, not as coming from ob- 
 jections of mere reason to all articles. If reformers can get rid 
 of one establishment, they can more easily introduce^ another ; 
 and I have no idea that either the Dutch Remonstrants or our 
 own countrymen would have gone on without one, or without 40 
 declarations on the part of the teachers, for any length of 
 time^ 
 
 2. Not but there are some specious things to be said in fa- 
 vour of leaving men at liberty. There are some suppositions 
 on which, and some circumstances in which, assent to doctrines 
 would be needless ; and we shall not go to the bottom of the 
 subject if we do not inquire what they are. Till it is shewn 
 that none of them can be expected to be realized in the present 
 state of things, they will be perpetually urged as objections to 
 our manner of managing religious society. Besides, to con- 
 ceive different cases must enlarge the mind, and let us see the 
 nature of all religious establishments, without the peculiarities 
 of any one. If we do not think in this way, we do not dis- 
 tinguish between peculiarities and those properties which are 
 inherent in the nature of religious society as such. 
 
 Dr. Poicell says\ very sensibly, ‘‘Since it cannot be ima- 
 gined that men should explain with clearness, or enforce with 
 earnestness, or defend with accuracy of judgment, such doc- 
 trines as they do not believe, the Church requires of those who 
 are appointed to teach religion a solemn declaration of their 
 faith.” When Dr. Powell says, “ It cannot be imagined^'' he 
 does not say it is impossible; he reasons from experience, — his 
 conclusion is probable. Dr. Balguy, in that admirable compo- 
 sition his fifth Charge, does, as I conceive, the same. This 
 
 ^ See end of Jefferson’s Notes on Vir- 
 ginia. The experiment is not yet fully 
 tried there; and whilst it is trying, it 
 comes under an observation to be made 
 in this Chapter. Note, p. 45. 
 
 - See Dr. Jortin’s Six Dissertations, 
 pp. 104, 105. The Synod of Dort was in 
 1010 and 1619. 
 
 ^ Were ever any persons known to 
 
 wish to throw off subscriptions to any 
 doctrines, who meant to continue the 
 profession of the same doctrines? these 
 would be the persons to be heard against 
 subscriptions. 
 
 ^ Oliver Cromwell was for making an 
 ecclesiastical establishment, or national 
 church, at last. See Hume, a. d. 1656. 
 
 ^ Disc. p. 33i 
 
III. V. 3, 4.] 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 367 
 
 II. method was best suited to their purpose: we have only to hope 
 that our plan may be suitable to a course of Lectures. I know 
 not that there is amongst us any difference of opinion. 
 
 3. The most obvious, though not the most probable, sup- 
 
 41 position is, that there was no material difference of opinion 
 amongst the students of religion in any number of men who 
 lived together ; none which could occasion any dissensions 
 hurtful to religious sentiments; none which seemed to the per- 
 sons concerned inconsistent with the carrying on of a religious 
 society. This may seem too improbable a supposition to bear 
 mentioning; but yet it should be made, as no assent to doc- 
 trines need be given in such a case : and we should observe, 
 that it would come to much the same thing if there was great 
 moderation about the different modes of expressing those doc- 
 trines which we cannot comprehend ; for it is chiefly about 
 these® that any dissensions arise, which disturb the peace of 
 the Church, so as to defeat the ends of religious society. We 
 and the Socinians are said to differ, but about what ? not about 
 morality, or natural religion, or the divine authority of the 
 Christian religion : we diflPer only about what we do not under- 
 stand ; and about what is to be done on the part of God ; and, 
 if we allowed one another to use expressions at will, (and what 
 great matter could that be in what might almost be called un- 
 meaning expressions.^) we need never be upon our guard 
 against each other. A heathen Socrates, I think, would be 
 surprised at those who agreed in so many things, requiring 
 declarations and subscriptions in order to exclude one another. 
 He would judge that we might worship together, and even have 
 the same body of doctrine ; each party thinking freely in pri- 
 vate, and using discreet expressions in public’^. 
 
 42 4. The second supposition on which no solemn assent need 
 be given, or no article subscribed, is, that no disturbance has 
 happened. Mere apprehension of the possibility of disturbance, 
 without experience, is not a sufficient reason for laying re- 
 straints : by disturbance we mean, such as would prevent the 
 growth of religious sentiments. Our Church has not published 
 any new articles since 1562, when the national religion was 
 changed, (and then they cut off some few of 1552,) yet, if they 
 
 ® Chap. iv. sect. 4. 
 
 ^ The Epistle of the Emperor Con- 
 stantine to the heads of the parties when 
 Arianism first broke out, does him ho- 
 nour. It is easily found in Eusebius’s 
 
 Life of Constantine, or in Socrates’s 
 Ecclesiastical History. Lardner com- 
 mends it. Works, vol. iv. pp. 188 and 
 200. It is mentioned again, in our B. IV. 
 Art. 1. sect. 15, end. 
 
368 
 
 AIITICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [HI. V. 5,6. 
 
 had given way to every apprehension of disturbance, they pro- II. 
 bably would have framed some new Confession. Nevertheless, 
 though mere suspicion is noti sufficient to justify restraints, 
 strong marks of a turbulent disposition may ; such as in law 
 are, with regard to treason, called overt acts^. A man may 
 not attack an ill-looking person whom he meets, merely because 
 he is afraid of being attacked by him ; yet he may take some 
 signs as proofs of an hostile intention. If he stays till he has 
 certainty of an attack, self-defence may be impossible. 
 
 5. A third supposition, on which assent to doctrines need 
 not be required, is, that there were some meehanieal way of 
 spreading those which were established. Homilies are some- 
 thing of this sort, supposing them wholly to exclude preaching. 
 
 If the whole duty of a teacher consisted in reading an homily, 
 it would be matter of little moment whether his opinions ex- 
 actly coincided with those he read. And it would be much 
 the same, if he would look upon himself as a mere instrument 
 in the hand of the Church ; or as having no concern with truth, 
 as not being accountable for falsehood, in the mere character of 
 a teacher. This need only relate to the more obscure doctrines; 
 in points not controverted he might be warm and earnest. I 
 have sometimes told my congregation, in sermons, that I speak 43 
 as a minister, and not as a man ; that, though I believe the 
 doctrines I preach, I deliver them not as my own, but as the 
 doctrines of the Church : and on this account such doctrines de- 
 mand greater attention. 
 
 It would come to much the same thing if teachers agreed in 
 judgment to what has been here laid down, and looked upon 
 themselves as hound to promote unity of doctrine — of that 
 doctrine which was prescribed by the authority under wffiich 
 they taught : if they were convinced, that peace of mind, by 
 producing good sentiments, was of greater consequence than 
 the difference between this mysterious opinion and that, whilst 
 it generated discord and disunion. 
 
 6. If then we find no great difference of opinion ; or, if 
 men suffer one another to express themselves as they please 
 about doctrines above the reach of man ; or, if difference of 
 opinion occasions no disturbance or confusion ; or, if mechani- 
 cal ways of spreading doctrines are contrived and enjoined, or 
 teachers turn themselves into mere instruments; or, lastly, if 
 teachers highly esteem unit]) of doctrine, and maintain it con- 
 
 ‘ Jilackstone. Index, Overt act. 
 
in. V. 6 .] 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 369 
 
 II. scientiously ; — in any of these cases assent to articles of re- 
 ligion is not to be required. Each set of people must ask 
 themselves, therefore, are we nearly of the same opinions . do 
 we leave men to express themselves as they please about myste- 
 ries ? have we any mechanical contrivances for teaching what 
 authority prescribes ? do teachers consider themselves as mere 
 machines in the hands of the Church ? are they strongly im- 
 pressed with the infinite importance of unity of doctrine ? 
 Upon the answers which we are able to give to these questions 
 must our conduct depend, in particular churches; but the 
 44- actual state of particular churches is not now the subject of our 
 consideration. One word may be said on the expedient of 
 spreading doctrines by means''^ of homilies. It seems easy ; but 
 it does more harm, when a number of good preachers can be 
 had, than restraining those preachers to deliver the same doc- 
 trine, and taking the security of their private judgment that 
 they will do so. There would be, from time to time, if 
 preachers were encouraged, new illustrations of virtue and re- 
 ligion — of natural religion as well as revealed : there would 
 be, probably, in the natural course of improvement, num- 
 berless new lights thrown upon the Scripture. Now the con- 
 stant use of homilies would preclude all this ; and to reform 
 them would be nearly as difficult as to reform liturgy, or 
 articles, even though they would become insipid by frequent 
 repetition. 
 
 Dr. Balguy says^, It should never be forgotten by mi- 
 nisters that they are subject to higher authority. They are to 
 execute law, not to make it.” And afterwards^ Every word 
 that comes from our mouths, in opposition to the established 
 faith, is a violation of the most solemn engagements, and an 
 act of disobedience to lawful authority.” Though this is said 
 with particular relation to the Church of England, in which 
 ministers make express engagements, yet it would be just, 
 though our engagements were only tacit and implied. It 
 expresses perfectly well the general rights of religious society 
 over its ministers ; but rights are not the whole matter. On 
 the present subject, we would see moreover some security that 
 such rights will not be lost or violated. The kind of security 
 to be required, in any particular case, will depend upon the 
 45 answers which can be given to the questions just now proposed; 
 but something may be observed upon general considerations. 
 
 ^ Mentioned sect. 3 P. 113, Serm. vii. P. 111). See also p. 118. 
 
 VoL. I. 24) 
 
370 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [III. V. G. 
 
 If a new religious society was to be formed, quite as a res II. 
 Integra^ of persons well disposed, but unconnected — if they 
 were tolerably well informed, though some body of doctrine 
 should be constructed, the teachers should be left to their own 
 consciences to deliver it faithfully. And this should continue 
 till some abuses should arise, which were likely to disturb 
 mens minds, and defeat the ends of religious society k 
 
 But, if men began to contend, got to be vehement, to 
 form separate parties, to prefer men of their own religious 
 persuasion, even in civil offices, in all sorts of employments 
 of trust or profit, to exert themselves in shewing such pre- 
 ference; if they were found labouring secretly to gain proselytes, 
 and insinuating themselves amongst those whom they accounted 
 enemies, as spies, or seducers ; then the public tranquillity, and 
 the nature of religious principles, would require that those of 
 one party should be rendered discernihle from those of another, 
 by certain marks. And, as it is not to be supposed that any 
 man would be ashamed of his own opinion, or afraid to own it, 
 what mode of distinguishing religious parties could be so 
 simple and natural as drawing out a list of the opinions of 
 one or more parties, and asking any man, who seemed likely 
 to occasion any disturbance by his situation or employment, 
 whether those opinions were his ? whether, if he was a teacher, 
 he would teach those opinions ? whether, if he was a common 
 man, he would choose to be ranked with such as held those 46* 
 opinions, and be a member of their society ? 
 
 This may' give an idea of what might occasion articles of 
 religion to be made, and assent to them to be required. One 
 of these parties might perhaps be very opulent, another very 
 poor ; and, in the course of a few years, they might change 
 situations with respect to wealth and poverty ; but all this is 
 merely incidental^ and does not at all affect our reasoning. 
 
 ^ This is the observation promised in 
 note to sect. I, about America. Let the 
 experiment, of requiring no judgment on 
 the doctrines to be taught, be tried there; 
 but let us not be impatient whilst we are 
 
 watching the issue ; nor, if the spirit of 
 party suffers it to succeed there for a 
 considerable time, let us be rash in con- 
 cluding our situation to be exactly simi- 
 lar to theirs. 
 
III. vi.] 
 
 ARTICLES LONG CONTINUED. 
 
 371 
 
 47 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 OF ARTICLES OF RELIGION, WHICH HAVE BEEN CONTINUED 
 FOR A LENGTH OF TIME, WHILST OTHER THINGS 
 HAVE BEEN CHANGING. 
 
 We have now completed our plan. We have proposed 
 what is the main consideration in religious societies of modern 
 times; that is to say, assent to Articles of Religion. We have 
 shewn, from the nature of veracity, what is the nature of such 
 assent ; and, from the general nature of religious society, when 
 such assent may be requisite^ — when it may be dispensed with. 
 
 But what has been advanced in this Book, has all gone upon 
 the supposition, that articles of religion are composed at the 
 time they are assented to ; whereas, in fact, there are so many 
 difficulties in forming a body of articles, that, once made, the 
 same continues for a great number of ages. And yet, in a 
 great number of ages, great changes, of one sort or other, gene- 
 rally take place. If the faculties of the mind are well employ- 
 ed, great improvements ; if otherwise, great abuses, founded 
 on great errors. 
 
 If the forms to be assented to continue the same, while 
 many things relating to them change, the nature of the assent 
 will change ; and so may its expediency. 
 
 Something therefore remains to be said, on supposition of 
 long continuance of articles of religion ; and the whole of what 
 is to come, in the present Book, will consist of observations 
 
 48 either arising immediately out of such supposition, or in some 
 measure connected with it. Other subjects may be introduced 
 which might, in part, be treated independently, but none 
 which will not be treated to more advantage by being made to 
 belono; to it. 
 
 It may be proper to suggest a caution, that every thing 
 that is said be not applied, or thought applicable, to the 
 Articles of the Church of England in particular. I am not the 
 person who would insinuate that any of our own Articles stand 
 in need of any thing beyond plain interpretation ; but some 
 may think that some of them do : and it cannot but be useful 
 to those who subscribe Articles made 230 years ago, to pursue 
 a train of general reasoning, concerning the effect of antiquity 
 on fixed forms, whether any one applies it to his own forms 
 or not. ' 
 
 - Chap. V. 
 
 24—2 
 
372 
 
 AllTICLES LONG CONTINUED 
 
 [III. vi. 1,2. 
 
 The foundation of every thing, which I have to observe II. 
 on this subject, is what I would call a tacit reformation. 
 
 Let us therefore examine the nature of that. 
 
 1. Our first step may be, to take a general idea of the 
 eflPects of age in articles of religion. It has appeared, in 
 the first Book,^ that few if any propositions are strictly uni- 
 versal : things expressed as if they were universally meant, 
 have generally some particular references by which they are 
 to be limited. Now, when propositions are 7iew^ these references 
 are perfectly intelligible ; nay, they seem to be no references at 
 all ; the mind makes them so easily, as not to be conscious of 
 making them. But, when the propositions are oZd, the circum- 
 stances to which reference is made are no longer seen ; the 
 references therefore are lost, and the propositions come to be 
 interpreted in a more strict and literal sense, with fewer excep- 
 tions and limitations than any one would have interpreted them 
 with, at the time they were made. Or, if it is seen that the 
 strict, literal, universal sense could not originally be the true 
 one, and allowances are made on that account, such allowances 
 must be made at random, and must often be wrongly imagined 
 or conjectured ; still, therefore, the old references are different 
 from the new ; and therefore the old sense. Instances would 
 illustrate this to those who thought it obscure ; but in the first 
 Book so many were brought, that I am unwilling to add 
 more. 
 
 But, moreover, supposing the propositions themselves to 
 continue intelligible, and to be understood in their right 
 sense; yet still changes in other things., in other parts of 
 knowledge, would set them in a different point of view. 
 There is such a connection and affinity between different parts 
 of knowledge, that whatever much affects one part will, in some 
 degree, affect another. 
 
 2. Besides these changes in the sense of expressions which 
 arise in a general way, in the natural course of things, we 
 may, without improbability, suppose some particular researches 
 to bring to light some particular error in the forms to which as- 
 sent is to be given, or which are used in public worship. This 
 might happen from the study of manuscripts, or other parts 
 of criticism. It seems really to have happened with regard to 
 J Pet. iii. 1.9; which, in the third Article of the Church of 
 England, as made in 1552, is interpreted of Chrisfs descent into 
 
 * (Jliap. X. 
 
III. vi. 3.] WHILST OTHEll THINGS HAVE CIIAKGEl). 373 
 
 II. hell. It did indeed happen that' the reformed doctrine of the 
 English Church was not finally settled in 1552; and, therefore, 
 ten years afterwards, this Article was altered ; but we may 
 easily suppose such alteration not to have taken place ; and, in 
 truth, this part of Scripture is still used as the Epistle for 
 
 50 Easter Even. If there is any particular propriety in using it 
 on that day, the same construction must remain. — Denouncing 
 sentence of eternal damnation, upon unworthy receivers of the 
 Lord’s Supper, is now acknowledged to be an error, but the 
 forms are not changed. Praying that magistrates may main- 
 tain truth (as we do in our Litany) was best suited to times 
 prior to the settlement of toleration". 
 
 When these things happen, what is to be done ? An un- 
 thinking man would say, repeal, alter, when you find errors. 
 This is the most obvious measure to suggest, but it is often 
 extremely difficult to practise ; so difficult, that it may be best 
 in many, nay in most instances, to let the errors stand as they 
 did, in the letter, and only depart from them in the spirit. 
 
 3. The reasons for this had better make a separate con- 
 sideration. Here we will observe, that, when forms are left in 
 ivords, but taken away or altered in meaning, it may be either 
 said that they grow obsolete, or that the law which enjoins 
 them is tacitly repealed. And we will add, that a tacit repeal 
 is of equaP validity with an express one. The authority of 
 the lawgiver is on the same footing with that of the master, or 
 proprietor : it may be relaxed in different degrees, it may be 
 withdrawn totally, and yet in silence ; and when authority of 
 any kind is withdrawn, in any way, subjection, or obligation 
 to obey, can no longer subsist, flight to command may be 
 relinquished in the same manner with right to possess or en- 
 joy ; and, with right, must cease its correlative, obligation. 
 That which is relinquished requires no attention, as a matter 
 of duty. 
 
 51 But the reasons for leaving errors uncorrected, and suffer- 
 ing forms to grow obsolete, or repealing only tacitly the laws 
 which enjoin them, are to be considered more particularly. It 
 must not be understood that tliis method is recommended as 
 positive good in itself : it is only recommended as negative good, 
 or as the least evil. It occasions the least interruption of 
 peace, and therefore of religious affections and principles. It 
 
 2 See Dr. Balguy, opening of 3d 1 this Book. 
 
 Charge; and Chap. xiv. sect. 11. of 1 ^ ]\jy Assize Sermon, p. 1. 
 
374 
 
 AllTICLES LONE CONTINUED 
 
 [III. vi. 
 
 seems strictly defensible and right, and capable of being ex- II. 
 plained to those who have scruples about its rectitude. Errors, 
 of the kind we speak of, generally make part of a system ; and 
 the authority of a part cannot be destroyed, without first acting 
 contrary to the authority of the whole : when that habitual 
 veneration for the system of doctrines, on whicli religion so 
 much depends, must be broken in upon, and greatly damaged. 
 When the parts of any machine are separated, it is found 
 that taking to pieces is a much easier work than putting to- 
 gether. And the difference is at least as great in a religious 
 machine, or system, where every part may be changed^ as 
 in any other. It has been found, that, when such a system 
 has been dissolved, all men turn lawgivers, reformers, founders 
 of sects : and the most quiet can agree on rejecting an error, 
 when they cannot agree upon accepting a substitution in its 
 place. In order to settle such substitution, numbers must con- 
 sult together ; these it will be often difficult to assemble, often 
 difficult to dissolve. They get into debates on subjects which 
 were, in many conjunctures, better left untouched; they run 
 into strife and contention, to which there is no end. Solomon 
 says^, ‘^the beginning of strife is as when one letteth out 
 water;” and his saying is not more applicable to any kind of 
 strife than to religious. 
 
 But, though a council would probably be numerous, they 52 
 would have to satisfy a much greater number than themselves, 
 whose acceptance is necessary : the people at large must be sa- 
 tisfied, whether those in authority are many or few. Here we 
 come into the regions of ignorance and prejudice — amongst 
 those who act from their habitual feelings. Reason and good 
 sense will not prevail here against established custom^. The 
 sudden imposition of new laws will exasperate and revolt the 
 generality of those whose minds are unprepared^ to receive 
 them ; but leave erroneous notions to shew themselves gradual- 
 ly, and esteem^ for them will decay ; and others adopted in 
 their place will at last be quietly received. Nay, if the people 
 
 ^ Prov. xvii. 14. 
 
 2 There is an old story of a Romish 
 priest, who had in his book mumpsimus, 
 instead of sumpsimm. The error was 
 pointed out to him ; but he declared he 
 would never give up his viiimpsimus for 
 the .mtnp.simus of any man, let him be 
 who he would. 
 
 The change of style (from O. S. to 
 N. S.) produced many murmurings, and 
 superstitious terrors. Some anile person- 
 ages have thought that nothing has ever 
 gone quite right since that change was 
 made. 
 
 Spirit of Laws, h. xix. chap. ii. 
 
 IMy Assize Sermon, p. 7- 
 
III. vi. 4, 5.] WHILST OTHHll THINGS HAVE CHANGED. o']5 
 
 II. were to be told this, and were determined to throw aside cus- 
 tom, and follow reason, the matter would be full as bad. All 
 would run into confusion. 
 
 Those who were enemies to this method, if continued for a 
 great length of time, must, one would think, allow of it as a 
 temporary expedient. Teachers of religion must not stop : a 
 succession of them must be ordained, though some tilings ap- 
 pear, in the forms to be used or assented to by them, which 
 want amendment. And if things go on thus for a while, it must 
 appear that they might go on longer : making alterations can- 
 not seem a work of immediate necessity. 
 
 53 4. If we conceive a number of improvements to be made in 
 
 the manner here described, we may conceive what I should 
 call a tacit reformation. The reasons for continuing a number 
 of errors are the same as for one. When the number is suf- 
 ficiently large, and has continued a sufficient time, it may pro- 
 duce an express reformation ; but so long as, on a footing of 
 probability, we should judge that it would produce more mis- 
 chief than the continuance of the errors in form or appearance, 
 so long we are to avoid making express alterations. In prac- 
 tice, there will be a difficulty to know and settle what to allow 
 as an improvement ; or as an improvement duly ratified. The 
 best method seems to be, to observe what the generality of 
 learned and judicious men allow to be such; only they should 
 be men who shew no particular love of innovation — no ambition 
 to distinguish themselves by reforming — no restlessness under 
 authority — no want of respect to the wisdom of preceding ge- 
 nerations. In general, such as have these faults are but few in 
 comparison of the steady, prudent, and sober-minded. And 
 therefore we may say, without thinking much of exceptions, 
 that the most rational and ^improved are to be attended to; 
 that what they adopt may be established as an improvement : or 
 even what they do not oppose, when suggested by others. These 
 are those who ought to take the lead ; and they will do so after 
 a time, if not at first. 
 
 5. It is possible to conceive such a series of improvements, 
 that all the laws enjoining forms should be repealed. In this 
 case there would be a perfect liberty. And one does not see 
 why that liberty might not continue, till fresh dissensions and 
 disturbances® called for fresh restraints and declarations of opi- 
 
 54 . nion. This conception may seem extravagant ; but one case, 
 ® Powell, p. 35. ® Chap. v. sect. 4. 
 
376 
 
 ARTICLES LONG CONTINUED 
 
 [III. vi. 6\ 
 
 Avhicli will be mentioned amongst the instances in the next II. 
 section, seems to come very near it. The mere conception may 
 give us an idea how tacit improvements generate liherty. 
 Whatever is expressed in words lately settled must require 
 obedience without abatement : whatever is old becomes more in- 
 definite, and is to be construed with greater latitude. If you 
 expunge any thing, and substitute something else in its place, 
 what is substituted must be construed literally, or what would 
 be called so, with only such references as the words at the 
 time are seen to imply. It was uncertain what references the 
 expunged words implied, and therefore a reasonable freedom of 
 interpretation might be allowed, lest they should lay a greater 
 restraint than they had been intended to lay. Dr. Powell says, 
 at the end of his second Discourse, something to the same pur- 
 pose. This liberty is only to be considered, I think, as an in- 
 cidental advantage ; not as one which would determine men to 
 avoid express improvements. 
 
 6. After all, it is not perhaps to be expected that all per- 
 sons will be satisfied with this reasoning, and with the method 
 of tacit reformation. Some will see that it is liable to abuse ; 
 others will call it crafty, evasive, and Jesuitical. It does seem 
 liable to abuse ; but what is not so ? Every duty may be 
 evaded by an unfair mind ; and a fair ingenuous mind will not 
 treat rules and forms as obsolete, which are really still in force. 
 Cautions may be made so determinate, as to serve for guides 
 and directions in doubts concerning this matter, full as well as 
 concerning many others. As to the reasoning being evasive 
 and elesuitical, that cannot be said from an attentive consider- 
 ation of the argument. It will bear that test very well. But 
 sucli blame may arise from a slight view of it — from reflexion 55 
 upon it cut short by passion or sentiment — by abhorrence of 
 duplicity and deceit. It may arise from that honest abruptness 
 which will not listen to any thing that seems calculated to per- 
 plex plain integrity, to entangle common sense, to confound 
 truth with falsehood. Now, nothing can obviate difficulties of 
 this kind better than a few facts; and amongst facts may be 
 reckoned sayings of eminent persons who spoke with no view to 
 the present inquiry. We will first, then, mention some instance 
 or two of cicil laws losing their force tacitly and gradually ; 
 then a few facts relating to matters ecclesiastical; and lastly, 
 we will produce a few sayings, to shew that our notion is such 
 as has been recognised and approved by men of sense and judg- 
 
III. vi. 6.] WHILST OTHER THINGS HAVE CHANGED. 377 
 
 II. ment. — We have before^ mentioned the tenure of lands called 
 villenage. In the 15th and l6th centuries, improvements took 
 place in deriving benefit from land, both to the owner and 
 tenant; the consequence was, that ‘‘villenage^ went gradually 
 into disuse throughout the more civilised parts of Europe.” 
 ‘‘ And, though^ the ancient statutes on this subject remain still 
 unrepealed by parliament, it appears that, before the reign of 
 Elizabeth, the distinction of villain and freeman was totally 
 though insensibly abolished.” In 1529, Cardinal Wolsey was 
 indicted on a statute of Richard the Second, for procuring 
 bulls from Rome. On this indictment, Mr. Hume remarks'^, 
 ‘‘ Besides that this statute was fallen altogether into disuse, no- 
 thing could be more rigorous and severe than to impute to him 
 as a crime, what he had openly, during a course of so many 
 years, practised with the consent and approbation of the king, 
 56 and the acquiescence of the parliament and kingdom.” The 
 disuse was sufficient proof that this statute was virtually re- 
 pealed : the acting contrary to it, with approbation or ac- 
 quiescence, was demonstration. Instead, therefore, of calling 
 the indictment ‘‘rigorous and severe,” I should call it unjust 
 and iniquitous in the greatest degree. The same statute of 
 Richard the Second (called the Statute of Provisors) was after- 
 wards^ made use of to depress the clergy in general. We 
 find a similar instance of injustice, in the conviction of Lord 
 Chancellor Macclesfield, recorded in the life of Bishop Pearce^. 
 
 In ecclesiastical matters, nothing is more to our purpose 
 than seeing that the difficulties of altering forms have been 
 really such as we have supposed them. An instance of this 
 might be, the troubles and disturbances occasioned by sub- 
 stituting the French for the Spanish Liturgy or Mass, called 
 the Mosarahic~ ^ or Liturgy of Toledo; or those occasioned by 
 our Charles the First attempting to establish the use of the 
 English Liturgy in Scotland^. In 1780, the Protestant Asso- 
 ciation occasioned dreadful riots in London : how far attachment 
 to the Protestant religion was concerned in these may be dif- 
 ficult to determine. the reformer at Zurich, in 1523 
 
 * Chap. ii. sect. 4. 
 
 ^ Hume, vol. ii. 4to, p. 444. 
 
 ® Ibid. p. 445. 
 
 ^ Vol. III. 4to, p. 1C2. 
 
 Ibid. p. 170. Jan. Ifj, 1531. 
 
 6 P. xiv. 
 
 7 Gomecius de rebus gestis Ximenis, 
 
 lib. ii. Card. Bona, Liturg. lib. I. cap. 
 xi. sect. 3. 
 
 ® Hume, vol. v. 4to, p. 214. a. n. 1037. 
 The jealousies might be mentioned oc- 
 I casioned by Charles the First’s queen 
 I being a Papist. Ibid. p. 189. 
 
378 
 
 ARTICLES LONG CONTINUED 
 
 [III. vL 6, 
 
 preached against the established religion, the Roman : the senate II. 
 ordered him to continue to do so, at the same time that they con- 
 tinued the same^ outward worship, which was contrary to the 
 preaching that they themselves ordered. But, in the modern 
 church of Geneva, the most complete tacit reformation seems to 
 have taken place. Geneva was the metropolis of Calvinism. 57 
 Calvin himself taught there ; and, after him, Beza : but the 
 Genevese have now in fact quitted their Calvinistic doctrines, 
 though vaform they retain them. One reason for retaining the 
 form is, lest they should be thought heretics by the Dutch 
 churches. When the catechumens are admitted to the Sacra- 
 ment, they only give an assent to the Scriptures and the 
 Apostles’ Creed ; but, when the minister is admitted, he takes 
 an oath of assent to the Scriptures, and professes to teach them 
 ‘ according to the Catechism of Calvin f but this last clause, 
 about Calvin, he makes a separate business ; speaking lower, 
 or altering his posture, or speaking after a considerable in- 
 terval. There seems still to be some obligation to read public 
 lectures at Geneva on Calvin’s Catechism, for the lecturers 
 propose a part of it as a subject or text; but then they imme- 
 diately go off to something else : they do not adhere to it, nor 
 even treat of it. The youth are chiefly taught Ostervald’s 
 Catechism, which seems to contain what may now be called the 
 real religion of Geneva". 
 
 Lastly, I will mention a few sayings or expressions, which 
 may shew that the notion of tacitly repealing, or of desuetude, 
 has been professed by men of judgment. Cicero says^, ‘^Non 
 vides veteres leges aut ipsa sua vetustate consenuisse, aut novis 
 legibus esse sublatas In the Digests, we have, ‘‘Rectissime 
 etiam illud receptum est, ut leges non solum suffragio legisla- 
 toris, sed etiam tacito consensu omnium, per desuetudinem 
 abrogentur.” Here, the laws must be supposed to keep their 58 
 place in the Code, and in their old forms. Bishop Taylor"^ 
 seems to say, that, when a custom gets established, though 
 against law, it is valid, if the supreme magistrate suffers the 
 law to go for nothing ; which he may do by his tacit consent 
 or secret approbation of the custom, ‘‘as by not punishing, by 
 not complaining, and by silence.” He says, indeed, that a 
 
 * Dupin’s Comp. Hist. Cent. ItJ. 
 chap. vii. 
 
 “ This account is taken from a letter 
 written by a late minister of Geneva, to 
 a respectable fellow of a College in Cam- 
 
 bridge ; written, I believe, for my in- 
 formation, with a view to my History of 
 Predestination. 
 
 ^ Cic. de Oratore, I. 58. 
 
 Ductor dubitantium, 8. 13. 8.* 
 
III. vi. (i] WHILST OTHEIl THINGS HAVE CHANGED. 379 
 
 IL ‘^curious conscience''' might not be at peace in such a case; 
 and he says, that doubt may arise (when a custom is against a 
 law) “whether for the abrogation of the law^ a mere desuetude 
 or omission is sufficient but this manner of speaking rather 
 confirms our general principles. Dr. Balguy^ in his heads 
 of Moral Lectures, treating of society in general, has the 
 following title : The obligation men are under of supplying 
 the defects and correcting the errors of established laws, 
 whilst the laws themselves continue in forced This being 
 relative to society in general, must relate as much to eccle- 
 siastical society as any other. What Puffendorf says of in- 
 terpretation is easily applied to the present subject: “eximendi 
 sunt illi casus, quos exemturus fuerat ipse legislator, si super 
 tali casu consultus fuisset — we are to conceive the lawgiver to 
 be consulted, and, if it is clear that he would wish a certain 
 law to be neglected, we may neglect it, though in words it is 
 not altered. It was once' heresy to assert the being of anti- 
 podes. Suppose a person to have founded a college when that 
 notion prevailed, and to have required his fellows to abjure, 
 59 detest, and abhor, as impious and heretical, the doctrine of 
 antipodes ; I say, that, when it came to be universally agreed 
 that any inhabitants of the earth might have antipodes, such 
 requisition became obsolete, or was virtually abrogated : for, if 
 the founder could have been® consulted, he would undoubtedly 
 have ordered it to be expunged. Yet the words of the statute 
 ought for ever to continue. It seems, that, when a reformation 
 took place in our national religion expressly, a tacit reformation 
 might be conceived to take place in those religious seminaries 
 which were used to prepare men for the ministry in the 
 national Church. In our University, indeed, it seemed to our 
 governors worth while to make an express reformation. Statutes 
 were given by Queen Elizabeth ; but, the statutes of particular 
 colleges undergoing no alteration, the reformation in them was 
 tacit. Many statutes, I presume, are now to be found in books 
 of college statutes which have lost their force. Preaching at 
 Paul’s Cross, I have heard, is enjoined in some statutes. 
 
 The learned and worthy Dr. Law, late Bishop of Carlisle, 
 
 ^ 3. 6. 7» ; ^ B. II. V. xi. 
 
 ® Part II. chap. i. ii. These have not I ^ I was glad to hear Sir William 
 been printed, but I can depend upon my 1 Wynne and Mr. Christian (Professor of 
 authority, as he lent me his own copy 1 English Law in Cambridge) agree, June 
 to read Lectures from, which I did for : liO, 1793, in thinking this a right prin- 
 some years. ciple in interpreting statutes. 
 
389 
 
 ARTICLES LONG CONTINUED 
 
 [III. vi. (). 
 
 seems to have intended what he says in his Considerations ^ II. 
 &c. ^ on Subscription to Articles of Faith, as a stricture on 
 my Assize Sermon. But, if he did, he mistook the tendency 
 of my observations. He is speaking of penal laws against 
 
 Dissenters, of which I had no thoughts. “We are told in- 
 deed,” says he, “ that it is sometimes better and safer to let a 
 law drop by disuse, than to abolish it by a formal repeal. But 
 no example of this is given.” No example seemed required : 
 none of what his lordship meant could be given, for it was not 60 
 in my thoughts. I did not advise having penal laws to hang 
 over Dissenters ; I only wanted to comfort the feeble-minded 
 and scrupulous, who feared that they must offend against the 
 spirit of a law, if they offended against the letter. His lordship 
 goes on : “It is so far from being the general sense of our 
 legislature, that hardly a session is suffered to pass without 
 expunging from their statute-books some or other of these 
 antiquated^ ordinances.''^ I know not that I said any thing 
 about our legislators in particular ; and I am not well skilled 
 in the statute law ; but I really do not think that they do 
 much attend to expunging old laws. They make new ones, 
 which supersede the old ones of course ; or they reduce several 
 old laws into one new one ; but, supposing I did speak of our 
 legislators, and supposing they did expunge some old laws 
 every session, yet that cannot affect me, while they leave any old 
 ones unexpunged, which they never mean to enforce. I would 
 have all old laws repealed, that can be repealed without incon- 
 venience. The worthy prelate (for such he really was) con- 
 cludes by saying, with a sort of a controversial sneer, “And we 
 may well presume they” (our lawgivers) ‘‘would have thought 
 it no good objection to a repeal of the laws against witches or 
 gypsies, that it had been many years since one of that sort of 
 criminals suffered under such laws.” I never, in strictness, said 
 a word against the repeal of any law ; but, on supposition that 
 some laws could not be conveniently repealed in form, or were 
 not repealed — when some parts of them were repealed, 
 
 I exhorted all honest persons not to make themselves unhappy 
 about neglecting such parts as were so virtually repealed. To 
 shew that such supposition was reasonable, indeed, it was proper 
 to shew how and why laws might, in some cases, be left in the 
 code, when they were virtually repealed. There was not the 
 
 * Consideration, &c. pp. 29, 90. 
 
 2 The title of rny Assize Sermon is, “ The Nature of Obsolete Ordinances.” 
 
III. vii. 1.] WHILST OTHER THINGS HAVE CHANGED. 381 
 
 II. least inconvenience or difficulty in repealing expressly the 
 statute against witches or gypsies, and therefore that statute 
 was not to the purpose. Had any people been uneasy in mind 
 about neglecting it, and could it not have been expressly re- 
 pealed, without great mischiefs and inconveniences, then it 
 would have afforded a pertinent instance. 
 
 82 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 OF TRUTH OPPOSITE TO THE LETTER. 
 
 1. Having got an idea of a tacit reformation, let us jmr- 
 sue our train of thought, and see what will result from it. Time, 
 or that change of circumstances which usually attends it, may 
 take away the first meaning of a set of words, and may give them 
 a new meaning ; that is, they may acquire a new meaning by 
 various accidents, in a course of time. W e have mentioned the 
 separate words ^ knave and villain; and it is full as easy to con- 
 ceive a. form of v/ords to change their meaning by a tacit refor- 
 mation, as to conceive these to change their meaning without 
 one : the cause of the change being known, the change becomes 
 more intelligible. If words, acknowledged to contain an error, 
 are still to be used, repeated, or assented to, they must be used 
 either in no sense, or in a new sense. It will, I think, more 
 frequently happen that they will contain soyne sense ; as the 
 substance of the same duty or observance, in different cir- 
 cumstances, or something of that sort. An instance of a tacit 
 reformation changing a sense might be conceived to take place 
 in the doctrine of the descent of Christ into hell. By hell is 
 most usually meant the habitation of those who, after death, 
 are in a state of condemnation and punishment : ‘ Christ de- 
 scended into hell,’ taken literally, might mean, he descended 
 thither; and taken in the new sense, he descended into the 
 grave, or was hurled. H will say so many masses for the 
 8.3 soul of Henry vi.’ may come to mean, ‘I will perform the 
 religious duties required of me by those who have authority.’ 
 H will commonly wear a gown with standing collar; in my 
 journeys a priest’s cloak without gards, welts, long buttons or 
 cuts.’ This may come to mean, H will observe a decency in 
 dress suitable to my profession.’ ‘I will preach at Paul’s 
 Cross,’ may mean, ‘I will endeavour to propagate true religion.’ 
 
 Chap. ii. sect. 4. 
 
382 
 
 TllUTH OPPOSITE TO THE LETTER. [HI. vii. 2, 3. 
 
 2. The primitive sense is called the literal sense, because II. 
 made according to common custom of language, plainly and 
 simply : the new sense is often made through necessity, or to 
 avoid a greater evil ; sometimes, on purpose to avoid plainness 
 
 of speech, in cases where plainness would give offence. 
 
 Any one may adopt the new sense without real falsehood ; 
 (always supposing it is agreeable to his opinions ;) he may 
 speak what would, according to the literal sense, be false, if 
 only he does it so as not to deceive any one whom he under- 
 takes to inform. The instance of ‘not at home'' may be 
 mentioned again k It seems to have been, of old, allowed on 
 all sides, as we say the good ship, &c. to call in a form of 
 advertisement, any farm house (or country house) exposed to 
 sale, a good and well built house: — qui proscribunt, mllam, 
 honam heneque cedificatam, non existimantur fefellisse, etiamsi 
 ilia nec bona est, nec aedificata rationed A man may truly say 
 he is the servant of another, though he does not mean to carry 
 his burdens, if only he is willing to perform all customary 
 offices towards him of courtesy and civility : indeed, it must 
 be supposed that the person, to whom he makes the profession, 
 will be ready to understand it in that sense^. And the reason 64 
 of this extends to religious forms. 
 
 3. This brings us, from considering the speaker, to con- 
 sider how far veracity, in assenting to forms, depends upon 
 the hearer, or person addressed. 
 
 What was said, on the subject of veracity in general, may 
 be applied here. As, in common discourse or correspondence, 
 it was in the power of the speaker‘s and the person addressed to 
 use words in any sense they pleased, so the sense of a declara- 
 tion of religious opinions, made according to a form, must de- 
 pend upon agreement between him who makes it and him to 
 whom it is made, as to the signs by which ideas shall be com- 
 municated : no one else can be concerned. This is founded on 
 the nature of falsehood ; which is deceiving those whom we 
 undertake to inform. If you express your real mind in any 
 manner, which will not deceive those whom you undertake 
 to inform, you speak truth. 
 
 The ideas affixed to signs, or the meaning of signs or 
 
 ^ Chap. ii. sect. 4. 
 
 2 Cic. cle Oft’. ?}. 13. This notion is 
 mentioned by Cicero as what no dis- 
 putants would contradict. 
 
 ^ I would be willing to understand a 
 
 pope to mean something by his being 
 servics servorum^ if he was very humble 
 to those who did their duty to him. 
 
 ^ Chap. ii. sect. 4. 
 
III. vii. 4.] 
 
 TRUTH OPPOSITE TO THE LETTER. 
 
 383 
 
 II. words, may be changed tacitly in expressions of religious doc- 
 trine, as well as when common words are used ; as has appeared 
 in Chap. vi. This mode of change is somewhat less definite 
 than the express one, at first, and till after pretty long experi- 
 ence: but this makes no difference as to the right or wrong. 
 Notwithstanding the likeness between this and what was ob- 
 served before, it seems proper to say what we now say ; because, 
 in common speaking, we have no doubt to whom we speak, or 
 whom we undertake to inform : in making a declaration of 
 
 65 religious opinions according to a fixed form, that matter is less 
 evident and striking. It may be matter of inquiry, not only 
 what our declaration properly means, but to whom it is directed, 
 or who has authority to receive it. 
 
 4. If then you ask, who is the person addressed, or the 
 person I undertake to inform, when I give assent to a set of re- 
 ligious propositions, it is most obvious to answer, the Church — 
 that artificial person. Your concern is only with the Church ; 
 you can hurt no other person ; nor has any other person any 
 right to inquire into your opinions. A church indeed may be 
 a large body, too large to concert with you in what sense your 
 declaration shall be understood. Let us, for the ease of our 
 minds, conceive some small number of persons to possess the 
 mind of the Church, in the way of committee or representation : 
 let the number be nine: (fixed upon only as a name, for con- 
 venience in speaking and reasoning:) — now, if he who gives his 
 assent explains to these nine the sense in which he gives it, and 
 they accept that sense, it is impossible for him to deceive, or to 
 be guilty of falsehood. Others, who are not concerned, may 
 possibly take up wrong notions of the opinions of him who 
 makes the declaration ; but that is their own fault : they de- 
 ceive themselves. Were the sense in which he assents ever so 
 far from the literal sense, I cannot see any breach of veracity in 
 his conduct. He might assent to new doctrines in old words ; 
 and it might be as necessary, if dissension was thought likely 
 to hurt religious principles, to require such assent, as any 
 other. 
 
 Having, by means of supposing a small number, got clear 
 ideas of the case, we may substitute, in the place of our nine, 
 those with whom we are in reality to agree, though their 
 situation will make our duty and our views more indefinite. 
 
 66 I mean, according to what was said in the*^ last chapter, 
 
 ^ Chap. vi. sect. 4. 
 
384 
 
 TRUTH OPPOSITE TO THE LETTER. [III. vii. 5. 
 
 the generality of learned and judicious men — of those who II. 
 ought to take the lead in ecclesiastical affairs : ceteris paribus 
 those must have the greatest weight who are invested with 
 ecclesiastical authority. These must, in practice, be conceived 
 to possess the mind of the Church ; and the multitude to act 
 on their authority. 
 
 It is not our present business to speak of the customs of 
 particular churches, except in the way of illustration. In that 
 light it must be considered, if we mention, that, in England, a 
 national synod, or the Convocation^ has been^ considered as the 
 Church, though now its authority seems obsolete; and that 
 Dr. John Burges considered so small a number as the King 
 and the Archbishop of Canterbury (Abbot), as capable of ac- 
 cepting his explanations of his assent, and of affirming “them 
 to be the true sense and intention of the Church of England’.” 
 This last is a smaller number than even our nine ; consisting 
 only of the heads of the Church and State. 
 
 It may not be amiss to add here, that, in other institutions 
 besides a church, where tacit reformation has taken place, if it 
 can be settled who has a power of receiving a declaration, 
 whether of opinion, or of purpose of conformity to rules and 
 customs, the person who makes it may lawfully make it in 
 that sense in which it will be received. This 'applies to 
 what is called matriculation in universities, engagements to 
 obey statutes in colleges, orders of knighthood, chapters, and 
 other ancient associations. There seem,"' in forms of indentures, d7 
 to be very old expressions; though one would think they might 
 be drawn up according to modern customs; but there is some use 
 in seeing examples of ancient regularity and frugality. 
 
 5. Where it is not easy to ascertain the person who has 
 authority to receive a declaration, it may be very useful to con- 
 sider the end for which it is required ^ There is nothing 
 M'hich will bring us nearer to a right conception, and one 
 on which we may rely. The ideas of those who require our 
 assent must appear in a good degree from the purpose for 
 which they require ith The general end and design of re- 
 quiring assent to a body of religious tenets is, to maintain 
 
 ^ Canon 139, about a national synod. 
 King’s Declaration prefixed to 39 Articles. 
 
 2 Dr. .John Burges’s Answer rejoined, 
 &c. London, 1931, p. 20. 
 
 ^ Chap. i. sect. .3. 
 
 ■* A commander at se.a, a very long 
 
 way from home, must make use of this 
 rule in interpreting and applying his 
 orders. A man who has a body of doc- 
 trine before him is sometimes very far 
 from having those at hand who have 
 authority to determine its precise sense. 
 
Ill.vii.f).] 
 
 TRUTH OPPOSITE TO THE LETTER. 
 
 385 
 
 II. unity of doctrine^: if then such unity is maintained, the 
 principal end is accomplished. But is not that, in other words, 
 to say, it is more the design of articles of religion to make men 
 agree^ whatever may be the opinions in which they agree, than 
 to make them agree in any particular opinions ? Most principles 
 may be carried too far ; but if the case be as we state it, the 
 views of those in authority will generally be, to have that 
 sense taken in which all agree; or as nearly all as may be. 
 This reasoning will make our sincerity to be intimately con- 
 nected with our conformity. . . We are plainly told, that our 
 39 Articles are ^Tor the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and 
 for the stablishing of consent touching true religion (every 
 man calls his own religion true religion ;) so as there is no 
 diversity of opinions, so as there is consent, the main end is 
 68 answered. It is to our present purpose to remark, that a 
 preamble to a law, or a pi'eface to a body of statutes, is a 
 good ground of interpreting any ambiguous passages, as it 
 shews the end and design of the lawgiver. But it happens, 
 that the King’s Declaration or Injunction prefixed to our 39 
 Articles speaks of the literal sense — the ^general, plain, full, 
 grammatical sense. What it has particularly in view^ can be 
 determined only by history ; but we may say, in general, that 
 the literal sense of any form can be the right sense only whilst 
 it is new^. And, though the preamble of any statute is a great 
 help to the right interpretation of it, by shewing us the end and 
 design for which such statute was made, yet it must always be 
 supposed, that such preamble was first made and published 
 with the statute; whereas, our Articles were made in 1562, and 
 the Injunction most probably not till l628. But had the pre- 
 amble been made with the Articles, yet, in whatever degree 
 they grow obsolete, the Injunction must grow so, notwithstand- 
 ing it commands interpretation in the literal sense. 
 
 6. What has been said may tend to explain a passage in 
 Dr. Powell’s second Discourse^: ‘‘How unjust then is the 
 charge brought against the English clergy, that, having de- 
 parted from the meaning of their articles, they all continue to 
 subscribe what none believes! The accusation is not only 
 false, but the crime impossible.” The English clergy compre- 
 hends both parties ; that which makes the declaration, and that 
 which receives it. If these are agreed, there can be no false- 
 
 ® Chap. i. and iii. and v, j 7 Most likely predestination. 
 
 ® See Bingham, vol. ii. p. 745. I ^ See chap. vi. sect. 1. ^ P. 37. 
 
 VoL. I. 25 
 
386 
 
 FALSEHOOD IN SPEAKING 
 
 [Ill.viii. 1. 
 
 hood. This shews how a minister of the church of Geneva is I. 
 now clear of the crime of prevarication, though there is so 
 strong an appearance of it in the manner of assenting^ I do 69 
 not say, that at first every minister there was innocent ; new 
 senses have generally their origin in some degree of falsehood^; 
 but, when any man comes to be perfectly understood, he can- 
 not deceive. This may explain the passage of Dr. Powell, im- 
 mediately following the last : That cannot be the sense of the 
 Declaration which no one imagines to be the sense, nor can that 
 interpretation be erroneous which all have received. With 
 whatever violence it was at first introduced, yet possession is 
 always a sufficient title ; and a long and quiet possession renders 
 that title indisputable.” 
 
 7. In some circumstances it might be thought hurtful to 
 reason in this manner openly. The very end of tacit improve- 
 ments is, to keep things in a train of that quiet and tranquillity 
 which is requisite for the encouragement of religious^ senti- 
 ments ; and, while errors are newly discovered, and few in 
 number, it may be the least evil to observe a degree of reserve 
 and prudence about them. The principal ends of religion 
 continue to be answered, though some few enlightened persons 
 have discovered errors, with which the common people are un- 
 acquainted. But, when calumny begins to fall heavy upon mi- 
 nisters, as if they were consulting private, not public good, as 
 if they were guilty of falsehood, for the sake of honours and 
 emoluments ; and, when weak brethren begin to be scandal- 
 ized, and honest men avoid the ministry, because ancient con- 
 stitutions do not exactly suit their judgment ; then it becomes 
 the less evil to speak plainly, and shew that those who assent 
 are as honest as those who do not assent — that they go upon 
 principles which will bear rational examination, though to the 
 unthinking they are not strikingly evident. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 70 
 
 OF FALSEHOOD IN SPEAKING ACCORDING TO THE LETTER. 
 
 1. Here we have no concern with plain, wilful falsehood: 
 we conceive men to speak their real opinions, only to use words 
 
 Chap. vi. sect. U. 
 
 “ Chap. ii. sect. 4. 
 
 ^ Chap. iii. sect. 4. 
 
ACCORDING TO THE LETTER. 
 
 III. Viii. 2.] 
 
 387 
 
 II. SO as to deceive others, and to think it a sufficient excuse for 
 such deception, that their words bore the literal sense. 
 
 We first affirm, that, when words have acquired a new 
 meaning, what in the new sense would be truth, may, in the 
 primitive or literal sense, be falsehood. This seem to follow 
 immediately from what has been said : most men would say, 
 not only may, but must be .falsehood. Yet sentences may be 
 so constructed that a proposition may be true in both senses. 
 
 ‘ My master is not at home,’ may be so : as also Viliam bonam 
 beneque cedijicatam. 
 
 2. A few instances may be proper to shew the nature of 
 the kind of falsehood of which we are speaking ; yet instances 
 do not seem numerous ; the reason may be, because occasions 
 for them are not numerous. Such instances are all reducible to 
 one general form, using words in a literal sense, when that 
 sense must deceive; which it must do when they would be 
 understood in the new or acquired sense. Suppose, when 
 Captain Henry Wilson brought Lee Boo from the Pelew Islands, 
 to England, he had shewn him King George, saying, that 
 is the King of Francef he would have been guilty of false- 
 hood, though, according to the titles of our king, his words 
 were true. Suppose a gentleman said, in public company, 
 71 speaking of one who was his steward and tenant., that he was 
 a knave and villain; and, upon being sued for defamation, 
 alleged that knave only meant servant., and villain, tenant: 
 would he be allowed to have spoken the plain harmless truth, 
 because he used these words in their primitive literal sense 
 Supposing the third article (of the English Church) of 1552 
 had been tacitly^ instead of expressly repealed, and a minister 
 had been of opinion that 1 Pet. hi. 19 was there rightly applied; 
 yet, if he declared his assent to the article in that sense to a 
 church in which it was unanimously agreed that it was wrongly 
 applied, I should say he was guilty of falsehood. Such an 
 instance of falsehood would do no harm, and therefore would 
 not be treated as falsehood ; but if a Papist was to admit him- 
 self of a college which had been founded before the Reforma- 
 tion, and excuse himself for doing so as intending to say 
 mass, and do every thing exactly as prescribed by the statutes, 
 I apprehend he would be treated as false and prevaricating : 
 
 false as if she had written, ‘ I am a gen- 
 tlewoman, and not your servant, hut will- 
 ing to shew you any civility' 
 
 25 2 
 
 ^ One receives letters from an house- 
 keeper : she signs herself one’s obedi- 
 ent humble servant " — which is just as 
 
388 
 
 FALSEHOOD IN SPEAKING 
 
 [III. viii. 3, 4. 
 
 and yet, by the way, what should hinder this, if there were no II 
 tests ? Nevertheless, some distinguished enemies to Popery 
 are for wholly removing them. 
 
 3. Men have certainly a prejudice in favour of the literal 
 sense, and against all such departure from it as we are describ- 
 ing ; and some notice should be taken of it, lest it should pre- 
 vail farther than it ought. This prejudice may be considered 
 as general, and as particularly forcible in matters of religion. 
 
 As to the general prejudice in favour of the literal sense, it may 
 be said, that, mere habit makes prejudice ; and habit is certain- 
 ly on the side of the primitive meaning. This primitive or 72 
 literal meaning is moreover associated in the mind with truths 
 and is therefore esteemed and honoured : the new sense, having 
 originated in some degree in falsehood, is associated with false- 
 hood. The one is always like keeping one’s word, the other 
 has always the appearance of quirk and evasion : it is indeed 
 invented in order to avoid offensive plainness. 
 
 Prejudice is also on the side of the literal sense in religious 
 matters particularly. A man who seems to act without artifice 
 and duplicity, is judged to be more pious and religious than 
 one who seems to be evading his duty. And he who follows 
 the literal sense, in religious forms, does nothing which in ef- 
 fect counteracts this prejudice, even when he is less strictly right, 
 than he who uses the new and acquired sense : he mixes with 
 those who differ from him, and there is nothing which hinders 
 them from worshipping together; nay, from sympathizing in 
 many parts of devotion. To require from any one an in- 
 terpretation of his form of assenting would be to impose a 
 new form. 
 
 4. We have^ already mentioned the possibility that a tacit 
 reformation might be total ; as each part might become obsolete, 
 every part might become so ; or at least every distinguishing 
 part. In this case, a religious society would change its doc- 
 trines, and yet retain the expressions by which they were de- 
 fined. But now, at the same time that one society did this, 
 another might adhere to the old sense of the forms ; this last 
 will be easily allowed ; but, if both happened together, there 
 would be two religious societies^ dissenting from each other, 
 yet using the same articles of faith. We have seen the more 
 strange of these suppositions exemplified in the church of 73 
 Geneva. The multitude may possibly retain the Calvinistic 
 
 * Chap. vi. sect. .O. 
 
III. viii. 5.] 
 
 ACCORDIJJG TO THE LETTER. 
 
 389 
 
 II. notions, especially if any teachers do ; and then the whole case 
 would be exemplified. 
 
 I have heard it said, that those, who have been commonly 
 called Methodists amongst us, have spoken of themselves^ as the 
 true Church of England; and have said, that we have departed 
 from the true sense of our Articles, &c. which they retain. I 
 do not derive this from any undeniable authority; but by way 
 of illustration we will suppose something of the kind to be true. 
 As far as I can judge, Mr. Wesley, Mr. Whitfield, &c. give 
 too literal a construction to expressions of Scripture, which 
 should be understood popularly or figuratively: they may 
 therefore understand articles too literally, into which those 
 expressions of Scripture are introduced : but no matter. Sup- 
 posing they understood parts of our Articles in a literal sense, 
 which we assent to in a different sense, we are two different 
 Churches of England, using the same forms^ Which is the 
 true church may not be clear : we might be called the present 
 church, and they perhaps the ^antiquated church. Each party 
 may be sincere : in each the minister may assent in the sense in 
 which he is understood to assent by those whom he accounts 
 the most judicious. Amongst the scncieni pagans, we are told, 
 74 that the philosophers, or initiated, had one religion, and the 
 profanum vulgus another ; and these seem to have gone on to- 
 gether as one, in some respects. Could the elect and auditors 
 amongst the Manicheans be mentioned as a similar instance ? 
 
 5. Here, another passage of Dr. Powell’s second Discourse 
 occurs^ which used to seem difficult to me : That he may 
 understand them (the Articles) in their most obvious and primi- 
 tive signification, will scarce be doubted. Amd yet, if there is 
 any place for doubt, it can be only here.” This may mean, 
 common men will scarce doubt that a man speaks truth who 
 speaks according to the literal sense ; but those who have con- 
 sidered the nature of veracity and of tacit reformations, will 
 see, that a man, by speaking according to the literal sense, 
 may speak falsehood. 
 
 2 See Burn’s Eccles. Law, under Dis- 
 senters, in his explanation of sect, 8. of 
 the Toleration Act. W arburton on Grace, 
 p. 264, 12mo. 
 
 ^ In Wesley’s Letters, Mr. Samuel 
 W esley writes thus : p. 113— or Lett. 27: 
 “It is in vain for Whitfield to pretend 
 he is of the Church of England, unless 
 
 there he tieo, one subordinate, the other 
 opposite, to the present ecclesiastical es- 
 tablishment and authority; one within 
 doors, the other without.” 
 
 So, at Geneva, there may be a pre- 
 sent church, and an antiquated church. 
 
 ^ Vol. of Disc. p. 30. 
 
390 FALSEHOOD IN SPEAKING [III. viii. 6. 
 
 6. I will conclude this chapter with some illustrations of II. 
 some things which have been advanced in this and the two 
 foregoing chapters. Let any one read the 74th canon of our 
 Church ; and keep in mind, that every minister is under ^ en- 
 gagement, made expressly or tacitly, to obey canonical autho- 
 rity^. It appears, first, that a tacit reformation has, since 75 
 l603, taken place in the Church of England, with regard to 
 the habits of its ministers. 2. That he who engages himself to 
 obey the laws with regard to apparel, is understood to engage 
 himself according to present notions of decency and gravity; 
 that is, in the new and acquired, not in the literal sense of 
 such engagement : and therefore that the person who does act 
 after the new and acquired sense, speaks truth, though contrary 
 to the letter ; whereas any one who should make the engage- 
 ment in the literal sense, would speak falsehood, though accord- 
 
 ^ It may be convenient to conceive 
 this engagement to be made with regard 
 to every particular separately ; as a gene- 
 ral promise is the same thing, in effect, 
 with a number of promises to perform 
 each particular ; and as then the obsolete 
 duties would be distinguished from those 
 which were still in force. 
 
 2 “The true, ancient, and flourishing 
 churches of Christ, being ever desirous 
 that their prelacy and clergy might be 
 had as well in outward reverence, as 
 otherwise regarded for the worthiness of 
 their ministry, did think it fit, by a pre- 
 script form of decent and comely apparel, 
 to have them known to the people, and 
 thereby to receive the honour and estima- 
 tion due to the special messengers and 
 ministers of Almighty God. We there- 
 fore, following their grave judgement, 
 and the ancient custom of the Church of 
 England, and hoping that in time new- 
 fangleness of apparel in some factious 
 persons will die of itself, do constitute 
 and appoint. That the archbishops and 
 bishops shall not intermit to use the ac- 
 customed apparel of their degrees. Like- 
 wise all deans, masters of colleges, arch- 
 deacons, and prebendaries in cathedral 
 and collegiate churches (being priests or 
 deacons), doctors in divinity, law, and 
 physic, bachelors in divinity, masters of 
 arts, and bachelors of law, having any 
 ecclesiastical living, shall usually wear 
 
 gowns with standing collars, and sleeves 
 strait at the hands, or wide sleeves, as is 
 used in the Universities, with hoods or 
 tippets of silk and sarcenet, and square 
 caps. And that all other ministers ad- 
 mitted or to be admitted into that func- 
 tion, shall also usually wear the like 
 apparel, as is aforesaid, except tippets 
 only. We do further, in like manner 
 ordain. That all the said ecclesiastical 
 persons above-mentioned shall usually 
 wear in their journeys cloaks with sleeves, 
 commonly called priests' cloaks^ without 
 guards, welts, long buttons, or cuts. 
 And no ecclesiastical person shall wear 
 any coif or wrought night-cap, but only 
 plain night-caps of black silk, satin, or 
 velvet. In all which particulars con- 
 cerning the apparel here prescribed, our 
 meaning is not to'attribute any holiness 
 or special worthiness to the said gar- 
 ments, but for decency, gravity, and 
 order, as is before specified. In private 
 houses, and in their studies, the said 
 persons ecclesiastical may use any comely 
 and scholar-like apparel, provided that it 
 be not cut or pinkt ; and that in public 
 they go not in their doublet and hose, 
 without coats or cassock ; and that they 
 wear not any light-coloured stockings. 
 Likewise poor beneficed men and curates 
 (not being able to provide themselves 
 with long gowns) may go in short gowns 
 of the fashion aforesaid.” 
 
III. viii. 6.] 
 
 ACCORDING TO THE LETTER. 
 
 391 
 
 II. ing to the letter. He would deceive those who were authorized 
 to receive his promise ; nor would his deceit be wholly harm- 
 
 76 less, as it would bring contempt and disgrace on the Church. 
 3. That, in the case of a tacit reformation, if any one said 
 that all the ministers subscribed what none believed, there 
 would be just as much force in the observation as if he said, all 
 the English ministers engage to dress as none of them intend 
 to dress ; the remark would be true, but trifling. They all 
 do engage to dress, as they are expected to dress, according 
 to present ideas of clerical decency. 4. It is conceivable that 
 there might be two sets of ministers obeying the canon ; one 
 dressing according to it literally, the other obeying it accord- 
 ing to modern customs of grave clothing for religious ministers. 
 In this case it might be questioned which set were the true 
 ministers of the Church ; and it might be found more discreet 
 to wave that question, and call one set the present^ or modern, 
 the other the antiquated ministers of the church. 5. A perusal 
 of this canon might illustrate the nature of that liberty which 
 arises from continuance of the same laws for a length of time. 
 The most decent of the clergy, in point of dress, is not at 
 present so much confined as any one would be who obeyed the 
 canon literally, or who was obliged to conform strictly to any 
 new canon. 6. It might shew how custom, in things naturally 
 arbitrary and indifferent, once prevalent, is right., though at 
 first it was wrong ; for the departure from the precise dress of 
 the canon has, in all probability, been faulty at first. 7 . 
 Lastly, it is not the least important thing for us to learn, that, 
 while particulars of an indifferent nature vary, general princi- 
 ples continue firm and immovable, and are of eternal obliga- 
 tion. Our obligation to be subject to ecclesiastical authority is 
 not in the least impaired. The duty of decency, of providing 
 
 77 things^ honest in the sight of all men, is as necessary as ever ; 
 and indeed these general principles are well laid down in the 
 canon. To act according to these principles is the true intent 
 and meaning of our engagements, and that must always be ob- 
 served — that is wholly indispensable. In all changes and 
 relaxations we must be extremely cautious that our princi- 
 ples of honesty and sincerity do not get weakened or relaxed. 
 And, if doubtful cases arise, it must be our constant care to 
 keep on the safe side, and never to venture nearer than we 
 cannot avoid to the limits and boundaries of our duty. 
 
 Ka\a, Rom. chap, xii, verse IJ. 
 
392 
 
 SENSE OF ARTICLES 
 
 [Ill.ix. 1. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 II. 
 
 78 
 
 OF THE USE OF HISTORY IN DETERMINING THE SENSE 
 OF ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 First, let us take a general view of the subject of this 
 Chapter. 
 
 1. We now seem to have treated sufficiently on such senses 
 of forms, as may sometimes be acquired by time and change of 
 circumstances : let us return to the primitive sense^ against 
 which no prejudice is entertained ; which seems the most com- 
 mon, and most free from evil. 
 
 It is an important mistake which men are apt to make con- 
 cerning the primitive sense of ancient forms, that they are to 
 apply themselves wholly to grammar and etymology, in order 
 to understand them ; whereas, some of the greatest difficulties 
 which attend the construction of them are to be obviated by 
 history. To illustrate this is now our proper business ; but, 
 before we wholly quit our connexion with the foregoing chap- 
 ter, let us observe, that history must be of great use in giving 
 us a right idea of the new and acquired meaning of words, when 
 any change has taken place. This is too evident to need any 
 full explanation : it must be history which must shew us the 
 nature of each tacit reformation, its causes and effects ; and on 
 these must the new and acquired sense of words always depend. 
 
 Nor shall we have a better opportunity than the present to 
 observe, that there is one way in which words acquire, or, 
 more strictly, seem to acquire, new senses, not yet mentioned : — 
 by readers attending to grammar and etymology and custom', 79 
 while they neglect history. Etymology may make a sense seem 
 to be a right one, which really was not the sense of the writer; 
 and modern customs may make us affix modern meanings to old 
 words, when those meanings were not really in the minds of the 
 persons who used those words. These are not so properly new 
 senses, as mistakes of the primitive sense ; and these mistaken 
 senses are always taken for primitive senses k A man might 
 
 * People who read the English Bible 
 sometimes affix modern ideas to ancient 
 words: — voice, Act. xxiv. 21. 
 ood?, way. Act. ix. 2. Last, passim : 
 Ps. Lxxviii. in, meat for your lust; the 
 lust of the eye, world. Kapoia, heart, 
 
 for conception, 1 Cor. ii. 9. dida/c-rj/cd?, 
 apt to teach, 1 Tim. iii. 2. 2 Tim. ii. 24. 
 No/xiK'ds, a lawyer. Matt. xxii. 35. Tit. iii. 
 13. Provide things, /caXa, Rom. 
 xii. 17. Worship (with my body, &c.) 
 Luke xiv. 10. 
 
III. ix. 1.] 
 
 AS DETERMINED BY HISTORY. 
 
 393 
 
 II. use the terms knave and mllain with modern ideas, and think 
 he used them in the primitive sense. 
 
 This observed, we may proceed to our proper business. 
 In what way history is wanted, for investigating the primitive 
 sense of ancient forms, has been^ already in some degree ex- 
 plained. All expressions contain references to circumstances 
 which history only can point out. Indeed, history can only 
 point them out imperfectly; but it can approximate nearer to a 
 right conception of them, than any thing else can. The word 
 accursed''"' occurs in one of our articles: if we depend upon 
 etymology to teach us its meaning, we shall be misled ; but, if 
 we apply to history, we may get a competent notion of it. 
 History will teach us the customary manner of condemning 
 errors, and custom is the jus et norma^ loquendi. We shall 
 see that anathemas usually accompanied such condemnation, 
 80 especially when heretics were excommunicated ; and therefore, 
 that accursed"' means only unworthy, on account of some 
 supposed error, to be a member of some Christian church sup- 
 posed to be particularly pure. Bishop Pearson shews us'^, 
 that we are to consider the history of the Septuagint, in order 
 to acquire a right notion of the word KJpos. The title 
 Defender of the Faith is not taken in its true sense^ by 
 those who are not aware, that it was given by Pope Leo x. to 
 Henry viii. for defending the Popish religion by a small 
 treatise. We may add, that the true meaning of the King’s 
 Declaration prefixed to our 39 Articles is to be investigated by 
 considering the occasion of it. Calvinism seems to have been 
 growing from the time of Queen Mary, when several Protestant 
 divines were obliged to take refuge in foreign countries, where 
 it flourished, down to the reign of Charles i.; in the third® 
 year of which, (I take for granted,) the Declaration, or In- 
 junction, was published. About this time, the Calvinists found 
 that our Articles were not strong enough for them, in favour 
 of predestination, irresistible grace, and other doctrines height- 
 ening the divine agency in the salvation of man. They began 
 to enlarge their meaning, and turn it to their own purpose, in 
 various ways ; which caused strong opposition from other di- 
 
 2 Chap. vi. sect. 1, referring to B. I. 
 
 Chap. X. 3 yj 
 
 ^ On tiie Creed : under “ Our Lord,” 
 p. 146, fol. 
 
 3 This title is used in the King’s 
 Declaration prefixed to the Articles ; i 
 
 and in Bp. Burnet’s Dedication of his 
 Exposition of the Articles; — but it can 
 only be proper by some kind of analogy : 
 it misleads. 
 
 3 Chap. vii. sect. 5. See the end of 
 the Oxford pamphlet on the IJth Art. 
 
394 
 
 SENSE OF ARTICLES 
 
 [Ill.ix. 1. 
 
 vines. I cannot say that I know very particularly how far they II. 
 went beyond any thing which is found in the Articles; nor 
 might it be proper to dwell upon the subject in this place; 
 but the Declaration was made to prevent such freedoms ; and^ 81 
 as it was prefixed to a fresh puhlication of the Articles, there 
 is an appearance as if they were coming to be much neglected 
 or abused. Archbishop Laud was an Arminian ; and he, with 
 some other bishops, framed the Declaration : the expressions 
 therefore contained in it about plain, literal, grammatical sense; 
 about preachers and readers (or those who read lectures) in the 
 Universities affixing their own meaning, drawing aside articles, 
 
 &c. — are all to be understood with a particular reference to 
 what the authors had in view. What confirms this notion is, 
 that we find the Puritans (who were rigid Calvinists^) com- 
 plaining of this Declaration, as abridging their liberty of 
 preaching. Neal, in his History of the Puritans, says, ‘‘ Sure- 
 ly there was never such a confused, unintelligible declaration 
 printed.’’ It does indeed use general expressions with par- 
 ticular meanings. It speaks also as if some teachers neglected 
 the Articles, and yet maintained that they were favourable to 
 them ; but this was an inconsistency in the Puritans, rather 
 than in the Declaration. It thwarts the Puritans, and yet 
 forbids affixing new senses “ either wayf that is, either in 
 favour of Calvinists or Arminians ; but this might be for the 
 sake of appearing impartial, and of promoting silence on inex- 
 plicable doctrines. 
 
 An additional reason for concluding that predestination, 
 
 &c. are particularly aimed at in this Declaration, is the quota- 
 tion from the 17th Article, and the expression curious points, 
 in which the present differences lie:” the word curious"''' 
 occurs several times. 
 
 The Declaration relates to discipline as well as doctrine ; 
 but the parts of discipline infringed by the Puritans about 1628 82 
 must be understood as particularly meant. 
 
 I will say no more on the general nature of the subject 
 immediately before us ; but proceed to other reflections ; only 
 observing first, that I would engage, if I was possessed of a 
 perfect historical knowledge, to make every thing in our Arti- 
 cles clear, intelligible, and familiar^; — not to make every doc- 
 trine so, but every manner of stating a doctrine. But then, 
 
 ^ See Collier’s Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. ! ^ Strype’s Annals for 1562. chap, xxvii. 
 
 p. 746. ^ P- 282. 
 
III. ix. 2—4.] 
 
 AS DETERMINED BY HISTORY. 
 
 395 
 
 II* by historical knowledge I must be understood to mean, not 
 only a knowledge of facts, but of opinions and feelings. In- 
 deed, it may be deemed a knowledge of facts, if we know that 
 such an opinion had, in fact or reality, many favourers at such 
 a time ; that such an affection or sentiment, as zeal, disgust, &c. 
 was actually prevalent in such a set or party of men. If any 
 one finds any expression obscure or uncouth in our Articles, he 
 may venture to ascribe the obscurity to the imperfection of his 
 historical knowledge. 
 
 2. We might open what we have now to say by observing, 
 that the articles of one sect may be, in some measure, affected, 
 as to their sense, by changes in other sects. We have hitherto 
 conceived the meaning of words to be affected only by the dis- 
 covery of errors inherent in them ; by internal faults, and in- 
 ternal changes : we now would conceive how their meaning may 
 be affected by external changes. To say, that the force of 
 words expressing our doctrines must continue the same, what- 
 ever changes happen in other doctrines, is to forget the end 
 and design of articles of religion, and all that has been ex- 
 plained in the first and fifth chapters. In order to see this, let 
 us recollect what that end or design is. 
 
 83 3. The end or design of a body of doctrines is to maintain 
 
 unity of doctrine : the intention of each particular article is to 
 find a remedy for some actual error, which occasions some dis- 
 turbance, so as to frustrate some end of social religion, or 
 which seems very .likely to do so. This it is which dis- 
 tinguishes a set of articles from a system of theology, or a ser- 
 mon ; and a very important distinction I take this to be. The 
 design of a system and a sermon is, to explain and enforce all 
 doctrines; whereas articles only mention those by which one 
 society is kept separate from another. A set of articles is, as 
 it were, a partition-wall; not intended for war, so much as to 
 keep all things quiet : like the walls of one’s house, to let the 
 domestic society within pursue its proper business in security. 
 
 4. If this notion be allowed, each article should be in- 
 terpreted, and understood, and assented to, as it would have 
 been if the error at which it aims had been specified ; that is, 
 however general the expression of any article may be, the inter- 
 pretation of it should be limited and restrained to particular 
 cases. This appears from hence, that, as soon as the article 
 was made, it would be so interpreted. The reasons of its be- 
 ing made would appear to every one, and no one would think 
 
396 
 
 SENSE OF ARTICLES 
 
 [Ill.ix. 5, 6. 
 
 of extending it beyond those yeasons ; and, if this would be II. 
 the case whilst the article was most clearly understood, it cer- 
 tainly ought to be at all times, as far as we are able to make it 
 so. Propositions ought not to grow more general and unlimited 
 in their interpretation by age ; but there is a false appearance, 
 which misguides: they seem^ to grow more general, as refer- 
 ences are forgotten, and that false appearance ought to be 
 corrected. It seems to deceive many ; insomuch that they 
 would be inclined to say, ‘ Shall I assent to an erroneous pro- 84 
 position expressed in general terms, which has a plain mean- 
 ing, merely because I see that some particular errors, condemn- 
 ed by that general proposition, have been rectified ? because it 
 is in part useless We may at least answer to such a question, 
 let our reasoning be remembered, let it be brought to bear, let 
 it do what it can ; and the consequence would generally be, in 
 practice, that the difficulty would be solved, and the general 
 proposition given up, as unmeaning. But the reasons for such 
 restricted interpretation of articles, as is here mentioned, will 
 allow of a fuller explication. 
 
 5. 1. If propositions are to be understood absolutely, and 
 not as aimed at any particular errors, those who compiled them 
 must have acted wrongly, and have laid a greater restraint than 
 they had any right to lay. Those who require declarations of 
 opinion are only to require them when some good end is to be 
 answered by them — when they are in a manner necessary to 
 promote the ends of social religion^. And> when we look back 
 upon mens actions, in all doubtful cases, they are not to be 
 supposed to have meant what it would have been wrong for 
 them to mean. Id voluisse intelliguntur, quod velle eos 
 oportuit'^. What men had no right to do, is treated as if it 
 had not been done. If a man had no right to execute a deed 
 of gift, such a deed is unmeaning ; and if he had in part only 
 such a right, the validity of the deed will be partial. 
 
 6. 2. Another reason why we should interpret any body of 
 doctrines, to which assent is required, by a reference to the 
 times, is, because we find that something of the sort has been 
 done even by compilers of articles themselves. I mean to refer 
 
 to the 35th Article of our Church, but only as I would refer 85 
 to any other fact. A set of very learned and prudent men say, 
 that certain compositions, by which the doctrines of a church 
 are to be taught to the people, are peculiarly suited to die 
 
 ^ Chap. V. ^ Powell, p. 358. 
 
 Chap. vi. sect. 1. 
 
Ill.ix. 7 .] 
 
 AS DETERMINED BY HISTORY. 
 
 397 
 
 II. times; that is, are probably more suited to one situation of 
 things than another. By such an expression we are called 
 upon, in assenting, to see how long the suitableness lasts : we 
 can tell that only by history ; and, if we find the times wholly 
 to change^ so must the force of the article'^. It may indeed be 
 said, why is reference to times here expressed, if it is always 
 implied ? does not its being expressed here prove that it would 
 be always expressed, if it was meant ? I presume the answer to 
 this objection is, that in the particular expedient of teaching by 
 homilies, a change was to be c\esLv\y foresee^i. Though there was 
 a very great scarcity of approved preachers then, (for the Papists 
 and Puritans were possessed of a great share of the clerical 
 learning,) yet it was not probable that this would continue ; 
 and a change distinctly foreseen was to be provided for. Our 
 natural conclusion is, that, had other changes been foreseen, 
 some provision would have been made for them also ; and that 
 what could not he foreseen must be provided for when a pro- 
 vision appeared to be wanted. But we should often deprive 
 ourselves of the power of making such provision for changes, if 
 we interpreted articles universally, and not as provisions for 
 particular exigencies. 
 
 7- 3. It is always a fair way of judging of the sense of any 
 compositions, (if we use it fairly,) to put ourselves in the place 
 of the authors. If we do this, in the present case, to the best 
 86 of our power, we must conclude, that the compilers of articles 
 would not provide any, would not desire to provide any, but as 
 remedies for pressing inconveniences. We have before said 
 that they ought not ; now we say that, of choice, they would 
 not. Let us conceive a council compiling articles. They con- 
 demn and exclude several errors and heresies ; they get warm ; 
 a zealot says, ‘ let us proscribe this error ‘ who professes it?’’ — 
 ‘ no one at present, but some one may hereafter, and we had 
 better anticipate and provide a remedy beforehand.’ What can 
 we conceive the wiser part of the council to urge, but some- 
 thing of this sort ? ^ No ! we have errors sufficient to proscribe 
 
 which really exist ; we will not imagine new ones ; if any 
 should arise in future we will leave them to posterity : perhaps 
 our provision might suggest an error, which would not else 
 have been thought of ; and involve our successors in many 
 needless difficulties.’ If such would be the determination, we 
 
 ^ Dr. Balguy thinks that we now are 1 stead of sermons. Something was said on 
 allowed, not required, to read homilies in» 1 teaching by homilies, Chap. v. sect. 5, 6. 
 
398 
 
 SENSE OF ARTICLES 
 
 [III. ix. 8, 9. 
 
 should receive and interpret articles as formed after this man- II. 
 ner. And we may add, that the 41st Article of our Church, as 
 it stood for ten years, against Millenarians, was expunged 
 when it seemed (probably) to be unnecessary, though the 
 doctrine of a Millennium would continue the same ; nay, was 
 not revived when the new Millenarians or fifth monarchy men 
 arose in the 17th century. 
 
 An additional consideration is, that if articles are supposed 
 to be in force, where no remedy is wanting, why should so few 
 articles be made ? why leave so many parts of a religious sys- 
 tem not enforced^? why make^cz^ ones in our Church in 1562, 
 and never since ? and then only on a very particular occasion ? 87 
 on occasion of a change in the national religion ? Bishop Burnet^ 
 shews that our Church was compelled, by the exigency of the 
 case, to make articles when it did. 
 
 8. 4. The last reason I shall mention why we should in- 
 terpret human expressions of doctrines with a strict reference 
 to the occasion is, because the words of Christ and his Apostles 
 are undoubtedly to be so interpreted. This has been shewn^: 
 but it will be proper to repeat an instance or two; because that 
 kind of restricted interpretation, which we say is reasonable, will 
 not, after all we can urge, appear nearly so much so without as 
 with such instances. Take Acts x. 34^, and Matt, xviii. 3. 
 (compare 1 Cor. xiv. 20.) 
 
 9. From these reasons we conclude, that, notwithstand- 
 ing articles of religion are expressed in general terms, we 
 should interpret them as mere antidotes against particular re- 
 ligious maladies, actually existing at the time when they were 
 formed, of which we can get no knowledge but from history. 
 
 If our reasoning has been just, we may deduce from it some 
 inferences^ which may tend to rectify our notions, and free each 
 honest mind from groundless doubt and anxiety. 
 
 1. We may deduce, that an article of religion, or a clause 
 of a creed, or liturgy of any church, may become a dead letter, 
 merely by improvements in the forms used by other churches. 
 For, if the malady no longer exists, the prescription against it 
 becomes useless and of no force : if the heresy ceases, the pro- 
 vision to keep a church clear from it ceases, in efiect, to all 
 
 ^ The Puritans have complained of the 
 number of doctrines which are omitted in 
 our Articles. See Bingham’s Apology, 
 B, II. chap. xiii. or Works, vol. ii. p.745. 
 
 2 Introduction to Art. p. 5, 8vo. 
 
 ^ Book I. chap. x. 
 
 ^ Ibid. See also Balguy, Charge 2d, 
 pp. 196, 197. 
 
III. ix. 10.] 
 
 AS DETERMINED BY HISTORY. 
 
 399 
 
 II. intents and purposes. We have before^ spoken of forms losing 
 
 88 their force, but that was in a different way — by internal 
 corrections ; we now speak of eccternal corrections. In our 
 form of infant baptism, the sponsors are enjoined to provide 
 that the infant be taught the creed, &c. ^^in the vulgar 
 tongue^ This is a remedy against teaching the creed in 
 Latin ; but, as sponsors have now no idea of any such thing, 
 the direction (as far as respects Latin) is become a dead letter; 
 and so would the whole 24th Article, if the Papists came to 
 have ‘‘public prayer,” and “minister the sacraments,” in the 
 vulgar tongues*’. Some clauses of the Athanasian Creed are 
 opposed to the Nestorian and Eutychian doctrines; but, if no 
 one professed those doctrines such clauses are virtually extinct : 
 
 . — not false ; for what is extinct can contain neither truth nor 
 falsehood. An heresy, which is forgotten, is extinct to those 
 who have forgotten it ; and so it should be deemed to those 
 who have had no opportunity of knowing it. 
 
 This reasoning affects chiefly the main design of an article; 
 perhaps little expressions, thrown in with a view of making the 
 composition totus teres atque rotundus^ may not have been in- 
 tended as antidotes ; but still, as they make parts of articles 
 which were so, and as the compilers had no right to impose 
 what was not so, they should be considered as obliterated with 
 the main substance. Indeed some articles might have been in- 
 serted, because others would be maimed without them ; but 
 should not these be considered as incorporated with the rest, 
 and share their fate ? 
 
 10. 2. It follows from what has been said, that articles are 
 not to be considered as inconsistent with any doctrines which 
 
 89 were unknown to the compilers of them. It is doubtful whe- 
 ther such doctrines would have been thought erroneous ; or, if 
 they had been, whether they would have been thought likely to 
 occasion any disturbance : nay, if they would, still no remedy 
 was provided by those who alone had authority to provide one; 
 and therefore, if articles are remedies, such doctrine has no- 
 thing to do with articles. Our 6th Article says, “ Holy 
 Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation :” is it 
 therefore wrong for one of our teachers to enforce moral obliga- 
 tions.^ Dr. Balguy seems to think it is not~; but yet Dr. 
 
 ’’ Charge 2d, p. 188 ; but chiefly see 
 p. 134. 
 
 ® Chap. vi. sect. 1. Chap. vii. sect. 1. 
 ^ See also the 33d Article, sect, fl, 
 rightly cut off.''' 
 
400 
 
 SENSE OF ARTICLES. 
 
 [Ill.ix. 11, 12. 
 
 Balguy does not go against our 6th Article : it was a remedy II. 
 against Popish traditions. And suppose nothing said in Scrip- 
 ture against gaming, duelling, suicide, &c. yet a minister of our 
 Church might lawfully preach against them, and on moral prin- 
 ciples, notwithstanding, at least, the 6th Article ; conceiving the 
 Article to have only Popery in view. Bishop Pearson^ pro- 
 fesses to reason with even Atheists on principles which they 
 would allow — and also with Jews. It is conceivable that our 
 reformers, though excellently well skilled in the Scriptures, 
 might not attend sufficiently to morality^ nor see how the study 
 of it conspired with Scripture to make men good and happy ; 
 nor perceive that improvements in morality afforded additional 
 internal evidence of the truth of Christianity. 
 
 11. 3. If articles are not inconsistent with new doctrines, 
 they cannot be with new solutions of old doctrines, such as 
 predestination. Trinity, &c. Compilers could not provide a 
 remedy against a poison unknown. If it be said, it is clear that 
 they would have provided against a certain solution, if it had 
 been published soon enough, then I should say, that such 90 
 solution could not strictly be called new. 
 
 12. 4. Lastly, it seems to follow from what has been said, 
 that when any common person, without any fault of his, is 
 ignorant of heretical notions aimed at in any clause of any con- 
 fession of faith, he need not be scrupulous of giving a verbal 
 assent to it. We have lately observed, that, when a person 
 has no opportunity of knowing an heretical notion, the case is 
 the same as if that notion did not exist ; and therefore any 
 article against it becomes a dead letter ; and what a person has 
 no opportunity, humanly speaking, of knowing, he is igno- 
 rant of without any fault of his own. If so, it may be urged, 
 why should we study these matters “If ignorance is bliss, 
 
 ’tis folly to be wise.” But, if a man be ignorant through his 
 own fault, he is punishable — though rather for negligence than 
 for insincerity; but, as that cannof be supposed to lessen his 
 punishment, it is best to consider only the case of harmless ig- 
 norance. As far as a man is innocently ignorant, so far he may 
 trust that he need not trouble himself about either his assent or 
 dissent. I suppose all men are ignorant in some degree of the 
 references by which the sense of words is to be limited; though 
 different men in very different degrees. Every degree of such 
 ignorance will throw a kind of a mist over the expressions used ; 
 
 * Preface to Creed. 
 
III.X. 1.] 
 
 UXINTELIJGIBLE PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 401 
 
 II. the general effect of which will be, that a man will have no 
 decided opinion against a proposition or doctrine, and yet will 
 not be clear for it. Even a teacher of religion may content 
 himself under such a state of mind (as every one must be under 
 it in some measure), so long as he is quite satisfied that he does 
 what can be required of him, in reason, to inform himself, ac- 
 cording to the opportunities which his situation affords him, 
 91 and to clear up his obscurities and the indistinctness of his 
 notions, more and more, from time to time. 
 
 I conclude this chapter with once more observing, that the 
 thing which of all things will be the most effectual towards 
 giving us right notions of articles, creeds, confessions of faith, 
 is, the study of history. The parts of Scripture on which 
 they are built must be known ; but that part of our duty 
 is more easy, and better defined, than the duty of searching 
 into history. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 OF ASSENTING TO PROPOSITIONS WHICH ARE 
 UNINTELLIGIBLE. 
 
 1. The transition from the last chapter to this is not dif- 
 ficult. In the last, we left the person, who was not much 
 conversant in history, treating some parts of forms as unmean- 
 ing, because he did not know what disorders they had been in- 
 tended to remedy. Words which are unmeaning must be on the 
 same footing with such as OlXc unintelligible. And, in Chapters 
 vi. vii. viii. and ix. we treated of propositions which had lost 
 their meaning. 
 
 It may perhaps occur that all the subjects in this Book~, 
 since the beginning of the sixth Chapter, were to have some 
 relation to antiquated forms — to forms as having continued for 
 a great length of time. Any one who recollects this may say, 
 what have unintelligible propositions to do with age ? but 
 we were to be allowed to introduce subjects, which might be 
 treated independently, so long as there was any advantage 
 in introducing them in this place rather than in any other, 
 where religious society was treated. Now it seems as if myste- 
 
 2G 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 - Preface to chap. vi. 
 
402 
 
 UNINTELLIGIBLE PROVOSITIONS. 
 
 [III. X. 2, 3. 
 
 rious doctrines would be more calmly considered when they II. 
 were old than when they were new. When new, people are 
 violent about them ; and the terms in which they are expressed 
 are so often repeated, so echoed and re-echoed, that they grow 
 familiar ; and people can scarce persuade themselves that they 
 do not understand them. 
 
 It is proper that unintelligible propositions should be treat- 93 
 ed somewhere in the present Book ; as they materially affect 
 religious society, and men may run into two faulty extremes 
 about them. Too easily receiving them leads to error, and 
 fruitless controversy, and sometimes to needless anxiety ; and 
 too easily rejecting them tends to ignorance and disorder, and 
 finally to the obstruction of religious authority. 
 
 2. We may open the subject by observing, that many un- 
 intelligible propositions may arise in natural religion, and in 
 other subjects connected with it. Things have been affirmed of 
 the soul without distinct ideas ; and propositions have been 
 made this way and that, as if it was more known than it is. 
 The soul is the heart^, the blood surrounding the heart ; it is 
 the hrain^ seated in the brain ; it is Jire^ it is harmony^ it is , 
 number: all these things, and more, have been said. “God 
 
 is eternal^’"'' for nihilo nihil Jit.'"'' Fate governs all things, 
 even those beings who can choose how they will act. That 
 Deity which created all the sources of evil is infinitely good. 
 The same Being acts by Jioced laws, and interferes perpetually 
 by his particular providence. No rational man will say, that he 
 clearly understands these propositions. Velleius, the Epicurean, 
 in Cic. de Naturd Deorum, says, the immateriality of God, or his 
 freedom from body^, is unintelligible. We should find it very 
 difficult to conceive the Supreme Being clogged with a body. 
 
 3. Many of the same propositions arise in revealed religion; 
 but the inquiry into their meaning assumes a different shape; g4 
 because, when we have things communicated to us from above 
 by language, we have to consider and investigate the precise 
 meaning of expressions. In natural religion, we have no words 
 
 or expressions to consider. Revealed religion adds moreover 
 to the mysteries of natural. “ In the beginning was the 
 Word” — “ and the Word was with God, and the Word was 
 God.” Jesus Christ is the So7i of God — he is called God — 
 
 ^ Tusc. Disp. i. 0, 10. 
 
 2 Quod vero sine corpore ullo Deum 
 ( Plato) volt esse, ut Graeci dicunt ao-tJ- 
 
 fxaTov ; id quale esse possit, intelligi non 
 potest. De Nat. D. i. 12. 
 
III. X. 4.] 
 
 UNINTELLIGIBLE PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 403 
 
 II. the angels of God worship him. The Creator made the worlds 
 by his Son. The Holy Spirit abides with us, guides us, in- 
 habits our bodies, the bodies of all men at once — as his temple. 
 There is a connection between the Father., Son, and Holy 
 Ghost, which makes it proper that Christians should be bap- 
 tized in their joint names ; and that those names should be 
 frequently mentioned together in a solemn manner, to the 
 exclusion of all others. A virgin was overshadowed by the 
 Holy Ghost, and brought forth a Son without having known 
 man ; that Son was both perfectly human and perfectly divine^. 
 Prayer is to be offered to an all-wise Being, who will give us 
 what is best for us. 
 
 The difficulties attending these propositions have engaged 
 men in solving them. Sometimes it has been seen that solu- 
 tions were wrong, even when no distinct idea could be attained 
 of what was right ; and attempts to explain, with defences of 
 the solutions, have greatly increased the number of unintelligible 
 propositions. It seems as if we should add, to the number of 
 unintelligible propositions, many human forms of speaking, 
 particularly those hinted at in the beginning of this chapter ; 
 
 95 such as have become unmeaning, either by tacit reformations, 
 or by the extinction of those errors which they were intended 
 to remedy. 
 
 4. What has been said shews the importance of trying to 
 make unintelligible questions as little inconvenient as possible. 
 They have proved inconvenient, not only in occasioning dis- 
 sension and violation of charity, but also in causing a greater 
 degree of uneasiness, when assent has been required to them, 
 than reason and good sense could justify. 
 
 It might lessen this last-mentioned evil (of uneasiness) to con- 
 sider, that, if propositions are wholly unintelligible, they really 
 express nothing; if they seem to wear an affirmative shape, 
 they ajffirm nothing ; if a negative, they deny nothing. Animal 
 spirits are eivreXe^eta — does not differ from, animal spirits are 
 not'‘ evTeXeyeia, The gods are images flying off from bodies’^; 
 so affirmed Democritus : no, says Parmenides, I deny it. God 
 is a crown^, surrounding the heaven, and by the brightness 
 and ardour of its light keeping the orb together : will you as- 
 
 ^ Translators of Scripture, if honest, 
 will sometimes leave unintelligible pro- 
 positions — See about Symmachus, B. I. 
 chap. vi. sect. 7. 
 
 ^ Tusc. Disp. i. 10. 
 
 ^ De Nat. Deorum. i. 12. 
 ® lb. sect. 11. 
 
 26 2 
 
404 
 
 UNINTELLIGIBLE PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 [III. X. 5. 
 
 sent to the affirmative or the negative ? they seem equally un- II. 
 intelligible. Indeed, if either subject or predicate is unintelli- 
 gible, the proposition must be so. 
 
 Yet it may be proper to observe, according to what was 
 just now hinted, that propositions unintelligible on the whole, 
 or what would be allowed unintelligible if taken absolutely, 
 without any particular respect or relation to others, may be in- 
 telligible relatively, or in some respects^ as for instance, in 
 denying errors. The Son of God was begotten from eternity^ 
 is unintelligible taken absolutely ; but it is intelligible con- 
 sidered as denying that any time can be assigned when he 
 began to exist. 
 
 This may be applied to the argument for the eternity of 
 God — ex nihilo nihil Jit. How God is eternal, cannot be un- 9d 
 derstood ; yet this proves that it is absurd to say that he had 
 a beginning. 
 
 5. When propositions are so unintelligible that they neither 
 affirm nor deny any thing, a man, by repeating them, whatever 
 other folly he may run into, cannot be guilty of any breach of 
 veracity ; he can deceive no one : unless indeed he professes to 
 understand them : if he says that, he introduces a 7iew pro- 
 position, and one which is intelligible. Not long after the 
 middle of the last century, the clergy in France were obliged 
 to sign a form to this purpose : ‘ I heartily condemn the five 
 propositions contained in Jansenius'^s book : his doctrine, 
 though pretended to be taken from Augustin, is not really 
 Augustin’s.’ Now it did not appear that the five propositions 
 were in Jansenius’s book (called Augustinus) ; that was ques- 
 tioned, and the passages never found. This form the nuns of 
 St. Cyran, whose convent was at Port Royal in the fields, 
 v/erc called upon to sign, they being great favourers of the 
 Jansenists. We sign this say they; how should we know 
 whether the propositions are really in the book or not ? it is a 
 great folio written in Latin, and we do not understand Latin : 
 we will not assent to what we do not at all understand ! They 
 persisted in their refusal till, at last, their monastery was 
 wholly destroyed’. Voltaire’s remark is, ‘ one does not know 
 which is more singular, the confession which was required 
 of women that five propositions were contained in a Latin 
 book, or the obstinate refusal of these nuns.’ The requisition 
 
 ^ 3Ioslieim, 17 th Cent. 2. 1. 1. 47. Voltaire — Louis XIV. Jansenisme, pp. 
 271—281, 12mo. 
 
III. X. 6’, 7.] UNINTELLIGIBLE PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 405 
 
 II. v/as certainly very strange: Voltaire did not think the refusal 
 less so. The form was unintelligible^ but it was known by all 
 
 97 men to be so. Veracity was not concerned with assenting to it: 
 such assenting would have deceived no one^. 
 
 6. If the end of assenting to unintelligible propositions is 
 not truth, what is it ? it can only be some species of conve- 
 nience, or utility ; that is, avoiding some evil, or attaining 
 some good. To impose assent to them without some such view, 
 would be foolish and oppressive ; nay, considering them as of a 
 religious sort, impious or presumptuous. 
 
 7 . The principal question is, wherein can that utility con- 
 sist? what is the nature of the evil to be avoided, and of the 
 good to be attained ? It is an evil to neglect or throw aside 
 any thing which it has pleased God to reveal to mankind. If 
 he sends a message, whether it be understood or not, it is to be 
 carefully preserved ; it is to be noted and registered faithfully 
 and simply ; nay, the more exactly, for not being understood. 
 If we write what we understand, we may safely alter several 
 little points and dots ; we know what we are doing ; but if we 
 copy a language which we have never learnt, we must copy 
 every thing, even blots and mistakes. AW that we can strictly 
 say, in such a case, is, that we do not at present understand 
 what God is pleased to say to us ; we do not know how soon 
 we may. It may be objected here, keep the scriptural infor- 
 mation faithfully, only do not require assent to it : but it is 
 not conceivable that we should value Scripture, and not throw 
 the expressions of it into some forms — of doctrine, or devo- 
 tion — into sermons, prayers, hymns, &c. These are necessary, 
 
 98 if we were only to remind men of what has been revealed ; and 
 to make them feel its value and importance : these must be the 
 ordinary means of exciting religious sentiments. Care must 
 indeed be taken, at the same time, that no one deceives himself, 
 or imagines that he understands what he really does not. 
 
 If we throw away what comes from above, because we do 
 not thoroughly see the meaning of it, we know not what we 
 lose. Suppose a people, who were pretty much uncivilised, 
 had an offer of a good body of laws, and accepted them. 
 There is no doubt but there would be several regulations of 
 
 2 Had they signed, they would have 
 thought, probably, their assent equiva- 
 lent to saying, ‘we Jansenists condemn 
 Jansenius but need they have had this 
 
 difficulty ? Suppose they had signed, and 
 said publicly, ‘ we do not condemn Jan- 
 senius ?’ — or some other contrivance of 
 that sort might have been hit upon. 
 
406 
 
 UNINTELLIGIBLE PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 [III. X. 7. 
 
 which they would not see the scope; but would they therefore II. 
 be wise for expunging those regulations ? Contests might 
 arise from prejudices against such new laws, which might 
 occasion some kind of assent to be given to the superior wisdom 
 of the new laws : it would scarcely be a sufficient objection to 
 giving such assent, to say that some of the new laws were un- 
 intelligible. Who indeed amongst the ordinary people (I do 
 not mean the ignorant multitude) understands law-deeds^ when 
 he signs them, even in the most important concerns ? To 
 throw aside the notices from heaven, because we did not under- 
 stand them, would be to act like savages, who threw gold and 
 jewels into the sea. And we must throw such notices aside, if 
 we never insert any of them into our forms. And it is the 
 same thing if, in order to avoid difficulty, we lower the things 
 revealed to what we fancy is common sense. Sometimes, one 
 set of men are compelled to use unintelligible forms, by other 
 men’s perverting or lowering Scripture. If, by such a measure, 
 we can prevent such perversion, the evil which we incur must 
 be less than that which we avoid. And the same if we prevent 
 dissension. 
 
 I think we may safely say, of the nuns of St. Cyran just 99 
 now mentioned, that the evil of their refusing to assent to an 
 unintelligible proposition was, in fact, much greater than that 
 of their assenting would have been ; even if we allow that they 
 were to be commended for conscientiously adhering to what 
 they thought right. 
 
 But the utility of assenting to unintelligible propositions 
 may consist in attaining positive good^ as well as in avoiding 
 evil. There is no greater good to human kind than that 
 which might arise from a religious society well conducted, 
 which should include the young and the old, the wise and the 
 unthinking. Now, it is not conceivable that such a society 
 could be carried on without some members assenting to what 
 they did not understand ; for what would be intelligible to 
 some would be unintelligible to others; and yet there must be 
 an uniformity ; all ranks must join in creeds, catechisms, and 
 liturgies'. On this uniformity depends that ease and com- 
 posure which is so necessary to encourage religious sentiments, 
 and to heighten devout sympathy. And, (we might add,) as 
 
 ^ It might be here recollected that 
 the Copts in Egypt have divine service 
 in a language they do not understand. 
 
 Book I. chap. ix. of this, from Pococke’s 
 Travels. 
 
III. X. 8,9.] UNINTELLIGIBLE PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 407 
 
 11. it will frequently happen, that forms of words, confessions, 
 &c. continue a long time after they have been found faulty 
 or unnecessary, on this account verbal affirmations must be 
 made, after the meaning of the words made use of is evapo- 
 rated. 
 
 8. It will add force to this reasoning, if we consider, that 
 
 a person who did assent to unintelligible propositions for the 
 reasons we offer, could not be said to lie ‘‘ unto or to 
 
 injure man. To allow this, we need only conceive such a per- 
 
 100 son to enter into a solemn meditation, as in the sight of God ; 
 and to say, ^ I have given my verbal assent to what I did not 
 understand ; but I have done this with a good intention : I 
 have done it in order to avoid religious evil, and to attain 
 religious good. I have used no words of my own choosing, 
 but only such words as have been appointed for me by those in 
 authority. I have pretended to know nothing more than I really 
 did know : every one who was concerned was aware of my 
 ignorance. Perhaps, in time, that ignorance may receive some 
 information : perhaps several of those with whom I am, for the 
 best purposes, united in society, may already see more than I 
 do. My conscience tells me, that, whilst I act with such 
 sincerity, the omniscient Being will not be offended with my 
 conduct.’ 
 
 As to man, there seems no foundation for his taking of- 
 fence. He receives no harm: he is neither injured nor de- 
 ceived. 
 
 9. It will confirm and illustrate what has been said, if we 
 consider the manner in which God has acted with mankind in 
 the revelation of his will. Ever since the creation of the world, 
 he has been revealing it gradually ; at all times giving intima- 
 tions of the whole of his plan ; but those intimations were at 
 first very faint and obscure, afterwards by degrees more and 
 more clear. This being the case, different things, at different 
 times, must have been unintelligible, or must have been mys- 
 terious ; for the true scriptural notion of ^ (xvari^piov is, a de- 
 sign of God not yet executed, or made manifest. Mysteries, 
 according to this notion, may both be ‘‘kept secret^ since the 
 world began,” and be revealed or made known. Yet at all 
 times, what was known, though not clearly comprehended, 
 
 101 might be generally professed; and, if that be true, then at 
 all times unintelligible propositions would be professed by some 
 
 2 Acts V. 4, 3 Locke on 1 Cor. i. 1, 7. ^ Rom. xvi. 25. Eph. iii. 4. 
 
408 
 
 UNINTELLIGIBLE PROPOSITIONS. [III. X. 10, II . 
 
 persons, though -what was once so would gradually lose its II. 
 nature. 
 
 To confirm the notion, that parts of Scripture should not 
 be thrown aside, because they are not intelligible, I will men- 
 tion Eusebius’s^ account of Dionysius of Alexandria^ with re- 
 gard to the Book of Revelation: and I will make use of 
 Lardner’s translation. “ Some who were before us have 
 utterly rejected and confuted this book, criticising every chap- 
 ter [or paragraph], shewing it to be throughout unintelligible 
 and inconsistent;” ‘‘But, for my part, I dare not reject the 
 book, since many of the brethren have it in high esteem : but, 
 allowing it to be above my understanding, I suppose it to con- 
 tain throughout some latent and wonderful meaning : for, 
 though I do not understand it, I suspect there must be some 
 profound sense in the words; not measuring and judging these 
 things by my own reason, but ascribing more to faith, I esteem 
 them too sublime to be comprehended by me.” As Dionysius 
 reasons on the mysteries of the Apocalypse, we might reason 
 on any other mysteries. It is highly probable he would not 
 have been averse to throwing expressions of the Apocalypse, or 
 even others equivalent to them, into forms, to be used or 
 assented to, when any good seemed likely to arise from such a 
 measure. 
 
 10. What has been said concerning the gradual opening of 
 Revelation to mankind, is in a good measure applicable to the 
 gradual increase of knowledge in each human being, in any 
 given state of general improvement. Each man has continually 
 something unintelligible immediately before him, though the 
 number of those things which he understands is continually in- 
 creasing. And when he mixes with other men, he finds others 102 
 comprehending what is unintelligible to him ; insomuch that, if 
 
 he acts with them, he must admit propositions (for all motives 
 and principles seem resolvable into propositions) which he does 
 not comprehend ; and have frequent occasion to assent to their 
 truth. Nay, I can fancy, that all conclusions of his expe- 
 rience, after which he constantly acts, concerning substances, 
 laws of nature, &c. if formed into propositions, would appear, as 
 propositions, to be unintelligihle. 
 
 11. There is nothing, perhaps, which will make our reason- 
 ing more readily accepted than conceiving a child to repeat his 
 catechism. At first, the whole is unintelligible to him, and 
 
 I Sec Euseb. Hist., or Lard. Works, vol. nr. pp. 104, 105. 
 
III. X. 12, 13.] UNINTELLIGIBLE PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 409 
 
 II. always some part; yet it is right, upon the whole, that he 
 should repeat it. The very sound of the words, of which he 
 hears some account at other times, makes some impression upon 
 him ; and there is scarce a part which is not the vehicle of 
 some good sentiment. Sentiments of order, decency, duty, are 
 inculcated, as well as those more immediately religious. But, 
 as catechizing has been practised in all ages of the Christian 
 world, the benefits of it must have been experienced, and the 
 wisdom of it may be taken for granted ; and, as it deceives no 
 one, the innocence of it is evident — I mean, as being clear of 
 any violation of ‘veracity. 
 
 12. It may be proper not wholly to omit all mention of 
 different orders in the Church. Of old, the lowest were the 
 KaTrj'^ov /uevoif the next the ttictto}, the highest the rjyov/uGvoi — 
 the catechumens, the faithful, and the leaders. We have just 
 now spoken of catechumens; only we must conceive, that, when 
 men of maturity embraced Christianity from conviction, they 
 were better acquainted, even while catechumens, with its prin- 
 
 103 ciples than children are; nevertheless, a plain man is only a 
 degree higher; very few common men would explain our cate- 
 chism well. The catechumens would have the o'reatest number 
 of unintelligible doctrines to profess; the faithful more than the 
 leaders ; but all would have some. Even the teacher cannot be 
 exempt: in many things he is, and must be, as those that are 
 taught ; and the different ranks of teachers must differ, as the 
 different ranks do of those whom they instruct. 
 
 13. It may be asked, whether some propositions are not 
 partially unintelligible ? I should be inclined to say, some are. 
 The prophecy, that the seed of woman should bruise the 
 ^serpent’s head, may be reckoned of this sort. It seems to 
 mean something ; some privilege to man ; but what privilege it 
 is could not be understood — at least for some thousands of 
 years. It is intelligible to say, that no time can be assigned 
 when God was ignorant what you would choose ; yet, when it 
 is added, you might have chosen otherwise than you did, the 
 moment before you fixed your choice, this, being equally in- 
 telligible, throws an obscurity over the whole. If propositions 
 are taken as partly unintelligible, the natural consequence 
 seems to be, that they must partake of the nature of those 
 which are wholly so. The less distinct ideas we have to any 
 proposition, the less difference will there be between the affirm- 
 
 2 Gen. iii. 15. 
 
410 
 
 UNINTELLIGIBLE PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 [III. X. 14. 
 
 ative and negative side of it — the less opposition or contradic- II. 
 tion ; consequently, assent to it means less ; and losing the 
 good of social religion, or incurring any evil, on its account, is 
 less excusable^ 
 
 14. Since I first formed the reasoning in this chapter, I 104 
 have been alarmed by a passage in a Charge of Dr. Balguy’s, 
 delivered to the Clergy of his Archdeaconry in 1769, and pub- 
 lished in 1785; in which there seem to be some things contra- 
 dictory to what I have advanced. As I distrust my own con- 
 clusions more than his, if, upon consideration, you do not judge 
 that they are reconcilable, I must exhort you to confide in him 
 rather than in me. 
 
 When the views of writers are very different, they may say 
 things which seem to contradict each other, though they really 
 do not. This great man speaks to the enlightened about the 
 most perfect principles of reasoning in the mind : I take the 
 ordinary course of things ; suppose mere common men to have 
 authority ; and refer all to social action. One great end we 
 have in common — to hinder men from fancying they understand 
 what they really do not. This end he pursues as a preventive 
 of error — I, lest men should suffer needless uneasiness, when 
 they assent to what they do not understand, or be afraid to en- 
 ter the ministry ; in short, lest they should be too backward, 
 as well as too forward, to make use of reasonable liberty. 
 
 This difference of views affords hope of reconciliation. 
 
 Let us read the passage^. A proposition not understood can- 
 not be believed, or be an object of faith. In strictness it can- 
 not ; yet we may believe that it may be valuable; that it may 
 have a meanings though we do not see it ; (this indeed Dr. 
 Balguy allows^;) and this must incline us to retain unintelli- 
 gible propositions, and even use them in some way, before we 
 come to understand them. 
 
 Dr. Balguy instances in transubstantiation. That instance 
 seems too remote from scriptural expressions to rank with 105 
 mine; yet I would not condemn a Romanist who, as one of 
 the people, gave a verbal assent to it, merely in submission to 
 authority, if he did not pretend to understand it. I hope the 
 remarks of us both tend to hinder mysterious doctrines from 
 perplexing weak minds, and bringing contempt upon religion. 
 
 Dr. Balguy says, that what is even owned to come from 
 
 ^ Fait-on mourir des gens pour avoir I 4to. vol. xxvi. p. 129. 
 dit que Jesus est un verbe? Voltaire, 1 ^ g^lguy, p. 234. ^Dr, B. p. 238. 
 
III. X. 14.] UNINTELLIGIBLE PllOPOSITIONS. 
 
 411 
 
 II. God must be understood before we can believe it. In strict- 
 ness this is true. Yet, without understanding it, we may re- 
 spect it, bring it into notice^ keep it unadulterated, even write 
 or repeat it, if our governors think fit, amongst things to which 
 we give our assent"*. 
 
 What is the most difficult to reconcile with my account is, 
 that Dr. Balguy knows no medhcm between understanding per- 
 fectly, and not understanding at all. I cannot see how this is 
 wrong ; yet I think there are propositions which seem to be 
 partially unintelligible, and which, in fact, will be treated by 
 men as such : if so, provision should be made for them, as if 
 they really were such. Obscure propositions may possibly be 
 made clear by rightly stating what they really mean, but then 
 it requires very great clearness and acuteness to do this. 
 ‘^Christ is the author of eternal salvation,” would commonly 
 seem obscure, or partially unintelligible; though Dr. Balguy 
 makes it seem intelligible, by clearing it of all extraneous mat- 
 ter; but a common man could not have done this. We our- 
 selves have seen how a proposition which is, when taken abso- 
 lutely, unintelligible, may be intelligible taken relatively. In 
 106 the bemnnin^ was the Word.” ‘‘Christ is the Son of God.” 
 “Whom God of old ordained to this condemnation.” Perhaps 
 each of these propositions might be exhibited in a form perfect- 
 ly intelligible ; (sometimes, taking a negative form will give 
 distinctness ;) but, as this is very difficult, it seems right, with 
 a view to practice, to determine how propositions partly intel- 
 ligible should be treated. 
 
 Notwithstanding this, it does seem useful that men should 
 be aware how one word may render a whole sentence unintelli- 
 gible, and lead to falsehood. 
 
 There is no difference between Dr. Balguy’s explanation 
 and mine, with regard to the sense of /jLua-Ttjpior ; but, though 
 mystery does not always imply present ignorance, yet what is 
 now y)ast ignorance was once present; and present ignorance 
 may be enlightened. In a state of ignorance, at any time, in- 
 timations of future knowledge might be couched in propositions 
 not wholly to be understood. 
 
 Dr. Balguy says, “no advantage can arise from the use of 
 words without ideas.” Here, our different views may occasion 
 
 ^ Dr. B. says, that ordinary men must 
 take their opinions from others. (See 
 p. 255, Charge V.) Parents, teachers, 
 
 &c. must “determine for them what they 
 are to believe,''* &c. See also Disc. vii. 
 p. 124. 
 
412 
 
 UNINTELLIGIBLE PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 [III.X. 15. 
 
 the seeming contradiction : in reasoning, none ; in practice, it II. 
 seems as if there might be some — as, for instance, in cate- 
 chizing. In Dr. Powell’s Sermons^, published (and probably 
 selected) by Dr. Balgiiy, there is mention of a child's repeating 
 his creed, and no mark of disapprobation. 
 
 In the particular case in which St. Paul forbids speaking in 
 an unknown tongue, it would have done great harm : it would 
 have defeated the ends of religious society. We recommend the 
 not rejecting of unintelligible' propositions, upon the ground 
 that they may promote the ends of religious society. 
 
 On the whole, I do sincerely hope, that, notwithstanding 
 the seeming opposition between Dr. Balguy’s Charge and my 107 
 Lectures, there is not any real one. If one could have his re- 
 marks upon what I say here, I doubt not but they would be 
 very improving. 
 
 15. I will conclude this chapter with a few practical in- 
 ferences from what has been laid down in it. They may be 
 useful, both as practical directions, and as proofs of the justness 
 of our reasoning. 
 
 1. Any church may reasonably admit some unintelligible 
 propositions into its forms : that some are found there, is no 
 proof that such church is erroneous. 
 
 2. It is most immediately to our present purpose to ob- 
 serve, that though, in assenting, unintelligible propositions are 
 wont to give us the most care and uneasiness, they ought to 
 give us the least. 
 
 3. In settling principles of action in our minds, we ought 
 to be very cautious lest we take for granted that we understand 
 what in reality we do not. We should be aware, that most 
 propositions relating to religion, if we include all particulars in 
 them which can be included, contain something which is above 
 our comprehension. 
 
 4. Lastly. When we are obliged to engage in contro- 
 versy, we should never indulge any malevolence, or any intem- 
 perate zeal, particularly about mysterious doctrines. We are 
 most apt to fall into disputes about those subjects which we un- 
 derstand the least. We do not know enough of the mysterious 
 doctrines of religion to quarrel about them. Were we to see 
 two children fighting about their creeds, we should think them 
 too ignorant to be champions of orthodoxy ; but they seem al- 
 most as well qualified to be so as we are to contend, with vio- 
 
 1 Pp. 40, 41. 
 
III. X. 15.] 
 
 UNINTELLIGIBLE TROPOSITIONS. 
 
 413 
 
 IT. lence, about the eternal generation of Christ, when opposed to 
 108 his creation before^ all worlds. It may be said, though both 
 these doctrines are mysterious, yet one may be nearer to the 
 truth than the other : — if you are at the top of a steeple and I 
 at the bottom, it is never worth our while to quarrel about 
 which is nearer to the sun. 
 
 The truth is, that in the eyes of superior beings, we are 
 none of us right ; and that a superior being would have diffi- 
 culty in pronouncing which of us is nearest to being right — I 
 mean, in mysterious doctrines. In ceremonies, and other things 
 of an arbitrary nature, (the other thing we quarrel about), we 
 are all right, so long as we do not dispute. I should wish to 
 mention here the story of three ladies who were reading about 
 Cupid and Psyche. One called Psyche, A; (physch) ; the 
 second reprimanded her, and called it fish (physch) ; the third 
 snatched the book, and insisted on the word’s being called skew 
 (pschew). The dispute ran high; at last, an agreement was 
 made to refer it to a gentleman of the University, (for in the 
 midst of an University the dispute is said to have happened) ; 
 the academic arrived : which is right ? why I cannot say any 
 one is right ; which is nearest right ? that is a point too diffi- 
 cult to be determined. Now, suppose each of these ladies to 
 have a number of followers in her pronunciation, and we have 
 three sects. What might be the event of a violent controversy 
 between such sects, it is impossible distinctly to foresee. They 
 might want Dr. Balguy’s advice, “least of all to censure and 
 persecute our brethren, perhaps for no better reason than be- 
 cause their nonsense and ours wears a different dress 
 
 Finally, if it should ever be our fate to be engaged in con- 
 troversy on incomprehensible doctrines, let us “read, mark, 
 lOp learn,” that beautiful passage of Augustin, about his own con- 
 troversy with the Manicheans: — “Illud, quovis'^ judice, impe- 
 trare me a vobis oportet, ut in utraque parte omnis arrogantia 
 deponatur. Nemo nostrum dicat se jam invenisse veritatem. 
 Sic earn quaeramus quasi ab utrisque nesciatur. Ita enim dili- 
 genter et concorditer quaeri poterit, si nulla temeraria praesum- 
 tione inventa et cognita esse credatur.” 
 
 Thus may we speak the truth in ^love; search for it as 
 friends and brethren ; and, at length, come to hold it in the 
 unity of spirit and bond of peace. 
 
 - See Arius’s Letter in Epiphan. Her. 
 r>9. (7 and 8). See also Pearson on the 
 Creed. ^ jpo. 
 
 ^ See the end of Lardner’s Account of 
 the Manicheans, from Aug. contra Ep. 
 Fund. Cap. 2. n. 2, 8, 4. Eph. iv. 1.0. 
 
414 
 
 CHOOSING THE LEAST EVIL. 
 
 [III. Xi. 1. 
 
 11 . 
 
 CHAPTER XL llO 
 
 OF CHOOSING THE LEAST EVIL. 
 
 1. We have been treating of using and assenting to forms : 
 and we have been examining into those liberties which arise 
 from changes in the meaning and force of such forms ; either 
 by tacit improvements in the religion to which they belong, or 
 by the decay or extinction of the heresies which they are adapt- 
 ed to correct. We have also considered other liberties, which 
 arise from the imperfection and indistinctness of our conceptions. 
 These liberties may all together seem to be numerous ; but yet, 
 in practice, more may be wanted. ‘After they have been all 
 used, there may be some things in the religious society to which 
 we belong that we cannot approve — something that we wish to 
 have changed. Even a considerable number of the members 
 may wish for change; or the governing part may be satisfied, 
 and lower orders dissatisfied ; in such dissatisfaction what is to 
 be done ? The most obvious thing to suggest is, choose ano- 
 ther church : but, it does not follow, as a matter of course, that 
 a person who desires to have some things changed must neces- 
 sarily quit his religious society ; and, if he does not quit it, he 
 must continue under obligation to do every thing as a regular 
 member ; amongst other things, he must assent to use forms, 
 when that is required of him by authority, either as a private 
 man or a minister. 
 
 Whether he must quit his society or not, must depend on 
 this principle; he must choose the least evil : — of which princi- HI 
 pie, more hereafter. Now we only say, if, on the whole, it is 
 the least evil for him to quit, he must do so; if, to continue, he 
 must continue; whatever difficulties he may have about assent- 
 ing in form to doctrine, which does not coincide with his pri- 
 vate opinion. I say, assenting in form, because, when he has 
 his choice of words, he must declare his private opinion plainly, 
 and say what his real meaning is, in using expressions inconsis- 
 tent with his private opinion ; namely, to comply with rules of 
 a society, of which he thinks it his duty to continue a member, 
 lie must declare that he speaks as he would act in any office, 
 without interposing his private judgment: as an herald would 
 perform ceremonies, which he thought had better be altered or 
 omitted, or would proclaim unmeaning titles of a king. 
 
III. xi. 2 4.] CHOOSING THE LEAST EVIL. 
 
 415 
 
 II.- 2. But, how are evils to be calculated^ so that he may 
 know whether his retiring or his continuing will be attended 
 with greater ? I apprehend this should be done by the prin- 
 ciples already laid down in the present book, and by consider- 
 ations of public and private utility — to mankind in general, 
 and to religious society in particular. Schism is the term 
 commonly made use of to express needless division of the whole 
 society of Christians, or needless separation from any church^ ; 
 and the evil of it is extensive. It consists in interrupting uni- 
 formity, making Christians consider each other as enemies, or 
 rivals, unhinging men’s principles, lessening the number of those 
 who assist each others religious sentiments by sympathy; — 
 taking attention from practice to speculation. To these should 
 be added, harm to civil government, and detriment done to the 
 principles of the individual himself who separates. 
 
 112 3. However just this may be, and however plain it is that 
 
 all men must choose the least evil, yet many seem as if they 
 would not allow it without some reluctance in matters of reli- 
 gion. It does indeed, when assenting in form to things which 
 do not satisfy us, as a consequence, wear the appearance of pre- 
 varication ; and men are much to be commended who examine 
 all such appearances with the greatest nicety. 
 
 But the chief thing which would obstruct the reception of 
 our maxim, choose the least evil, is, tliat it implies great im- 
 perfectio7i in religious societies. It implies, that a man may 
 find imperfection in his own church ; and, if he attempts to 
 quit it on that account, he may find that other churches are 
 still more imperfect than his own : whereas, we are habituated 
 to look up to our church with the utmost veneration. We are 
 brought up to hear nothing but good of the religion to which 
 we belong. Its doctrines, its regulations, nay, its ceremonies 
 and habits, are recommended to us, and strongly inculcated, 
 without any distinction being made between them and religion 
 in the strictest sense — between them and that which is most 
 substantial, essential, indispensable. And this is found neces- 
 sary for maintaining religious sentiments in the minds of the 
 generality of people. Such commendations may sometimes make 
 us have more respect for religion ; but they may also give us 
 some wrong notions and prejudices, and prevent our doing 
 what is best upon the whole. 
 
 4. And some men increase this veneration for religious 
 ^ .Just mentioned chap. iv. sect 4. /x)} ?J iu vfxiv (T)(i<7fxaTa, 1 Cor. i. 10. 
 
416 
 
 CHOOSING THE LEAST EVIL. 
 
 [Ill.xi. 4. 
 
 society in general, by considering, that the Catholic Church, II. 
 or society of Christians, was founded by Christ himself. From 
 whence also this conclusion may seem deducible, that, if any 
 particular church has any material imperfection, it cannot be a 113 
 part of the Church of Christ. Let us then inquire, first, how 
 far Christian churches are of human institution ; and then we 
 can more freely speak of their imperfections. 
 
 That Christ might be said to form his disciples into a 
 church, has been mentioned in the first ^ Book; but, if a great 
 number of Christians were to assemble, and set themselves to 
 reduce into a practical form all that he has said, and act upon 
 it, they would find themselves much at a loss, if they added 
 nothing. They would be scarce able to stir a step. The ob- 
 struction would be of the same sort, though in a less degree, if 
 they selected all passages relating to the ecclesiastical govern- 
 ment of the Apostles. They would find societies instituted and 
 conducted, officers or magistrates named, their qualities men- 
 tioned ; but all incidentally, without system : and they would 
 be in danger of misinterpreting ancient names or terms, by 
 affixing to them modern’^ ideas. Some have^ thought that the 
 Apostles accommodated the form of ecclesiastical government, 
 in any place, to the form of civil government prevailing there, 
 as falling in best with habitual notions. Without proving this, 
 we may say, that no church could be carried on without more 
 rules than the Apostles have laid down ; and that new rules or 
 laws ought to depend upon particular circumstances. Baptism 
 and the Lord’s Supper Christ himself has appointed. Besides 
 these, and preaching the Gospel to all men, requiring them to 
 act on Christian principles, and labouring to make them “ care- 
 ful to maintain o;ood works^,” nothinfj at this moment occurs to 
 me which is so essential to a Christian church as to admit of no 
 variation; nay these, though invariable in themselves, allow of 114 
 variety in the modes of executing and encouraging them. As 
 far as these things go, a person, in deliberating about a removal 
 from one church to another, may conceive himself as going 
 upon divine authority: farther, all is human. About the rest 
 then we may reason freely, and compare one human institution 
 with another. Men used, in former times, to deduce the par- 
 ticulars of civil'^ society from the Scriptures : that is now given 
 
 ' Chap.xix. sect. HJ. j ^ Tit. iii. 8. 
 
 - Bingham, beginning of Book IX. 1 ^ See Dr. Balguy, Discourse VI. near 
 
 ^ Chap. ix. sect. 1. Mark xvi. 15. I beginning. 
 
III. xi. 5, 6.] CHOOSING THE LEAST EVIL. 
 
 417 
 
 II. up; but Scripture being about religion, a prejudice still re- 
 mains for recurring to Scripture about ecclesiastical society. 
 This however is not supported by reason, except as far as we 
 can reason by analogy from one situation to another, according 
 to the principles of Book I. chap. xi. If an architect was to 
 consult Scripture in order to determine whether he should build 
 a church of brick or stone, he would not be more unreasonable 
 than some men have been in their consultations. 
 
 5. As, then, we may compare one human institution with 
 another, and a church is, in many respects, an human insti- 
 tution, let us suppose a society to meet, which had been insti- 
 tuted for effecting an inland navigation. It is debated whether 
 certain sluices shall be made in certain places ? You are a mem- 
 ber, and you have your opinion, grounded on reasons ; you 
 hear, in the course of the debate, notions, or doctrines, from 
 which you dissent, and these are ratified by the majority. Do 
 you refuse to act after them, or to continue a member of this 
 society? A church is a corporation or society contriving human 
 means of answering a good end. Though you disapprove of 
 some of the means (and what are professions of doctrines but 
 
 115 means?) you have no more reason to quit it, merely on that 
 account, than you have to quit the other. When an order is 
 made by a society, sometimes persons, members of that society, 
 who have voted against it, hesitate to sign it ; but this is es- 
 teemed weakness ; for signature does not, in such a case, imply 
 private opinion. 
 
 6. If it is once properly felt that churches are, in most 
 things, human institutions, to consider their imperfections will 
 give no offence, and to act upon them will occasion no diffi- 
 culty. Nay, we may go one step farther : human means of 
 answering the ends of religious society must needs be more 
 imperfect than any human means, because religion is the most 
 difficult of subjects^ In most cases we make attempts to im- 
 prove things, and gain a greater good than we at present pos- 
 sess. They are but rude attempts in general. We know so 
 little of the internal nature of things, that we are obliged to 
 grope our way in the dark ; and take what knowledge we can 
 get from experience, though that experience sometimes costs us 
 dear. If this be the case, v/hat can be expected in our pur- 
 suits of improvement in religion ? where we know our way so 
 little? where almost every thing is above our comprehension? 
 
 7 Balguy, Charge V. p. 258. 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 27 
 
418 CHOOSING THE LEAST EVIL. [III. xi. 7, 8. 
 
 Those who find it difficult to allow of uncertainties in religion, II. 
 might perhaps assist themselves by imagining two contending 
 parties to refer their disputes to superior beings. They might 
 by that means get an idea, that, in all probability, superior be- 
 ings would determine (according to the ludicrous story before 
 mentioned) that neither party was right ; and that which party 
 was the nearest to being right, could not very easily be deter- 
 mined. 
 
 7- Notwithstanding our reasoning may be thought not un- 
 just, it may be thought better omitted. If mens religious con- 11 6 * 
 duct depends on their veneration for their religion, is it not 
 imprudent to lessen that veneration ? We may answer, that 
 sometimes it is necessary to enter into the grounds of all duties ; 
 though, while we are considering them, we have less sentiment 
 than accompanies the performance of them at other times, when 
 every thing is in its settled state. When a servant is contract- 
 ing with his master, or negociating about quitting his service, 
 he does not feel the sentiments of a servant ; and so in other 
 cases ; but, when things recover their usual train, the senti- 
 ments recover their usual strength. In the present case, when 
 quitting a church is in question, considering its imperfections 
 is absolutely necessary, in order to prevent taking a greater 
 evil instead of a less ; and in order to comfort those who com- 
 ply without a clear insight into the grounds of their compliance: 
 but, when questions and doubts are at an end, veneration for 
 the church regains its wonted strength and efficacy. That which 
 is fallible may be the best we can attain ; and, though the forms 
 of any church should be in some things exceptionable, yet they 
 may be exceedingly edifying upon the whole ; nay, we can even 
 admire that which our reason tells us is in some respects im- 
 perfect. ‘ How noble, how beautiful,’ we say, ‘ is such a thing! 
 what a pity that it has such an imperfection !’ No poet is 
 more admired tlian Shakspeare, even by those who think him 
 faulty in several respects. 
 
 8. It follows from these considerations, that continuing 
 members of a church whose doctrines seem imperfect, when 
 that appears to be the least evil, cannot interfere with our duty 
 to God or man. As far as we can enter into the views of the 
 Supreme Being, we must conceive that he cannot disapprove of 117 
 our approaching as near as we can to promoting the general 
 good. In the case supposed, there is an appearance of false- 
 hood to the eye of man, but there can be none to the all-seeing 
 
III. xi. 9 , 10.] CHOOSING THE LEAST EVIL. 
 
 419 
 
 II. eye of Him who judgeth righteous judgmenth To scruple and 
 decline choosing the least evil, on account of such appearance, 
 would be running into mischief wilfully. 
 
 Amongst men, there seem none who could be offended with 
 our choosing the least evil, by complying with some things 
 against our private opinion, except the church in which we 
 continue. To the church all deceit might be avoided, by ex- 
 planation of the real state of the case. And it is not likely 
 that any church would take offence at such an irregularity, or 
 would wish to exclude any person on its account. I suppose 
 the person peaceable in his conduct, and not doing more to 
 unsettle the minds of other members of the church than is 
 necessary. If he was factious, offence might be taken at his 
 factiousness, but that is not what we are speaking of. 
 
 9. Nevertheless, the liberty here allowed may undoubtedly 
 be carried too far. Abuse of it would consist in continuing 
 members of a church, when that was the greater evil on public 
 principles, though the less on private and interested ones. In 
 early times of Christianity, all intercommunity^ of pagan and 
 Christian rites was utterly unlawful to Christians. And I can- 
 not conceive, that I could conscientiously continue in any 
 church where either Baptism or the Lord’s Supper was wholly^ 
 omitted. Calculations must be formed on particular circum- 
 stances in each case. 
 
 118 10. But, though calculations must be formed chiefly on 
 
 public principles, yet private and temporal evil need not be 
 wholly neglected in them. Religion is intended to oppose the 
 things which are not^ seen to those which are seen, when men 
 are hurried away by unlawful passions ; but, in virtuous pur- 
 suits, it has the ‘‘promise of the life that now as well as 
 
 “ of that which is to come and therefore may be conceived to 
 aim at temporal good, as well as eternal. It is applauded 
 and protected by civil governments, because it makes men just 
 and charitable ; that is, because it has a good effect on men’s 
 property and present convenience : and whatever aims at pre- 
 sent good, must be supposed to avoid present evil. If then 
 you should inhabit a country where you cannot have that 
 worship which to you seems right, or if, having it in some way, 
 
 ^ John vii. 24. 
 
 2 Warb. Div. Leg. Index. Powell, 
 p. 186. Disc. xi. 
 
 ^ Instances will appear of such under 
 
 Art. 27 and 28. Quakers might be just 
 mentioned here. 
 
 4 2 Cor. iv. 18. 
 
 ^ 1 Tim. iv. 8. 
 
 27 2 
 
420 
 
 CHOOSING THE LEAST EVIL. 
 
 [Ill.xi. 11. 
 
 you cannot have it in that perfection in which you might have II. 
 it where it is established, it does not seem necessary that you 
 should remove, and give up your temporal prosperity, or 
 sacrifice the good of a family, on that account. The general 
 principles of religion being the same in most religions, if not in 
 all, you may get some good to your sentiments, affections, mo- 
 tives, if you make the best possible use of any religion. If 
 your property and connections are in Pennsylvania, or in Scot- 
 land, or even in a popish country, it does not seem needful to 
 remove from thence to that country whose religion you most 
 approve. It seems to be taken for granted, that, if you in 
 any degree communicate with a church, you must profess her 
 errors, and partake in her sinful practices ; but this is taken for 
 granted without reason. (See Archbishop Sharp, Sermon i.) 
 There is indeed a difference between attending any church oc- 119 
 casionally, and being a member of it ; but what we have said 
 of the former case will, in some degree, apply to the latter. 
 
 For, wherein do churches chieffy differ from each other? Not in 
 those things which we have mentioned as essentials, but in 
 things above human comprehension \ or in things arbitrary; 
 such are ceremonies, and such, I conceive, are modes of govern- 
 ment. And really a man of an enlarged mind might bring him- 
 self to great compliances, either in one sort or the other. Dr. 
 Powell maintains in his Thesis, with regard to government, 
 that neither the English nor the Scotch form contains any 
 thing repugnant to either the law of nature or the Scriptures. 
 
 And I should be inclined rather to extend than to confine his 
 observation. Bingham observes^, that, though French Pro- 
 testants differ from English in some respects, yet they hold 
 that the Church of England is a safe and rational Church. 
 Now, whatever reduces churches nearer to an equality, gives 
 temporal evil a greater weight in the scale, when a person is 
 deliberating how, in quitting or adhering to a church, he shall 
 fix upon the less evil. 
 
 11. After all, if you are still haunted with scruples and 
 misgivings, pursue your own course ; and see what will be the 
 result. You are discontented with something in your own 
 church : look out for another. Supposing you found one per- 
 fectly to your mind, yet even then you ought not to join it, 
 except the change will compensate for the mischief of schism, 
 
 ^ Chap. iv. sect. 4. and chap. v. sect. 4. I indeed the whole 1st chap, of B. II. of 
 
 - End of vol. II. also p. 723, col. 2; 1 Apology, 
 
Ill.xi. 11.] 
 
 CHOOSING THE LEAST EVIL. 
 
 421 
 
 II and for any accidental inconveniences, such as increase of dis- 
 tance, &c. But the supposition of a church perfectly unex- 
 
 120 ceptionable is not to be admitted. Such perfection is so impro- 
 bable, that, guiding ourselves by experience, we must expect 
 that, if you find any number of errors or faults in your own 
 church, you will find some in other churches ; perhaps as 
 many as in your own, or more. You cannot be consistent in 
 that case, except you quit them all. The question then would 
 be, whether you may quit all religious societies, and worship 
 God in solitude.^ We answer, every thing in the nature of 
 the thing, every thing in the expressions of Scripture, is against 
 such a measure. If you are alone, you lose most of the 
 benefits of religion ; instruction and sympathy wholly ; and 
 association" in a great degree. Even reading and meditation 
 grow either dead or extravagant^ And the pretence is trifling. 
 Nor are you at liberty to act upon it, except you determine 
 also to retire from civil society, and to fix yourself in some 
 desert, or on some uninhabited island, because in monarchies 
 you have found some oppression, in democracies some turbu- 
 lence, and in every form of civil government something incon- 
 sistent with your ideas of perfection. 
 
 In short, the prejudice, that we are not to choose the least 
 evil in spirituals as well as in temporals, is without foundation 
 in reason : it is in effect saying that we must voluntarily pro- 
 mote error and misery, instead of truth and happiness. Per- 
 fection is not to be had ; but at the same time that we choose a 
 small evil in some respects, we may get great good in others. 
 In conducting things in human life, we continually use expe- 
 dients in which we see some imperfection ; because by them we 
 
 121 avoid some great inconvenience, or attain some considerable 
 good. What is hereditary succession, especially in kings, but 
 an expedient of this sort ? And as to ecclesiastical matters, we 
 have already instanced in adopting tacit reformations instead 
 of express ones, and in using homilies® instead of sermons, 
 when good sermons cannot be expected ; and, on the same 
 principle, we should choose the religious society to which we 
 will belono;. 
 
 The conclusion, which I once made in Lectures on Mo- 
 
 ^ Chap. iii. 
 
 ^ See Dr. Balguy, p. 90. Then a man 
 should act so that, if other men followed 
 his example, the general good would be 
 
 promoted. 
 
 ® Chap. V. sect. 5 and 0. chap. ix. 
 sect. 6. See also Rutherforth’g Charges, 
 
 p.l. 
 
422 
 
 ASSENT TO ARTICLES 
 
 [III. xii. 1, 2. 
 
 rality, may be adopted here. Be of the established religion, II 
 when it is not intolerably at variance with your opinions ; when 
 it is, be of that, ceteris paribus, from which you differ least — 
 which you can join with the least disturbance to the minds of 
 other men, with the least interruption of any thing that is use- 
 ful: but be of any religion rather than noneh 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 122 
 
 OF THE ASSENT OF THE CLERGY, TO ARTICLES OF RELIGION, 
 
 AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THAT OF THE LAITY. 
 
 1. Such are the liberties in giving assent to articles of re- 
 ligion, arising from the nature of human affairs. Another 
 liberty is sometimes claimed, founded on this question : Have 
 not the laiUj more liberty, in assenting to forms of doctrine, 
 than the clergy ? is not the assent of those, who are taught, to 
 be considered in a different light from that of those, who are 
 qualified to teach ? Some persons have made such a dis- 
 tinction, and it seems worthy of notice. 
 
 Lucifer of Cagliari, about the middle of the fourth century, 
 and his followers'” “were willing to receive the laity who 
 came over from the Arians, upon renouncing their error ; but 
 they would not consent that bishops, who had complied with 
 the Arians, should be received as such. They might, upon 
 returning to the Catholics, be received as laymen, but they 
 were not any more to officiate in the church.” “ This occa- 
 sioned a schism^.” 
 
 Bishop Burnet, in his Introduction to his Exposition of 
 the 39 Articles^, says, “ As to the laity, and the whole body 
 of the people, certainly to them these are only the Articles of 
 Church-communion ; so that every person who does not think 
 that there is some proposition in them that is erroneous to so 
 high a degree, that he cannot hold communion with such as hold 123 
 it, may and is obliged to continue in our communion.” 
 
 2. There seems to be no doubt but there is some difference 
 between clergy and laity, as to subscribing or assenting to arti- 
 
 * Dr. Balguy, p. 258. ^ Lardner’s Works, vol. vi. p. 372, 
 
 3 P. 7, 8vo. 
 
III. xii. 3, 4.] 
 
 BY THE CLERGY AND LAITY. 
 
 423 
 
 II. cles of religion; but the nature of that difference may occasion 
 some doubt. The question seems to be, whether it is a differ- 
 ence in kind or only in degree. It appears to me rather of the 
 latter sort ; but our best method will be, to examine the princi- 
 pal things in which we see the difference consist. From such 
 an examination the nature of the difference will best appear. If 
 we find that, in some cases, the assent is exactly the same, and 
 in others the difference can be accounted for, without having 
 recourse to different kinds of assent, the conclusion will be, that 
 the assent differs only in degree. 
 
 3. One difference between clergy and laity is, that all the 
 clergy give a solemn assent to a body of doctrines, and only part 
 of the laity ; so that many laymen never assent expressly at all. 
 Nor is this peculiar to any one country. The reason of the dif- 
 ference is general, and lies in the ends or purposes for which 
 assent is required. The end of assent or subscription in the 
 clergy is, that there may be unity of doctrine, or teaching ; all 
 being teachers, all must subscribe : but the design of assent in 
 the laity is only to prevent competitions^, cabals, animosities, 
 &c. when power or authority is used to favour opposite parties. 
 Therefore only those laymen need assent to established doctrine 
 who are entrusted with authority. Others seem to be concern- 
 ed with it only as it is taught to them. Thus, a private man 
 may pass his whole life without once solemnly declaring his 
 opinions, and they therefore may continue unknown. It may 
 124 indeed be said, that the mere declaration, or subscription, 
 makes no difference to an honest man. Whether called upon 
 or not, he will think himself bound to comply with the laws of 
 his society, or to withdraw from it. In some cases this idea is 
 very proper and pertinent, but not in the present ; as a man 
 may perhaps obey all laws without declaring his opinion. Good 
 governors will not require an unity of opinion, except where 
 they are obliged to it ; and therefore, when they do not require 
 it, any man may conclude that it is not necessary, and that it 
 is not expected ; nor will there be any grounds for thinking it 
 is tacitly engaged for. 
 
 4. Another difference between clergy and laity is, that, 
 when the laity do subscribe, or give a solemn assent, they are 
 not conceived to have so distinct an understanding of the doc- 
 trines they assent to as the clergy. More doctrines are to them 
 upon the footing of unintelligible doctrines; and, on that ac- 
 
 ^ Chap. V. sect. G. 
 
424 
 
 ASSENT TO ARTICLES. 
 
 [III. xii. 5, 6. 
 
 count, they have greater liberty. When a man’s occupation, II 
 be it bodily labour, or science, or government, prevents him 
 from understanding a doctrine, that doctrine should be, humanly 
 speaking, called unintelligible. Not that he is allowed to be 
 insincere, or careless. He is to judge as well as he can, partly 
 from grounds and reasons, and partly from the authority of 
 others ; and such judgment as he does form he ought to declare 
 sincerely. The difference here stated is a difference in degree 
 only ; for the same difference is allowed amongst different ranks 
 of clergy^. If we begin from the child repeating his creed^, 
 and rise through all higher orders, the assent keeps constantly 
 varying, but only in degree. This it does, though one form of 
 words is used by all who give their assent. 
 
 5. When we speak of men as prevented by occupations 12 
 from seeing minutely the nature of religious doctrines, we only 
 speak in general : there may be some individuals who have op- 
 portunities of knowing as much of religion as professed divines^. 
 When these men subscribe to articles of religion, they seem to 
 subscribe exactly on the same footing with clergy. In what 
 would the assent of Mr. Locke ^ Lord Lyttelton, Mr. Nelson, 
 Mr. Boyle, Sir Isaac Newton, or Mr. West, differ from that 
 
 of a clergyman ? in nothing that I can see. Yet here the dif- 
 ference of assent must continue, if it depended only on clergy 
 and laity. The reason which Dr. Powell gives for the sub- 
 scription of the clergy, might be extended to the laity It 
 cannot be imagined, on a footing of probability or experience, 
 that magistrates (and laymen only subscribe when they are 
 such) Avould encourage, or even protect, the favourers of opi- 
 nions which they did not favour themselves, or at least believe 
 so far as not to reject or disapprove them ; supposing magis- 
 trates to enter fully into the grounds of such opinions. 
 
 6. The last difference between clergy and laity that I 
 shall mention is, that of the effect of a given disapprobation of 
 the doctrines of any church. Suppose Mr. Locke dissented 
 from the Church of England in six points, and his antagonist, 
 the Bishop of Worcester, in the same number; though their 
 declaration of opinion would be of the same nature, the effect of 
 their dissent might be different. Each of them is to choose the 
 least evil ; but, supposing the prelate uneasy about his six 
 points, he might find it the least evil to quit the ministry ; and 
 
 ^ I>ook III. chap. X. sect. II. 1 Book II. chap, iv. sect. 4. 
 
 2 Powell, pp. 40, 41. 1 ^ Powell, p. 33. 
 
III. xiii. 1.] 
 
 ASSENTING AND CONFORMING. 
 
 425 
 
 II. yet Mr. Locke might not find it the least evil to quit the Church. 
 
 126 Or, what comes to the same thing, the bishop might quit the 
 ministry, and yet continue in the church. He who quits the 
 ministry only quits an occupation ; and, if he is diligent, may 
 find another. He who quits the church may find it impossible 
 to meet with another which will answer his purpose ; or at least 
 may be put to very great inconvenience, if he attempts it. As 
 a clergyman, a person lives under the condition of his subscrip- 
 tion ; and, if he would not subscribe at any time, he does not 
 at that time lawfully hold that which, without subscribing, he 
 could not have acquired ; but the layman may retire, so as never 
 to subscribe again, and may live in that situation for which sub- 
 scription would never have been required. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ASSENTING AND 
 DETERMINING TO CONFORM. 
 
 1. The last liberty, which has been claimed, turns, in 
 some sort, upon the distinction now mentioned. Burnet claims 
 it for the (as we have seen), but some claim it even for the 
 clergy. He however refuses it to teachers of religion^ Accord- 
 ing to our account, in the preceding chapter, they are reduced 
 to one; but we now must have the clergy chiefly in view. 
 What is said may be easily applied to laity, if occasion should 
 require it. Bingham says (Apology, Book II. chap. i. or 
 Works, vol. II. p. 723 ,) “What is meant by subscription to ar- 
 ticles of our Church, is not exactly agreed by those that sub- 
 scribe them. Some take them only for articles of peace; and 
 they by subscription mean no more than this, that they will so 
 far own and submit to them as not publicly to dissent from 
 them, or teach any doctrine that is contrary to any thing con- 
 tained in them. This seems to have been the judgment of 
 Archbishop Bramhall^ Bishop Fowlei\ and others. But gene- 
 rally, subscription is considered in a stricter sense ; as imply- 
 ing a declaration of our own opinion^ and not as a bare obliga- 
 tion to silence only : and this seems rather to have been the in- 
 tent and meaning of the Church.'’ 
 
 ® Introd, to Articles, p. 7, Cvo. 
 
426 
 
 ASSENTING AND CONFORMING. [III. xiii. 2, 3. 
 
 In order to explain more fully the nature of our present II. 
 distinction, we may suppose a clergyman, or one about to enter 
 into the ministry, to say in his own mind. Articles of religion 128 
 are intended to produce unity in teaching; and assenting to 
 them answers no other purpose ; if then I determine to preach 
 only established doctrines, what does it signify whether I be- 
 lieve them or not ? A man might wish to adopt such reasoning, 
 particularly if he found himself only half satisfied about some 
 points ; and he might confirm himself in it by saying, that his 
 opinion was a matter of little consequence. The church profes- 
 sed the points ; that is, a set of learned and able men believed 
 them : whether such an insignificant individual as he did, was 
 .not worth inquiring. 
 
 2. Now, though it is self-evident, it may be worth while 
 to observe, that, if it were allowed by the particular laws of any 
 church to promise compliance, instead of professing opinions, 
 sincerity would not be violated by a person’s promising to teach 
 that of which he was not well satisfied. It is worth while to 
 observe this, because there is an appearance of duplicity or in- 
 sincerity in such conduct, in teaching doctrines and performing 
 ceremonies which you do not approve ; and there are limits 
 which ought not to be exceeded, in teaching and acting contrary 
 to our opinions. No man ought to promise to teach any thing 
 contrary to what he esteems fundamental principles of natural 
 or revealed religion; or inconsistent with men’s being ‘‘careful 
 to maintain good works b” 
 
 3. The principal thing which seems wanting, in some who 
 mention this subject, is, attention to different situations. It is 
 one thing to make laws, another to obey them. If we are in a 
 council of those who are making laws for the government of a 
 church, we may urge, let not needless restraints be imposed: 129 
 if it appears that teachers will faithfully teach none but esta- 
 blished doctrines, and will teach them with zeal, and diligence, 
 and unanimity, let them not be pressed to define and declare 
 minutely their opinions ; but, if it seems probable that they 
 will not confine themselves to .established doctrines, or that, if 
 they do, they will be remiss in teaching them ; still more, if 
 different teachers seem likely to enter into disputes^ about the 
 doctrines they teach, no remedy seems adequate to such a dis- 
 order but having men of the same opinion ; not in every thing, 
 
 ^ Tit. iii. 8. The essentials of a Christian church were mentioned chap. xi. sect. 4, 
 
 Chap. V. sect. (i. 
 
III. xiii. 4, 5.] ASSENTING AND CONFORMING. 
 
 427 
 
 II. but in all things which distinguish and separate one church from 
 another. I may say this in this place, because it seems wanted ; 
 though it more properly belongs to chap. v. 
 
 4. But, whatever might be right in a council of legislators, 
 yet, when a law is made, and continues in force, it is to be 
 obeyed ; and that is properly the situation which we now sup- 
 pose. If then a law exists requiring assent to certain doctrines, 
 or agreement in opinion, we now inquire, whether a man’s ho- 
 nest intention to teach the doctrines faithfully will excuse 
 his want of believing them. When all has been recollected 
 which has been said about unintelligible doctrines, and all the 
 liberties allowed, which have been explained in this Book, 
 we maintain, that such intention will 7iot be sufficient with- 
 out such belief as will remain after all those liberties have 
 been taken. 
 
 In order to see the ground of this assertion, we observe, 
 that assent is required as a means of maintaining unity of doc- 
 trine, and as a security that it shall not be infringed. Dr. 
 Powell’s^ manner of expressing this has been already men- 
 tioned. We will consider the notions of means and security 
 ISO separately; though certainly a security might be ranked amongst 
 means. 
 
 5. When certain means of answering any end are fixed 
 upon by authority, private judgment ought not to aim at an- 
 swering that end without those means. For wisdom is as much 
 shewn in fixing upon good means as in aiming at good ends ; 
 nay, there are many who could perceive certain ends to be 
 good and useful, and desirable, who could do very little to- 
 wards attaining those ends ; that is, towards inventing proper 
 means, and rendering them efficacious in practice. It is there- 
 fore great rashness and presumption to alter fixed means. By 
 such indiscretion, the best ends may be frustrated ; and, conse- 
 quently, authority is as much to be obeyed in respect to means 
 as to end. But this is particularly to be observed when the 
 person principally concerned is much prejudiced or interested; 
 he who is to obey might better be trusted to alter any means 
 for others than for himself. If you entrust a matter of con- 
 sequence to any one, you wish to see how he is qualified. It is 
 not enough for him to say, “ I will take care.” You want to 
 know what reason he has to be confident ; how he has been 
 brought up ; what experience he has had ; but, above all, what 
 
 ^ Chap. V. sect. 2. 
 
428 
 
 i\SSENTING AND CONFORMING. 
 
 [III. xiii. 6, 7. 
 
 turn or disposition^ he has for the kind of undertaking — what II. 
 his habitual tastes, feelings, opinions are. On these you ground 
 your hopes of success ; and, if he has no turn for the thing, if 
 his notions run in a different channel, you dare not trust to his 
 mere industry^ and sense of duty. When a task is irksome, 
 it seems drudgery ; and every opportunity is taken of evading 131 
 it, even, it is to be feared, by those who profess to follow the 
 dictates of duty. 
 
 6. In like manner, we may observe, that, when a certain 
 security is fixed upon by authority, it ought not to be neglect- 
 ed, under pretence that the danger may be otherwise avoided. 
 
 It has been owned, that a pledge or security for the perform- 
 ance of any covenant is one of the means of getting it per- 
 formed ; but yet it seems worth some distinct consideration. 
 
 Put the case, that a man left his fortune to his son, on con- 
 dition that he gave a bond of 500 /. to an old servant to pay him 
 an annuity for life of 50 /. a year^: the son would not satisfy his 
 father’s will, by determining to pay the annuity ; he must also 
 give the bond ; if he does not give that particular security he is 
 not in justice entitled to his fortune. He who presumes that 
 he may neglect his promise of that agreement of opinion, on 
 which the Church depends chiefly for the performance of the 
 pastoral duty, cannot consistently require a promissory note or 
 legal receipt for any sum which he pays. 
 
 7- It follows from what has been said, that, while articles 
 of faith exist, any one who is lawfully called to assent to them 
 must, in strictness of duty, not only determine to act regularly, 
 but to declare his real opinion. It must not however be for- 
 gotten, that the true intent and meaning of all engagements 
 and promises depends on the sense in which they are understood 
 by those to whom they are made. If, therefore, the Church 
 shows any marks of change in action or measures, it may be 
 presumed that it makes some change in the security which it 
 requires. If they grow remiss about certain doctrines being 132 
 taught, he may be the less nice about his opinion of such 
 doctrines. 
 
 And, though certain doctrines were not given up, yet, if it 
 
 ^ Inquiries like the following are al- 
 ways esteemed proper, or even necessary : 
 If any one desires to be a sailor, does he 
 relish a seafaring life ? if to be a groom, 
 does he like horses ? if to be a nurse, 
 does she like children ? if to be a poct- 
 
 laureat, has he a Uirn for poetry ? and 
 so on. 
 
 2 This was a bequest of a person to 
 whom I was executor ; and I insisted on 
 the bond. 
 
III. xiii. 8.] ASSENTING AND CONFORMING. 
 
 429 
 
 1 1, appear that some change has happened, which makes it evidently 
 less needful for the Church to require security^ it may be fairly 
 presumed that less security is required ; and therefore, during 
 such change, those opinions which relate to it need be less 
 strictly examined ; for the opinions are the security. Certain 
 doctrines of a church may be opposed to some particular 
 heresy; that heresy ceases; though the church continues to 
 profess the same doctrines, yet it does not so much want them 
 to be taught, nor therefore does it want so much security that 
 they will be taught. But these changes only affect men’s assent, 
 or the necessity of their settling their opinions ; they do not 
 affect the determination to conform ; nothing relaxes that deter- 
 mination, though conformity may vary in some particulars. 
 
 Again. It has been laid^ down, that, if ministers would all 
 be regular, and unanimously teach the established doctrine, 
 and this could be depended on beforehand, there need be no 
 articles of religion made. If, therefore, a general spirit of sub- 
 mission to rule and order shews itself, where they have been 
 made for a length of time, the church must be presumed to ap- 
 proach nearer and nearer to that disposition in ^ which they 
 w'ould have made none; and, whenever the church shows itself 
 at ease about security, the clergy may be less nice about their 
 opinions ; these being, as before, the security. 
 
 8. It must not however be thought that any relaxation, 
 remissness, or indulgence, in a church, can justify any attempts 
 133 against its welfare. The moment any clergyman thinks of 
 acting the part of an enemy, the old security becomes necessary, 
 and therefore all the original strictness of obligation revives. 
 Opinions must be professed, and no want of attention to them 
 can be presumed. 
 
 To make use of any appearance of indulgence, so as to do 
 harm to him who is inclined to shew it, and so as to neglect his 
 rights, is both unjust and ungenerous. Would any one think 
 of justifying a servant who received wages of his master, 
 and betrayed him ? especially if, besides paying his regular 
 stipend, his master placed confidence in him the master’s 
 being an individual or a society can make no difference. Con- 
 fidence may give liberty, as to particular means; but it ought 
 to make the end more certainly to be depended on ; otherwise 
 he who is trusted is doubly blamable — for breach of fidelity, 
 and for breach of confidence. 
 
 ^ Chap. V. sect. 5, 
 
430 
 
 THE CIVIL MAGISTKATE 
 
 [Ill.xiv. 1. 
 
 I have already produced some passages of Dr. Balguy to II. 
 our present purposed 
 
 Bishop Burnet agrees in opinion^. He also lays down 
 the distinction, though somewhat faintly, between making laws 
 and obeying them. 
 
 Bingham only mentions^ the two different ways of engaging 
 to obey the laws of the Church. He gives the same judgment 
 that we do, though with great moderation ; but, as he only re- 
 marks by the way, he does not enter into the difference arising 
 from a law having or not having been made. 
 
 Bishop Law^ confines himself wholly to the business of 
 legislation, as indeed his subject naturally led him to do. He 134 
 does not seem to allow that any case can justify requiring a 
 declaration of opinion ; and in that he contradicts what little 
 we have said on that part of the subject. As he gives no 
 reasons, our arguments remain in full force. Dr. Balguy, in his 
 admirable Charge^ has in view the making of laws ; not, what 
 is our principal point, the nature of obedience. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 135 
 
 OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE, 
 
 AS INFLUENCING RELIGIOUS SOCIETY. 
 
 1. Nothing has hitherto been said, in treating of religious 
 society, about the civil Magistrate. He is not indeed essential 
 to religious society ; yet his influence upon it is so powerful, 
 and has occasioned so many disputes, (which are still very 
 warm,) that he must not be passed over. 
 
 Hitherto religious society has been considered simply in it- 
 self. Every society is carried on by a common understanding; 
 and the modes by which it attains its ends must be prescribed 
 by laws. Ecclesiastical society can have no power but over 
 the minds of its members; nor can that power be enforced any 
 other way than by expulsion, or excommunication. There 
 may be trials, sentences, censures, punishments, in such society; 
 
 ^ Chap. V. sect. (J. 
 
 2 Introd. p. 7, dvo. 
 
 2 See the passage beginning of chap, 
 xiii. 
 
 ^ Considerations on the Propriety of 
 requiring a Subscription to Articles of 
 Faith, p. 23. 
 
 ® Charge V. 
 
III. Xiv. 2.] AS INFLUENCING EELIGION. 
 
 431 
 
 II. but they must all be submitted to, as being less evils than 
 excommunication. The obligations to submit arise from the 
 benefits of the kind of society ; and the evils of being® excluded 
 from it, both to the individual and to the public, make it every 
 one’s duty to submit to every thing which can possibly be rea- 
 sonable, rather than bring on an exclusion. Whatever alter- 
 
 136 ations a church may happen to undergo, through the influence 
 of civil power, this notion of it is always to be kept in mind. 
 But to enter on the perilous subject. When we say the civil 
 magistrate, we mean that person, or those persons, be they few 
 or many, in whom the power of the state is vested. 
 
 2. The civil magistrate cannot be supposed to overlook or 
 neglect religion : it is very powerful, both in doing good and 
 harm to civil communities. This has been always so evident, 
 that no mao’istrate was ever^ known who did not establish some 
 
 O 
 
 religion or other. A magistrate, as a magistrate, is not to be 
 supposed to prefer any one on account of truth, but utility. 
 His view is to benefit the state; and therefore he must fix on 
 that society which will be most advantageous to the state ; that 
 is, generally speaking, on the largest^ though some doctrines 
 are better suited to civil government than others®. If it seems 
 strange that regard should not be paid to truths we must con- 
 sider that the difference between religious societies consists 
 generally in things mysterious, or things arbitrary®; that a 
 mere statesman will not be nice about either ; and if he is, it is 
 in his private capacity, of which we here take no account ; and 
 moreover, that great harm has arisen from a magistrate’s being 
 supposed to encourage opinions as truths, or discourage them 
 as errors. He, in his civil capacity, is no judge of such things: 
 he is only to encourage what will be useful to the state, and 
 discourage what will be hurtful*®. Opinions of dissenters 
 
 137 should be regarded (so long as they are harmless) as equally 
 true with opinions of members of the established Church. 
 One may conceive a justice of peace, with us, to say, in any 
 dispute, to a dissenter, ‘ whatever I may think of your notions, 
 you are as much under the protection of the law as any other 
 
 Chap. xi. sect. 2. 
 
 ^ Warb. All. Append, p. 5. 
 
 ® See Dr. Balguy’s 5th Charge, p. 2fi5. 
 ^ Chap. xi. sect. 10. 
 
 It would be better (according to 
 chap. xii. sect. G) that magistrates should 
 really favour established opinions, when 
 
 they come to be established; but we are 
 now speaking of fiociiuj uqwn a religion, 
 in order to establish it. In practice^ the 
 religion would often precede the election 
 of magistrates : they would be elected so 
 as to suit it. 
 
432 
 
 THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE 
 
 [III. xiv. 3, 4. 
 
 subject can be. When I act as a private man, I go to another II. 
 religious assembly rather than your'’s, but, when I act as a 
 magistrate, all stand before me on an equal footing, as far as 
 regards mere opinion.’ Were it not so men might be properly 
 said to be persecuted for opinion. Such persecution is always 
 unjust. 
 
 3. But let us more particularly consider how religion may 
 be a powerful friend^ or enemy ^ to the magistrate or state. 
 
 Religion makes the magistrate to be respected ; sets him in 
 the light of a sacred character : it affords him the sanction of 
 oaths; it gives his subjects such motives of action as no civil 
 expedients could give ; makes them do what he would wish to 
 be done, through the belief of an omniscient Being, perpetually 
 present, who will reward and punish beyond any assignable 
 limits — a Being whom they may love with great warmth of 
 affection, whom they may fear to any degree. From these mo- 
 tives good actions arise, which no civil law can enforce or even 
 describe, much less reward; and bad actions are avoided, which 
 no civil law could punish. Thus religion supplies every de- 
 fect of civil government, and transfers to the magistrate even 
 the power of the Supreme Being himself. 
 
 Religion may also be a powerful enemy to the magistrate. 
 
 It sometimes acts so violently as to overpower all human re- 138 
 sistance. When men fancy themselves inspired by God, they 
 fear nothing that man can do unto them ; and though religion, 
 when well regulated, aims to promote virtue, yet it can, in its 
 disordered state, perform the worst services of vice, and effect 
 the most dreadful mischiefsk And, though religion should not 
 attack the magistrate, or act in direct opposition to him, yet, 
 if it only agitates different sects, and exasperates them against 
 each other, it will make all regular government impracticable. 
 
 4. Religion then cannot be a thing indifferent to a magis- 
 trate. If he has but one society in his dominions, he will 
 regulate it ; but, if he has several, his conduct may require 
 consideration. What we say is, that he should make an alli- 
 ance with the most powerful, (except its tenets are some way 
 particularly unfavourable to government) ; or, to use the com- 
 mon term, should make it the Establishment ; should protect, 
 encourage it, as his ally; and leave the rest as they were — 
 independent^ secure^ capable of every religious act of which 
 they were capable before the alliance. In order that they 
 
 ' Tantum relligio potuit suaderc malorum.— 
 
Ill.xiv. 5.] 
 
 AS INFLUENCING RELIGION. 
 
 433 
 
 II. should be so, he must take care that no one interrupts them 
 with impunity : they still consist of subjects, who ought to be 
 protected in their religious acts, as well as in their agricul- 
 ture and commerce. This protection has usually amongst us 
 the name of toleration ; a term which might not have been 
 used, if, in fact, it had not been preceded by prohibition of 
 religious acts interfering with the universality of the establish- 
 ment. 
 
 When religions are tolerated, it is supposed that they do no 
 
 139 harm to the civil constitution. If their tenets are such as to 
 have a strong tendency to injure that, it would be perfectly 
 just for the magistrate to defend himself against them by re- 
 straints suited to particular occasions, or even to banish them^ 
 But he will generally forbear to do that, in as great a degree 
 as he dare, till the danger is near. During such forbearance 
 such hurtful sects are not said to be tolerated. Connivance^ 
 is applied to them, rather than toleration. 
 
 5. But farther, we would affirm, that, wherever there is an 
 established religion, there the magistrate has made an alliance 
 with that religion ; and, from the nature and terms of that 
 alliance, all their relative duties must be derived. 
 
 Has made an alliance ! you will say — fanciful and visionary ! 
 nothing is more clear than that, in fact, no such alliance 
 was ever made : what right can any one have to use such 
 language ? This we will endeavour to shew. 
 
 Men acquire their knowledge gradually, by experience. 
 The first attempts are almost in the dark ; they feel after it, 
 if haply ^ they may find it, and they find a little here and a 
 little there, encumbered with error or perplexity at first, though 
 afterwards it gets cleared away. When they have acquired a 
 good deal, they can look back, and see how they could have 
 acquired it better. This is the case in acquiring notions of 
 an useful intercourse amongst men, as well as in other things. 
 One man gets power over another, at first a little too much ; 
 some is taken away, then he has rather too little ; it vibrates 
 for a while, and then settles in the right point. Retrospect 
 shews by what method or plan this might have been settled 
 sooner, or from the first. When this is seen, the only right 
 
 140 conduct must be, to act after this plan; and to conceive it to 
 have been all along agreed upon. In truth, it is valid and 
 
 * Balguy, Charge III. | ^ Acts xvii. 27. See Parkhurst’s Lex- 
 
 * Warb. Alliance, pp. 304, 312. 1 icon, under 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 28 
 
434 
 
 THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE 
 
 [III. xiv. 6. 
 
 obligatory. What ought to have been always^ ought to be II, 
 now : to make it obligatory now is only to waive all advan- 
 tage from the ignorance of those who have been gradually 
 learnino* what ouffht to be done^. 
 
 This reasoning may be applied to the ciml compact between 
 magistrate and subject. By long experience it is found out 
 (in good measure perhaps) what they ought to have stipulated 
 at first, had they known their own interests. Such stipulation 
 is supposed to have taken place, and questions are decided by 
 it. As to past facts, this may be considered as a supposition, 
 but it is all founded on experience — on practice, and not on 
 theory. If any disputes arise about what ought to have been 
 originally stipulated, they can only be decided by referring to 
 the general good of mankind^. 
 
 The same reasoning may be applied to the alliance which 
 we suppose to have been made between church and state. 
 
 The magistrate would never, in fact, leave religion entirely 
 to itself. He would interfere with it more than he ought ; then 
 the church would declare its divine^ origin, and claim inde- 141 
 pende nee ; and so on, till it appeared what kind of agreement 
 ought to have been made, and then that would be supposed 
 to have been always in force. The supposition should decide 
 all particular questions ; though some inconveniences and im- 
 perfections might remain ; of which it could only be said, they 
 must be put up with ; they are the least evil. Bishop War- 
 burton’s supposition of an alliance seems to answer this descrip- 
 tion, and therefore on that we may proceed. 
 
 6. It is not to be supposed that an alliance was made with 
 advantages only on one side. We have mentioned only the 
 benefits received by the magistrate ; but the church receives 
 protection and encouragement. The worldly advantages to the 
 ministers are apt to be reckoned great advantages ; but I would 
 chiefly consider those which enable religious society to pursue 
 and accomplish its peculiar ends. Rational religion can only 
 
 * This is something of an hypothesis, 
 but rather differs from tiiat about ridicule 
 in the 2d Book (chap. Hi. sect. 5). 
 That accounts for phenomena of nature ; 
 this for things contrived by art of man. 
 
 2 In recapitulating this, .Jan. 31, 1794, 
 I supposed two persons, one higher and 
 better informed than the other, to go to- 
 gether into the interior parts of Africa ; 
 not knowing what stipulations to make 
 
 with each other before they set out, but 
 only agreeing, that, when they came to 
 know by experience what agreement they 
 ought to have made, they would treat one 
 another as if it had been made from the 
 beginning. Would this be mere theory 9 
 ^ Ou yap Ti (Toi ^(o SobXo9, dWd 
 Ao^ia — Soph. (Ed. Tyr. 418. 
 
 I am Apollo’s servant, and not thine. 
 Franklin. 
 
III. xiv. 7, 8.] 
 
 AS INFLUENCING RELIGION. 
 
 435 
 
 II. bud and blossom in a calm ; storms cut off all its vegetation; 
 and yet religious society (as such) can in no degree secure it- 
 self. It is a great thing to be able to pursue improvement 
 of the understanding and the heart ; to have all aids of uni- 
 versities and books for the first, and of buildings, embellish- 
 ments, refinements, for the latter ; to have leisure, liberal con- 
 versation, &c. Sec. The church also borrows a coercive power 
 from the state, for the sake of more effectually promoting 
 good morals. Religious society has no such power. It has 
 a power of excommunication ; but even that is different from 
 such as takes place when the state accompanies it with tem- 
 poral penalties. 
 
 7 . Now this seems to be properly the whole of the subject. 
 Many other things have been added about it, but they all 
 must be referred to what has now been said. It will, how- 
 
 j 4^ ever, be proper to mention a few of them, particularly as they 
 have occasioned disputes. 
 
 The supremacy^ or the king being the head of the church, 
 has occasioned disputes. I use king in the same sense as ma- 
 gistrate, and only use it at all because it is familiar to us of 
 this nation. All society is meant to reduce many to one ; so 
 therefore must alliance. There must be one head : the only 
 question can be, whether it must be king or priest. The king 
 being able to protect both, the priest to protect neither, the 
 question seems determined^ It does not, however, follow that 
 the king ever acts as minister in religious assemblies. He is not 
 qualified: he is better occupied for the common good. It is not 
 in that way that the church have need of him, or have desired 
 his alliance. 
 
 8. The maintenance of the established clergy has also 
 occasioned disputes. When the magistrate allies himself to a 
 church, he must wish to make the ministers of the church re- 
 spected. If his government is a democracy, the ministers need 
 not have much distinction, for that purpose ; but, if it is a 
 monarchy, with a nobility of different ranks, it will be neces- 
 sary to raise some clergy to each of those ranks ; otherwise 
 there would be some subjects who would treat in a contemptu- 
 ous manner the whole body of clergy ; and affectation of the 
 manners of the great would make their example hurtful. Be- 
 sides these dignitaries, there should be other ranks, correspond- 
 ing to the several ranks of subjects ; so that each rank of lay- 
 
 ^ Warb. All. p. 20(>. Dr. Balguy, p. 101. 
 
 28 — 2 
 
436 
 
 THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE 
 
 [III. xiv. 9. 
 
 men should have some clergy whom they should respect; and II 
 that should be effected with as little expence to the nation as 
 might be. I am speaking of respect as paid to worldly conse- 143 
 quenceh It is so in fact ; and provision should be made accord- 
 ing to fact, whatever ought to prevail. We may add, that a 
 seat amongst legislators is due to the church in some degree ; 
 otherwise there would be no alliance^ but an annihilation of 
 the church. 
 
 But the most dangerous question is, who should pay this 
 expence? the answer must be, the subjects. What? dissenters? 
 those who are separated from the established church ? and have 
 teachers of their own to pay ? yes, so it should seem ; for they 
 pay towards the support of the established ministers as sub- 
 jects — towards the support of that which supports government. 
 
 Its being a religious support misleads the judgment, but that 
 is merely accidental. All must contribute to it, as to an army 
 or navy. If sectaries contributed nothing it would be a power- 
 ful temptation to all to quit the established church ; and one 
 which would not fail to thin it very soon. 
 
 But, do not the teachers of sects support government by 
 supporting the general principles of religion and morality? 
 why should not taxes, &c. levied on dissenters be paid to them ? 
 
 The answer is, whatever is paid to teachers by means of taxes is 
 paid by the magistrate; and, if the magistrate pays all religions, 
 how is he allied to one? If he supports all societies, they become 
 all political in some degree : he leaves none as merely religious. 
 
 In that case he supports^ opposite religions, hurtful religions, 
 and religions subversive of his own authority ; for the plea ex- 
 tends to religions. Such a measure would occasion com- 144 
 petition for the higher offices; and generate disturbances, which 
 would defeat the ends of religious society. 
 
 9. The independence of the Church has occasioned dis- 
 pute. Our idea is, the Church is, in itself independent ; that 
 is, before any alliance takes place ; and therefore each church is 
 independent which is only tolerated. But, though one man may 
 be independent of another, he is not therefore at liberty to in- 
 jure him ; so no tolerated church has a right to interfere with 
 
 1 Poverty is a great temptation to un- 
 manly submission, which would occasion 
 contempt — Titus ii. 15. 
 
 2 Dr. Balguy, Charge V. 
 
 " Plow would it be if the experiment 
 were tried of taxing every congregation 
 
 to pay its own ministers ? Care must be 
 taken, in that case, to check payment of 
 those that taught hurtful doctrines, or 
 doctrines subversive of civil government. 
 VV’’ould that be practicable % who could 
 judge in such matters? 
 
Ill.xiv. 10.] 
 
 AS INFLUENCING RELIGION. 
 
 437 
 
 II. or endanger the safety of the state. An established church, by 
 alliance, gives its power into the hand of the magistrate, and 
 becomes dependent^ (as Ireland may be on England,) but does 
 not lose all its rights. It is dependent for the purposes of the 
 alliance, and no farther. The alliance may be called perpetual, 
 because no duration is specified, no limit is fixed ; but it is 
 revocable'^, if the conditions are not observed on which it was 
 made. Failure of protection makes void allegiance. 
 
 Easy as this seems, many mistakes have been made about 
 it. Some have held the Church to be always independent, be- 
 cause it was so before the alliance. The Papists and Puritans^ 
 though opposed in most things, both hold this. It is said to be 
 held in theory by the Church of Scotland. 
 
 Some, seeing the church governed by the magistrate, and 
 useful for political purposes, have called it a creature of the 
 state; and have thought of governing it merely with political 
 views not with any religious ones. One would not think that 
 any considerate man could deny that every religion must spring 
 up of itself. Did the magistrate invent the notion of deities, 
 and get men to teach his notion to the common people, as you 
 145 talk to a child of a bugbear? did the magistrate invent enthu- 
 siasm and superstition? above all, did the magistrate invent the 
 Christian religion ? which made its way to the imperial throne, 
 in spite of all the opposition which magistrates could make to it? 
 And, if a church had a being of itself, it must have rights and 
 ends of its own., which certainly should be consulted as well as 
 the rights and benefits of a state®. The Jews had a perfect 
 incorporation of church and state ; for such is a theocracy ; but 
 their case was singular. 
 
 10. Lastly. Tests have occasioned many controversies’. A 
 test is an action, or declaration, from which it can be concluded 
 that a man is a member of the established church. The word 
 may mean any trial or criterion ; and, even when applied to es- 
 tablishments, it may mean an evidence given by any person that 
 he is of the established church ; but it most usually means such 
 an evidence when given by one who is about to take upon him- 
 self some authority. The general intention of such evidence 
 has been mentioned before ^ It is to prevent contentions be- 
 
 ^ Warb. Alliance, p. 287. ' change the doctrines. It might ally itself 
 
 ^ See Warb. Alliance, p. 28. to a new church. 
 
 ® Our state has no right to make the ^ Chap. v. sect. 8, Chap. xii. sect. 8. 
 king Archbishop of Canterbury, or to | 
 
438 
 
 THE CIVIL MAGISTIIATK 
 
 [III. xiv. 10. 
 
 tween those in power, arising either from rivalships about II. 
 worldly grandeur, or from presumption that a certain religion is 
 the only one that can be deemed pure and perfect. Tests make 
 a part of the plan which divides the religions in one nation into 
 the established and the tolerated ; and they contribute to the 
 peace aimed at by that plan, though they occasion some murmur- 
 ings and discontents. They give security to church and state 
 at the same time; for, as all dissenters make a common cause, 
 they must overturn the established church if they could get into 
 power; and, if they overturned the church, they would throw 146 
 the state into disorder. It must be better for the state to have 
 those in power use all their power in government, than to have 
 them use a good deal of it in trying to defeat one another. The 
 church has a right to this protection from inroads of enemies; 
 and indeed the discrimination is a great advantage to those 
 amongst dissenters themselves who wish chiefly for peace and 
 comfort. 
 
 Numberless have been made to tests: it would 
 
 carry us too far out of our way to examine them all. Tests are 
 not to be considered as positive good, but only as inconvenient 
 means of preventing great evils : if we look forward to per- 
 fection, we must conceive them abolished before^ we can arrive 
 at it. That is no reason why they should not be used, while 
 they do really prevent great evils. Bishop Warburton men- 
 tions a memorable instance of a^ Popish peer of England, who 
 ingenuously owned the necessity of them. 
 
 The only objection I shall mention is, that they punish 
 opinions which a man forms involuntarily, according to the evi- 
 dence before him. Now I own that no one ought to be punished 
 for what he does not do wilfully ; but then I say, that tests are 
 not punishments, but only restraints ^ — acts of self-defence. 
 
 He who punishes inflicts evil which he might avoid inflicting : 
 he who restrains inflicts only that evil which is necessary in 
 order to ward off* the danger. Punishing aims at deterring 
 others; restraint does not. Punishment implies'* crimes ; restraint 
 only mischiefs. However innocently mischiefs arise, they are 147 
 to be restrained, and repelled. Error is certainly not to be 
 punished, but the mischief arising from any erroneous opinion 
 may be rest rain edk 
 
 ^ See before, chap. v. sect. 1. 
 
 2 Lord Digby, Alliance p. 289. Hume 
 accounts for this, partly on political prin- 
 ciples. 
 
 ^ Warb. All. Book III. chap, iii.p. 302. 
 Alliance, p. 302. 
 
 Leaving churches rvhere they mere 
 (sect. 4) cannot be punishing. It may 
 
Ill.xiv. 11.] 
 
 AS INFLUENCING RELIGION. 
 
 439 
 
 II. But Dr. Balguy’s explanation of tests seems well worthy of 
 attention*^. They are only evidence to shew whether a person 
 is qualified or disqualified for an office — capable of doing the 
 duties of it, or incapable. A Quaker is disqualified from being 
 a general. By his religious principles he is incapable of doing 
 military duty ; before therefore he is admitted to that office, he 
 is asked to declare^ by words or by actions, whether he is quali- 
 fied or not. It is no punishment to exclude a man from an 
 office for which he is not qualified — any more than to exclude 
 a man from preaching to a very large congregation because his 
 voice is so weak that he cannot be heard; or because he cannot 
 speak the only language which the congregation understands : 
 or to exclude a blind man from being a guide. 
 
 The only difficulty here is, to see how every one^ who is not 
 of the established church, should be disqualified for every office. 
 Whoever by his principles would, in all probability, exercise a 
 considerable part of his authority, otherwise than in enforcing 
 the laws of the state, is unfit to hold that authority ; more 
 especially if he exerts it against the views of the state. Besides, 
 148 in the case supposed, a man not only disqualifies himself by his 
 principles, but also others, whom he in a manner obliges to 
 exert power, given for the public good, in opposition to him. 
 
 11. If difficulty should arise from the same persons com- 
 posing two societies, it must be recollected, that there is no man 
 who has not very frequently occasion to act in different capa- 
 cities. The father may be a general, and the son an inferior 
 officer ; nay, the son might be the commander, and the father the 
 subaltern. A son may be a judge, or a spiritual pastor; and his 
 father a criminal, or a plaintiff, or a parishioner. And a number 
 of men acting socially may likewise act in two different capacities 
 — as a family.) the members of which are partners in commerce. 
 
 Bishop Warburton shews", more regularly, that two such 
 
 be said, indeed, it is not punishing them 
 as religious, but it is as politic persons, 
 as citizens. This is as it happens. Ex- 
 clusion from offices is often a great pri- 
 vilege ; heavy fines are paid to avoid 
 offices ; and dissenters should have all 
 advantages as well as disadvantages of 
 freedom from state authority. One might 
 conceive a rational dissenter to make an 
 handsome speech, ‘ as we are more at 
 leisure, we will help the general cause of 
 religion,’ &c. &c. 
 
 ® Charge III. p. 214. 
 
 7 Warb. All. B. II. chap. v. The 
 illustration of lord and rector of a parish 
 might shew how naturally temporal and 
 spiritual power might combine in reform- 
 ing men and keeping them in order. 
 This combination may be in one person ; 
 but, if the alliance be made by two dis- 
 tinct persons, it is one which seldom 
 fails, when it takes place, to eficct a 
 great improvement in manners ; improve- 
 ment continuing for several generations. 
 And it is almost the only method of re- 
 forming a country parish. 
 
440 
 
 THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE 
 
 [III. xiv. 12. 
 
 societies as church and state have really two wills, and can con- II. 
 tract with each other. This is easy to be conceived, when each 
 is represented by a few ; as parliament and convocation (if we 
 may use those terms as general) are never likely to be the same 
 persons : and it is very improbable that either church or state 
 should act otherwise than by representation. 
 
 12. I will not pursue this subject farther. Only I will 
 observe, that, in reading controversy on it, some specious argu- 
 ments will be met with, wearing a general form, which are inap- 
 plicable to practice in any known state of things ; so clearly 
 impracticable, that those who use them would not think of prac- 149 
 tising them ; — I mean, not universally ; but only just so far as 
 their particular views or prejudices required. Dr. Balguy has 
 exposed this inconsistency with great success^ : and it is apparent 
 in the determinations of those who had overturned our estab- 
 lished Church, on principles destructive of all establishments, in 
 order to establish their own^. 
 
 I do not mean to accuse any one of wilful inconsistency. 
 Many religious persons and parties deceive themselves; and 
 some allow, and some half allow, of pushing a weak argument 
 as far as it will go : but it is proper we should be aware of the 
 fact, because it will let us into the particular extent and mean- 
 ing of many general expressions and arguments. The affecta- 
 tion of being free from government and laws, in some religious 
 societies and assemblies, is one thing, which shews the incon- 
 sistency I speak of. Quakers are supposed (as I have been 
 told) to speak without order or rule, though the speakers sit 
 upon a distinguished bench. An eminent preacher tells his 
 hearers, “ your congregations have order, but no authority^y 
 I fancy, if he was to harangue them from the pulpit in the 
 dress of a Newmarket jockey, they would find some authority 
 to turn him out of the ministry'^. The mode of governing need 
 not be written on tables, while the effects of it are unquestion- 
 able. If people are orderly without authority, the end of au- 150 
 thority is answered ; but such people are unlike what we have 
 
 ' See pp. 221, 27.3, 277, 27«. Black- 
 stone, 4to, vol. iv. p. 53. 
 
 2 See Warb. Alliance, Postscript, p. (>; 
 and Alliance, p. 23!5. 
 
 3Ir. Robinson on Tests, Oct. 30, 
 
 1700 , at Cambridge, p. 12, top. 
 
 At a town, near which I have re- 
 sided, Mr. T. a dissenting minister, as I 
 
 ! have been credibly informed, was in some 
 way punished for burning a cat to death 
 in an oven, to satisfy his wife, who fancied 
 herself bewitched by Mrs. G. of the same 
 town, and thought nothing but such a sa- 
 ! crifice of a cat could dispel the charm. 
 
 I I Ihink Mr. T. was of the same class of 
 , dissenters with ]Mr. Robinson. 
 
III. xiv. 13-15. J 
 
 AS INFLUENCING llELIGION. 
 
 441 
 
 II. met with ; and, as reasoning such as the present is built upon 
 experience, we cannot reason about them. We have seen chil- 
 dren obey parents in a free and unconstrained manner; but 
 this implies very great authority, instead of none at all. 
 
 13. Permit me, by way of clearing up what I have deli- 
 vered, (perhaps with some degree of embarrassment,) to read 
 to you Bishop Warburton''s own account of the contents of his 
 Alliance^ ; and that part of Dr. Balguy’s Sixth Sermon which ° 
 treats of the effect of the intervention of the magistrate on re- 
 ligious society; as also that part of his third Charge’’' which 
 relates to freedom of opinion and freedom of worship. 
 
 14. We will close the subject by a few remarks on Mr. 
 Robinson'^s ‘‘ Discourse on Sacramental Tests, delivered at 
 Cambridge, Thursday, October 30th, 1788, at a general meet- 
 ing of Deputies of the Congregations of Protestant Dissenters 
 in the county of Cambridge^.’’’ 
 
 15. It may not be improper here to take a short review of 
 the manner in which the theory here described has been ob- 
 served in practice, in our own country. 
 
 Heresy v^as once considered as a crime worthy of death. 
 
 151 The writ de hceretico comhurendo has been frequently carried 
 into execution; against Papists by Protestants, against Protest- 
 ants by Papists, and by Protestants against each other. Two 
 Arians suffered under it in the time of James the First; and 
 the laws authorizing it were not finally repealed till the 29th 
 of Charles the Second. The idea had probably been taken from 
 the Jewish Law, without allowance for difference of circum- 
 stances®; and, considering how indefinite the notion of heresy 
 was left, the cruelty of the punishment was great. Under the 
 Mosaic Law, blasphemy, &c. were definite : under the English, 
 any thing might be heresy as parties changed. Severe punish- 
 ment was necessary amongst idolaters, &c. — not now. 
 
 From the Reformation to the Revolution there seems to 
 have been no such principle as letting every man enjoy his own 
 opinions, and worship his Maker according to the dictates of 
 
 ® Postscript to Alliance, pp. 8, 9. 
 
 « Pp. 100—105. ' 7 Pp. 212—222. 
 
 ^ This section consisted of an exami- 
 nation of Mr. Robinson’s Discourse, and 
 of the authorities tp which he referred; 
 particularly Scripture and the works of 
 Augustin. No part of this examination 
 had been written^ except some short 
 
 notes on the margin of the discourse. 
 The examination took up at least two 
 lectures, of an hour each. I had the 
 satisfaction to be afterwards informed 
 that it had answered its purpose. Mr. 
 Davy of Cains College was so obliging 
 as to give me his approbation in writing. 
 
 ^ Of this, Book I. chap. xi. 
 
442 
 
 THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE 
 
 [III. xiv. 15. 
 
 his own judgment and conscience. The whole design was to II. 
 make Englishmen of one religion ^ ; but, to say nothing of illi- 
 terate sects, two powerful parties counteracted, as far as they 
 were able, this design — the Papists and the Puritans. The 
 Papists were discontented at the Reformation’s going so far ; 
 the Puritans were very zealous to carry it farther. Yet these 
 two parties were not exactly upon the same footing : the Papists 
 owned a foreign power superior to their own king ; the Puritans 
 were real English subjects, and beneficed English Protestant 
 clergy, though they held that the king ought not to be reckoned 
 the head of the Church. They were therefore to be treated in a 
 different manner ; and the difference between them is still more 
 striking since the Revolution, when Puritans were tolerated, 152 
 and Papists only connived at. We will take them separately. 
 
 First of Papists : Queen Elizabeth endeavoured at first to 
 do as King Edward the Sixth had done ; to influence the mi- 
 nisters only ; to enjoin them to read the reformed service, and 
 to require only quietness from the people : but the popish power 
 engendering plots against her, she was obliged to oppose it by 
 laws growing stricter gradually. And this is a general^ idea 
 of the English laws against popery : they were made when 
 attempts were made to restore it ; and, when those attempts 
 were frustrated, they were executed more and more remissly 
 as the danger grew more remote. Queen Elizabeth did not 
 at first exclude Papists from her councils ; and they remained 
 members of parliament till the 30th of Charles the Second. 
 Attempts to restore popery have been but little discontinued. 
 
 The year 1745 is within the memory of many men ; and, since 
 that time, it has seemed worth while to keep an account of 
 the numbers of Papists, and of the conduct of their priests; 
 though the legislature has ventured upon some relaxations^. 
 
 ^ I suppose all Englishmen had been 
 of one religion ; and probably some be- 
 came Protestants in such a manner, as to 
 raise expectations that all would become 
 so, if the Protestant religion once pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 - (ribson’s 5th Pastoral Letter, Post- 
 script. See Contents of the same. 
 
 ^ Since June, IJUl, all who swear to 
 be good subjects, that is, who renounce 
 the pope’s supremacy in civil matters, 
 are allowed to use their worship publicly, 
 to keep schools for Papists, to come to 
 court, &c. ; but the margin of the Act of 
 
 Parliament, taking place .Tune 24, 1791, 
 will easily supply particulars. Such Pa- 
 pists call themselves protesting Catholics : 
 about 1700 of them, I think, petitioned 
 parliament. Blackstone seems to have 
 pointed out (B. IV. chap. iv. p. 54, 
 quarto) the ground on which this liberty 
 might be given. In Ireland, Papists can 
 now vote for members of the house of 
 commons; can be members of the uni- 
 versity ; can be advocates at the bar ; 
 though they cannot yet be members of 
 parliament, or judges, or officers in the 
 army or navy. 
 
III. xiv, 15.] 
 
 AS INFLUENCING llELIGION. 
 
 443 
 
 II. With regard to Protestant dissenters, as the Puritans might 
 
 153 be called, though beneficed in the Church of England — the 
 general view was, to make their religion, or every departure 
 from the established worship, uneasy to them, by disabling 
 them from doing things, which others might do, (practising 
 law and physic in James the First,) and by fining, and in some 
 cases imprisoning them. And their behaviour was so stiff and 
 ungracious, that the sentiment of hatred conspired with poli- 
 tical prudence (or artifice) against them. And I should con- 
 ceive, that the want of a test would, by increasing their power, 
 embitter their zeal, and that of their opponents. Very soon 
 after the Restoration, the Act of Uniformity took place ; by 
 which all ministers who were not ordained in our manner, or 
 who refused to use our service, and give their assent to it, 
 were deprived of their benefices. On the 24th of August, 1662, 
 (well called Black Bartholomew) not less than 2000^ ministers 
 lost their livings, and other preferments ; a considerable pro- 
 portion of them men of ability and diligence in their profession. 
 It is shocking and mortifying to think that safety to the Church 
 could not, or seemed as if it could not, be purchased at an 
 easier rate ! 
 
 At the Revolutions however, it was intended to give all 
 Protestants full liberty, with regard to religion, though the 
 liberality of the king’s designs got narrowed by parliament and 
 convocation ; but what would then be liberty, to the chief part 
 of dissenters, is not so now. They did not object to the doc- 
 trine^ of the Trinity ; whereas Socinians are now considerable 
 in numbers and literature. The Toleration Act, though it gives 
 
 154 up the contested points about ceremonies, forms of church-go- 
 vernment, and even about infant baptism, and oaths to those 
 who have scruples, yet gives up nothing with regard to the 
 Trinity — not having occasion to give up any thing ; and, as 
 qualifying according to that act, that is, taking oaths and 
 making declarations, is necessary in order to have the benefit 
 of it, the Socinians are, in strictness, as if the Toleration Act 
 had not been made. So I understand the matter. At least, 
 they were so till the present reign. In 1792, Mr. Fox moved 
 the commons to give relief in the matter of assenting to the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, but they refused. 
 
 The principal thing aimed at by Protestant dissenters is 
 
 ■* Hume, Neal, &c. I the Assembly in 1643. They are in 
 
 ^ See first 15 Articles as modified by | Neal, Appendix. 
 
444 
 
 THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE, &e. [III. xiv. 15. 
 
 the repeal of the Corporation and Test Jets ; and their at- II. 
 tempts being with a view to temporal advantages, and influence 
 in the state, will of course cause a jealousy in the magistrate. 
 When they shew no desire of having their own sects powerful 
 in politics, then they will have every possible relief. 
 
 The Corporation^ and TesC Acts of Charles the Second 
 continue in force. It seems likely that, if they had not been 
 thought necessary, they would have been repealed at the Revo- 
 lution. The immediate occasions of them may be now extinct, 
 and yet the general principles of them may make them fit for 
 other occasions. The first, forbidding all but members of the 
 established Church to hold any office in the government of 
 any city or corporation, was necessary to dispossess of power 
 — of power particularly of electing members of parliament — 
 those who were disaffected to government at the Restoration, 
 and who had before excluded all but those of their own prin- 
 ciples. The second, forbidding all but members of the esta- 
 blished Church to hold any office, civil or military, was neces- 
 sary in order to prevent Charles the Second from dispensing 155 
 with law by his proclamation, and granting indulgence to the 
 Papists. These two laws now join in keeping all, who are 
 not of the established Church, out of power ; in corporations 
 (as having an effect on the legislature) and in the executive 
 government. How far they are capable of extension or relax- 
 ation, or of alteration as to the mode, is a question of import- 
 ance, and of dijjia^('lty- A man is deemed a member of the 
 Church of England who takes the sacrament according; to the 
 usage of the Church of England, and declares against Tran- 
 substantiation ; from whence the tests are called sacramental 
 tests. According to the Corporation Act, a man must already 
 have shewn himself a member of the Church of England ; ac- 
 cording to the Test Act, he must shew himself such within six 
 months after his appointment. The Test Act was made twelve 
 years after the Corporation Act. Many persons of eminence 
 seem to wish that some who are now dissenters could be em- 
 ployed in the service of government ; and something has been 
 done in the present reign. What expedients should be adopted, 
 may be thought the business of a statesman, rather than of a 
 churchman, to determine. Were I to hazard a proposal, it 
 sliould be, that the Church should be enlarged, and the execu- 
 tive cfovernment still confined to that Church ; with the most 
 
 O 
 
 * A.u. 13 Charles II. st. 2. c. i. - 25 Ch. II. c. 2. 
 
III. XV. 1, 2.] IMPROVEMENT OF IIELIOIOUS SOCIETIES. 415 
 
 II. perfect toleration to opinions and worship that could be given. 
 But deliberations of councils must be wanted to settle such 
 weighty matters as these ; and even their decisions should be 
 executed at first only in the way of trying experiments. Some 
 eminent dissenters neither wish for an enlargement, or what is 
 called a comprehension^ ^ nor think it practicable. 
 
 .56 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 OF IMPROVING RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES. 
 
 1. We shall now bring our reflections on the nature of 
 religious society to a conclusion, by considering how such so- 
 ciety may be put into a train of perpetual improvement : how 
 it may be made, though always imperfect, to approach conti- 
 nually nearer and nearer to perfection. That all human in- 
 stitutions admit of improvement, will scarce be disputed. The 
 progress of experience in learning duties was traced out in the 
 first Book‘d; and sometimes improvements must be reckoned 
 as beginning from some corrupt state of things. We need not 
 make any elaborate proof of our present assertion : we need 
 here only recollect how far religious societies, even under the 
 Christian dispensation, are of human^ institution ; and express 
 a caution, that every change be not considered as an improve- 
 ment. There are always men to be found who are impatient 
 under old institutions, and desirous of new, without any reason: 
 through caprice, or unbounded love of novelty ; or through a 
 desire of distinguishing themselves, and of being lawgivers, 
 original thinkers, leaders of parties, &c. Men of this turn 
 rush into change, ignorant and thoughtless, — without mature 
 deliberation, without insight into the nature of man, or the 
 interests of society. We would not be thought to speak of any 
 improvement but such as moderate men, of judgment and in- 
 formation, have agreed to adopt; have agreed for a consider- 
 able time. 
 
 57 2. When such an improvement is in view, the first and 
 
 most obvious method is to adopt it openly and expressly . If 
 
 ^ The best proposal for a comprehen- 
 sion seems to have been that of 1689; in 
 which Tillotson, Scot, Sharp, Compton, 
 Stillingfleet, Beveridge, were engaged; 
 
 and Burnet, &c. , Convocation stopped 
 it. 
 
 ^ Chap. xix. sect. 3. 
 
 ^ Chap. xi. sect. 9. 
 
446 
 
 IMPROVEMENT OF 
 
 [III. XV. 3, 4 . 
 
 this can be done, all is right: it is certainly the best and most II 
 desirable method, on many accounts. It requires no explana- 
 tions, and is liable to no charges of sophistry ; but alas ! it is 
 seldom that this method will succeed in practice. The obsta- 
 cles to it have been already^ described. Nevertheless, when- 
 ever it appeared at all probable that it could succeed in any 
 degree, it might be prudent to have a perpetual committee, 
 empowered to examine all pretensions to improvement; and 
 adopt such as appeared reasonable on mature deliberation, and 
 could be adopted without disturbance and confusion. 
 
 3. When express improvements, or reformations, (for a 
 number of improvements make a reformation,) cannot be adopt- 
 ed, the best way is to make some alterations tacitly. This may 
 be carried to a great length, as appeared in Chap. vi. What 
 we now wish to observe is, that tacit reformations serve very 
 well to prepare the mind for such as are express. For, when 
 these have continued for a while, prejudices and attachments 
 will be weakened, the inconveniences which are to be remedied 
 will be more sensibly felt, and more openly acknowledged : 
 though laws are violated, yet the violation will excite less and 
 less resentment. Improvements, when they have continued in 
 sight for a length of time, will come to be desired, and assume 
 a pleasing appearance. How long this state of things must 
 continue, will depend upon particular circumstances. If persons 
 of reflection and weight grow uneasy under it, hazards must be 
 run to make the reformation eccpress. We before referred to 
 the chapter of the Spirit^ of Laws; which treats of preparing 158 
 mens minds for any laws which they are to receive. 
 
 4. That we here go on in a right train, seems to be con- 
 firmed by Dr. Balguy’s Heads of Lectures concerning society 
 in general, one of which was quoted before^. 
 
 ‘‘ 10. The obligation men are under of contributing their 
 endeavours for the improvement of the laws under which they 
 live; and the establishment of the whole system of the laws of 
 nature.” 
 
 “11. The obligation men are under of supplying the de- 
 fects and correcting the errors of established laws, whilst the 
 laws themselves continue in forced 
 
 These two heads being about society in general, are as 
 much applicable to ecclesiastical society as to any other. The 
 former corresponds to express, the latter to tacit reformations. 
 
 ’ Chap. vi. ■ Hook XIX. ch. ii. ^ Chap. vi. sect. fj. 
 
III. XV. 5 .] 
 
 RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES. 
 
 447 
 
 II. As many if not all improvements must interfere with some 
 rights, or rather, with some established privileges considered 
 as rights, it seems needful to obviate any difficulty which may 
 arise from the infringement of these. For this purpose, it should 
 be considered in general, that, whenever there is good evidence 
 that a thing ought to have been done formerly, that thing ought 
 to be done now, on producing such evidence; otherwise (as was 
 said with regard to the civiF compact, &c.) advantage is taken 
 of men’s ignorance, which cannot be for the general good. 
 Whatever would have been done, had men known their own in- 
 terests, ought to be considered as having been done, when they 
 come to know them. Sometimes this may seem to be contradict- 
 ed, when it is not in reality ; and possibly it may in some cases 
 want defining and limiting : for, though it be generally true, 
 159 that if a thing ought to have been yours, had all circumstances 
 been known, then, when they come to be known, it is yours ; 
 yet, in the mean time, something may have happened to impair 
 your title. It may be thrown into the sea, or consumed; or so 
 much labour and expence may have been bestowed upon it by 
 the possessor, that, by some other rule, it ought not to be 
 yours In the case before us, when any undeniable improve- 
 ment appears, something appears which ought to have been done 
 sooner ; therefore that ought to be done now ; and, though 
 some steps may have innocently been taken bond jide, which 
 may reasonably obstruct the adopting of the improvement, at 
 least for a time, yet the general consideration ought to make 
 men more ready to suffer inconvenience for the sake of forward- 
 ing such improvement — more ready to give up what they have 
 been used to call their rights. 
 
 Our Saviour had a notion of the evil usually attending reli- 
 gious improvements, when he said, that he came not to bring 
 peace, but a sword ; to divide families, and set near relations 
 against each other®. 
 
 5 . If it were settled that a reformation ought to be made, 
 it would be natural to ask, by whom f I should answer, from 
 
 ^ Chap. xiv. sect. 5. I 
 
 * In our Cambridge Paving Act (which j 
 is owned to be an improvement) short I 
 possession is overruled ; but long pos- 
 session (of seven years) is allowed, and 
 compensation made for violating it. 
 
 A man builds an inn next a great 
 road ; a great advantage is seen in turn- 
 
 ing that road : the innkeeper loses his 
 custom, but is he injured^ No agree- 
 ment, express or tacit, seems to justify 
 such a notion : he is indeed unfortunate^ 
 and, by a liberal and generous nation, 
 may be relieved as such ; but he took his 
 chance. 
 
 Matt. X. 34, 35. 
 
448 
 
 IMPROVEMENT OF 
 
 [III. XV. 5. 
 
 the ^second book, philosophers are to make improvements: the II. 
 people are always to be under establishments. Who then, in 
 the present case, are philosophers ? Those who are enabled, by 
 education and leisure, to examine into the grounds of religion. 16‘0 
 Are teachers (or clergymen) to be reckoned in the number ? 
 their proper business is to teach established doctrines to the 
 people. True ; and if a set of philosophers can be found who 
 are not by profession teachers, let them make the improvements. 
 
 In fact, this cannot be expected, (though such may be found to 
 help), and therefore as teachers, in order to instruct the people, 
 must examine grounds of religion, and are naturally led to 
 think more deeply than the generality, they must have some 
 concern. The business will be, to keep the characters of teacher 
 and reformer as distinct as possible. There will be ^ a time 
 to teach, and a time to reform ; a place or a company proper 
 for one, and improper for the other ^ And the more discretion 
 will be requisite; as an improvement, admitted amongst philo- 
 sophers, should be imparted to the more improved first, and 
 should afterwards descend gradually to the less improved, and 
 so finally to the people. As any principles are better than none, 
 no one should have his old principles taken away, when that is 
 practicable, till he is prepared to receive the new'^ ones in their 
 room. How different is this from the conduct of teachers, who, 
 in spite of every obligation of honesty and fidelity, unsettle, in 
 the most open and abrupt way, the established principles of the 
 lowest of the people ! 
 
 But here it may be urged, did not our reformers^ eminently 
 so called, do the same ? were not they ministers of the Romish 
 Church when they preached against the corruptions of popery.^ 
 
 Let us say they were; as it might be difficult to settle precisely 
 how far some of them might have relinquished virtually the ]6‘l 
 ministry. Was not Zuinglius a Romish minister when he 
 preached at Zurich ? as mentioned before^. Let us say he was 
 — whatever effect the encouragement of the senate might have^ 
 
 In such conduct there was an irregularity ; and certainly our 
 Reformation was attended with a great deal of unnecessary mis- 
 
 * Chap. iv. sect. 2. 
 
 * Book II. chap. iv. sect. 4. 
 
 * If a judge wanted to reform penal 
 laws by abolishing capital punishments, 
 he would continue to pass sentence of 
 death till he had convinced the legis- 
 lature. 
 
 ^ Book I. chap. xix. sect. 11. 
 
 5 Chap. vi. sect. 6. 
 
 The state, which might ally itself to 
 any church, had begun to ally itself with 
 a Protestant church. Moreover, the re- 
 formers were open, sincere, free from dis- 
 j simulation and duplicity. 
 
III. XV. 6.] 
 
 RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES. 
 
 449 
 
 il« chief : owing, probably, to a neglect of the discretion here re- 
 commended. But to whom was the fault to be imputed ? To 
 those who made such irregularity necessary for the promoting 
 of truth. Had the reformers been allowed to deliver their sen- 
 timents with a decent plainness, only by giving up the emolu- 
 ments of the established Church, I should have held them very 
 blamable if they had acted as they did ; that is, had they not 
 quitted all connection with the Romish Church before they 
 preached against it. And, whenever toleration prevails, whe- 
 ther in theory or only in practice, I hold every man extremely 
 blamable who keeps possession of any emolument, which he could 
 not have without being a member of a certain church, at the 
 same time that he preaches to the people against that church. 
 
 6. It is in vain to think of reforming, except w^e begin the 
 work in right temper. We ought to have a strong love for 
 truth and virtue ; a strong sense of the importance of religion 
 — of the general and fundamental parts of religion, as opposed 
 to those parts about which disputes have usually arisen. Our 
 minds ought to be in a state of calmness and moderation ; cau- 
 tious and diffident ; not hasty or presumptuous in forming our 
 162 own judgment; candid and respectful in estimating the judg- 
 ments of others. The qualities of the good controversialist, as 
 described in the second'^ Book, would be qualities of a good re- 
 former. Indeed, it is not easy to describe the previous dispo- 
 sition of a good reformer better than it is described in the beau- 
 tiful passage of Augustin, before® recommended. Only this 
 may be a proper place for an account of the religious fault call- 
 ed bigotry. ‘‘Bigotry,” says Mr. Travis, “may be defined to 
 be a perverse adherence to any opinion of any kind, without 
 giving to the evidence on the contrary part an open hearing, and 
 a candid judgment^.” In religion, this “perverse adherence” 
 will be generally attended by a principle of using means of de- 
 fence not allowed to others. That we ought not to do any 
 thing in promoting our own opinions, which we will not allow 
 our adversaries to do in promoting theirs, is evident enough in 
 itself; but men, heated by zeal for what they take for granted 
 is truth, are perpetually doing unfair things, contrary to all 
 rules of liberal and equitable contention. Their holy vehemence 
 makes them deceive themselves ; and requires that they should 
 be reasoned with, in cases otherwise too plain to admit of rea- 
 
 7 Chap. ii. and v. 1 » First Letter to Mr. Gibbon, p. 15, 
 
 ® End of chap. x. j 8vo, 1785. 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 29 
 
450 
 
 IMPROVEMENT OF 
 
 [III. XV. 6. 
 
 soning^ If a member of an established religion had our right II. 
 disposition, he would say, ‘‘ It may be, no doubt, that my reli- 
 gion wants improvement ; at present, I see no other religion for 
 which I ought to change it, all things considered ; but I am 
 very willing that all men should believe as they can, and wor- 
 ship as they please ; and should express their objections to my 
 religion with a decent plainness. I will pay them attention, and 
 will endeavour to improve and profit by them. Only let us not l63 
 set about improvement rashly : let us not treat with a boyish 
 flippancy all who have gone before us; let us allow them as 
 much wisdom and integrity as ourselves, though, in some arbi- 
 trary customs of inferior moment, they may seem out oi fashion. 
 With regard to the temporal benefits attending any particular 
 religious community, I look upon them as accidental. I wish 
 to exclude no man from the advantages which I happen to pos- 
 sess. I desire no laws to be made but such as are necessary for 
 the public safety ; and such as I should be willing to allow if 
 my religion should come to be tolerated., instead of being esta- 
 blished ; a thing which, at any time, may very soon happen. 
 
 This I say, because those who are only tolerated always consi- 
 der themselves as proposing necessary improvements.'''' 
 
 A rational dissenter would say, ‘ I wish I could be a mem- 
 ber of the national religion. I endeavour to reconcile myself to 
 it, but conscience forbids my compliance. I know in this case 
 what political prudence requires^, and I cheerfully submit. 
 Every station hath in it something peculiarly good : I must con- 
 sider how I can improve mine to the greatest advantage. I am 
 free from temptations to luxury, and from secular cares ; as 
 well as from the calls of custom to the more frivolous kinds of 
 intercourse with what is called the world : let me employ my 
 leisure in the pursuit of religious knowledge; so may I profit, 
 not only myself, but all my Christian brethren.^ This will be 
 most likely also to bring me a contented mind. That there is l64 
 
 ’ Book II. chap. ii. sect. 10. 
 
 2 As in the case of Lord Dighy, chap, 
 xiv. sect. 10. 
 
 3 Dr. Lardner, Dr. Taylor^ Dr. Bod- 
 dr'idge could not well have done so much 
 service to Christianity as they have done, 
 if they had had all the avocations of the 
 established clergy. That enjoyment of 
 leisure, for religious purposes, has been a 
 thing really aimed at, appears from the 
 conduct of some of the Romish clergy, 
 
 who have voluntarily secluded them- 
 selves from secular cares. 
 
 That so much good has arisen either 
 from voluntary or involuntary seclusion, 
 is no excuse for any abuse of patronage. 
 The worst of men cannot prevent inci- 
 dental good from arising out of their 
 iniquity. That good can be no excuse to 
 them ; it is the immediate effect, and the 
 irrefragable proof, of the superintendence 
 of a benevolent Deity. 
 
III. XV. 7, 8.] 
 
 RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES. 
 
 451 
 
 II. a future state, I must assure myself ; otherwise all my objec- 
 tions and difficulties are vain, and the whole business of different 
 religions is vain : and, if there is, how shall I ever know that 
 any condition can be better for me than that in which Providence 
 has been pleased to place me ? I am neither in affluence, nor in 
 want; God has given me neither poverty nor riches, but he feeds 
 me with food convenient for me : if I murmur, it must be be- 
 cause I prefer a turbulent passage through this life, to one 
 during which I can keep my attention fixed without distraction 
 on a blessed immortality.’ 
 
 7 . The mind, thus opened and awake to improvement, 
 would soon discern the particulars of which such improvement 
 would consist. Those who were rightly disposed must not 
 give themselves up to any visionary schemes, but must study 
 human nature; and not even that in a manner merely specula- 
 tive, but by facts and experiments. They must cultivate the 
 understanding with a particular view to religion ; must refine 
 and regulate the imagination; must prune away all the luxu- 
 riances of devout affections; and lastly, must form systems of 
 wholesome discipline and edifying ceremonies. 
 
 Let us consider these things separately. 
 
 8. First, as to an experimental knowledge of human na- 
 165 ture'^. The end and purpose here in view must be success; 
 
 which will depend on knowing well the grounds of probability; 
 and we can only tell what is probable for the future by knowing 
 what has happened in time past. Yet the result of our experi- 
 ments may be so arranged as to make a kind of theory^ ; which 
 may relate to the general nature of man, that is, to all men, in 
 all states and situations ; or to his principles of action, propen- 
 sities, tendencies,^ in particular circumstances. We shall be 
 more likely to be successful in promoting and improving religion, 
 as we get to understand more clearly what are the component 
 parts of the human constitution — understanding, will, passions, 
 imagination, conscience ; — what subordination Nature intended 
 to institute amongst these ; which are most apt to prevail in the 
 undisciplined mind : what are the powers or faculties of the 
 body ; what strength and refinement they are susceptible of ; 
 vvhat is the nature of the connection between the bodily and the 
 mental faculties, and how one affects the other : what are the 
 sources of human happiness ; what kinds of happiness are the 
 
 ^ Dr. Balguy, p. I7O, top. 
 
 •’’’ The theory of hydrosUttics is reasoning on experiments. 
 
 29—2 
 
452 
 
 IMPR0VEME2JT OF 
 
 I HI. XV. 8. 
 
 most valuable in an improved state; what are the most attrac- II. 
 tive in an unimproved state : how the attraction will grow more 
 powerful, as the distance grows less : in what way any powerful 
 attraction or repulsion is to be overcome : how mental pleasures 
 are to be made to prevail over sensual, and benevolence over 
 self-love: — how prejudices are to be weakened, and how they 
 and all kinds of habits are to be unsettled and removed, and 
 new ones formed in their place: — how men are to be made to 
 love instruction and reproof, and to acquire a relish for order 
 and decency : — how they are to be prevailed upon to encounter 
 a present evil, for the sake of avoiding a greater at a distance ; 
 to face danger and persecution; to bear ridicule, overcome sloth l66 
 and indolence, and persevere in duty, when it is irksome, or in- 
 sipid. 
 
 At any particular juncture, we shall be more likely to be 
 successful in promoting and improving religion, if we are very 
 accurate in observing wherein peculiarities of situation consist ; 
 so as not to think that common to all men, which is peculiar to 
 a few : and if we know how to apply our general knowledge to 
 each particular instance, in that degree, and with those varia- 
 tions, which it may chance to require. To do this, we must in- 
 quire how men would be influenced by diflerent means, as they 
 differ in civilization, and of consequence in education, bodily 
 and mental; in strength, health, activity, exercises, diet; in 
 habitual notions, received traditions, ruling passions ; in what 
 is called taste, fancy, inclination, temper ; in established virtues 
 and vices in climate ; in forms of government, civil and reli- 
 gious ; in customs merely arbitrary, and not to be thoroughly 
 accounted for, or reduced to any class. 
 
 If we were possessed of powers to treat men with peculiar 
 propriety in all these particular varieties of situation, we should 
 avoid many hurtful mistakes and useless expedients. We should 
 never confound the treatment proper for the savage and the civi- 
 lized ; for the hardy and effeminate ; for the ignorant and the 
 learned ; for the temperate and the luxurious ; for the mild and 
 the irascible ; for the avaricious and the profuse ; for the peace- 
 able and the warlike ; for the orderly and the irregular; for the 
 subject of a republic and of a despotic government; for the 
 member of an episcopal church and the Presbyterian. We 
 should steer between unthinking confidence in a good cause, and 
 scrupulous or mean timidity about surmountable difficulties. 167 
 
 ‘ Appendix to Book I. sect. 11. 
 
III. XV. f).] 
 
 IIELTGIOUS SOCIETIES. 
 
 453 
 
 II. We should attend not only to sets of men collectively, but study 
 the minutiae of character in separate individuals, especially when 
 any one seemed likely to influence a number. And we should 
 carry on our attention beyond the general good conduct of those 
 whom we attempted to influence in the first place, to the parti- 
 cular circumstances of those towards whom they were to perform 
 duties. 
 
 The Scriptures are by no means averse to such prudence, as 
 has now been described. Every precept of holy writ about 
 preaching sacred truth is adapted to particular circumstances. 
 The twelve Apostles were to be wise as serpents and harmless as 
 doves, because they were sent forth in the midst of wolves^. 
 Our Saviour said to his disciples, when he was comforting them 
 on the prospect of his departure,^ ‘^I have yet many things to 
 say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” St. Paul calls 
 the Corinthians “babes in Christ^;” adding, “I have fed you 
 with milk, and not with meat ; for hitherto ye were not able to 
 bear it, neither yet now are ye able.” We are told, not to give 
 “ that which is holy to the dogs, nor cast our “ pearls before 
 swine;” and that from prudential motives, relating to our- 
 selves. What can be more truly discreet than the specimens of 
 conveying unwelcome truths, given us in the beautiful parables 
 of the ewe lamb, and the good Samaritan Yet, on some 
 occasions, we are to “rebuke sharply*^;” and John the Baptist, 
 when the occasion required that he should rouse men to a sense 
 of their duty, exclaims, “O generation of vipers ! who hath 
 warned you to flee from the wrath to come® ?” 
 l6S 9. Moreover, if we wish to make improvements in religion, 
 we must cultivate our understandings with a particular view to 
 it. That we must enrich them with a knowledge of languages, 
 history, and antiquities, has been fully shewn in the first book. 
 We may add, that we should endeavour to simplify our ideas ^ 
 so as to admit nothing confused or indistinct into our reason- 
 ings: we should have, to use Dr. Balguy’s words, “a 
 head'\ unembarrassed by scholastic terms.'"’' Something of this 
 sort was recommended in the 10th chapter. We ought to see 
 the real meaning of words which we use commonly and habit- 
 ually — that confined meaning, which is so much more narrow 
 
 2 Matt. X. 16. 3 John xvi. 12. 
 
 ^ 1 Cor. iii. 1. ^ ]\Xatt. vii. 6. 
 
 ® Luke X. 30. 2 Sam. xii. 1. 
 
 7 Titus i. 13. ii. 15. ^ Matt, iii, 7- 
 
 ^ Charge 2d, or p. 193. This might be 
 a proper place for some account of the 
 Hutchinsonians : sec Dr. Balguy, Charge, 
 
 I.p. 171 . 
 
454 
 
 IMPROVEMENT OF 
 
 [III. XV. 9. 
 
 than the words seem at first to convey. We ought not to be II. 
 carried away by sounds ; so as, when we hear mention of the 
 Son of God, or of a Person in the Holy Trinity, to fancy we 
 know as much as when the same terms Son and Person are 
 used in common life. 
 
 It will tend also much to improvement of real knowledge, if, 
 in our investigation of it, we study things and facts with sim^ 
 plicity ; so as never to conclude more from them than we are ^ 
 sure of. And we should follow the same plan in reading the 
 Scriptures. We should read them without superstitious or en- 
 thusiastic emotions ; without raising fanciful notions out of 
 plain words ; we should read them as we would read any thing 
 written in mere popular language. 
 
 But one thing should be still farther suggested, though it is 
 not certain that more can be derived from it than caution and 
 discretion. A man, who thinks on a subject of religion, may 
 get into a train of notions and conclusions; go from one to ano- 169 
 ther, without any thing which can be called false reasoning, and 
 find nothing to stop him : he may do the same in thinking on 
 another subject; and yet these of thought at last may ap- 
 
 pear to be inconsistent with one another, he knows not why. For 
 instance, the Creator of all things must know all things : his 
 knowledge must be unlimited, and he must know, not only past 
 events, hnt future ; who dare say that he did not know yester- 
 day what happened to-day? or a longer time before it happened ? 
 and who will say how long before ? who will presume to say 
 that God was ignorant of it a year, two years, before? nay, an 
 hundred, a thousand, a million of years? It must be allowed 
 that G[0(}C?. foreknowledge is infinite: “known unto God are all 
 his works^ from the bemnning; of the world.” But he cannot 
 know an event, and yet that event happen differently from what 
 he foresees; therefore all events are fixed Siud necessary : our 
 best actions are necessary ; and we ought to refer all our best 
 actions to the divine decrees. God certainly made all things 
 for liis own glory ; he influences us, for his own glory, to do 
 well ; and how can we resist ? God is all, and we nothing. 
 
 With equal reason a person might say, God is just, he will 
 “reward every man according^ to his works.” Every wise man, 
 therefore, that knoweth “to refuse^ the evil and choose tlie 
 good,” will choose, ‘^by patient continuance in well-doing^,” to 
 
 ’ See Dr. Balguy’s 8th Sermon. ^ Acts xv. 18. ^ ]\|att. xvi. 27. 
 
 ^ Isai. vii. 15. ^ Rom. ii. 7. 
 
III. XV. 10.] 
 
 KELIGIOUS SOCIETIES. 
 
 455 
 
 II. ‘‘seek for glory and honour and immortality.” Yes, men choose^ 
 certainly ; both reason and Scripture declare it. Events there- 
 fore must depend on the choice or iinll of man, and therefore 
 must be unfioced and uncertain. God may help, encourage, 
 
 170 but he cannot be supposed to overrule us: were that the case 
 we should be mere machines, not accountable for any thing, 
 and his acts would contradict his word. No ; whether we 
 perish or reign in eternal glory, it is all our own doing. 
 
 In whichever of these two trains we set out, we may con- 
 tinue ; and the same thing would happen in some of the other 
 subjects mentioned as unintelligible. All that can ever be 
 expected in such cases is, that a man should not go on in one 
 train without recollecting that there is another, in which he 
 might have gone on as smoothly. This, though no great 
 improvement in knowledge, except in the knowledge of our 
 ignorance, would be an improvement in satisfaction, and might 
 produce brotherly agreement. For the way in which one man 
 is led into a different doctrine or party from his neighbour, is, 
 by his getting engaged in one of these trains, and seeing no 
 fallacy. This makes him neglect to compare it with the other; 
 and he answers all arguments by saying, ‘mine must be right, 
 therefore whatever is inconsistent with it, is wrong."* Whereas, 
 one has as much right to say this as another. I believe, in fact, 
 most arguments in favour of necessity are answered by only 
 saying, they are inconsistent wdth virtue ; and most arguments 
 in favour of liberty, by saying only, that they are inconsistent 
 with the Divine Omniscience. 
 
 10 . With the same view of improving religion, we must 
 endeavour to improve our imagination. What I mean, is to be 
 done by improving the fine arts, and by applying them to reli- 
 gious uses. By the fine arts, are usually understood painting, 
 music, poetry, eloquence, sculpture, architecture, and perhaps 
 some others. These give the mind ideas of beauty, sublimity, 
 
 171 grandeur, order, symmetry, harmony, rhythm, &c., and serve 
 to excite and strengthen sentiments of various kinds. If these 
 are in an improved state, they refine and polish, and, as it were, 
 enrich and ennoble the mind, so long as they are applied to any 
 subjects which are moral, or only innocent ; but they are far 
 more useful, and do much more good to the mind, if they are 
 employed in the service of religion. Religious paintings are 
 very improving; sacred music, even in its plainest kinds, softens 
 
 ® Chap. X. sect. 1 and 2. 
 
456 
 
 IMPIIOVEMENT OF 
 
 [III. XV. 10. 
 
 and soothes the heart, and makes it feel a M^arm and affectionate II. 
 piety ; and, when it becomes sublime, it exalts the mind to hea- 
 venly conceptions : when pathetic, it melts the heart with 
 “godly sorrow,” in a manner not to be described. And similar 
 observations might be made on poetry, eloquence, and the rest; 
 though there may be a difference in degree h 
 
 It seems to be undeniably true, (and surely it proves how 
 great and noble a thing religion is in itself, and how congenial 
 to the human mind,) that the fine arts are (generally speaking) 
 infinitely more efficacious when exercised on religious subjects, 
 than any others. The paintings which have the greatest effect 
 are on religious subjects. I should be curious to compare the 
 several works of the best masters in the art of painting, and see 
 whether the best work of each is not religious. The Nativity, 
 by Sir Joshua Reynolds, strikes me more than any other piece 
 of his that I have seen. I doubt whether the art of sacred 
 poetry has as yet been well studied. Eloquence of the pulpit 
 is not at present what it might be, or even what it has been ; 
 though it seems improving, yet some faults are usually admitted 
 into it, which lessen its effect, and can be removed only by an 
 enlightened and philosophical criticism. But sacred music has 
 been very successfully cultivated; and therefore, though our 172 
 observation is true as to all the arts, when equally improved, yet 
 its truth appears most evident in the instance of music. It has 
 been^ said that iheoperah the highest entertainment arising out 
 of the polite arts; as uniting music, painting, poetry, fine and 
 graceful action, grandeur, dancing, &c., all which are supposed 
 to heighten one another, and to receive additional effect from 
 the sympathy of the spectators : but what opera had ever the 
 effect of the sacred music in Westminster Abbey for four years 
 together.? I sincerely believe that nothing of the kind, but what 
 is founded on religion, will ever be able to attract such numbers, 
 to produce such expensive contributions, to delight and elevate 
 for such a length of time^. 
 
 , Hartley on IMan, vol. ii. p. 254. 
 
 2 By Diderot, in his criticisms after 
 his comedies Le Fils Naturel, and Le 
 Pere de J’amille. And Rousseau, in his 
 IMusical Dictionary, seems to have much 
 the same idea. 
 
 Sometliing should be said of sculp- 
 ture and architecture, as they are in the 
 enumeration. V/ith regard to sculpture, 
 
 I must confess that I have seen much 
 better statues profane than sacred. Why 
 it should be so, I cannot conceive; sup- 
 posing Christian artists equal to heathen. 
 Of religious architecture there are many 
 excellent specimens, though I fear we 
 are degenerating in respect to it. King’s 
 College Chapel, at Cambridge, is, in my 
 judgment, the rpost excellent of those 
 
III. XV. 11 .] 
 
 RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES. 
 
 457 
 
 IT. 11 . It cannot be conceived that improvement in religion 
 can fjo on without our s-ivino; attention to our relimous senti- 
 ments, or affections ; without, in the first place, watching their 
 
 173 faults^ and endeavouring to keep them in their right state; nei- 
 ther soaring into extravao'ance, nor sinking into lukewarmness 
 and indifference. Indeed, our chief business at present will be 
 to get precise ideas of their faults ; which we cannot be said 
 to have, unless we see the evil consequences of those faults; nor 
 can we well see those evil consequences, without at the same time 
 getting some notion of the manner in which those faults may be 
 remedied. Faults there certainly may be in religfous as well as 
 other affections. In every thing we are in a state of discipline 
 and trial, and therefore every faculty is liable to abuse ; no 
 exception is made in favour either of our moral faculty or of 
 our religious affections. These affections have been described 
 and classed in the third chapter : we may proceed immediately 
 to their faults. The principal seem to be superstition — 
 enthusiasm — mysticism^ and lukewarmness. First of super- 
 stition : what it is ; what are the evils or mischiefs of it ; and 
 what their remedies. 
 
 It is not easy to define a word which has been used inaccu- 
 rately and unsteadily. Words are generally used before they 
 are defined — in moral and religious subjects at least; and all 
 that can be done is, to include, in a definition, all the instances 
 in which a word has been used by those who express themselves 
 carefully. According to this, we may say, first, that when a 
 man is called superstitious, something is meant respecting both 
 his understanding m\di hi?, feelings. 
 
 A man is superstitious in respect of his understanding, or his 
 notions, when, on seeing an event, he imagines that he knows 
 the will of God, or the rides or laws of his government, so well, 
 as to see his design in that event ; particularly how it is made 
 use of to produce good or evil, reward or punishment. 
 
 174 Or, if a man only presumes that he knows the meaning of 
 any subordinate invisible beings from an event, he is still called 
 superstitious. I say presumes, for his conclusion cannot be 
 made by his reason ; it can only be the work of fancy. 
 
 which I have seen, for producing the 
 right kind of effect. Several of our 
 cathedrals are solemn ; those at Lincoln 
 and York in particular; hut King’s Col- 
 lege Chapel has its solemnity so reffned 
 by elegance and lightness, and so height- 
 
 ened by its unity of design, and by being 
 seen all at once, that it excites sentiments 
 not less noble, and yet n ore pleasing, than 
 any other building. St. Paul’s in London 
 is excellent in a different way. St. Peter’s 
 at Rome I only know by description. 
 
458 
 
 IMPROVEMENT OF 
 
 [III. XV. 11. 
 
 An instance may be found in the scriptural account of the II. 
 barbarous inhabitants of the island of Melita, or Malta, upon 
 occasion of a viper’s coming out of the fire, and fastening upon 
 St. Paul’s hand. ‘^‘When the barbarians saw the venomous 
 beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves. No doubt^ 
 this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, 
 vengeance (jJ AUrj) suffereth not to live.” ‘‘iVo doubt,'"'' is the 
 true language of superstition. These barbarians presumed, that 
 they knew the laws of the government of superior beings, with 
 regard to murder. And, to be consistent, when they ‘‘saw no 
 harm come to him,” they concluded that he must be a god. The 
 case is the same in augury and divination ; in conclusions 
 drawn from situations, attitudes, and various appearances and 
 sounds. 
 
 To this account it may be objected. Does not God really 
 govern the world? do not the most rational allow that he 
 punishes vice and rewards virtue, drawing their conclusions 
 merely from experience ? are not the virtues settled by such 
 observations? do we not, from the rules of God’s government, 
 deduce his attributes and the truths of natural religion? It is 
 true, we do ; yet we may go too far, and imagine we know what 
 we really do not. From what we observe, we have reason to 
 believe in a general providence, and in a particular providence; 
 but we must not speak decisively of any single event. The 
 tower in Siloam^ fell: how? why? as a punishment upon the 
 eighteen? that conclusion would be superstitious; it is too par- 175 
 ticular; reason cannot make it; imagination must not be listened 
 to. But, with an awful doubt, we may say, God governs by 
 his general providence ; he interferes by his particular pro- 
 vidence ; this may be an act of either ; how far it is, I cannot 
 see distinctly ; but let me be on the safe side. By this reason- 
 ing, we are led to practical caution ; to feel the full force of 
 what the fact should principally suggest, — “except ye repent, 
 ye shall all likewise perish.” 
 
 Again, may we not, by avoiding superstitious conclusions, 
 miss making reasonable conclusions from the phenomena of 
 nature ? Both follow from observation and experience ; how 
 shall we know the difference ? The difference may be seen, in 
 some degree, by what has been already said ; but we may say 
 farther, reason notes all circumstances carefully, but only grounds 
 on phenomena observed repeatedly, expectation of a still far- 
 
 2 Luke xiii. 4. 
 
 ‘ Acts xxviii. 3. 
 
III. XV. 11.] 
 
 RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES. 
 
 459 
 
 II. ther repetition : superstition, by too readily admitting events 
 to be similar, forms groundless expectation; and, by neglecting 
 distinctions, gets still farther into delusion and error. But 
 even this does not mislead so much as inferring design from a 
 naked event. Amongst men, the more ignorant scarce ever 
 guess right at the designs of the most wise and knowing from 
 a single action : how then can any man from an act of the 
 Divinity ? The reasonable man owns his ignorance, the super- 
 stitious man knows the mind^ of the Lord. When the thun- 
 der rolls, or the lightning flashes, it is heard, or seen, by both; 
 but the reasonable man only observes accurately, and expects 
 to see again what he has generally seen ; whilst the super- 
 stitious man interprets^ and makes out of the awful sounds a 
 176 judicial sentence against particular individuals; makes the Deity 
 to express disapprobation, prohibition, menace, against those 
 who happen to be his own adversaries. 
 
 Though superstitious conclusions must be generally false.) 
 as being in their nature arbitrary, (non causa, pro causa,) yet 
 they should not be considered as only false in speculation ; 
 they are seldom made without some view to action', and that 
 action is accomplished by means of superstitious 
 
 The superstitious man is not only so with respect to his 
 understanding, but with respect to his passions, sentiments, 
 feelings. Those who form superstitious conclusions, feel su- 
 perstitious Fears why not hopes? Hopes are not 
 inconsistent with the account now given ? I would not answer 
 this question, without expressing some diffidence. It seems cer- 
 tain that we are more accustomed to hear of superstitious fears 
 than of superstitious hopes ; and it is natural to inquire into 
 the reason. Sometimes favourable omens excite superstitious 
 hopes ; but the mind labouring under this infirmity generally, 
 on the whole, shews a propensity to imbibe some species of 
 fear. Let us consider this matter. 
 
 Superstition attends to external phenomena : it pretends to 
 discern the design of God, but at an awful distance ; not to 
 be actually present in the divine councils, or to learn the result 
 of them without the intervention of signs, and those generally 
 of a tremendous nature. Reserve is apparent in the Deity, 
 
 3 Rom. xi. 34. 
 
 ^ Mr. Hume has a short Essay on 
 Superstition and Enthusiasm. He speaks 
 of terror as belonging to superstition : so 
 
 does Hartley. They both saw the nature 
 of superstition better than Bacon, in my 
 judgment. I judge from his Essays, 
 published by Willymott. 
 
460 
 
 IMPROVEMENT OF 
 
 [III. XV. 11. 
 
 and lias a great and majestic appearance: the judgment formed II. 
 is not wholly clear of doubt and misgiving. He who forms it 
 does not presume that he is distinguished by Heaven, or that 177 
 any thing is imparted to him which is withheld from the rest 
 of mankind : his reverence must generally approach near to 
 dread ; and obscurity^ must heighten it. As superstition attends 
 to external phenomena, it must be most affected by those phe- 
 nomena, which are most striking. Now the more sublime phe- 
 nomena of nature must make, on the mind of every man, a 
 deeper impression than the more tame and gentle ; and sub- 
 limity is allied to fear. What pleasing or favourable appear- 
 ance can be so striking as an earthquake, deluge, lightning, 
 hurricane, conflagration, volcano The dread which will be 
 excited by these, in the superstitious mind, will easily over- 
 power ^nd banish any more pleasing sensations ; or any hopes. 
 
 But moreover, it is to be considered, that the tendency to 
 superstitious conclusions is greatest in a mind previously timid: 
 such conclusions heighten the timidity, and the timidity pro- 
 duces more conclusions. Then there is nothino; which makes us 
 so ready to interpret unfavourable events into designed reproofs, 
 or punishments, as remorse, or an uneasy conscience^ ; and the 
 more timid any one is by nature, the more forcibly does remorse 
 act upon his mind. Put these things together, and you will 
 own, not only that fear must be the predominant feeling of the 
 superstitious mind, but that, when scruple and religious melan- 
 choly join themselves to an infirm bodily constitution, and a 
 timid mind, and sympathy lends its aid, there is no degree of 178 
 panic to which superstitious feelings may not rise. 
 
 From superstitious dread, the mind is easily drawn into 
 ahhorrence ; even from dread of superior beings to abhorrence 
 of men like ourselves, when they are once conceived to be offen- 
 sive to those superior beings. Passions once raised find them- 
 selves objects, very different in many respects from those by 
 which they were first excitedk 
 
 Such is superstition, as to opinion and passion. 
 
 That superstition is hurtful, must already appear ; but it 
 
 ^ Isaiah xlv. 15. 
 
 2 I have been told of a boy of the 
 name of Yorke, who, when at school, 
 went out of bounds. He began to feel 
 some remorse ; presently a crow, or 
 raven, began to make its usual noise, 
 caw, caw. The guilty conscience made 
 
 this sound into Yorke, Yorke ; and the 
 alarmed wanderer returned within his 
 prescribed limits. Experiments on youth 
 are generally perhaps the fairest and 
 most satisfactory of any. 
 
 2 Venger Dieu. Esprit des Loix, 
 Livre xii. chap. 4. 
 
III. XV. n.] 
 
 IIKLIGIOUS SOCIETIES. 
 
 4G1 
 
 II. will be proper to marb out some of its evil consequences more 
 particularly. 
 
 1. The superstitious man is unhajjpy in himself, diffident, 
 scrupulous, full of disquietude ; fearing that he has offended 
 God, and construing every thing that he sees or hears into an 
 intimation of the divine vengeance. 
 
 2. Superstition is an enemy to benevolence. The super- 
 stitious are morose ; cowards are cruel : arbitrary conclusions, 
 drawn by different men, must be different. Each superstitious 
 person presumes he has the will of God : one is opposed to 
 another with a zeal which no natural affection or kindness can 
 withstand. Friendships, family connections, associations, all 
 fall before it : even nations lose useful intercourse, hate one^ 
 another, nay, proceed to actual injuries, because they have 
 adopted different sorts of superstition. 
 
 3. Superstition is an enemy to reason., and to arts and 
 sciences. Reason is dull and tedious, in comparison of the 
 imagination ; and their dictates will thwart and contradict each 
 other. Reason thus becomes despised and abhorred, and, if it 
 
 179 pretends to make much resistance, gets persecuted ^ If the 
 fine arts are only neglected by the superstitious, they are for- 
 tunate ; they may easily come to be reckoned supporters of 
 impiety ; and then they will suffer persecution. 
 
 4. Lastly, superstition is unfavourable to virtue in general. 
 This must be the case with every thing that is unfavourable to 
 benevolence. Virtues are species of benevolence : “ love is the 
 fulfilling of the law.” But, moreover, it diverts men from 
 founding their religious hopes on the performance of their duty. 
 It makes them indeed think much of the divine vengeance; but 
 it leads them to appease it by externals, which do not mend 
 the heart. The king of Moab offers to bow himself “ before 
 the high God” with the most costly superstitions, or even with 
 the sacrifice of his son*^ : the prophet disclaims them all, and 
 enjoins only the fundamental principles of moral dutyk 
 
 By these remarks we are naturally led to the remedies for 
 superstition. They may be applied to the under st abiding., or 
 to the heart. It is most practicable to clear the understanding 
 of this fault ; and that will tend also to keep the heart clear 
 
 ^ EspritdesLoix,Liv.xxiv.chap.22,^yi. 
 ° The instance of Galileo was men- 
 tioned in the last chapter of the second 
 Book. 
 
 ® Micah vi. 
 
 7 Mr. Hume has something to this 
 purpose; Natural History of Religion, 
 latter end. 
 
462 
 
 IMPROVEMENT OF 
 
 [III. XV. 11. 
 
 of it. These distinctions must be made familiar : — between II. 
 expecting a sort of event, and knowing the use of a particular 
 event, as a reward or punishment : between saying, ‘ there is 
 a judge of all men,’ and ^ this is a judgment on a particular 
 man:’ or between ‘this is a judgment,’ and, ‘this may be a 
 judgment.’ And we might sometimes check our presumption, 
 by making it a rule, to allow ourselves no conclusion, from 180 
 any event, or appearance, which we would not allow barbarians 
 to make from thunder or an eclipse. The happiness of man 
 shews us best the will of God. 
 
 If the heart is already infected, some remedies may be 
 applied to that. It is in our power to hinder our sentiment of 
 respect from becoming excessive ; we need not indulge it. It 
 is in our power to make that degree of self-esteem and confi- 
 dence habitual, which reason recommends in an hour of calm- 
 ness and serenity. “ If our heart condemn us not, then have 
 we confidence towards God^.” “ We trust we have a good 
 conscience, in all things willing to live honestly V’ It is in our 
 power to dwell on texts like these, till they strengthen our 
 minds ; as also to dwell on instances of God’s goodness.^ paying 
 for a while less attention to instances of his power ^ If means 
 were used to strengthen the nervous system of the body, that 
 would strengthen the mind ; as would the exercise of our rea- 
 son. Ridicule might, in some cases, dissipate superstition; but 
 perhaps it may be too dangerous a remedy to be recommended 
 to all indiscriminately. 
 
 To conclude this subject of superstition : I would not be 
 thought to say, that every degree of awe, on seeing evils and 
 calamities, or great instances of divine power, is wrong. A 
 serious question, whether God may not intend any evils as 
 warnings or punishments, is right and reasonable ; and its effect 
 upon our conduct may be as great as a positive decision that 
 he does. Without seeing God in the clouds, and hearing him 
 in the wind, we may “ believe that he is, and that he is a 
 rewarder of them that diligently seek him'‘ nay, we may set 
 God always before us. We want not panics to make us admire 
 and adore him ; much less to make us pay him a pleasing and 181 
 reasonable service. 
 
 Enthusiasm in some things is allied to superstition ; for a 
 man may be called an enthusiast, either with respect to his 
 intellects or his passions. There is an enthusiastic conclusion, 
 
 * 1 John iii. 21. ^ ijeb. xiii. 18. •' See chap. iii. sect. 3. Heb. xi. fi. 
 
III. XV. 11.] 
 
 RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES. 
 
 463 
 
 II. and an enthusiastic affection. A man makes an enthusiastic 
 conclusion, when, upon any sentiment arising in his mind., he 
 so presumes God to be the cause of it, as to take for granted 
 he sees the design of God in exciting it ; not merely so as to 
 acknowledge God to be the author of nature ; not as if the 
 sentiment arose according to any law, by which his mind or 
 body was formed; but as if the divine will was imparted to him 
 by it, as a man’s will by his words. The conclusion is also 
 enthusiastic, if the sentiment be only presumed, in the same 
 particular manner, to have been excited by inferior spirits. 
 Some believe only in what may be called demons. 
 
 From this account, superstition and enthusiasm may seem 
 at first more alike than they really are. They are both wrong 
 ways of fixing upon God as a cause ; but superstition attends 
 to external effects, enthusiasm to internal. And this differ- 
 ence causes many others. Indeed, they msiy jointly influence 
 the mind; and then perhaps, or when either is supposed to in- 
 fluence, without determining ivhich., would be the proper use 
 of the term fanaticism. The immense army of Crusaders^ 
 seem to have been fanatics in this sense — superstitious and en- 
 thusiastic at the same time. 
 
 It may be objected to our account of enthusiasm. Can it 
 be wrong to dwell on the notion, that God is the cause of 
 our thoughts ? is he not so ? In some sense he is ; but yet 
 it is one thing to say, in general, ‘ we have no power of think- 
 182 ing independent of God,’ and another to say of a particular 
 thought, ‘ this thought is now dictated to me with such a 
 design ‘ this thought,’ as distinguished from other thoughts 
 — ‘ to mej as distinguished from other persons. It cannot be 
 wrong to say, may not this thought or feeling be excited 
 for an encouragement or discouragement ? ’ but to decide is 
 enthusiastic. We have no safe way of arriving at such con- 
 clusion, in the present state of our knowledge. 
 
 Objections may be made, not only on principles of natural, 
 but of revealed religion ; not only relating to mere thoughts, 
 but to moral sentiments and resolutions. Are we not told 
 that our good thoughts and purposes are inspired ? yes, we 
 are to be humble in all things, and give God the glory ; and 
 virtue seeming more in our power than any thing else, we 
 are enjoined to ascribe even that to the Supreme Being in 
 some way or other — in some indistinct way ; merely with the 
 
 Near the end of the 12th Century, in 1190, &c. 
 
464 
 
 IMPROVEMENT OF 
 
 [TIL XV. 11. 
 
 practical view of making ourselves sober-minded, diligent, II. 
 thankful, pious. Besides, what is told us only enables us to 
 form a general proposition, that all our virtues ought thus 
 to be ascribed to God ; not to say of an action^ merely as an 
 action^ that it is inspired. Till we know whether an action 
 is good^ we do not know whether God is to be thanked for 
 it as inspired. If we were desirous to form a judgment whe- 
 ther a particular action was inspired, we must first, from prin- 
 ciples of morality, endeavour to determine whether it was a 
 good action ; and even then we can only say, as far as it was 
 good, so far we are told to thank God for it, (though in a 
 very indistinct manner,) lest we should be proud even of our 
 virtue. Though an action were called by a good name, it 
 might not be really good. What so likely to be good as %eal 
 for religion.^ yet one may have a zeal ‘‘not according to know- 183 
 ledge k” Nay, we cannot, even taking for granted the goodness 
 of an action, determine how far the declarations of Christianity 
 are to be applied to it. You find a treasure; you might con- 
 ceal it, but you restore it to the owner : thank God that you 
 do so ! yet an heathen might have done the same. How far 
 was your good action owing to heathen virtue ? how far to 
 Christian inspiration^ 
 
 In every instance then of enthusiasm there is an arbitrary 
 conclusion, which we may reckon as an error. But, as in the 
 case of superstition, such conclusions seldom, if ever, termi- 
 nate in speculation"; they lead to some action, which is carried 
 on by the enthusiastic 
 
 An enthusiast is such, not only with respect to his intel- 
 lects, but also with respect to his feelings, or affections. The 
 ground-work of the enthusiastic passion is presumption ; but 
 zeal, and love, and hope, enter into the composition ; and the 
 compound is powerful — runs into ecstacy and rapture. That 
 this is so, is matter of observation ; why it should be so, de- 
 serves to be considered ; that is, why taking for granted that 
 God suggests our sentiments, should generate such a compound 
 affection. 
 
 We cannot well be persuaded that God suggests a parti- 
 cular thought, without imagining that we have “ known the 
 mind of the Lord,” after the manner of counsellors or distin- 
 guished friends. This must immediately make us feel presump- 
 
 ^ Rom. X. 2. I nals. Bishop Gibson’s 4th Pastoral Let- 
 
 “ Battle of Dunbar. Whitfield’s Jour- [ ter. 
 
III. XV. n.] 
 
 KEI.IGIOUS SOCIETIES. 
 
 465 
 
 II. tion ; and we must naturally be zealous to propagate what has 
 been intrusted to us in so flattering a manner. We must love 
 him, by whom we are so graciously distinguished ; and strongly 
 
 184 hope for a continual increase of his favour. An affection or 
 sentiment so compounded must easily mix with every species of 
 self-esteem — with pride, vanity, self-approbation ; and, from 
 the mixture, we may conceive its strength. Sanguine persua- 
 sion of the approbation of God must needs be a strong senti- 
 ment of itself ; but, mixed with the others, its strength must 
 be greatly increased. Then, it is chiefly men whose tempera- 
 ment is naturally sanguine that are apt to encourage enthu- 
 siastic conclusions ; and they will be apt to ascribe to God 
 those of their feelings which are most hold and elevated. Who- 
 ever reflects on all these things, and considers, that many en- 
 thusiasts may sympathize with each other, (though each regards 
 himself as superior to the vulgar,) will see, that enthusiastic 
 passion may rise to any degree of fervor. Not that God is 
 really more likely to excite a strong sentiment than a mild one; 
 but bold enthusiastic men will be apt to think so. 
 
 As to the evils of enthusiasm — that and superstition, being 
 only different modes of presuming that we know the designs 
 of God, are likely to produce some of the same effects, though 
 in different ways. 
 
 1. Enthusiasm lessens the happiness of the enthusiast him- 
 self. He is tossed by violent passions ; sometimes elevated, 
 sometimes dejected ; a stranger to that cheerful even serenity, 
 which is the best sort of happiness this world affords^. 
 
 2. Enthusiasm is unfavourable to benevolence. Not but 
 the enthusiast sometimes loves man, as well as God ; but his 
 aflection is not pleasing and attractive: he is either affectionate 
 to excess, and so disgusts ; or he is very morose. He is also 
 too overbearing, too deficient in candour, for any durable con- 
 
 185 nection: all such are maintained by delicate respect, and mutual 
 attentions. And, if even his brother differ from him in religion, 
 he is ready to treat him as his enemy, because he is the enemy 
 of God ; and to consider him as a proper object of persecution. 
 
 3. Enthusiasm is an enemy to reason.^ arts, sciences, much 
 in the same manner with superstition. But it seems still more 
 an enemy to experience, which is really the source of almost 
 all our practical knowledge; and even of morality itself. I 
 know not whether some things, which have the form of mathe- 
 
 ^ Bishop Butler. 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 30 
 
466 
 
 IMPROVEMENT OF 
 
 [III. XV. 11. 
 
 matical reasoning, do not owe the conviction they give, partly II. 
 to being tried. 
 
 4. Enthusiasm is an enemy to authority and subordination, 
 the benefits of which are very solid and extensive. The prin- 
 ciple of doing things ‘‘right in the sight of God\” against the 
 authority of man, may be very easily misapplied. 
 
 5. But it should be made a separate remark, that enthu- 
 siasm prevents a just interpretation of Scripture ; and, by oc- 
 casioning, in different minds, arbitrary conclusions, which can- 
 not coincide, makes dissensions unavoidable, at the same time 
 that it renders men more unfit to engage in them. 
 
 Those remedies for enthusiasm are most easy to administer 
 which keep the understanding clear of error; and these may 
 prevent the passions from taking any wrong turn. They ap- 
 pear from what has been said. We should never rashly assign 
 causes, particularly for what happens in our minds, of which 
 we know but little. We should be aware, that it is one thing 
 to say, ‘ we cannot think or feel without the help of God,’ 
 and another to say, ‘ God suggests this thought or sentiment, 
 with such a particular design.^ We may allow that such a 
 thought or sentiment may be intended for such a purpose, but 186 
 we must never affirm that it is. We must keep in mind, that 
 vehemence is no real mark of the Divinity : above all, that 
 an act, or resolution, is only to be called inspired, as far as 
 it is right : that no man is to say, ‘ this action was inspired, 
 therefore it is right but only, I believe such an action right, 
 and on that supposition I thank God for it. 
 
 Something may be done to the sentiments or affections. 
 Humility should be encouraged, in order to obviate presump- 
 tion, and make our love respectful. Our respect might be 
 increased by dwelling rather on instances of the power of God, 
 than of his goodness. And such measures should be taken, 
 not only at the moment when we are most inclined to enthu- 
 siasm, but according to some constant regular plan of religious 
 discipline. They would indeed affect, not only the heart, but 
 the head also, and the heart through the medium of the un- 
 derstanding. 
 
 It would guard both head and heart, if we studied men and 
 things. The works of the creation would make us admire 
 the Divine wisdom, and be sensible of our own ignorance, at 
 the same time that it took us from the business of engendering 
 
 Acts iv. 19. 
 
HI. XV. 11 .] 
 
 RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES. 
 
 467 
 
 IL fancies in our own brain. But we should not content ourselves 
 with a mere inactive contemplation of the works of nature. We 
 should study their powers and uses, and measure the quantities 
 of those powers; which is done by mathematics. It would 
 have the same kind of effect, if we conversed much with men 
 in active life — men of no theory, guiding themselves wholly 
 by practical maxims. 
 
 Lastly, after using these methods by way of preparation, 
 we should read the Scriptures as they were intended to be read 
 
 187 — as “ the words of truth and soberness^;”” without any fanci- 
 ful constructions, any chimerical applications to ourselves. I 
 believe any person, who was inclined to enthusiasm, might do 
 himself much service by reading some of the most rational in- 
 terpreters of it ; some of those who have been called divine 
 philosophers^ and philosophical divines. 
 
 The next fault of the religious affections is mysticism. 
 This may be considered as a sort of enthusiasm, but yet it 
 seems to require a separate mention : if it did not, it would 
 not have, probably, a separate name. I call it o. fault., but it 
 is not always acknowledged to be one. Some persons profess 
 themselves to be mystics, but none call themselves superstitious 
 or enthusiastic. To avoid any dispute about words., we will 
 say then, that we mean false'^ mysticism, or the faulty excess 
 of it : any thing that is praiseworthy in it may be mentioned 
 afterwards. 
 
 Mysticism, in this sense, seems to be a very strong devout 
 affection, carrying men from action and reasoning to passionate 
 and rapturous contemplation ; sometimes io Jits^, or ecstasies^ ^ 
 which deprive men of the use of reason. 
 
 As the word affection sometimes includes religious fear, hope, 
 and other sentiments, it may be proper to say, that it is here 
 used in the sense of love. Mysticism seems to be an excess of 
 the love of God ; with some perversion : excluding" hope and 
 
 188 all view to rewards: pure, disinterested. Such love is also to 
 be shown by mystics to man. 
 
 Men seem to be tempted into it by various inducements ; — 
 
 ^ Acts xxvi, 25. 
 
 ^ Hurd, voL iii. Serm. 11th, p. 207. 
 
 * The Authors of the Diet. Acad. 
 Fran, make a difference between vrai 
 mystique and faux mystique. 
 
 ® Voltaire about Mad. Guion ; Louis 
 
 XIV. pp. 305, 306, 12mo. She married 
 Christ in an ecstasy, p. 308. 
 
 ® Dionysius Carthusianus was “ Doctor 
 extaticus?'' Bona, chap. ii. 
 
 7 Maxims by Fenelon, end of 1st Art, 
 trtie. Volt. p. 303. Summary by Fenelon 
 of Swedenborg, p. 81. 
 
 80 2 
 
468 
 
 IMPROVEMENT OF 
 
 [III. XV. 11. 
 
 partly by vanity, or a desire of soaring above vulgar devotees ; II. 
 partly by pleasure. The devout affections are pleasurable, as 
 well as others ; and there is always something tempting in a 
 very specious pretence for evading moral duties, and living in 
 a continued indolence : not to mention, that love of one sort 
 is not wholly unconnected with love of another sort. There is^ 
 some connection between spiritual love and carnal. It will 
 always be worth while for mystic voluptuaries to be cautious 
 of taking liberties, or running hazards, with those of a different 
 sex. Besides, in mysticism, the fancy is warmed, and finds a 
 boundless field in which it may expatiate. Those who have 
 indulged in reverie know the charms of this. 
 
 We must distinguish between inducements to mysticism, 
 and pleas by which it is defended. Those who run into it are 
 apt to dwell, as much as infidels, on the folly of controversies 
 about religion ; and say, that religion is not intended to per- 
 plex or employ the head, but to mend and purify the heart ; 
 that philosophy is vain — the work of weak and fallible man. 
 Doctrines are to be taken on authority : God should be lis- 
 tened to, and God alone. With regard to Christianity, the 
 first teachers of it had no learning; how can we think it neces- 
 sary for us languages are a dead letter^ ; and so on. Pos- 189 
 sibly the fall of angels^, and the origin of evil, may have 
 engaged some in deep visions and contemplations concerning 
 angelic beings and the soul of man ; and the seeming necessity 
 of solving these may have appeared to justify the solutions. 
 
 The same may be observed of the more wonderful parts of na- 
 ture; particularly and ^light. Fantastic reveries on these, 
 connecting them with the Deity and inferior spirits, have 
 seemed to be disquisitions which man ought not to neglect. 
 Chemical mysteries, made religious, seem to have constituted 
 the fancies of the Rosicrucians. 
 
 Expressions of Scripture are frequently brought to justify 
 mysticism. Indeed it may begin with Scripture in its right 
 sense (a common case). All parables must have a meaning 
 
 ' See Voltaire about parodying love- 
 songs, p. 308, Louis XIV. 12mo. About 
 Moravians, see Maclaine’s Mosheim, 
 18th Cent. vol. vi. 8vo, p. 23. Also see 
 Rimius, p. 55, &c. Augustin’s account 
 of Manichean sacrament proves a con- 
 nection in thought of someone’s. Sweden- 
 borg has also a pretty deal of reference 
 
 to loves and marriage. Summary, pp. 64, 
 80, 83. 
 
 2 Behmen,2dBook, ‘‘ Concerning three 
 Principles,” margin at the end of Preface. 
 
 2 Behmen, 2d Book Concerning three 
 Principles title-page, and Index. 
 
 ^ Deut. iv. 24. Behmen’s 40 Questions, 
 Quest. 1st. 5 John i. 7 — 9. 
 
III. XV. 11.] 
 
 RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES. 
 
 469 
 
 II. besides the literal one, this may be called mystical ; prophecies 
 have double senses; action sometimes expresses important truth; 
 St. Paul uses a continued allegory® of a refined sort. Types 
 must have mystical meanings : Christ is the head of the church; 
 the church therefore is his mystical (not real) body ; the 
 church is his mystical spouse, and so on. But the mystics 
 carry this on, as I conceive, from parables, &c. to what does 
 not admit of it — history and morality : and in every thing carry 
 it to excess. 
 
 And in texts, where they do not multiply meanings, they 
 increase the intensity of the signification beyond all reason. 
 As in those about the assistance of the Spirit ; no man can 
 come unto me except the Father^ draw him : in those about 
 the carnal man®, or natural man : in those which relate to peace 
 190 of mind; as if ‘‘the peace of God, which passeth all under- 
 standing,” excluded all action, of body and mind, and was an 
 union with God : and in those which relate to love ; as that it 
 is the fulfilling of the law, &c. — that on the love of God and 
 man depend all the law and the prophets ; — as if love were the 
 end, and not the cause of kind actions. “ Seeking''"' is a 
 favourite word. I do not see rightly how it has become so. 
 “ Will seek (Luke xiii. 24) to enter in, and shall not be able.” 
 Also Matt. vii. 13. 
 
 Mysticism has the name of Quietism^ from the idea that 
 Christian perfection consists in the quiet and repose of the soul, 
 in indifference”, and annihilation, as far as relates to worldly 
 business : in calling it off’ from secular cares, and devoting it 
 wholly to God : in what is called passive contemplation. 
 
 Specimens of mysticism may be found in the works of Ja- 
 cob’® Behmen-i published or prepared in two volumes quarto, by 
 his advocate William Law; of the Hon. Swedenborg ; 
 
 « Gal. iv. 21, &c. 
 
 John vi. 44. xii. 32. 
 
 ® Rom. viii. 6, 7. 1 Cor. ii. 14. 
 
 “ Diet. Acad. Quietisme ^ Quietude. 
 Volt. Louis XIV. Quietisme. And Fene- 
 lon’s Maxims of the Saints. Art. 21, and 
 conclusion, or Preface. Bona calls mys- 
 ticism via quietis : beginning chap. iii. 
 p. 109. 
 
 He signs Jacob Bcehmen, in Pref. to 
 40 Questions. Mosheim calls him Beh- 
 min, Bohmius, Boemen and Boehmen; 
 and in one place a shoemaker., in another 
 
 a tailor. Ladvocat writes Boehm, of 
 Lusatia; shoemaker: M. 1624. Fludd, 
 who is mentioned in W ood’s Athen. 
 Oxon. is called by Mosheim the master, 
 or model, or Sac. of Behmen. 
 
 1. P. who takes the title of M. D. has 
 published a little vol. 12mo, about Jacob 
 Behmen, with extracts — not more intel- 
 ligible than Jacob himself. Dr. Balguy 
 calls something ^‘impenetrable nonsense.’’^ 
 My candour has made me labour to pene- 
 trate here, but all in vain. 
 
470 
 
 IMPllOVEMENT OF 
 
 [III. XV. 11. 
 
 and others. But Archbishop Fenelon’s Maxims of the Saints II. 
 will seem more worthy of attention, on account of the cha- 
 racter of the author, and the disturbance which it occasion- 19 I 
 ed^. The preface of itself gives a good idea of Fenelon’s sort 
 of mysticism, if we take care to understand the words rightly: 
 .teachable, illusion, manners, &c. 
 
 The Quakers are reckoned a species of mystics; and most 
 of their errors may be referred, either to what we have said of 
 enthusiasm, or else of mysticism : to 0^?, they make inward 
 illumination. But I will only mention Barclay's Apology as 
 the principal book in defence of Quakerism, and Bennefs con- 
 futation of Quakerism, at present, as a book which may be con- 
 sulted. Barclay (who died near the end of the seventeenth 
 century) is very different from Behmen, inasmuch as he has 
 all the appearance of reasoning; and some knowledge of 
 Scripture is required to confute him. The Methodists used, 
 about thirty years ago, to apply texts of Scripture in the man- 
 ner above mentioned. I imagine they do it now in a less 
 degree ; but I am not quite certain^ The names of Bourig- 
 non and Leadley would lead to more instances of mysticism, if 
 authors of ecclesiastical history were consulted. 
 
 But there are various degrees of mysticism ; — and persons 
 of cold temperaments, confined to intellectual attainments, void 
 of taste, and dull in sentiment, may call by that name every 
 act of kind or grateful affection towards the Supreme Being. 
 
 As there is a great variety in the tempers, tastes, and senti- 
 ments of different men, considerable latitude should be allowed 
 in such matters as these. The philosophical speculatist should 
 not condemn all warmth of devout^ affection ; nor the affection- 
 ate devotee think that he who keeps God’s^ commandments 
 calmly, and interprets Scripture rationally, is rejected of God, 
 because he shews but little taste or sensibility. Amongst the 
 mystics of the ^15th century we find men of great® eminence: 
 
 ^ See Voltaire’s History of Louis xiv. 
 Quietisme. Mosheim, &c. ; and in some 
 editions of the Maxima of the Saints, 
 some history of it appears, — (G. 12 — 78. 
 Cambr. ) 
 
 Here would be the place to read 
 John Wesley’s account of Mysticism, in 
 the 13th Letter published by Priestley. 
 The Methodists used to have classes 
 formed from experiences. Rimius speaks 
 of the Moravians as mystics : Narrative, 
 
 p. 70. And I think he speaks as if 
 mystics were of very different sorts. 
 
 ^ See Butler’s Sermons on the Love of 
 God, and the conclusion of his Preface, 
 about them. 
 
 ^ 1 John V. 3. 
 
 ® See Mosheim, cent. 15. part II. 
 chap. iii. sect. 11. p. 455 of vol. v. 8vo. 
 
 ^ The Authors of Diet, Acad, make a 
 difference between vrai mystique, and 
 faux mystique; and probably make it 
 
III. XV. 11.] 
 
 RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES. 
 
 471 
 
 II. “ Thomas a Kempis^ the author of the Germanic Theology so 
 highly recommended by Luther;” Savanarola; and, as a 
 favourer, may be mentioned the learned Marcilius Ficinus^ the 
 great commentator on Plato. 
 
 Cardinal Bona"' has given a regular system of Mysticism. 
 A cursory reader may consult the contents of his chapters, 
 and the third section of his first chapter ; in which section 
 he lays dowff several distinctions between the slow way to 
 God, and the short way. He has given indeed a system of 
 both ; calling his first system (that which I conceive to be the 
 same with this slow way) manuductio ad coelum, the latter, 
 via compendii ad Deum per motus anagogicos et ignitas aspi- 
 rationes. Madame Guion called her treatise Moyen^ courts 
 &c.; that treatise which occasioned the contest between Fenelon 
 and Bossiiet. 
 
 193 There is something in mysticism into which men at all 
 times are apt to fall ; I mean those of fine imaginations and 
 warm passions. To bring it to a great height, other circum- 
 stances must join ; as retirement, security, abstinence, leisure, 
 he. What was said at the end of the first Book, concerning 
 the early heresies®, will confirm this sufficiently; and there 
 might be a continued history of mysticism down from the 
 earliest ages^® of Christianity to the present times. Indeed, no 
 man can be prepared to enter on the religious world, who is a 
 stranger to the manner in which it has operated, and is likely to 
 operate in future. 
 
 What has been said, though immediately intended as defi- 
 nition or description, will give us an idea of the evils of 
 mysticism in its faulty state. It seems to be an enemy to 
 rational religion, to reason in general, and to virtue. To re- 
 ligion, as it hinders men from studying'^’ it; to reason, as it 
 hinders them from respecting and cultivating’^ it; to virtue, in 
 several different ways. It makes men useless, when it runs to 
 great excess ; it furnishes them with means of evading such 
 duties as they cannot be ignorant of ; and it prevents them 
 
 in compliance ; but they would not com- 
 ply with every body. Their making the 
 difference shews that they thought some 
 mystics of consequence. 
 
 ’ Died 1674, aged 65, of Mondovi — 
 studious, so as to correspond with literati. 
 
 ^ Maxims, &c. p. 173. G. 12 — 78. 
 Cambr. Voltaire, Louis xiv. p. 303. — 
 Quietisme. 
 
 ® One might compare the Valentinian 
 aeons with Behmen’s angels ; and the 
 fire of some Orientalists with his fire. 
 
 Maxims, &c. Pref. pp. 4, 8. 
 
 “ Mystics are mentioned in this re- 
 spect afterwards. Book IV. art. vi. sect. 2. 
 and art. vii. sect. 3. 
 
 See Rimius’s Narrative, p. 47, bot- 
 tom ; and p. 82. 
 
472 
 
 IMPKOVEMEJsT OF 
 
 [III. XV. 11. 
 
 from learning many others. I believe those, who understand II. 
 morality best, find great attention necessary to make them see 
 their duty in all circumstances, and the secondary or instru- 
 mental methods of performing it ; and those who attend to it 
 but little, are for ever getting into wrong conduct. Mysticism 
 encourages vanity or spiritual pride; and in general I fear it is 194 
 but too true, that those who give themselves up much to re- 
 ligious passion, are found deficient in that to which religion is 
 intended to lead us, — purity of manners, approving things ex- 
 cellent, and carefulness in maintaining good works : they per- 
 vert the means, so as not to attain the endk 
 
 ^\\Q remedies of these evils seem rather obvious. It would 
 be of itself sufficient for those who have a tendency to mysticism, 
 to consider, that one man, or one Christian, has a right to do 
 what another has ; and what would be the consequence of all 
 giving themselves up to passive contemplation, indifference, 
 and to an annihilation of all their faculties ? Those who 
 were not far gone might profit from exercise, of body and 
 mind ; and from mixing in active life ; from those bodily 
 hardships which give courage and vivacity ; from those men- 
 tal investigations, and trials of ingenuity, which give acuteness 
 and discernment. And such as are too far gone to adopt 
 these remedies, can only be regarded with silent^ pity and 
 benevolence. 
 
 In laying out my plan, I mentioned lukewarmness as one 
 of the faults of the devout affections ; but this I need not 
 dwell upon. In every thing that has been said, it has been im- 
 plied that our affections may be too weak as well as too strong; 
 especially in the third chapter, and the three last sections of 
 the present one. It need only therefore be just mentioned, 195 
 that there is such a fault as lukewarmness, in order to make 
 our enumeration complete. There are a set of men in active 
 life, who go to church as a matter of form or decency ; to 
 these Bishop Gibson addresses the first part of his fourth 
 Pastoral Letter, on Lukewarmness. Though some latitude 
 may be allowed, yet every man should have a religious princi- 
 
 ’’ 1 would not say that mystics are of 
 course vicious. The moderate ones wish 
 their disciples to do good offices and 
 works from mystic motives. See Sweden- 
 borg, Summary View — “of Charity and 
 good Works,” p. 85 ; but the tendency of 
 mysticism may be here rightly described. 
 
 And that tendency may be confirmed by 
 a sufficient number of examples. Even 
 Swedenborg mentioned a spiritual life 
 separate from a moral life. See Dialogues 
 concerning him, pp. 95, 97* 
 
 ^ Dr. Balguy, p. 106, and p. 116. 
 
III. XV. 12.] 
 
 RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES. 
 
 473 
 
 II. ple^ and some degree of religious affection. Fear of God is 
 the beginning of religious wisdom : afterwards it may admit of 
 a greater and greater mixture of love., and approocimate to- 
 wards that perfect love which casteth out fear. The manner 
 of nourishing a passion, externally and internally, has been 
 mentioned; and what encourages one passion may discourage 
 another. It must be required of every Christian to perform his 
 duties on religious and on Christian^ as well as on moral prin- 
 ciples : “as unto God.” It must be required of him also to 
 “ grow in grace, and in the knowledge of his Lord and Saviour,” 
 as in a state of discipline. This is very different from acqui- 
 escing in a mere routine of religious observances. Neverthe- 
 less, though a man may in some sense be dissatisfied, he ought 
 not to neglect public worship, because he has happened not to 
 relish it for a few times : that would be to say, I will not take 
 the hark^ because I have the ague. 
 
 12. In the last place, it cannot be conceived that religion 
 can go on improving, without some improvements taking place 
 in discipline and ceremonies. 
 
 If any persons were to set themselves on improving disci- 
 pline^ they must pay great attention to particular situations, 
 hereditary notions and prejudices; to the force of habits; to 
 principles of association^ and sympathy, imitation, love of 
 196 order, and the fine arts ; to the effect of frequent instructions 
 and worship ; of acts of penitence and submission ; of their 
 gradual increase in severity ; to the efficacy of shame in enforc- 
 ing censures. They must be well aware of the strength of that 
 mutual affection which may arise between the pastor and his 
 flock, and of the benefits resulting from a due regulation of it; 
 of the utility of uniting many pastors in council., for the good 
 of many neighbouring congregations. They must be able to dis- 
 cern what kind of authority is most likely to be successful in 
 uniting all the congregations in a large district into one ; giving 
 power with such provisions and checks as shall hinder it from 
 being abused. 
 
 Those, who should undertake to improve ecclesiastical 
 discipline, must also have clear notions of the difference be- 
 tween a church considered merely in itself, and a church con- 
 nected with a state. One power should govern the former, free 
 from bodily coercion ; another the latter, enforced by civil au- 
 thority in many particulars. 
 
 ^ Chap. iii. 
 
474 IMPROVEMENT OF RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES. [III. XV. 13 . 
 
 Ceremonies^ may admit of improvement, though there is II. 
 benefit arising from their being settled, ceteris paribus. They 
 are a part of discipline ; and therefore what has been just now 
 said on discipline may, in part, be applied to them. Moreover, 
 they should be decent, expressive, plain, with a noble sim- 
 plicity ; graceful, yet modest ; mild and reserved, yet capable 
 of producing lively sentiments. Romish'^ ceremonies seem to 
 me to want expression. Though magnificent, they are insipid. 
 
 One is most interested in them when one calculates the expence 
 which they have occasioned. The ceremonies of the Quakers 
 are simple in the extreme ; and those of the Moravians excite 197 
 no idea but of order: yet it must be owned, that animation 
 without foppery or ridiculous blundering is difficult to accom- 
 plish. At Torgau^, or Gouda, I once saw a funeral-ceremony 
 void of all pathos and solemnity ; and the modern Jews seem 
 to walk about their synagogue in London, at religious meetings, 
 as if religion was not at all in their thoughts. Picart’s book of 
 religious ceremonies might afford some hints to promote im- 
 provement in that particular. 
 
 13 . Thus have we gone through all the particulars pro- 
 posed. If they were all put in a right train, they would 
 mutually assist one another ; and we should, ere long, have 
 arguments which would convince, eloquence which would per- 
 suade, music and painting which would charm, forms of devo- 
 tion which would purify and exalt the soul. We should love 
 God, not only with all our hearty or affections, but with all 
 our mind., or intellectual faculties. We should pray with the 
 spirit, we should pray with the understanding also ; and these 
 things, all together, would generate in the heart principles and 
 motives which would render us ‘‘ stedfast, immovable, always 
 abounding in the work of the Lord.” 
 
 ^ Uniformity of Ceremonies, chap. iv. sect. 2. 
 
 * See Sir Edwin Sandys’s Speculum Europae, pp. 3, 8, 9. ^ June 1, 1771- 
 
IV. Introd. 1.] 
 
 475 
 
 II. BOOK IV. 
 
 198 
 
 OF PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES. 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 INTKODUCTION. 
 
 1. It seems the best plan, in our circumstances, to treat 
 of the distinguishing doctrines of particular societies, by con- 
 sidering the Articles of our own Church. If we followed a 
 system^ we should naturally select some doctrines as worthy of 
 peculiar attention ; and it is best to select those with which we 
 are most concerned. These will of course be most interesting; 
 and the more they interest us, the better shall we study and 
 understand them. Whatever has immediate relation to fact is 
 more lively and striking than what terminates in mere specula- 
 tion ; and especially if it be foreseen that we ourselves are 
 likely to be called upon to act in consequence of our reason- 
 ings. Occasion prompts men to great exertions. While occasion 
 is in view, most men can prevail upon themselves to do much 
 more than they can when it is past. 
 
 I should imagine, that the general reasonings, which we 
 have had in the third Book, would have been more tedious, if 
 some application of them to fact did not seem possible while 
 they were going on. They, I should presume, may have a 
 tendency to dissipate groundless scruples and difficulties, as 
 well as to prevent the opposite fault ; but a social, open, can- 
 199 did inquiry into the Articles themselves, must have that same 
 tendency in a greater degree. 
 
 The Founder of our institution wished to have young per- 
 sons in the University duly prepared for the ministry. This 
 his general design cannot, I think, be better answered than by 
 considering attentively those Articles to which such persons are 
 to give their assent. He has indeed specified some subjects 
 which he desires to have treated ; but they may be all intro- 
 duced in one part or other of our plan. His intention seems 
 particularly to have been, to have the doctrine of the Trinity 
 taught as it is summarily laid down in the formularies of our 
 Church; and surely that intention cannot be more directly ex- 
 ecuted than by reading lectures on the Articles themselves. I 
 think he had some doubts about some doctrines contained in 
 the Articles ; and (as he was not inclined to popery) I should 
 
476 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. Introd. 1. 
 
 judge it must be about the agency of God in promoting the sal- II. 
 vation of man; which will include the 13th and 18th Articles, 
 seemingly condemning good men if not true Christians ; but 
 there is no reason to think he was averse to any doctrines of 
 the Church of England being candidly considered ; rather the 
 contrary. There is much greater reason to think he would 
 wish to have all the Articles discussed, than that he would 
 choose to leave those who were designed for the ministry pre- 
 judiced against them, or mistaking their force, and the nature 
 of the assent to be given to them. 
 
 It is not a thing to be neglected, that many are desirous, at 
 this time, to make a change in the doctrine of the National 
 Church : some of these are philosophers and scholars ; some 
 even ministers of the Church. Now, whether we suppose them 
 to have reason on their side or not, nothing can be more sea- 200 
 sonable than our design. If their complaints are without foun- 
 dation, nothing can shew it more clearly ; if a change is really 
 wanted, that which is to be altered should be understood before 
 it be altered. One would not pull down a venerable old 
 house without examining it, and seeing whether a few trifling 
 changes, a little cleaning and lighting, and perhaps pulling 
 down a superfluous room or two, would not make it a much 
 more eligible dwelling than any which would be built accord- 
 ing to the new plan. Hitherto, whatever imperfections our 
 doctrines and forms may have, nothing has been proposed 
 which appears to me, on the whole^ to be worthy to supersede 
 them ; or which is likely to be agreed to by those who are 
 averse to innovations in general, or to the newly proposed 
 schemes in particular. Those who have proposed change 
 appear to me far inferior in solidity of judgment to those who 
 have resisted it. This is not reasoning, to be sure, but it is na- 
 tural for me to speak my opinion, when I am explaining my 
 own methods of proceeding^; and I do believe that the most 
 improved comments on the Scriptures would rather confirm our 
 Articles than overthrow them. 
 
 Bishop Burnet speaks as if a person who attempted an ex- 
 planation of our Articles might be accused of presumption. 
 
 We see here the good of constituting offices I A man may, 
 without imputation of presumption, do many things in office 
 which, as a private individual, he might be blamed for under- 
 taking. Thus the appointment of offices calls forth the services 
 of many who would be useless ; and prevents that modesty, 
 
ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 IV. Introd. 2.] 
 
 477 
 
 II. which in reality qualifies a man for an undertaking, from act- 
 ing as a reason why he should decline it. 
 
 201 2. We determine then on the Articles. The first thing 
 which strikes us is the number of them. Bishop Burnet gives 
 us some satisfaction on this head : and we may say, that, 
 generally speaking, the more Articles, the smaller the number 
 of those who can unite under them ; and yet it seems a right 
 method to unite as many Christians as possible ; that is, as 
 many as can go on together in peace, and attain the ends of 
 religious society. Therefore, the first profession attempted 
 should be a short enumeration of those essentials by which a 
 Christian is distinguished from an heathen or a Jew ; but, if 
 this enumeration is taken in different senses^ and those who 
 maintain them cannot unite., or be silent, they must separate^'., 
 and then, to prevent confusion, and going backwards and for- 
 wards without principle, declarations must be made to render 
 the separation intelligible, definite, practicable ; and all parties 
 quiet. Declarations may be repeatedly made in different senses ; 
 till it may happen that one church may have occasion to dis- 
 tinguish itself from a number of other churches. This may 
 cause a great variety of articles of faith, none of which could 
 
 202 be deemed superfluous. Now I apprehend, that it is in this 
 manner that our Church comes to have so many. Some are 
 against one sect, some against another : our reformers wanted 
 to separate from the Church of Rome, and yet to avoid running 
 into any opposite extreme. Now surely, if we had no Articles 
 but what must naturally arise in such a situation, we could 
 not be said to have too many. Let any man then, in going 
 through them, examine, whether this is not the truth. The 
 Church of England has no Articles but such as, 1. might seem 
 necessary to make a separation from the Church of Rome, and 
 prevent papists from prevaricating^ : 2. Such as might seem 
 
 ^ Whenever men have been free from 
 the restraint of a religious establishment, 
 they have broken out into strange notions 
 and fancies, which have prevented their 
 uniting with rational, sober-minded men. 
 This happened particularly on the first 
 publication of Christianity, and at our 
 Reformation. (See Burnet, Introd. 8vo. 
 p. 5.) This makes it very probable that 
 a very short creed is not a practicable 
 expedient in the present state of things. 
 Men deceive themselves by taking for 
 granted that articles and confessions of 
 
 faith were made before any religious 
 societies were formed — voluntarily, and 
 not of necessity. They might as well 
 take for granted that cannons and gun- 
 powder and weapons were made before 
 there were any contentions ; and then ex- 
 claim, What a shame, that implements 
 for the destruction of mankind should be 
 in constant use ! no ; weapons were in- 
 vented from time to time as war made 
 them requisite. 
 
 2 See Book III. chap. ix. sect. 5; or 
 Burnet, 8vo. p. 5. 
 
478 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. Introd. 2. 
 
 necessary to hinder the Church from falling into the opposite II. 
 extreme, of Puritanism : 3. Such as every religionist would re- 
 quire to have settled in one way or other, as being universally 
 objects of dispute: and lastly. Such as, when a body of doc- 
 trines or truths was to be compiled, could not be omitted con- 
 sistently with such a design. If this prove to be the truth, 
 our Church seems defensible ; and one thing in favour of the 
 notion is, that some Articles, which were made in 1552, were 
 cut off in 1562b 
 
 Hence it seems a fallacy, when any person complains, that, 
 in order to be a member of our Church, a man must have 
 thirty-nine difficult metaphysical propositions, each containing^ 
 many more, to assent to. To any one man a great many 
 articles are not to be reckoned as any thing. What signifies it 
 to a Puritan^ who abhors every thing which comes at all near 
 popery, how many articles our Church has against the Church 
 of Rome It would never burthen his conscience if every 
 Romish superstition and every Romish saint was condemned by 203 
 a separate article. The same may be said of the Socinian. 
 There are three or four Articles which relate to him : all the rest 
 he ought to speak of as having no beingb 
 
 I would not be understood to say, that, if our national doc- 
 trine was to be new-modelled, all our present Articles must be 
 retained ; that would depend on circumstances : but I believe, 
 that, if our circumstances required thirty-nine, as much as those 
 of our reformers did in 1562, it would not be right or prudent 
 to have a less number. Bishop Hurd^ in the 11th Sermon of 
 his third volume, seems inclined to retrench Articles about mys- 
 terious or difficult doctrines ; and he would now be a leading 
 man in any councils in which he would think proper to engage. 
 
 I conjecture, that, if it were entrusted to me to form a new set 
 of articles, in order to separate the Church of England from all 
 those which are incapable of carrying on the purposes of reli- 
 gious society with it, I should myself simplify some parts of our 
 present confession ; but whether that would be a real improve- 
 ment, is another question. And that I should do so, can only 
 be matter of conjecture, till I fairly discuss the question in my 
 own mind. So long as our present Articles continue, I must 
 
 » III. ix. 7. 
 
 2 Bp. Law’s Considerations on Sub- 
 scriptions, p. 6. 
 
 The Socinians have no objection to 
 excluding Papists : see their petition to 
 
 parliament. Dr. Balguy’s 5th Charge, 
 pp. 278, 263. If indeed they had, every 
 article against Papists would be a burthen 
 to their consciences. 
 
IV. Introd. 3.] 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 479 
 
 II. honour them highly, looking back to the times when they were 
 made ; whatever might be spared of them in the present times, 
 could men be unanimous about them. 
 
 3. The next thing to the number of our Articles, is their 
 worth or value. In my own opinion they are very much un- 
 
 204 dervalued : more than I can well express. Bishop Burnet says, 
 in one place, “ How or by whom they were prepared, we do not 
 certainly know some lines afterwards he says, they were 
 prepared, as is most probable, by Cranmer and Ridley.’'’' 
 “ Questions were framed relating to them, these were given^ 
 about to many bishops and divines, who gave in their several 
 answers, that were collated and examined very maturely : all 
 sides had a free and fair hearing, before conclusions were made.” 
 From those, whose works we know, we can judge of the rest; 
 and it seems sufficiently clear, that the persons who compiled 
 our Articles were men of the first ability. As scholars (if we 
 except a few, though mere linguists ought not to be reckoned) 
 we are mere children to them. The Scriptures they were con- 
 versant in to a degree of which few now have any conception 
 (so at least I believe). Ecclesiastical history, of facts and opin- 
 ions, lay open before them. Yet, they were not mere scholars, 
 nor monks, nor monkish men; but skilled in government; know- 
 ing men and manners; liberal in behaviour; free from all fanati- 
 cism; full of probity, yet guided in their measures by prudence. 
 Conceive all these roused, animated, by the grandeur and im- 
 portance of the occasion ; all their powers exerted to the utmost, 
 with diligence and ardour ; and you will agree, well might Dr. 
 Balguy say, “The age of Ridley, Jewel, and Hooker'^, will be 
 reverenced by the latest posterity.” And of the Articles in 
 particular we may say, there is not an article composed in any 
 
 205 spirit of opposition or contradiction. '^Moderation continually 
 prevailed. Indeed it must have prevailed ; for the end in view 
 was to retain as great a number as possible of the most mode- 
 rate amongst both Papists and Puritans : and the complaints of 
 both parties prove this. Enemies to Calvinism have complained 
 that our Articles were Calvinistic ; but not more strongly than 
 the Calvinists have^ complained that they were not so. No set 
 
 ^ Introduction, p. 6, 8vo. 
 
 5 Charge V. p. 271. Bishop Hurd 
 calls the reformers “ a few divine men,” 
 p. 206, vol. III. Serm. 11th. See last 
 chap, of 2d book of Bingham’s Apology ; 
 and beginning of the 1st chap. Works, 
 
 vol. 2d, p. 723. Le Moyne. 
 
 ® Puller’s “ Moderation of the Church 
 of England,” is worth consulting. 
 
 7 See last chap, of 2d book of Bing- 
 ham’s Apology. Collier’s Eccles. Hist, 
 quoted before : viz. vol. it. p. 746. 
 
480 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. Introd. S. 
 
 of men could be chosen, nor any circumstances, more likely to II. 
 form a good set of Articles. They would fall short of nothing 
 attainable, through indolence or cowardice; they would set 
 down nothing carelessly, on the presumption of its passing un- 
 examined ; they would overshoot nothing, in hopes of catching 
 a few. They had nothing for it but to fix on that which right 
 reason and good feelings would embrace. 
 
 If it be asked, why men do not commonly esteem our Arti- 
 cles according to this account ? I would answer, perhaps partly 
 because they and the writings of the age are in a language now 
 become ^uncouth and antiquated; but really the chief thing 
 which hinders us from esteeming them is our own ignorance. 
 Christians are to be united by hitting off a due medium between 
 two opinions ; and we are ignorant what the opinions are. And 
 yet we proceed in a petulant manner ; reasoning superficially, 
 and despising what we ought to venerate. Let us then first 
 suspect ourselves; and then, after examination of ourselves, we 
 may freely try them. It frequently happens that we find fault 206 
 with others (especially if they are plain and unassuming) when 
 the fault is only in ourselves. 
 
 Yet, after all, the compilers of our Articles, and the authors 
 of the Reformation, were but men ; and, if they had imperfec- 
 tions, absolute or relative, we ought not to shut our eyes 
 against them. Their relative imperfections will arise from im- 
 provements made since their time. In what then are we improv- 
 ed ? Perhaps we cannot say that any one man now is a better 
 divine than one man then, upon the whole ; but we may say, 
 that improvements have been made in some particular criticisms 
 and expositions"; though possibly such men as the Reformers 
 might have made as great, at least, in the same time. Whether 
 improvements have been made in logic, or even in mathematics, 
 as far as relates to theological reasoning, I doubt ; but morality 
 has been improved (and would be much more so if we had Dr. 
 Balguy’s explanation of his Heads of Moral Lectures), and 
 naturaP religion, and metaphysics^ It may be worth adding, 
 as a thing greatly affecting religion, that we are much improved 
 in seeing, conceiving, and allowing the rights of toleration : 
 and in the whole matter of uniting civil power with ecclesiastical. 
 
 * Even Bp. Lavj could fancy there is 
 something ridiculous in under standed." 
 Subscriptions, p. 6, note. 
 
 2 By Locke, Taylor, &c. and in many 
 
 Sermons. 
 
 ® By Clarke, Boyle, Ray, Derham, 
 Balguy. 
 
 ^ By Locke. 
 
IV. Introd. 4.] 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 481 
 
 II. the more I see of the controversies about the king being head of 
 the Church, the independency of the Church, &c., the more I 
 am convinced of the worth and excellency of Bishop Warbur- 
 ton’s Alliance of Church and State. I think also that we are 
 improved with respect to superstition and enthusiasm ; for, 
 though we have many who run into those faults, they are not 
 persons of much eminence. The abolition of the law against 
 
 207 witches is one good proof of this. The proofs also of the truth 
 of Christianity are improved by controversy with Deists ; but 
 then Articles are not aimed at either Deists or Atheists. 
 
 Dr. Balguy seems ^ to hint at some ambiguities and inac- 
 curacies in our Articles ; and to insinuate that some things are 
 unphilosophical in them ; and that some things may mislead^ 
 or draw men into erroneous opinions. I do not at present re- 
 collect instances, but we must keep this in mind as we go along. 
 
 4. Our next business may be to see how we can ascertain, 
 or approach to, the primitive sense of our Articles. This must 
 be done by putting ourselves in the place of those who com- 
 piled them. History only can® place us in past ages; in short, 
 we may say, that we should study the history of the Reforma- 
 tion. This would inform us how doctrines were gradually pro- 
 pagated. We have a book^, printed in 1543, called “ a neces- 
 sary doctrine f &c.®; which, though it has many doctrines of 
 the Church of Rome in it, was intended to instruct the people, 
 was in the vulgar tongue, and was chiefly prepared by Arch- 
 bishop Cranmer^. Some judgment may be formed from this, 
 early as it was — in some points a good judgment. In 1549 an 
 Act of Parliament passed for the King (Edward vi.) to em- 
 power, for three years, thirty-two persons, half clergy, half 
 laity, to reform the ecclesiastical laws of England. Their laws 
 
 208 are in being, though never enforced, and make a book entitled 
 Reformatio Legum ; from which the mind of the reformers 
 may be seen in several doctrines. The commission is dated 
 two years after the Act, and one before King Edward’s 
 Articles^®. 
 
 ® P. 293. 6 Book III. chap. ix. j 
 
 ’ For an account of books published 
 by authority at this time, see Fuller’s 
 Church History ; particularly the 7th 
 book. That book is on the reign of 
 Edw. VI. 
 
 ^ Burnet, p. 6, Bvo. 
 
 ^ Heylin, Hist. Quinqu. 2. 8. Henry 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 VIII. said it was Cranmer’s own book. 
 Burnet’s Records, vol. ii. p. 238, quoted 
 in Diss. on IJth Art. p. 32. 
 
 One might compare that part of the 
 Reformatio Legum, which is called the 
 Epilogus to the chapter de Hceresibus, 
 with what comes before it in the vo- 
 lume. 
 
 31 
 
482 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. Introd. 4. 
 
 As our Articles were taken in part from the confession of II. 
 Augsburg, and as that was composed by Melancthon, we 
 might clear up in some points the primitive sense of our Arti- 
 cles, if we consulted either that confession, or the writings of 
 that divine. Erasmus was professor in the University of 
 Cambridge; and his Paraphrase on the Gospels was placed^ 
 in the English churches at the time of the reformation; that 
 therefore must have expressed the mind of the reformers. 
 
 And their meaning is partly to be collected from some of their 
 own writings, and from their Lives ; some of which are written 
 by Strype^ ; all to be found in the Biographia Britannica. I 
 speak particularly of Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, and 
 Jewel. 
 
 The Homilies must, of course, shew the meaning of the 
 Reformers; the second book of which, published 1560, is said 
 to have been written chiefly by Jewel. The first book, pub- 
 lished in 1547 (1st Edward vi.), was written chiefly by Cranmer, 
 assisted probably by several persons commissioned for that pur- 
 pose : Latimer is thought likely. There is a Life of Ridley, 
 by Mr. Glocester Ridley^, in quarto ; and Heylin’s Historia 
 Quinquarticularis, Part II. Chap. 8, is well worth consulting; 
 as is the Introduction to his Life of Laud (Cyprianus An- 209 
 glicus.'*) 
 
 I think it is not to be conceived that the primitive sense of 
 any expression is always one single sense. The reformers very 
 probably left some expressions open, to be taken in some few 
 different senses^ : so that, proving that a certain sense may be 
 called the primitive sense, is not proving that another cannot 
 be called so. And a distinction is to be made in some points, 
 between the first reformers and those in the latter end of Eli- 
 zabeth, Sic.*^. In Mary’s reign, as was observed before, the 
 
 * See Edw. vi. Injunctions, in Spar- 
 row’s Collection, or Fuller’s History. 
 
 2 Fox’s “Acts and Monuments” has 
 some Disputations, &c. in which opinions 
 and proofs appear. 
 
 ^ See particularly Book V. sect. 7* 
 There is a Latin book, published in 
 quarto at London in 1617, called Doc- 
 trinaet Politia Ecclesice Anglicance, &c., 
 containing Jewel’s Apology, two Cate- 
 chisms in Latin, our common one and a 
 fuller, the common prayers, &c. which 
 mentions, in the title of the 39 Articles, 
 
 the heretics against which they were 
 made : — Sabellians, Manicheans, Arians, 
 Tritheists, Macedonians, Ebionites, Nes- 
 torians, Eutychians, Novatians, Dona- 
 tists. Pelagians, Semipelagians, Papists, 
 Servetians, Anabaptists, and others. 
 
 ® See Powell, Disc. ii. p. 36; and 
 Nicholls on the Title of the Articles. 
 
 ® See Oxf. Pamph. on 17th Art. p. 1, 
 and 79 . Bishop Hurd seems to make 
 this distinction , vol. in. Serm. xi. pp. 
 
 206, 207 . 
 
IV. Introd. 5, 6.] 
 
 ARTICLES 'OF RELIGION. 
 
 483 
 
 II. English refugees imbibed Calvinism abroad^. A distinction is 
 also to be made between the primitive and the literal sense. 
 They may coincide at first, because allusions are then adopted 
 intuitively ; but, after a length of time, they will differ, because 
 allusions will then be lost^. 
 
 The original of our Articles perished in the fire of London ; 
 but there are copies, manuscript and printed: in these are some 
 various readings^ but not any of consequence. If the original 
 had been preserved only one reading could have been right, now 
 
 210 different readings may contend: but the case is the same with 
 the sacred writings themselves. Bennefs collation of the va- 
 rious readings will be mentioned by and by. 
 
 5. No person will think of reading the Articles carefully 
 without paying some attention to the Injunction or Declaration 
 which is prefixed to them. But I have'*' already said enough of 
 this. 
 
 6. I will now mention a few writers on our Articles. 
 There are more than I have seen, or than I can now remember 
 by name. At Jirst, the Articles wanted but little explanation ; 
 the chief thing they wanted was Scriptural proof. What opi- 
 nions and practices they meant to refer to was, I imagine, 
 generally known. The most complete collation of different 
 copies, which I have seen, is in Bennefs Essay. He has also 
 given a good history of their formation, and some remarks on 
 the nature of the assent given to them. Bennet’s Essay is to 
 be distinguished from his Directions for studying the Articles. 
 In this last he refers to the confutation of popery, &c. — meaning 
 his own. Anthony Collins Esq., the freethinker, seems to 
 have written something upon the Articles — against them pro- 
 bably ; but I have not been able to meet with it. I have an 
 exposition by Veneer; one by Rogers; a very small one hy Ellis, 
 proposing and briefly solving some objections. Welchman is 
 in every one’s hands. Rogers gives historical hints, which may 
 be pursued. Dr. Nicholls, at the beginning of his book on the 
 Common Prayer, has explained the first fourteen Articles, and 
 in some respects very successfully. Bingham, about the French 
 Protestant Church, may be read with satisfaction, as to those 
 things which relate to Protestant dissenters^^ . 
 
 211 Dr. John Burges may be considered as a writer on those 
 
 ^ Book III. chap, vii, sect. 5. 
 
 ^ See before, Book III. chap. vi. sect. 1. 
 And III. ix. 1. 
 
 ^ Book III. chap. vii. sect. 5. And 
 III. ix. 1. 
 
 This is published separate. 
 
 .'ll 2 
 
484 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. Introd. 7. 
 
 Articles about which he expressed his doubts to the heads of the II. 
 Church. And his remarks are worth reading. 
 
 Information may be derived from Neafs History of the 
 Puritans^; only allowance must be made for his prejudices in 
 favour of those people, of whom he himself was one. 
 
 This list may perhaps hereafter be enlarged ; I mean of the 
 writers on the Articles known to me^. 
 
 I will conclude with the mention of Bishop^ Burnet. I 
 have not lately read his work on the Articles ; but it seems the 
 most esteemed of any. He must have been possessed of ^matter 
 for a very masterly exposition ; and I should think, with his 
 theological and historical knowledge, he might have put his 
 readers more in the place of the compilers than he has done. 
 Probably, though our religion has always had its opposers, he 
 was not so much pressed as we are now. He professes® to be a 
 collector ; and, in truth, it seems as if he might sometimes have 
 made a little philosophical reasoning of great service. Those 
 who prepared the Articles might not reason in form ; but they 
 reasoned nicely^ though silently ; and some metaphysics, well 
 applied, would bring our minds nearer to the state of theirs®. 
 
 His reading was judicious and extensive ; but, when he got 212 
 into the mazes of different opinions, he seems to have wanted 
 a clue. But I will read his work again. Certainly our Church 
 is much obliged to him ; — nevertheless, a work much inferior 
 might be useful, after a change of circumstances. 
 
 7- After what has been said, in the ninth chapter of the 
 third Book (at the close of the first section), on the use of his- 
 tory in clearing up the obscurity of any expressions in our 
 Articles, by shewing us the views of those who compiled them, 
 and the circumstances to which they meant to refer, it will not 
 seem strange if I endeavour to open the subject of each Article 
 by some historical remarks. Nothing, I am persuaded, can be 
 more effectual in taking off any apparent uncouthness, or in 
 making the reasonings, which follow, appear interesting and 
 important. Yet, before such reasonings occur, it will generally 
 
 ® Pref. p. XV. 
 
 ® I reasoned simply, from the nature 
 of things, on the subjects of voluntary 
 actions, and predestination, and I think 
 my reasonings have developed some 
 thoughts and ideas which were in the 
 minds of the reformers, though not drawn 
 out into form. 
 
 * In Grey s JNotes on Hudibras, an 
 Answer to Neal is often referred to. 
 
 ® I have seen other writings on the 
 Articles mentioned in the catalogues of 
 booksellers, but I have neglected, I per- 
 ceive, to enter them here. 
 
 ^ Scotch — died 1715. 
 
 See his Preface. 
 
THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 485 
 
 IV. i.] 
 
 II. he found needful to give an explanation of some expressions, 
 though even explanation must be in a good measure historical. 
 Thus prepared, we may come to a proof of the truth of the 
 several propositions contained in each Article ; but, as a long 
 time has elapsed since the last publication of our Articles, and 
 as many changes have taken place, both in mens notions and 
 situations, it will be satisfactory to compare the age of the Re- 
 formation with our own ; and so to make an application^ of what 
 may have been said, to the present state of things. Of what 
 parts such application should consist, will best appear when we 
 first come to make one. In some Articles, which now seem to 
 us of but secondary importance, this method may not be con- 
 stantly observed in all its strictness. 
 
 In this fourth Book, every Article may be conceived to 
 make a chapter. , 
 
 213 ARTICLE I. 
 
 OF FAITH IN THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without 
 body, parts, or passions ; of infinite power, wisdom, and good- 
 ness ; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and 
 invisible. And in the unity of this Godhead there be three 
 Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity ; the Father, 
 the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 
 
 I cannot enter upon such a work as the consideration of the 
 Articles of our Church, without some expressions of diffidence ; 
 nor without claiming a right to retract any opinion which im- 
 provement in reasoning and knowledge may, at any time, shew 
 me is groundless. Let not this be deemed affectation: it would 
 really be painful to me not to indulge myself in some such 
 declaration ; and indeed it is only saying, now we enter on our 
 present subject, what was said on the first entrance on our whole 
 plan’’'. It is only expressing a temper, which has been recom- 
 mended as always proper in the discussion of doctrines above 
 human comprehension®. It has indeed seldom happened to me 
 to retract an opinion ; which I impute to reasoning with sim- 
 ^ Book I. chap. i. sect. 6. ® Book III. chap. x. sect. 15. 
 
486 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. i. 1. 
 
 plicity, and endeavouring not to deceive myself, in order to II. 
 defend any received or established doctrine. 
 
 The principal thing in which I feel myself (and every one 214 
 must feel himself) deficient is history. Indeed, I do not see how 
 any one can ever attain such a knowledge in history as might 
 be wished; or such as has before been briefly described — of 
 facts, opinions, passions. Yet it is history which is to give us, 
 as was very lately observed, the design of each Article; and the 
 particular expressions are to be interpreted by the design, as a 
 statute by its preamble. Bishop Burnet, in treating on our first 
 Article, enters into discussions of natural religion. They seem 
 to me unseasonable ; though nothing can be more valuable than 
 good discussions on that subject. Articles of faith must turn 
 on interpretations of Scripture. The Unity of God is indeed 
 to be proved, because it makes a part of the doctrine of the 
 Trinity; but on principles of revealed religion. The design of 
 the first Article is, to guard against all errors and heresies of 
 Christians with regard to the Holy Trinity ; as the title suffi- 
 ciently declares. 
 
 1. I am now therefore to enter on the difficult subject of 
 the history of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. And here it 
 seems proper first to say something of some notions which have 
 been ascribed to heathens^ in a degree resembling ours. Mr. 
 Voltaire mentions as what have been, in some sort, three deities 
 in one, Jupiter, Neptune, Pluto ; and again, Isis, Osiris, 
 Horus ; and Birma, Brama, Visnou. I think it is said that 
 Servetus compared our Trinity to Geryon^. Dr. Potter ob- 
 serves that three^ was a sacred number. 
 
 These it may not be worth while to dwell upon. Jupiter 215 
 seems to have been God of all above the surface of the earth, 
 Neptune of the sea, Pluto of all under the earth ; but their 
 unity does not appear to have been insisted on. The notions 
 of Plato seem to approach nearer ours; and, on other accounts, 
 to be better worth considering. Bishop Horsley recommends^ 
 the study of his works. Heathens, Jews, and Christians, have 
 highly extolled him. Cicero de Natura Deorum^ seems to 
 
 * For Geryon, see Spence’s Polymetis, 
 the ninth of Hercules’s labours, and the 
 16th Dialogue, about the Lower World. 
 In that Dialogue are several instances of 
 Triads, p. 272: (see also p. 284); or 
 Abridgment, p. IJo. Cerberus (Spence) 
 represented past, present, and future. 
 
 Spence says, in Pref. that the Romans 
 had three principal deities. There is 
 a Diana Triformis : Abr. of Spence, 
 p. 37 . Horace ( Od. ii. xiv.) calls Geryon 
 ter amplus. Virgil has tergeminus. 
 
 2 Potter’s Antiquities, i. 358. 
 
 ® In his Charge. ^ Lib.ii. cap. 12. 
 
IV. i. I.] 
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 487 
 
 II. s[)eak only a general opinion, when he calls him ‘‘quendam 
 Deum philosophornm.” The Jews are said to have studied and 
 imitated him ; particularly Philo^ Many eminent Christians 
 have admired and commended him. Allix® says, on account of 
 his morals; but Jerom and Augustin speak more with relation 
 to his reasoning and doctrines. Jerom says that he is divi- 
 num^, profundum, nec a juvenilibus intelligi posse.” Augustin 
 seems to declare that he himself should not (when he left the 
 Manicheans) have professed the Divinity of the Logos, and 
 that the word was really made flesh, if he had not read the 
 Platonists. This he says in his Confessions^, which seem to 
 be a sort of continued prayer; ascribing his meeting with them 
 to the Divine Providence : — “ Et primo (tu) volens ostendere 
 mihi, — quod Verbum tuum caro factum est, et habitavit inter 
 216 homines, procurasti mihi, per quemdam hominem, — Platonico- 
 rum libros ex Grseca lingua in Latinam versos. Et ibi legi, 
 non quidem his verbis, sed hoc idem omnino multis et multipli- 
 cibus suaderi rationibus, quod in principio erat Verbum,” &c. 
 It is observed, that Chrysostom speaks as much against Plato 
 as Augustin for him. Dacier solves the difficulty by saying, 
 that Augustin, &c. commend the doctrines of Plato, as leading 
 to Christianity, and preparing the mind for it ; and Chrysos- 
 tom, &c. reprobate the morals of Plato, not as being bad, but 
 as claiming to equal the morals of Christianity, and render 
 Christianity needless. (Dac. Disc, on Plato, p. IS, English.) 
 Dacier observes, that when the Jewish prophets ceased, Plato 
 arose. To what height some persons have carried their notions 
 of him, one may see in Dacier’s account of Marsilius Ficinus ; 
 (Engl. p. 159, also p. 141, about Augustin, &c.) where Dacier 
 disclaims Plato’s foretelling the sufferings of Christ (pp. 5 and 
 6). I doubt not but there are very noble doctrines in Plato, 
 and fine and charming sentiments ; but these are scattered, dis- 
 persed, and mixed with many things strange (if not immoral, 
 pp. 51, 52, Dacier), fanciful, unintelligible: so that very dif- 
 ferent sorts of men might be Platonists, as they took their 
 notions and feelings from the better or worse parts of Plato’s 
 writings. Cicero, Mr. Gibbon observes, did not, in his Book 
 de Natura Deorum, take notice of any Platonic Trinity. He 
 
 ® See afterwards sect. 3. Note about 
 Numenius. 
 
 ® P. 355, chap, xxiii. of his Jews 
 against Unitarians. 
 
 7 Ad Jovin. (quoted by Vossius, about 
 Plato.) 
 
 8 Confess. 7- 9. 13, 14. and 8. 2, 3. 
 quoted Lard. Works, vol. in. p. 541. 
 
488 
 
 ARTICLES OE RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. i. 1. 
 
 might consider the idea as too indefinite, and rank it amongst II. 
 the Platonic unintelligibles. (Plato designedly obscure, Dac. 
 pp. 72, 140 ; and Warb. Div. Leg.) 
 
 Some’ infidels have affected to call all Christians Platonists ; 
 as if they had no doctrines, or but few relating to the nature 217 
 of God, except what they had derived from Plato. Of this we 
 shall take no farther notice at present than to observe, that the 
 mere charge must make the knowledge of Plato’s notions inte- 
 resting to the learned Christian. 
 
 I will now mention a few Trinities such as Mr. Voltaire 
 takes, as I remember, from Platon's TimcBus chiefly, and from 
 his other works — Parmenides ; Epinomis. If I wished to make 
 any nice deductions from them, I should certainly refer you to 
 the original ; but that would detain us a longer time, without 
 making us amends. 
 
 Unbegotten avTo dya9ot^ — first understanding — first life. 
 
 First cause — reason — animal life or spirit. 
 
 Plan (Voltaire’s interpretation) — execution — animation. 
 
 Ao'yos' ei^SiaOcTog ^ — Word internal — Ad-yos 7rpo(popiKo ^) — 
 Word external, — World, or Spirit of World.. 
 
 God— Word— World. 
 
 Power — wisdom — goodness. 
 
 Indivisible — divisible — both indivisible and divisible. 
 
 Demiurge — Idee Archetype — universal mind. 
 
 This serves to shew in what manner Plato runs into triads 
 
 His ear, or hh fancy, not his reason, I should think, led him 
 into thesek There is more foundation in reason, in his triad 218 
 relating to the mind: according to Cicero^, 
 
 Ratio — Ira — Cupiditas. 
 
 But his ear and fancy are very much guided by numbers, 
 as any one may see in his Timaeus® ; or in Diogenes Laertius. 
 
 * Voltaire, quarto, vols. xxiv. xxvi. 
 XXVII. See Contents. From whom 
 Mr. Gibbon seems to take his opinion, 
 vol. II. 4to, p. 237, &c. 
 
 2 Pope has, First good, first perfect, 
 and first fair, — or something near that. 
 And there is something to the present 
 purpose, Dacier, p. 140. The Christian 
 Fathers believed that Plato had an idea 
 of the Trinity, p. 141. 
 
 N. B. Our references to Dacier are 
 to his accounts of Plato, prefixed to his 
 translation of some select Dialogues into 
 French. The pages may be those of an 
 
 English translation from his French. 
 
 3 See Theoph. Antioch, p. 81, Oxon. 
 1684. 
 
 Epiphanius treats the ancient hea- 
 then sects of philosophers as so many 
 heresies ; at the beginning of his Book of 
 Heresies. In speaking of Plato, he says, 
 that he held a first aiTiov, a second, and 
 a third. 
 
 5 Tusc. Disp. 1. 10. Smith’s Theory 
 of Moral Sentiments has, I think, some- 
 thing to the purpose. Dacier, p. 121. 
 
 ® Numerum quinarium composition! 
 animse convenire, tribus de causis, arbi- 
 
IV.. i. 2.J 
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 489 
 
 II. As I mean to avoid controversy with regard to Plato, on 
 his very indefinite notions about the Deity, I will only farther 
 mention a few things, which seem to have been in a great mea- 
 sure, if not wholly, agreed upon. 
 
 It seems agreed, that Plato (of Athens, about 430 years 
 before Christ), when he professed but one God, has spoken of 
 him making use of the number three'^. 
 
 It seems also agreed that this notion of a triad in the Divi- 
 
 O 
 
 nity was not his own originally ; but from whom he derived it 
 is disputed. Infidels say, from ®Timagus; who might derive it 
 from Orpheus: the orthodox say, from the Jews; either imme- 
 diately, or through the medium of Pythagoras and Parmenides^: 
 some include Pherecydes. 
 
 It seems also agreed that Plato had not distinct ideas, or a 
 fixed system, on this matter : — ‘‘ De Platonis inconstantia Ion- 
 gum est dicere^V’ His imagination seems to have been rich, 
 219 and his feelings warm, which must have greatly affected his 
 disquisitions on mysterious and sublime subjects. Any one 
 may say this, and yet admire his Apology of Socrates ; as any 
 one may neglect the natural philosophy of Aristotle, and yet 
 admire his Poetics and Rhetoric. 
 
 I can conceive that it must have been a delightful thing to 
 have lived with this philosopher (Plato), the friend and dis- 
 ciple of Socrates ; so earnest in his researches after knowledge, 
 so sweetly cheerful, so warmly benevolent ; so enriched with 
 ideal beauty, so strong and powerful in reasoning ! 
 
 2. We will now pass on to notions ascribed to Jews. The 
 word Elohim or Aleim, having a plural termination, and being 
 used with a verb singular^^, has been^'^ thought to denote some 
 kind of plurality in the Unity of God. And the cheruhin^^ 
 overshadowing the ark have been thought symbols of the Tri- 
 nity. Moreover, it has been ably argued, “ that the Jews before 
 Chrisfs time^^, according to the received expositions of the Old 
 
 tramur. Ficini compendium in Timaeum, 
 c. 27. See Plutarch de procreatione 
 animae, ex Platonis Timaeo ; and Dacier, 
 p. 103. 
 
 ’ Many authors might be consulted 
 on Plato: as Diogenes Laertius, Plu- 
 tarch, Maximus Tyrius, Proclus, John 
 Baptist Crispus, Cudworth, Brucker. 
 
 8 See Voltaire, vol. xiv. quarto; and 
 Gibbon, vol. ii. p. 243, quarto. 
 
 ^ See Lardner’s Tests, under Nume- 
 
 nius ; (a Syrian, not improbably before 
 Christ;) or Lard. Works, vol. viii. 
 p. 168. 
 
 Cic. de Nat. Deor. i. 12. 
 
 Like means in English. 
 
 See Allix’s Jews against Unitarians, 
 p. 116, or chap. ix. 
 
 Parkhurst. niD — and — Lex. 
 
 Buxt. 12mo, p. 159. Some one refers 
 to Le Clerc’s Ars Critica, i)p. 150 — 156, 
 vol. I. Allix, chap. i. p. 6. 
 
490 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. i. 3. 
 
 Testament, derived from their fathers, had a notion of a plu- II. 
 rality of persons in the unity of the Divine Essence ; and that 
 this plurality was a Trinity.” The old Jewish books or writ- 
 ings adduced, as containing the received sense, or as proving 
 what it was, are some of our Apocryphal books, the Wisdom 
 of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, &c., the Chaldee paraphrases, and 
 the writings^ of Philo. 
 
 I would here also avoid controversy if possible, as carrying 220 
 us too much out of our way. Therefore I will suppose that 
 grammatical criticism leaves it in doubt whether the words of 
 the Hebrew language do clearly imply a Trinity in the Unity ; 
 yet I would be permitted to observe, that there is a something 
 in the Old Testament rather varying from the grand funda- 
 mental peculiarity of the Mosaic religion, the Unity of God ; 
 and that obscure notices are suitable to the nature and genius 
 of a preparatory dispensation ; and therefore that there might 
 be an obscure intimation of a Trinity. The coming of the 
 Messiah is not the less certainly foretold, because it was at first 
 foretold obscurely. How common it is to have the name of 
 the Supreme Deity a plural, the linguist must determine. As 
 the general end of the religion of Moses was to separate the 
 chosen race from Polytheists, the teachers of it must have had 
 some particular end in view in not always using those names of 
 God which were of the singular number. 
 
 3. Having then taken some notice of notions of a Trinity 
 ascribed to heathens and Jews, I come to the Christian doc- 
 trine. The question here is, whether the Christian doctrine is 
 an original one, or borrowed from the Platonists in Egypt ? 
 What Mr. Gibbon says may seem to come too near the subject 
 of the second Article to be dwelt on here ; but yet his main 
 point is the ^Trinity. This question an infidel would answer 
 one way, a believer another. An infidel would say, the doc- 
 trine is borrowed : St. John was conversant in Platonic writings, 
 adopted Platonic notions, with the term Logos, and applied 
 them to Christ. Nor does it avail to urge that he was con- 
 versant only in Jewish writings ; for those old Jewish writ- 
 ings, which we call Apocryphal, and the Paraphrases of the 221 
 Old Testament, were all formed (says the infidel) in the Pla- 
 
 * Philo has a sort of Trinity near the 
 beginning of his work about Names, 
 which he compares with the three patri- 
 archs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This 
 cannot have been the idea, or at least not 
 
 the comparison, of Plato : 'O 6eds twi/ 
 
 TpLwv (puo-ewi/, OLSaoTKaXias, ocrioTtjTos, 
 a(7/c»;crea)V. 
 
 2 Gibbon, vol. ii. p. 237, &c. ; or 2G2, 
 quarto. 
 
IV. i. 3.] 
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 491 
 
 II. tonic^ school of Alexandria; and that is also the source of the 
 notions and language of Philo. On the contrary, a believer 
 would say, the Christian doctrine is not borrowed from any 
 school whatever ; it is revealed, and cannot be called the less 
 original for having been obscurely intimated under the Mosaic 
 dispensation, whether by the construction of words, or by 
 tradition, partly written, partly oral. It is not probable that 
 St. John'^, a fisherman, read Plato or his followers; or that he 
 read even Philo. The term he uses. Logos, was in common use 
 amongst^ his countrymen ; and, though it was to be found in 
 some writings which might have been composed since the time 
 of Plato, yet it was used by Jews, before Plato was horn^. 
 
 Here a traffic between Judaism and Platonism is acknow- 
 ledged on both hands ; and the only question is, which was the 
 lender, and which was the borrower? Perhaps, on such a 
 question, the proofs being at a great distance, each side will re- 
 222 tain its own opinion ; yet it may be worth a few words to state 
 the ground of ours. That St. John got his notions imme- 
 diately from the Jews, and Jewish writers, and Chaldee pa- 
 raphrases, will scarcely, I think, be disputed. The question ' 
 will be, whence did Jewish writers get their notions.? We 
 say, that Plato most probably borrowed from^ the Jews. Waiv- 
 ing particular passages, it seems best to observe, that this 
 is more likely than that the Jews should borrow any of their 
 
 ® Gibbon, vol. ii. quarto, p. 238. 
 
 ^ This is an argument in the character 
 of an orthodox. As to possibility, one 
 does not see why one, who could write 
 such an history as St. John’s Gospel, in 
 Greek, might not possibly read Platonic 
 writers, or even Plato himself, in the 
 original ; or Philo ; but we should consi- 
 der whether leisure would allow it, or 
 circumstances made it probable. John 
 was a young man, engaged in a constant 
 occupation ; of an incurious country ; 
 rather likely to despise heathens, than 
 read them. He knew Greek as a general 
 language, but he was no Hellenist; nor 
 ever lived near Alexandria. 
 
 ® Tillotson on John i. 14. 
 
 ® I suppose our present Chaldee para- 
 phrases may not be much older than 
 Christ ; but then they are looked upon as 
 expressing traditional ideas of very re- 
 mote antiquity ; ideas at least as old as 
 the return from Chaldea, under Nehe- 
 
 miah, about 350 A. Chr. See Allix, 
 chap. ii. p. 27. Plato died 348 before 
 Christ, aet. 81. — Blair. 
 
 7 Dacier’s Plato, Engl. pp. 7, 8, 34, 
 72, 83, 94; (called Egyptian) 100, 123; 
 (woman made out of man) 141, 142, &c. 
 146. Pherecydes and his scholar Py- 
 thagoras mentioned as bringing wisdom 
 into Greece from the East, and from 
 Egypt, p. 67. Pherecydes a Syrian; 
 Pythagoras’s country uncertain. 
 
 Here might be placed Nuntenius's ob- 
 servation, T'l yap eo-Ti nXct-rwi; 7 } Mojo-rjs 
 arn-iKL^Mv ; “ What is Plato but Moses 
 in Greek ?” Numenius was a Pythago- 
 rean philosopher ; time uncertain ; he 
 might live before Christ. See Lard. 
 Test. chap. xxxv. (Works, vol. viii. 
 p. 168) ; called by Porphyry a Platonic, 
 philosopher. He used writings of Moses 
 and the prophets, and allegorized some 
 of them ; as seems clear from Origen. — 
 Ibid. 
 
m 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. i. 3. 
 
 more important doctrines from Plato: — 1. Because Juda- II. 
 ism had been established above a thousand years before Plato 
 lived. 2. Because Judaism was a national religion, Plato’s 
 only what may be called a personal one. It is more likely, 
 that a private man should hear of and adopt the religion of 
 a nation, than that a nation should hear of and adopt the 
 tenets of an individual. 3. Plato was curious and inquisitive 
 after diflPerent religions ; the Jews were incurious. He travelled 
 into Egypt on purpose to study religion : to such an inquirer 
 Judaism must have been always within reach in Egypt. He 
 travelled into Italy ; and where the Pythagorean doctrines 
 were so well known as they were in Magna Grecia, the Jewish 
 would not probably be wholly unknown. 4. It is allowable to 
 say, that, supposing any one convinced of the divine origin of 223 
 the religion of Moses, such an one could not think that religion 
 the borrower, in any t\\mg fundamental ; and, if ever religion 
 could prove itself divine, by its mere subsistence, the Jewish 
 did’; — a spiritual religion single in the midst of idolatries — 
 a religion founded on the unity of God, surrounded on all 
 sides by various species of polytheism ; its professors no higher 
 in philosophy or arts than their neighbours. All Jews and 
 Christians therefore must believe that revealed religion did not 
 borrow its doctrine of a Trinity from heathenism ; and every 
 proof of the truth of the Mosaic or Christian religion must 
 operate as an argument on our side of the present question. 
 
 But this is not the place for proving the truth of the Mosaic 
 religion. Let us rather, then, observe, that to require us to 
 prove Plato borrowed of the Hebrews, is unfair. He might, 
 and yet it might be impossible for us to tell how, at this time. 
 Neither is it at all likely that we should be able to ascertain 
 the manner in which different religions in remote times mixed 
 together. We do not say Plato was a Jew, or adopted the 
 Mosaic religion systematically ; we only say, he borrowed 
 from that as well as other religions ; but we do not pretend to 
 point out the particular manner in which the Egyptian and 
 Oriental philosophy, the tenets of Pythagoras and Plato, de- 
 rived perhaps from Timaeus, Parmenides, Pherecydes, and one 
 knows not how many more, mixed themselves in Egypt^. An 
 
 ‘ Something of this we had occasion 
 to produce before. Book I. chap. xvi. 
 sect. 8. 
 
 ^ That the Egyptian and Oriental 
 
 philosophy were much the same, was 
 observed in the Appendix to the first 
 Book, sect. 12. 
 
IV. i. 3.] 
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 493 
 
 1 1. ingredient, more or less, might make a great difference ; and 
 
 224 each ingredient might be infused in a great variety of propor- 
 tions. Religious^ tenets, and so also political opinions, get 
 mixed and blended together before our eyes, in modern life, 
 till we can analyse none of them exactly. Nevertheless, we 
 may conceive, that if the Jews, in Egypt, or elsewhere, 
 found that Plato, or his followers, admired, imitated, or in 
 any part adopted their religion, they would be much inclined 
 to favour his: and his religion is of so noble and captivating 
 a nature, as to tempt both Jews and Christians, of more 
 lively imaginations and warm affections, to mio! its tenets with 
 their own. 
 
 The conclusion seems to be, that we may venture to proceed 
 in our old path ; and look upon Plato as having borrowed from 
 Judaism, or, at least, on Judaism and Christianity as not hav- 
 ing borrowed from Plato, though Jews and Christians have 
 mixed some degree of Platonism with Judaism and Christianity. 
 And this method of regarding the subject must make us con- 
 sider our own doctrine of the Trinity as coming immediately 
 from Heaven, 
 
 We may well claim it as our own, on the footing of its 
 being a single one, and of a determinate sort. Plato was aim- 
 ing at something he knew not what; and made a number of 
 different trinities, as his ear or fancy led him ; and, if we had 
 followed the ear, or the imagination, we also should have had a 
 multitude of trinities ; but ours is one, and only one. His 
 were formed out of his imagination ; ours arises out of the na- 
 
 225 ture of the things according to principles of reason and utility. 
 God would instruct and protect mankind in their religious 
 capacities. Who are to appear as principals in such an under- 
 taking First, he who is \\\e fountain of all good; next, that 
 personage whom he commissions as actual instructor, who is to 
 be of the same species with those he instructs ; and lastly, a 
 perpetual agent, who is to promote with constant assiduity the 
 proper effects, the success of the instruction. The Sovereign, 
 the Instructor, and the Resident, are the persons to be chiefly 
 distinguished, according to all the dictates of common sense, 
 whether their number pleased the ear, as a triad, or not^ 
 
 3 The dissenters in England, popu- 
 larly so called, have run through a great 
 many variations in opinion. The ex- 
 pression, “ carried about by every wind 
 of doctrine,” implies such unsteadiness. 
 
 ^ Dacier’s Discourse on Plato, p. 9, 
 expresses this prettily, relative to his 
 aiming at something indistinctly. 
 
 ® Suppose a sovereign wanted to civilize 
 a newly discovered island, would not 
 
494 
 
 AllTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. i. 4. 
 
 We have given into an argument relating only to St. John^ II. 
 as if he alone laid down the doctrine of the Trinity. As a 
 Trinity, the other evangelists lay it down equally; and indeed 
 proofs of the Divinity of the several persons are taken from 
 St. Paul more than from St. John. But, while we are only 
 comparing the Christian with heathen notions, the Divinity 
 of the Persons does not seem to make a part of our consider- 
 ations. Yet the Divinity of the several persons is a principal 
 matter in the Christian religion ; and that is signified in many 
 parts of Scripture which, taken separately, give no idea of a 
 Trinity. 
 
 4. We now come to the inquiry, whether in any sense it 
 may be asserted that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity did not 226* 
 exist till the fourth century? There can be no doubt but that, 
 if we waive the dignity of the Persons who composed the 
 Trinity, and only speak of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as 
 making a triad, without considering them as in the Unity of 
 the Godhead, there was a Trinity from the earliest times of 
 Christianity. In the New Testament, these three are introduced 
 jointly forty-eight times, according to Dr. Samuel Clarke’s 
 enumeration. And it does seem that the word Trinity was at 
 first used for mere convenience, to avoid a repetition of Father, 
 
 Son, and Holy Ghost ; as the word Triumvirate was used to 
 avoid the repetition of Pompey, Caesar, and Crassus; or of 
 Octavius, Anthony, and Lepidus. The very early use of dooo- 
 ologies confirms this, as well as the form of baptism. Our 
 question properly is, whether, before the fourth century, the 
 divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost was acknowledged in that 
 distinct and full manner, in which it is now acknowledged; and 
 whether the Divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, was 
 publicly, distinctly, and expressly recognised, and combined 
 with the Unity of the Godhead, in the same manner in which it 
 is at present ? 
 
 When I first ^ read Lectures upon this Article, it appeared 
 to me that the doctrine of the Trinity had scarcely reached 
 such maturity, and got such general establishment in the 
 Church, before the fourth century ; but a controversy between 
 
 these characters or persons be natural? 
 and supposing it practicable, not hinder- 
 ed by the perverseness and wickedness of 
 man, for the son of the sovereign to go to 
 the island, and make one with the island- 
 ers, would not that be best ? and every 
 
 resident or vicegerent, though a common 
 man, is conceived as constantly commu- 
 nicating with both sovereign and sub- 
 jects. See sect. 20. 
 
 > In 1781. 
 
IV. i. 4 ] 
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 495 
 
 II. Dr. Priestley and some eminent persons of our Church, on the 
 antiquity of doctrines by which the Socinians are distinguished 
 from us, occasioned some diffidence. I read some parts of it ; 
 but not the whole, so as to form a judgment of every argument 
 
 227 made use of. However, I attended the more carefully to the 
 expressions made use of by such ancient Christian writers as 
 fell in my way. If my principal business was now merely that 
 of an historian, I should consider the controversy more exactly: 
 at present I can only say, that I do not seem to have changed 
 my opinion in any great degree, if at all. 
 
 My general idea was, that the early Christians took words 
 and phrases of Scripture, and, by the guidance of good feelings 
 and plain sense, used them in right circumstances, without 
 forming speculative propositions out of them, or combining 
 them into systems, or even syllogisms. They might therefore, 
 in some sense, be said to know the doctrines, and profess them ; 
 but, in some sense, they might be said not yet to have moulded 
 them into perfect form. I conceived that controversy during 
 the first three centuries had been the occasion of their being 
 examined with a view to speculative truth; of errors being 
 rejected one after another, till perfect orthodoxy had at length 
 been ascertained. 
 
 Being not free from doubt about a thing so little admitting 
 of precision, I was glad to meet with a passage from Augustin, 
 (born about the middle of the fourth century) which seemed to 
 express my own opinion: — “Multa latehant in Scripturis, et 
 cum praecisi essent (excommunicated) haeretici, quaestionibus 
 agitaverunt Ecclesiam Dei. Aperta sunt quae latebant, et in- 
 tellecta est voluntas Dei. Numquid enim perfecte de Trini- 
 TATE tractatum est antequam oblatrarent Ariani"^? Numquid 
 
 228 perfecte de poenitentid tractatum est antequam obsisterent 
 Novatiani ? — Sic non perfecte de haptismate tractatum est, 
 
 antequam contradicerent foris positi, rebaptizatores Nec de 
 
 Unitate Christi (of the body or Church of Christ), nisi postea- 
 quam separatio ilia urgere caepit fratres infirmos^.” 
 
 This passage will give me courage to proceed. Theophilus, 
 bishop of Antioch, (placed as flourishing in the year 181), uses 
 the word Trinity or Triad. He is speaking of the six days 
 
 2 Tertullian seems to have disputed 
 with the Unitarians (Praxeas, &c.) pro- 
 perly about the Trinity ; but this was 
 controversy ; and then Aug. says, num- 
 quid perfecte ? Aug. must have known 
 
 all Tertullian’s writings ; both Africans. 
 
 ® This passage is quoted in Forbes’s 
 Instruct. Histor. Theol. 8. 20. 4. (but be 
 aware of false prints in the numbers). 
 The little omissions are his. 
 
496 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. i. 4. 
 
 of the Creation. The first three, he says, are types of the II. 
 Triady God, his Word, and his Wisdom ^ ; the fourth is a type 
 of man. The reason he assigns is, because, during the first 
 three days, there were no luminaries : God, his Word, and his 
 Wisdom, wanted none. On the fourth, the luminaries were 
 made, which were suitable to man. But we find Aoyou €cr^ 6 i> 
 vTTovpyov ^ : and I think there is not sufficient reason for calling 
 this triad our present Trinity in its full form. It seems rather 
 to answer the description given above^ ; and not to be more 
 explicit than Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And the more 
 fanciful the occasion of introducing it, the less precise are the 
 ideas to be deemed, which are annexed to it. The word Tptd?'^ 
 would not convey to Autolycus, or to any reader of Theophilus, 
 what the word Trinity would to us. 
 
 It would confirm the general notion just now mentioned, to 229 
 conceive how it is likely that controversy should bring the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity into its present form. After what has been 
 said, it is natural to ask, if the doctrine of the Trinity was not 
 immediately taken from Scripture, when Christians first studied 
 it, how did it become general ? The Scriptural expressions 
 concerning the Father, when compared with those concerning 
 the Son, and with those concerning the Holy Spirit, and with 
 those texts which strongly insist on the Unity of God, must 
 occasion difficulties. Men would not be content to use the 
 expressions separately, as the Scriptures do ; but would bring 
 them together, and endeavour to make a system out of them, 
 so as to solve all difficulties. They could seldom do this with- 
 out getting into other difficulties ; which would be opposed, and 
 in return defended. One man, fearing to infringe upon the 
 fundamental doctrine of all rational religion, the Unity of God, 
 would neglect all distinction of persons : this Sahellius and 
 those called Patripassians, Praxeas, &c., are supposed to have 
 done ; and so to have taught one God with three names. 
 Another, convinced that the Scriptures make a distinction be- 
 tween Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and seeing that distinc- 
 tion in a strong light, in order to secure it, makes a suhordina- 
 
 * Ad Autolycum, lib. ii. p. 106. ed. 
 Ox. 1684. 
 
 2 P. 81. edit. Oxon. 1684. See also 
 p. 9, where Theoph. seems to make 
 Xoyos, TTvevfia, (ro<pLa, only attributes of 
 the Supreme God. 
 
 ^ At the beginning of this section. 
 
 ^ H. Stephens does not, in his Greek 
 Lexicon, refer, under Tpjas, to either 
 Plato or Philo. Mr. Gibbon says, p. 242, 
 note 81, that T/oias was already (before 
 181) “familiar in the schools of philo- 
 sophy.” It is not in Du Cange. It is 
 in Suicer. 
 
IV. i. 4.] 
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 497 
 
 II. tion — makes the Son^ subordinate to the Father, and the Holy 
 Ghost to the Son : this did Arius. A third, shocked at the 
 idea of an inequality, determines that the Son must be equal 
 to the Father, and the Holy Ghost to the Son; and insists upon 
 
 230 this in such unqualified terms as to constitute in effect three 
 distinct Gods. This some of those Fathers are said® to have 
 done, who are commonly called orthodox'. When the moderate 
 and reasonable Christians saw men running into error in these 
 different ways, they would naturally endeavour to check them ; 
 and the expressions, which they fixed upon in order to answer 
 that end, would contain the doctrine of the Trinity as we now 
 profess it. These expressions would serve to retain those 
 within the society of the orthodox who were tractable, and keep 
 them from being carried to and fro with every wind of doctrine; 
 and would keep the intractable at a distance, so that they 
 would breed no confusion. Whatever of this sort was carried 
 on in the first three centuries, seems to have occasioned no dis- 
 turbance till the fourth. 
 
 Bishop Burnet says’^, that ‘‘this doctrine” “ was universally 
 received over the whole Christian Church, long before there 
 was either a Christian prince to support it by his authority, or 
 a council to establish it by consent.” The first Christian prince 
 was Constantine the Great, who from 306 gradually increased 
 his protection of the Christians ; but did not give it fully till 
 about two or three years before the Council of Nice, held in 
 325. He was not baptized till a few days before his death in 
 337 . The Council alluded to by Bishop Burnet must be the 
 Nicene. He does not say, before the Christians had a council, 
 but, “before they had a council to establish it by consent;” 
 meaning, I suppose, a general council. The word received^"* 
 
 231 seems to want explaining. If the doctrine was received as an 
 established doctrine, why was it not put in some confession of 
 faith, or stated by such councils as were held before the fourth 
 century ? The doctrine was far from being received, in this 
 sense: nay, in my opinion, even the Nicene Council did not 
 establish the doctrine of the Trinity, though it might that of 
 the Divinity of Christ. Indeed, Bishop Burnet® owns that the 
 
 * The Apologist for Origen mentioned 
 by Photius, Cod. II 7 , imputes his having 
 made the Son unequal to the Father, to 
 his zeal against the error of Sabellius; 
 and says, that Origen’s other errors 
 were owing to a like cause. See Cave’s 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 account of the doctrines of Origen. Hist. 
 Lit. i. p. 115. 
 
 ® See Gibbon, vol. ii. p. 249, note 51. 
 Allix, Pref. p. viii. Bingham, 11. 3. 4. 
 
 Bp. Burnet, towards the close of the 
 first Article, p. 49, 8vo. ® P. 49, 8vo. 
 
 32 
 
498 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. i. 4. 
 
 doctrine of the Trinity can only be deduced from the Nicene II. 
 Creed as a consequence. But drawing a consequence, in things 
 above our reason, is making a new doctrine. What indeed is 
 making any doctrine but drawing a consequence from some ex- 
 pressions of Scripture ? Sometimes, in order to make a doctrine, 
 one need not go so far — one need only arrange^ expressions. 
 
 If, by a doctrine’s being receired^'' is only meant its being 
 mentioned in writings, or the parts of it, from which it may be 
 made up, I suppose the doctrine was received in that sense. 
 
 At the time of the Nicene Council, many expressions were pro- 
 bably to be found in ^ books, denoting the relations of the 
 several Persons of the Trinity to each other. Filiation, genera- 
 tion, or possibly even procession^, were expressed in one way 
 or other. The question is, whether, in any public confession of 
 faith, they found the Trinity in Unity, exactly as we profess 
 h? Tertullian, in his controversy with Praxeas the Unitarian % 232 
 comes the nearest it^, if not quite up to it ; but, supposing one 
 writer, in controversy, to hit off expressions a few times con- 
 taining the very doctrine afterwards professed publicly, that 
 falls far short of that doctrine being solemnly professed in a 
 church, though it is a step towards it. There are many say- 
 ings in modern controversial writers, which are estimated no 
 higher than the illustrations of a private man ; and are not 
 admitted into any confessions, creeds, articles, catechisms ; 
 and yet they may represent the sense of Scripture very justly. 
 
 But, till notions are publicly professed, the generality of men are 
 ignorant of them ; and it is not known for certain whether such 
 notions ever will become doctrines, properly so called. Con- 
 troversy may more properly be said to be bringing the doctrines 
 into form, than to have already established them. Warhurton 
 says true things in controversy, which cannot be called received 
 
 ' For instance, arranging Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost (as they are not always 
 in the same order in Scripture), is making 
 doctrines about their precedence. 
 
 2 The notion of Paul of Samosata, 
 placed in 260, seems too indistinct to 
 found history upon. It relates only to 
 Christ ; and Paul abjured or recanted his 
 heresy. However, councils did meet. 
 A good deal seems to turn on Paul’s pri- 
 vate character ; which was probably mis- 
 represented. He is more particularly 
 mentioned. Art. ii. sect. 6. 
 
 ^ Instances may be seen in Clement, 
 Ignatius, Poly carp ; or in Bingham, 13. 
 2. 1, &c. 
 
 ^ Cap. 2. 3. 13. See Bingham, vol. i. 
 bottom of p. 572 , col. 2. 13. 2. 4. 
 
 ® Dr. Priestley thinks that even Ter- 
 tullian had not the same idea affixed to 
 the word Trinity which we have. Be- 
 cause, though in one passage he speaks 
 as if he had, in others he speaks as if he 
 had not ; whereas a modern would speak 
 as if he had, in all passages. 
 
IV. i. 4.] 
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 499 
 
 II. doctrines ; as, that there is no promise of Si future state in the 
 dispensation of Moses. 
 
 Bingham^ says several things of weight, to prove the early 
 reception of the doctrine of the Trinity; but perhaps nothing 
 more forcible than that the orthodox were reviled by the Sabel- 
 lians, and other Unitarians, as Tritheists. But does this prove 
 that the Trinity was fully professed ? not entirely. Celsus 
 reviled Christians for being Polytheists; does it therefore fol- 
 
 233 low that they had many objects of worship^? It seems to prove 
 that addresses were offered up to Christ, and perhaps to the 
 Holy Spirit ; but these might be offered in an artless and affec- 
 tionate manner, without speculative system, or dogmatical pre- 
 cision ; which is all that we call into question. These very 
 Sabellians, &c., who charged the Catholics with Tritheism, 
 though more open to the charge themselves, were called Patri- 
 passians. Would they allow that to be a proof that they 
 really said the Father suffered on the Cross? and that they 
 made no distinction whatever between the Father and the Son ? 
 It is very unsafe to argue upon opprobrious terms: reviling is 
 rhetoric. Moreover, it seems possible that the Catholics, or 
 orthodox, might restrain the forwardness of the Sabellians on 
 the one hand, and of the Arians on the other, before the right 
 doctrine was fully settled. We have supposed that such restrain- 
 ing was the means of settling the right doctrine. You may 
 see one man carry a notion too far one way, another run into 
 the opposite extreme ; you may pronounce both in fault or 
 error, and yet never determine the right medium precisely. If 
 this be so, the Catholics might, in answer to their opprobrious 
 arguments, be called Tritheists, before the doctrine of the Tri- 
 nity could be said to have come to maturity. Indeed, their 
 being called Tritheists as much proves that they denied the 
 Unity of God, as that they, properly speaking, professed the 
 Trinity. Besides, it should be considered that some have been 
 really Tritheists ; and that those who were so, were as far 
 removed from the true doctrine of the Trinity as Arians or 
 
 234 Sabellians. If we are to conclude any thing from the Catholics 
 being called Tritheists, why not that they were really Tri- 
 theists ? 
 
 6 13. 2. 2, &c. 
 
 7 The heathens spoke of Christians as 
 Polytheists, on account of this doctrine. 
 Theodoret says, the Trinity was not 
 
 clearly revealed to the Jews, lest they 
 should be Polytheists. See Lard. Works, 
 Index, Trinity. 
 
 32 2 
 
500 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. i. 4. 
 
 This seems the proper place to mention the Priscillianists, II. 
 they being reckoned a sort of Sabellians; but as Mosheim says, 
 that none of the ancients have given a satisfactory account of 
 them, and as Lar drier found it necessary to collect every thing 
 in antiquity concerning them, in order to get an idea of them, 
 there being no writings of their own extant, I must content 
 myself with a conjectural solution of an expression in the Atha- 
 nasian Creed, which seems to be levelled at their error : I mean 
 the conclusion, “So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one 
 Son, not three Sons ; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.” 
 
 It seems not improbable that the Priscillianists, as a sort of 
 Sabellians, might be represented as so completely taking away 
 all distinction between the Persons of the Trinity, that it was 
 the same thing to them of which Person any thing was affirmed. 
 Whatever might be affirmed of the Father, might be affirmed 
 equally of the Son, or of the Holy Ghost. Hence it would be 
 deduced, that a Sabellian Trinity consisted of “three Fathers,” 
 or “three Sons,” or “three Holy Ghosts.” The next step to 
 which would be, that the Priscillianists made three Fathers, and 
 three Sons, and three Holy Ghosts. At least, I see no better 
 way of accounting for the expression of rpeTs irapaKXijTov^ in 
 tlie second anathema of the Council of Bracara, a. n. 563 ; or 
 for “ Trinitas Trinitatis"^ in the 49th Apostolical Canon. 
 
 Hitherto we have referred more to the second Person of 
 the Holy Trinity than to the third : we may therefore take 
 notice of the notion of Erasmus^, that the Holy Ghost was not 
 called God till tha fourth century. If we err with such great 235 
 authorities as Augustin and Erasmus, we shall suffer no great 
 disgrace. We are not indeed now speaking immediately of the 
 Divinity of the Holy Ghost ; but yet it may be proper here to 
 say something of that doctrine, as one constituent part of the 
 doctrine of the Trinity. Bingham’s chief argument against 
 Erasmus is, that adorations were paid to the Holy Ghost long 
 before the fourth century. It is not here wholly improper to 
 say, that, though the Holy Ghost were called God at any time, 
 and were proved to be God, it does not follow that the doctrine 
 of the Holy Trinity was professed ; for Tritheists would allow 
 the Holy Ghost to be God, and they are by no means Trinita- 
 rians. But what we would chiefly observe, as being most 
 pertinent to the observation of Erasmus, and most useful for 
 getting an idea of the history., is, that adorations might be paid 
 ‘ See Bingham, 13. 2. 4. vol. i. p. 572. 
 
IV. i. 4.] 
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 501 
 
 II. to the Holy Spirit, and yet his Divinity not acknowledged, as 
 a doctrine. From the earliest times of Christianity, high strains 
 of devotion were used, either to God, without distinction of 
 Persons; or to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, or to the 
 only-begotten Son, or to the Paraclete, which is the Holy 
 Ghost ; or to two or all of them : and these were used rightly ; 
 in right circumstances ; and the connection and precedence of 
 the several Divine Persons was artless but natural, and such as 
 the subject, or the course of the expression, happened to re- 
 quire — without reserve, without speculation. Gratitude, ad- 
 miration, devout love, kept the understanding from running 
 into dry disquisitions. When Christians were accused of the 
 errors of Polytheism, they denied them, and shewed that their 
 theory was to worship one God in Unity. This they said so 
 long as they were obliged to attend to theory ; but, at other 
 236 times, they caught the glorious hymns of Scripture, and uttered 
 them fervently — without cold hesitation, or metaphysical dis- 
 tinction ^ 
 
 With regard to the Holy Spirit, it may not be improper 
 farther to add, that what we have, as the original Nicene Creed, 
 contains nothing about the Holy Spirit, except these words, Ka\ 
 €i^ TO ayiov TTvevixa^; from which his divinity could only be 
 collected, at most. I know it is urged that the remaining part 
 of what we now use as the Nicene Creed was only omitted, as 
 unnecessary, because the dispute with the Arians was only about 
 the Son: but does not this shew, that a doctrine was not usually 
 declared and established till controversy made such declaration 
 needful ? 
 
 Lactantius, placed in the year 306, seems to speak with 
 some degree of indifference^ as if it were enough for Christians 
 to worship two persons of the Trinity instead of three, the 
 Father and the Son. Indeed, the objection which had been 
 made did not force him to introduce the duty of worshipping 
 the Holy Ghost ; but yet it would now seem very unnatural 
 and unorthodox to say that we ought to worship the Father and 
 the Son, and then add nothing concerning the Holy Spirit. 
 Jerom and others reckon Lactantius not quite right in his opi- 
 
 ^ It does not follow, supposing the 
 Holy Ghost not to have been called God 
 at first, that he might not have been 
 called so with propriety ; if occasion had 
 so required. 
 
 For what is here said concerning the 
 
 Nicene Creed, see Usher de Symbolis, 
 pp. 13, and 17. Rutherforth’s Charges, 
 pp. 84, 85, and 70. Gardner, vol. iv. 
 p. 191. Lord King on the Creed, p. 319. 
 Inst. 4. 29. 
 
502 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. i. 4. 
 
 nions concerning the Holy Ghost; and speak of him as taking II. 
 what is said of the Holy Ghost, as if it were said of the Father 
 or of the Son ; and denying (in effect at least) the Personality of 237 
 the Holy Ghost. That he could do this in 306, without beins: 
 noticed as an heretic, confirms our notion, that our doctrine of 
 the Trinity was not then fully settled. (See Lardner’s Works, 
 vol. IV. p. 60.) 
 
 What we are told with regard to the form of Doxology^ 
 seems to make for our supposition — that, till the fourth century, 
 Christians were permitted either to use our present form, or, 
 ‘‘Glory be to the Father, in, with, by the Son and the Holy 
 Ghost.” And that no Christian was molested for using that 
 form which he liked best, till 'the times of the Arian Con- 
 troversy b 
 
 The Manicheanshsidi a Trinity^; and they are considered as 
 flourishing before the end of the third century ; but no one will 
 say that their Trinity is ours. We have allowed that many 
 triads have been adopted at one time or other ; and that, in some 
 sense, Christians always held a Trinity. 
 
 Some learned men have considered Lucian’s Philopatris as 
 a proof that the Trinity was professed amongst Christians so 
 early as the time of Lucian, who is placed as flourishing in the 
 year 176; but I cannot think this dialogue really written by 
 Lucian. It is unlike his manner. It was written by some one 
 who knew more of Christians than he appears, from his other 
 works, to have known. 
 
 If it be said, what does it signify by whom it was written, if 
 it was written about Lucian’s time. ^ I answer, imitations come 
 after originals; spurious after genuine; often so long after, 
 that the genuine afford no proof of the time of the spurious. 
 Lardner conceives, from the matter of this dialogue, that 238 
 it is more suitable to the fourth century than to the age of 
 Lucian ; which is some confirmation of what we are endeavour- 
 ing to prove b 
 
 On the whole, though it seems clear that the materials of 
 the doctrine of the Trinity were in some readiness before the 
 fourth century, it may be matter of doubt whether they were 
 put together so soon, and the doctrine perfectly constructed. 
 
 ' Bingham, 14. 2. 1. Gibbon, vol. ii. 
 p. 293, note. Broughton’s Diet. Tri- 
 nity. 
 
 2 Aug. contra Faustum, lib. 20. See 
 
 Gardner’s Works, vol. iii. p. 4.')9. And 
 Appendix to Book I. sect. 4. 
 
 Gardner’s Testimonies, under Ln- 
 cian^ end. Works, vol. viii. p. 81. 
 
IV. i. 5, 6. 
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 503 
 
 II. And explaining such doubt, seems to be the best method of 
 giving the history of the doctrine. 
 
 5. This may be a proper place to remark the difference 
 between the ancient Unitarians and the modern. The account 
 I should be inclined to give, from expressions found in most'^ 
 writers, is, that the ancient Unitarians, at the same time that 
 they were alarmed at infringing on the doctrine of the Divine 
 Unity, or on the Unity of God the Father, had no idea of 
 denying the Divinity of Christy and so made the Father and 
 Son the same Person. The modern Unitarians, equally shocked 
 at the idea of denying the Divine Unity, secure it by making 
 the Father and the Son infinitely different. But Lardner will 
 have it^ that Praxeas only supposed the Divine Nature (that is, 
 the Divine Wisdom, which he thought was the meaning of the 
 Word) in the Man, Jesus ; who, having been born of a virgin, 
 by the Holy Spirit, was called the Son of God. To avoid con- 
 troversy, I will only lay down, that ancient Unitarians made the 
 Son of God, after Jesus had become so by his being conceived 
 of the Holy Ghost, and by the union of the Word with the 
 
 23.9 human nature, much nearer to equality with God the Father, 
 than the modern Unitarians do, who conceive Jesus Christ to 
 be nothing more than a mere man. Nay, I think we might go 
 so far as to say, that the ancient Unitarians exerted themselves 
 to secure the Unity of God, by making the Father and the Son 
 as nearly the same as possible; and that the modern Unitarians 
 try to secure the same fundamental doctrine, by making the 
 Father and the Son as different as possible. 
 
 6. I must now give a sketch of the history of the doctrine 
 of this first Article, down to the present time ; but I will be 
 very brief®. 
 
 Arianism got to be supported by some of the Roman 
 emperors, and occasioned wars, till the end of the 7th century'. 
 It then became wholly extinct. The orthodox doctrine of the 
 
 ^ See Pearson on the Creed, He “ was 
 conceived," &c. Note on Patripassians. 
 
 ^ Lard. Her. Praxeas, sect. 7, and 8. 
 
 ® On review, it seems as if some idea 
 of the Roman Laws (Codex, lib. 1.) 
 should be given here ; and the beginning 
 of our Reformatio Legum read. 
 
 ’’ Gibbon, vol. iii. p. 552, quarto — 
 after the conversion of the Lombards. 
 Voltaire, vol. xiv. quarto, p. 63, bottom, 
 says, (neglecting seemingly the distinc- 
 
 tion between Arians and Socinians), “ Le 
 parti d’Arius, apres trois cens ans de 
 triomphe, et douze sie'cles d’oubli, renait 
 enfin de sa cendre.” But Allix, in his 
 Preface to Jews and Unitarians, p. ix. 
 says, “Within 150 years, or thereabouts, 
 after their first rise, there hardly re- 
 mained any professors of it” (of the 
 Arian sect). Perhaps Allix might reckon 
 the later Arians too barbarous to be 
 spoken of. 
 
504 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. i. 6. 
 
 Trinity prevailed from that time till the reformation. Upon II, 
 gTeat religious revolutions, custom, prejudice, authority, &c, 
 losing their hold, numbers of men set up for teachers, and 
 leaders of new sects. At our Reformation, Socinus, uncle and 
 nephew, attacked every thing which seemed difficult to human 
 reason; and endeavoured to remove every mystery. It has been 
 said^ that they were induced to do so by abhorrence of the 
 slavery to the authority of the Romish Church, under which 240 
 reason had long groaned. At first, however, the Socinians called 
 Christ God, and offered adoi'ations to hinU; but this was soon 
 altered, even in the life-time of Faustus Socinus; and since 
 that time, Christ has been, with them, a mere man, and the 
 Holy Spirit no Person. They have been so pressed with Scrip- 
 ture, that they have been obliged to have recourse to that 
 desperate expedient, of lessening its authority, so rashly made 
 use of by ancient heretics. At the latter end of the 17th cen- 
 tury, St. John’s Gospel (or rather the opening of it) had been 
 attributed^ to Cerinthus, (the very man, against whom many 
 persons have judged it to have been written ;) and, at present, 
 we find the inspiration of Christ and St, PauP estimated much 
 lower than, as far as I know, they ever before have been, by 
 any writer zealous for the honour of Christianity ^ 
 
 Pretty early in the 18th century (the present) there was a 
 very extensive Trinitarian controversy‘s. Mr. Whiston, Lu- 
 casian Professor of Mathematics in Cambridge, maintained what 
 was called Arianism — that the Logos was to Christ in the place 
 of a rational soul : but this seems to have been the opinion of 
 ApoUinarius^ . Dr. Samuel Clarke was thought not quite 
 orthodox, with regard to the generation of the Son of God, and 
 the procession of the Holy Ghost ; which he explained so as to 
 make a greater subordination than some strict Trinitarians 243 
 approved. He was threatened by a Convocation^ in 1714, and 
 his preferment was ‘‘impeded; but, I suppose, any one might 
 
 ’ Allix, Pref. p. xi. 
 
 ^ See Racovian Cathechism. 
 
 ^ Allix’s Preface. 
 
 Dr. Priestley’s Letters, mentioned 
 again sect. 16. 
 
 It might have been mentioned, that, 
 about the time of the Reformation Serve- 
 t?(.s and Valentinus Gentilis suffered 
 death for their notions about the Trinity. 
 This is mentioned under the 2d Article. 
 
 Jllaclaine, in his Notes on JMosheim, 
 
 gives some account of this controversy, 
 vol. VI. 8vo, p. 40. 
 
 7 See afterwards. Art. ii. sect. 14. 
 
 ® An Apology for Dr. Clarke gives the 
 records. 
 
 ® It is said that Clarke’s book about 
 the Scripture doctrine of the Trinity pre- 
 vented Queen Anne’s making him arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury; and that Bishop 
 (iibson told the Queen, “ He is the most 
 learned and honestest man in the nation; 
 
IV. i. 7.] 
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 505 
 
 11. now preach his doctrine without being thought irregular. He 
 calls the Son and Holy Ghost Divine Persons ; and thinks 
 that addressing prayers to them is warranted by Scripture 
 He seems to differ very little from Bishop Pearson, if at all. 
 Voltaire, with his usual inaccuracy, calls him, “ le plus ferme 
 patron de la doctrine Arienne”.” 
 
 In the summary of the doctrines of Swedenborg, we find 
 this account of the Trinity “There is a Divine Trinity of 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; or, in other words, of the all- 
 begetting Divinity, the Divine-humanity, and the Divine-pro- 
 ceeding, or operation ; and that this Trinity consisteth not 
 therefore of three distinct Persons, but is united, as soul, body, 
 and operation in man, in the One Person of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, who therefore is the God of Heaven, and alone to be 
 worshipped, being Creator from Eternity, Redeemer in Time, 
 242 and Regenerator to Eternity I mention this notion chiefly 
 on account of its making the Father no object of our worship, 
 and dropping also all worship to the Holy Ghost. 
 
 I have no authentic account of the Moravian notion con- 
 cerning the Trinity; but, from what I have seen of their 
 worship, and heard, when attending their meetings, of their 
 sermons and hymns, I should conclude, that they take but little 
 notice of the Father of Jesus Christ. The English law, made 
 even since the Revolution, (see Blackstone, Index, Trinity,) 
 punishes as heresy any denial of the doctrine of the Trinity ; 
 that is, either denying any Person of the Trinity to be God, 
 or denying the Divine Unity. But this law is not now en- 
 forced, though parliament has refused to repeal it. 
 
 7 . Having finished the history of this first Article, we 
 come to the explanation of the particular expressions contained 
 in it ; but this need not be long. In a system of religious 
 truths, it seems necessary to begin from the nature of God ; so 
 that we might have expected such an Article as the first, had 
 
 he only wants one thing.” “ What is 
 that ? ” “ To be a Christian.” 
 
 He once declared, “ in a paper laid 
 before the bishops, that the Son of God 
 was eternally begotten by the eternal 
 incomprehensible power and will of the 
 Father.” See Waterland’s Arian Subscr. 
 p. 311. 
 
 Voltaire’s Works, quarto, vol. xiv. 
 p. 63. This makes Voltaire’s confound- 
 ing Arian and Socinian appear ill. Dr. S. 
 
 Clarke was very far indeed from being a 
 Socinian. Yet Arian, it is said after- 
 wards, was a generic term. Art. ii. 
 sect. 6. 
 
 Page 49. 
 
 Compare this expression with Tlieo- 
 doret’s account of Sabellianism, Her. 
 Fab. 2. 9. It is translated under Lard- 
 ner’s Dionysius of Alexandria. Works, 
 vol. III. p. 76 . 
 
506 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. i. 8. 
 
 there been no particular occasion for it. It is however proba- II. 
 ble that the compilers would have in their minds the chief of 
 those who had denied any of the Attributes of God, as learnt 
 either from natural religion or revealed. One God may be op- 
 posed to two original principles ; “ living,”” to idols ; “ true,”’”’ 
 to false Gods. The Unity is opposed to all kinds of gods of 
 Polytheists ; ‘‘ everlasting,’”* to made with hands, deified^ and 
 perishable ; ‘‘ without body” may also be opposed to pagan 
 deities, or to Anthropomorphites ; “ parts,” to those who 
 thought Christ was a part'^ of God ; without passions^'' is in 
 Latin impassibilis, which may mean incapable of suffering, or 243 
 may be opposed to the Patripassians, or those so called. Af- 
 firming God to be the Creator, is opposing those who held 
 matter eternal, and those who held that the world was created 
 by inferior spirits, or aeons, not commissioned by the supreme 
 benevolent Being : affirming God to be the Preserver, is op- 
 posing Epicureans, and all who should deny a Providence. 
 
 The profession of a Trinity in Unity, is opposed to all who 
 held three Gods, or one God with three names ; or who held 
 the Son to be a mere man, or inferior to the Father as to his 
 Divinity. The word “ Perso7i‘‘' is not to be understood in its 
 usual sense, but as a term borrowed from common language, 
 and used in a sense not very remote from its usual sense, to ex- 
 press a distinction, which must be expressed in some way, and 
 of which we have no clear comprehension. For the hands, 
 wrath of God, &c., see Book I. chap. xix. sect. 5, about Dis- 
 pleasure. 
 
 8. After the explanation comes the proof; but here we will 
 confine ourselves to that subject which is expressed in the title 
 of the Article The doctrine of the Trinity is all that will at 
 present stand in need of proof. A regular proof of this doctrine 
 would consist of — all taken from Scripture. 1. A 
 proof of the Unity of God. 2. Of the Divinity of the Father. 
 
 3. Of the Divinity of the Son. 4. Of the Divinity of the Holy 
 Ghost. And the proof, that these might be put together, would 
 make a fifth part. 1. The Unity of God is so clear from 
 Scripture, that proof of that is surely needless. 2. The Divinity 
 of the Father, says Bishop Burnet ^ is denied by none. Or, if 
 
 ’ Pearson on the Creed, p. 270, first 
 edit, or p. 135, fol. For impartibilis, see 
 Forbes, vol, i. 1. 34. 3, &c. 
 
 2 Bishop Burnet is mentioned, at the 
 
 opening of this Article, as proving truths 
 of natural religion under it. 
 
 3 Burnet on Articles, p. 50, 8vo. 
 
IV. i. 8.] 
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 507 
 
 II. we conceive any Christian mystics to deny it, we need only 
 
 244 adduce the prayers of Christ to his heavenly Father, as a proof 
 of his Divinity. 3. The Divinity of the Son is to be proved 
 under the second Article ; 4. that of the Holy Ghost under 
 the fifth ; therefore, 5. nothing remains but to see the Scrip- 
 tural manner of putting these together : and I know not that 
 we can see that better than by reading Dr. Samuel Clarke'' s 
 collection of texts, in which the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
 are mentioned jointly. It would appear, from such reading, 
 that a Christian may be permitted to give precedence sometimes 
 to the Son, sometimes to the Holy Ghost, as occasion may re- 
 quire. If this form of proof seems at first sight imperfect, I 
 think one might venture to engage, that it will not seem so, if, 
 after going through the second and fifth Articles, we return to 
 the point where we now are. 
 
 I will, therefore, in order to a regular proof, only make one 
 more observation. I believe many have a notion that the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity is formed in an arbitrary and presumptuous 
 manner ; by going beyond what is revealed, and taking human 
 imaginations for divine instructions or commands. My notion 
 differs from this. I believe, that the Scripture is the source of 
 the doctrine in every part. The scriptural expressions are ex- 
 amined, they are considered as so many facts or phenomena, 
 which must be consistent, in some way or other, though we 
 know not how. What can be done ? what does the best and 
 calmest reason dictate to be done in such a case, but that we 
 should endeavour to class these facts or phenomena, and then 
 ask, whether there is not some supposition on which they might 
 all be accounted for ? which would make them all unite, so far 
 
 245 as to make different parts of one plan ? Is not this the same 
 process as solving any phenomenon of nature, by observation 
 and experiment What other method did Sir Isaac Newton 
 pursue when he solved the phenomena of the rainbow ? He 
 observed the colours; their order, their breadth, the magnitude, 
 the centres of the bows, and so forth; he considered the manner 
 in which rays of light are affected by passing through globes of 
 water ; he formed a supposition, which should tie all these 
 phenomena together, and reduce them to one plan: he tried 
 whether it would suit, he formed or heard objections, or, in 
 other words, proved his supposition by controversy. The 
 thing which at last proved that he was right, was, that all ap- 
 
 ^ The number is forty-eight, as I reckoned them up. 
 
508 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION, 
 
 [IV. i. 9, 10. 
 
 pearances came into his plan; and none was left without a place, II. 
 and as it were a provision. The case is the same with the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity. A number of texts are examined, their 
 consistency is not seen; some supposition is to be formed, 
 which shall bring them all into one plan ; and that supposition 
 is to be received as truth which answers the endb This is the 
 force of saying, what I say with great assurance, that, if all 
 expressions of Scripture, relating to the divine attributes, are 
 classed according to the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, they 
 are interpreted in the best, most easy, most natural manner ; 
 according to the soundest principles of grammar and criticism ; 
 so as they would be interpreted separately, if no particular end 
 was in view — taking each text with its context. 
 
 9. Having now gone through the history, explanation, 246 
 and proof, it remains, that we make the application. 
 
 The application will consist of the following particulars: 
 First, the sense in which a rational Christian may now be sup- 
 posed to give his assent, in the present state of knowledge. 
 
 2. The concessions which might possibly be made, and the 
 expedients which might be used, on our part, if those who dif- 
 fer from us were desirous to make peace, and agree upon some 
 terms of union. 3 . The concessions and accommodations which 
 might be required of dissenters^ in such a case. 4. And, lastly, 
 the improvements which might possibly arise from a right in- 
 vestigation of our subject. 
 
 10. First then, we are to consider in what sense a rational 
 Christian may now give his assent to the first Article of our 
 Church. But here it seems necessary previously to reflect on 
 the sense in which thinking and rational men use some words in 
 speaking of the Supreme Being : particularly the words infi- 
 nite and divine. 
 
 Sometimes the word infinite has an unphilosophical idea 
 affixed to it, as if it expressed something : but its pro- 
 
 per sense is ^ negative, as the etymology itself declares ; it 
 means, without limit. When the mind enlarges number, for 
 instance, and sees that it can still enlarge, and that there is no 
 appearance of any limit at which it must stop, it infers infinity 
 
 * A supposition which makes all texts 
 consistent, may, no doubt, be possibly 
 ?L false supposition : it is not likely to be 
 so; but it may be so. Yet such an one 
 is to be received for truth for the present, 
 and to be acquiesced in, in some degree, 
 
 till some other hypothesis appears to be 
 preferable to it. Sir Isaac Newton’s 4th 
 rule of philosophizing seems not unlike 
 this. 
 
 2 Locke, Book II. chap. xvii. sect. 8, 
 says, “ negation of an end.” 
 
IV. i. 10.] 
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 509 
 
 II. of number. The same may be said of power, duration, or even 
 of intimacy of connection. So that if a man ascribes infinity 
 to any thing, he does no more than express a simple fact — an 
 
 247 operation of his mind : he says, that his mind has attempted to 
 assign a limit to that thing, but has returned disappointed from 
 the attempt. 
 
 If we once quit this simple conception we run into absurd- 
 ity ; and, though we may despise such kind of absurdity in 
 more gross instances, as when a person talks of an infinitely 
 long stick with a candle at the end of it, or of the bottomless pit 
 being paved ^ with scholars’ skulls; yet it is well if we keep 
 perfectly clear of all degrees of it ourselves in cases less striking. 
 I myself have heard a preacher, who was by no means deficient 
 in eloquence, speak of an angel (or some other being) ‘‘ flying 
 from one end of infinite space to the other.” 
 
 In order to obviate mistakes, it may not be improper to 
 hint, that when, in mathematics^ a quantity is called infinitely 
 great, or infinitely small, the expression is to be considered as 
 technical, and is to be explained by shewing, mathematically, 
 some particular properties in the increase or decrease of such 
 quantities ; such as make that increase or decrease unlimited, 
 in some particular way. And, that when it is said that the 
 fixed stars are at an infinite distance, it is only meant that they 
 are at an immense or unmeasurable distance ; that is, that men 
 happen to have no measure now known by which that distance 
 can be ascertained — no line so long, that by its being taken any 
 number of times the distance of the fixed stars can be made 
 definite : or, the distance of the fixed stars is so great, that no 
 known distance bears any assignable proportion to it. 
 
 When we say that a Being is divine^ what is it that passes 
 in our mind ? Is it not this ? We take all the faculties and ex- 
 
 248 cellences of which we have any idea, unite them together, con- 
 sider them as belonging to one Being ; we conceive them to be 
 improved, refined, purified, enlarged, to the greatest degree 
 possible — beyond any limit, which we can assign or imagine. 
 The Being possessing these we account divine. It is possible 
 he may have other faculties and excellences, of which we have 
 no conception; but these cannot make part of our idea of a 
 Divinity. And, as we acquire an idea of a Divine Being by 
 collecting and uniting his attributes, so, if we find instances 
 
 3 Expressions sometimes mentioned amongst young scholars at Cambridge, as 
 used by a preacher in a conventicle. 
 
510 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. i. 10. 
 
 of such attributes exerted, we ascribe Divinity to the Being in II. 
 whom they are found. If there is imperfection in doing so, it 
 lies in the human understanding (as far as we yet know it), not 
 in our use of the powers which God has given us k 
 
 These things premised, we may use fewer words in our de- 
 claration equivalent to our first Article ; and make that decla- 
 ration more simple. Let it be then something of this kind. 
 
 ‘ As to the Existence and Unity of God, when my business 
 is only to interpret his word, I have no difficulty. Nor do I 
 hesitate about his being free from the imperfections and impuri- 
 ties of body, (or of whatever is divisible,) and the impotencies 
 of human passions. And how inadequately soever I may be 
 able to comprehend his infinite duration, power, wisdom, and 
 goodness, yet I cannot doubt that they are declared and pub- 
 lished in the Holy Scriptures, or that He is there represented 
 as the Creator and Preserver of all things. Indeed, for such 
 opinions as these, I shall never have need to separate myself 
 from any religious society which is at all rational ; and there- 
 fore, however important they may be as subjects of meditation, 
 it is needless for me to enter minutely into them, when I am 
 only comparing different interpretations of Scripture ; and that 249 
 merely as they distinguish one church from another. 
 
 ‘But, when it is proposed to me to affirm, that “In the 
 Unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, 
 power, and eternity ; the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 GhosU — I have difficulty enough ! My understanding is in- 
 volved in perplexity, my conceptions bewildered in the thickest 
 darkness : I pause, I hesitate, I ask what necessity there is for 
 making such a declaration ? And my difficulty is increased, 
 when I find that making this declaration separates me from 
 Christians, whom I must acknowledge to be rational and well- 
 informed — from those who have studied some parts of Scripture 
 with singular success. 
 
 ‘ When I have continued in this state for some time, I re- 
 collect that every man in society, when knowledge is progressive, 
 may have occasion to go upon propositions^, which only beings 
 superior to himself fully comprehend, for the present. And I 
 see, that if either such a declaration must be made, or some 
 parts of Scripture must be neglected, or wrested from their na- 
 tural sense, then obscurity ought not to deter me from making 
 
 ’ Book I. chap. iii. sect. 1. 
 
 ^ As mariners calculate by rules which they do not understand. 
 
IV. i. 10.] 
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 511 
 
 II. it; and that I must content myself with lamenting a separation, 
 to which I must submit, as without it the ends of religious 
 society cannot be obtained. Things of a great and solemn na- 
 ture cannot be recorded in the Scripture for no end or purpose. 
 All therefore seems now to depend upon what the Scriptures 
 really teach. 
 
 ‘ I search then the Scriptures. Of the Father I find many 
 things said which belong to none but God. To the Son and 
 Holy Spirit I find such titles given as seem to me due only to 
 Divinity ; and moreover such intimacy of connection with the 
 
 250 Father is ascribed to them, as I can put no limit to; and the 
 same is true of the power shewn in their various acts, and of 
 the duration of their existence. 1 can conceive no titles above 
 their titles ; no intimacy of connection beyond theirs with the 
 Father; no power above their power; no duration before or 
 after their duration. 
 
 ‘If I had my choice, I would thus express myself nega- 
 tively : I would say, the connection between Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost, is such as I can set no hounds to. I cannot 
 make any separation between them ; neither can I limit their 
 power or duration ; but, if I am called upon by authority to 
 use a positive expression, I use one, but necessarily in the same 
 sense: and thus I speak of their being “o/ one substance.^ 
 power, and eternity."” Such indeed they are to me ; to me they 
 are divine ; how they are in themselves, it is impossible for me 
 to comprehend^. 
 
 ‘ I am moreover very forcibly struck with finding a kind of 
 settled custom in Scripture of mentioning Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost together, on the most solemn occasions — of which 
 baptism is one — not more persons, not fewer. To what can 
 this be ascribed ? 
 
 ‘ Still there is one thing never to be forgotten for a mo- 
 ment ; that is, the Unity of God. Scripture and reason jointly 
 proclaim, there is but one God. However the proofs of 
 the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost may seem to interfere 
 with this, nothing is to be allowed them but what is con- 
 
 251 sistent with it. The divine nature, or substance, can there- 
 
 ® In Serm. 236 (or 191) de Tempore, 
 sect. 2, to be found in the Works of 
 Augustin, the eternal generation of Christ 
 is expressed by, ‘^non aliquod tempus 
 ascribimus.” It is also implied that we 
 take mysterious doctrines in order to 
 
 absurdities; — “non possumus aliter 
 confiteri geternum Patrem." I speak 
 rather of the general form or idea, “non 
 possumus aliter confiteri,” &c., than of 
 this particular argument. 
 
512 
 
 AllTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. i. 10. 
 
 fore be but one substance'''' — the divine power can be but II. 
 one power. '''' 
 
 ‘ But, does not this confound all our conceptions, and make 
 us use words without meaning"^ I think it does; I profess and 
 proclaim my confusion in the most unequivocal manner ; I 
 make it an essential part of my declaration. Did I pretend to 
 understand what I say, I might be a Tritheist, or an infidel, 
 but I could not both worship the one true God \ and acknow- 
 ledge Jesus Christ to be Lord of alP. In using words with 
 wrong ideas, I might express error awd falsehood ; but, in using 
 words without ideas, I profess no falsehood ; I only unite the 
 different sayings of Scripture in the best manner I am able, 
 though in a manner confessedly imperfect. But this imperfec- 
 tion I adopt, lest I should run into a greater evil, by putting 
 a forced and wrong construction on scriptural sayings, in order 
 to reduce them to the level of my human capacity.’ 
 
 Thus may any man assent to the first Article, supposing 
 him convinced of the truth of the second and fifth. It is not 
 at all to be wished that assent should be given with less diffi- 
 dence. Such assent would be more open to cavil and objection 
 than ours ; but still it may be allowed to take some notice of 
 certain illustrations of the doctrine of the Trinity, as not wholly 
 unworthy of attention. These might be considered, though 
 they ought not to be admitted as authentic : they might serve 
 to lessen the uncouthness of the doctrine, though they could 
 not make it clear. They might prevent men from being so dis- 
 gusted as rashly, suddenly, to throw all thoughts of it aside. 
 Thus, Athanasius^ makes Peter, Paul, and Timothy to be 252 
 three persons {yiroGTaGei^') in one, because of their unanimity, 
 or having only one mind. Two parents are often to be consi- 
 dered as one by the child. A body corporate are many or one, 
 as they are considered in different lights. ‘‘ Ourselves, our 
 souls and bodies.” Sometimes, in popular language, (and the 
 Scripture language is popular), the body is spoken of as the 
 self; sometimes the soul; sometimes the compound of body 
 and soul : yet there is but one self. Such notions may have 
 some good effect, in preventing the bad effects of prejudice ; 
 but a respectful suspense is all that a reasonable man will afford 
 them. The same may be said of the uses which the doctrine of 
 the Trinity has seemed to be of; — as that of multiplying our 
 
 ' John xvii. 3. I ^ First Dialogue de Trinitate, quoted 
 
 2 Acts X. 3fi. I in the Preface to Episcopius, sect. vi. 
 
IV. i. 11,12.] 
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 513 
 
 IT. relations^ preventing the esscesses of devout fear and love, &c. ; 
 but of the presumed uses of revealing the doctrine of the Tri- 
 nity, hereafter'^. 
 
 11. We now come to consider what could be done on our 
 part, if those who dissent from us were desirous to agree upon 
 some terms of union. Not that success has generally ^ attended 
 moderation; but it must be a satisfaction to have endeavoured 
 to prevent the excesses of zeal without knowledge. 
 
 It often happens in disputes, that a term gets odium an- 
 nexed to it, and then the use of that term increases that odium. 
 This has happened in the case of names, used as opprobrious, 
 though harmless in themselves — as Whig, Tory, &c. And I 
 suppose it has happened with regard to the term Trinity : a 
 term which does not at all imply our doctrine, but is only used 
 253 (as before-mentioned), like triumvirate, to save repetition of 
 particulars (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) ; and at the same 
 time to mark their connection — to prevent a number of words. 
 It is not a scriptural term, and our doctrine might be expressed 
 without it. Some have thought, “ Praestaret sacras Scripturae 
 verbis adhaerere in tanto mysterio® explicando.” But it is 
 conceivable, that any new word, with which no odium had 
 been associated, though answering the same purpose, might 
 be allowed by all parties. See Voltaire, quarto, vol. xxiv. 
 p. 462. 
 
 12. . It might tend to promote moderation, and, in the end, 
 agreement, if we were industriously on all occasions to represent 
 our own doctrine as wholly unintelligible . Something of this 
 has been hinted before"^. The plan would be useful; as it 
 would put us upon the footing of those who profess unintelligi- 
 ble doctrines, and give us all the liberties described in the tenth 
 chapter of our third Book. It would also oblige our adversa- 
 ries, who were disposed to continue the combat, to oppose us on 
 ground less advantageous to themselves — on the ground of ex- 
 pediency ; at the same time that it would dispose others not to 
 attack us at all. I fear we in general pretend too much that 
 our doctrine is intelligible; or we use language which seems to 
 imply such pretension. Bishop Pearson and Dr. Waterland 
 
 * The last section of this Article. W e 
 might also refer back to the concluding 
 part of sect. 3. 
 
 ® See Mosheiin, under Calixtus^ and 
 Syncretism, Index. 
 
 ® Seder 01am. By the way, Buxtorf, 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 in his Bibliotheca Rabbinica, does not 
 speak as if the author of either Seder 
 Olam had been at any time a Christian. 
 Dr. Maclaine condemns using unscrip- 
 tural terms. On Mosheim, cent. v. ii. 
 
 In section 10. 
 
 33 
 
 V. X. 
 
514 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. i. 13. 
 
 would have written with greater effect, if they had taken occa- II. 
 sion, from time to time, to say, that, though they exposed the 
 misrepresentations of others, they did not pretend to have any 
 clear ideas of their own doctrine. W^hilst we speak as if we 254 
 understood our doctrine, the difference between dissenters and 
 us is a difference of opinion ; but, when we own that we have 
 no ideas to the doctrine, though we think it our duty to retain 
 it, the difference may be merely a difference of words; for 
 which the injunction, to “speak the same thing may be a 
 complete remedy. The words of our Article might be made 
 to express the difficulty of the doctrine more strongly than they 
 do at present; but the meaning would, in reality, be the same 
 with the present meaning. “ There is an inconceivahle connec- 
 tion,” it might be said, “ between the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost, more intimate than can be defined ; and each of these 
 has infinite power and wisdom, as far as is consistent with the 
 infinite power and wisdom of the other two, and with the Unity 
 of God. And each has existed for a time without limits This 
 language does not pretend to convey clear ideas : that of our 
 Article rather does. 
 
 13. I apprehend that our divines do not dwell sufficiently 
 on that fundamental principle of both natural and revealed 
 religion, the Unity of God. They run out into proofs of the 
 Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, as if these doctrines 
 were not limited by each other, and by those of the Divinity of 
 the Father, and the divine Unity. To dwell frequently on the 
 divine Unity, to recur perpetually to it, is necessary, in order 
 to keep our trinitarian doctrine in its right form ; to omit the 
 mention of it at any time is really misrepresentation. The 
 Divinity of the Son is a doctrine of a part of Scripture, more 
 properly than of the whole; and therefore it must be always so 
 understood, that it may be consistent with other parts: though, 
 for the sake of distinctness, the Divinity of the Son is considered 255 
 separately in the second Article, and that of the Holy Ghost in 
 the fifth. Moreover, dwelling much on the Unity of God 
 would be useful with respect to our adversaries. Those who 
 were most candid, and most inclined to concord, would find 
 their minds softened, and their prejudices against us weakened; 
 and those of a more contentious nature would lose some advan- 
 tages which they at present possess. They call themselves 
 Unitarians — a favourable name ! since all polytheism is un- 
 
 • 1 Cor. i. 10. 
 
IV. i. 14.] 
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 515 
 
 II. doubtedly error and barbarism ; but are they more Unitarians 
 than we are ? That is what they would insinuate ; but their 
 pretensions to the title would appear the more feeble, the more 
 frequently we insisted on the Unity of God. Anti-trinitarians 
 would be a fair honest name for them to give themselves. The 
 father of Gregory of Nazianzum, Cave speaks of as virum 
 optimum, at Hypsistariorum erroribus misere seductum and 
 then he adds an explanation of what he means hj Hypsistarii: 
 “ Secta ea erat ex Judaismo et Gentilismo conflata, quae tamen 
 summum ilium et vxjyiarov Oeov, unde sectae nomen, unice cole- 
 bat.” 
 
 I suppose the main objection of moderate, private men — of 
 those who are to be reckoned neither friends nor enemies to the 
 doctrine of our Church — is, that it interferes with the Divine 
 Unity. This is an objection continually operating; therefore 
 no occasion should be neglected of convincing them that no set 
 of men are more strenuous than ourselves in maintaining that 
 fundamental doctrine. 
 
 14. In bringing our Church and its adversaries to an 
 agreement, one principal difficulty would arise from our address- 
 ing ourselves to the Son and Holy Ghost in prayer. As we 
 hold them to be divine, we must think ourselves obliged to pay 
 256 them divine honours: such dissenters as account them not 
 divine, would look upon it as a profanation to address them in 
 prayer. I do not see how this difficulty is to be obviated, ex- 
 cept it were to be allowed that any being may be addressed as 
 what he is; and then scriptural expressions were to be used in 
 the form of addresses. In this case, the addresses might be 
 offered in different senses by different persons ; but this need 
 occasion no disturbance or confusion ; as was shewn from the 
 instance of ‘‘ deliver us from evil,” and other instances in the 
 third Book^. And why may not any being be addressed as 
 what he is 9 Protestants are against offering up prayers to 
 saints, or any being except the Supreme ; but then is it not 
 because, in the prayers usually offered, something is implied 
 which really is not true.^ — as that the persons addressed can 
 hear and assist, when they cannot We are, at least, in no 
 danger of such error, if we adhere to words of Scripture. Our 
 addresses might be called prayers by those who thought the 
 Son and Holy Ghost Divine Persons ; by others they might be 
 called petitions, or by any other name. Perhaps those who 
 
 ^ See Book III. chap. vi. sect. 4, 5, 9. 
 
 33 — 2 
 
516 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. i. 15. 
 
 would not allow the Holy Ghost to be a Person ^ of any kind, II. 
 might decline addressing any thing to him ; and there might 
 be some who conceived the Son to be incapable of hearing 
 them ; yet he engaged to be with the Church “ alway,” even 
 unto the end of the world V’ The Vine must needs be as much 
 alive as the branches — the Shepherd as the flock — the Head 
 of the body as the members. Possibly, the more candid and 257 
 complying might address themselves to the Holy Spirit in their 
 own sense ; that is, make it a mode of addressing themselves to 
 the Deity ; and might conceive that the Son, he who was at 
 the right hand ^ of the Majesty on high, and who was highly ^ 
 exalted, so that at his name every knee should bow, might be 
 addressed without profanation. Socinus himself allowed Christ 
 to be divine (as he is called in the Racovian ^ Catechism) and 
 disputed with Francis David in favour of offering up devotions 
 to him ; and, though this was changed, yet the use of terms 
 wholly scriptural might have some effect. Why should any 
 Christian object to such an address as the following 
 
 ‘ O thou, who in the beginning wast with God, and wast 
 God — Thou, by whom all things were created, that are in 
 heaven and earth — ^Thou, in whose name all men are by bap- 
 tism admitted into the new and last dispensation of God, and 
 made partakers of the new covenant : — at thy name every knee 
 shall bow : — hear us ; intercede for us ; mediate between our 
 Judge and us; be thou our Advocate with the Father; thou, 
 who sittest at the right hand of the Majesty on high : send to 
 us the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost. Thou, who knew- 
 est no sin, and hadst power on earth to forgive sins, help us, 
 who are concluded under sin. O Lamb of God, that takest 
 away the sin of the world, let us not lose any of the benefits of 
 thy stupendous sacrifice!’ This form of address might con- 
 tent us, and need not, one would think, disgust those who 
 dissent from us. It might be much enlarged, without depart- 
 ing from Scripture. 
 
 15. It could not be expected that we should take so much 258 
 pains to accommodate and recommend ourselves to those who 
 dissent from us, without expecting something from them in 
 return. They might say, that, whilst we were bringing our 
 
 * Dr. Priestley, in illustrating Matt, 
 xxviii. 19, uses language as if the Holy 
 Ghost was a person. See Familiar Illus- 
 trations, p. 30. 
 
 2 Matt, xxviii. 20. 
 
 3 Heb. i. 3. 4 Phil. ii. 9. 
 
 3 Sect. 6 . See Mosheim’s Hist, cent- 
 10. sect. 3. 2. 4. 22, &c. 
 
IV. i. 15.] 
 
 THK HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 517 
 
 II, doctrines, &c. nearer theirs, we were improving them ; but this 
 is not to be supposed : according to our notions we should be 
 making them worse. If in any instance we conceived ourselves 
 to be improving, that ought not to be reckoned amongst our 
 compliances. It might also be urged, that, if our side complied 
 sufficiently, theirs need not comply at all ; but one side must 
 feel reluctant and mortified, if the other does nothing ; and ex- 
 perience tells us, that, in all disputes, if we would effect a 
 reconciliation, we must provide more than what is barely suffi- 
 cient : we must take for granted, that some part of what we 
 provide will be wasted and lost. 
 
 I apprehend that the Church of England and the gene- 
 rality of those who dissent from it, might unite and worship 
 together, if they were properly disposed and directed. It 
 would be a different thing to say, it is probable^ in the present 
 state of things, that they will; but it seems owing to faults and 
 imperfections on one side or the other that they do not. I col- 
 lect this from several things, which have been already con- 
 sidered ; — as, that mutual concessions even in speculative 
 doctrines, though we have not power to alter what the Scrip- 
 tures declare, are ® allowable for the sake of unity, and practi- 
 cable ; that for social worship it is not perfect unity of private 
 opinion, but only unity of doctrine or teaching’^, which is required; 
 
 259 that the same forms of expression may be used by different per- 
 sons in different senses^; that we actually agree with many 
 dissenters in all the fundamentals^ of natural and revealed 
 religion, and differ in scarce any thing which the human mind 
 can comprehend — in scarce any thing, except what belongs to 
 the Essence of God, or what is to be done on the part of God. 
 How childish were it, for instance, not to allow those faculties 
 to be infinite to which no limit could be assigned ! The dissent- 
 ers cannot limit the duration of him who was “ in the begin- 
 ning,” nor the power of him by wdiom all things were created, 
 nor the majesty of him to whom every knee shall bow ; why 
 then not allow' them unlimited ? that is, infinite ? 
 
 But our proper business is now with the doctrine of the 
 Trinity ; and that as distinct from the doctrine of the Divinity 
 of the Son or Holy Ghost. The chief business, in mysterious 
 doctrines, seems to be, to get scriptural forms of expression, 
 which all might agree to, though in different senses. We have 
 already mentioned a form of address to the Son of God ; and 
 
 ® Book III. chap. iv. sect. 9. ^ ijj, jy. 1. ^ III. iv. 5. ® III. v. 3. 
 
518 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. i. 15. 
 
 we will endeavour to imagine one to the Holy Ghost, under the II. 
 5th Article. The term Trinity not being scriptural, we can- 
 not adhere to Scripture and use that; but, as we recommended 
 to our Church to drop it, we may recommend to dissenters not 
 to quarrel with it. The thing is in Scripture, what signifies 
 the word ? why reject Trinity, and use Triumvirate ? It does 
 not of itself imply that the three Persons are divine : it only 
 implies that they are, in Scripture, (and ought to be by Chris- 
 tians,) so frequently mentioned together as to make it worth 
 while to have a collective name for them. If it is said, that, 
 when our Church drops the term, the dissenters need not adopt 
 it, the answer is already given ; both measures need not be 
 practised, but both may be recommended till one is practised. 260 
 Each would make the other more readily submitted to: and 
 recommending both is the most likely method to accomplish 
 one. Even if no other sense could be annexed to the word 
 Trinity but our orthodox one, the most that could be said 
 would be, that we wish dissenters not to reject a word, which is 
 unmeaning; and which expresses briefly a doctrine, that we 
 think it our duty to record and proclaim^ though we do not 
 comprehend it. 
 
 In the present case, the dissenters, as it seems from the 
 nature of the thing, might more easily come over to us, than we 
 to them. If we join them, we must deny to the Son and Holy 
 Ghost that honour which appears to us to be due to them : this 
 we cannot do without violating those relative duties which we 
 conceive may be important. The Son and Holy Ghost seem to 
 be set forth in Scripture as instrumental in the salvation of 
 mankind : we dare not prefer any plan of our own to that 
 which seems to us divine. But, if they join us, all they need do 
 is, to use, or perhaps be present while we use, a few unmeaning 
 words. Every one gives up something, as an individual, for the 
 good which he receives as a member of society ; what easier 
 sacrifice than this can be made to social religion ? So long as 
 we clearly maintain the Unity of God, why need others scruple 
 a few unmeaning sounds merely because they seem to interfere 
 with it ? If they draw up any other forms of words to contra- 
 dict ours, those forms must have as little meaning as ours ^ 
 considered only as a contradiction. And can it be conceived 
 possible, that the omniscient Judge would condemn any person 
 for such a compliance as is here meant, when his only motive for 
 
 ’ See Book III. chap. x. sect. 3. 
 
IV. i. 16\] 
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 519 
 
 11. making it was a desire to promote the influence of religion, by 
 
 261 strengthening religious society? and when he does no more from 
 that motive than he probably does on other ^ occasions for less 
 important ends? It seems agreed, that giving a verbal assent 
 in ordinary matters is innocent, as being needful, though we do 
 not understand what we assent to (as in law-forms) ; but it is 
 never more needful, never more requisite, nor therefore ever 
 more excusable, than in matters of religion. 
 
 I should imagine that a perusal of Constantine's Letter^ to 
 Alexander and Arius might afford some pleasure to such as 
 were inclined to adopt these sentiments. It is curious to see 
 how Voltaire^ forgets all his contempt of Constantine, when he 
 would give force to this letter as bearing hard on theological 
 disputes. 
 
 16 . The last part of what we have called the application 
 is, to inquire whether our researches have given us any reason 
 to think, that any improvements may be made relative to the 
 subject of our Article. It seems possible, that more attention 
 may be paid to the number of Trinities, which occur in an- 
 cient writings, and that some better account may be given of 
 them than has hitherto been given ; but this is mentioned cur- 
 sorily. Some things may deserve a more careful and distinct 
 attention. 
 
 It seems as if improvement might be made in the manner of 
 applying philosophy to the Scriptures ; or in hindering it from 
 
 262 being wrongly applied : — such improvement I mean as might 
 tend particularly to settle the doctrine of the Trinity. In the 
 present age we are proud of our philosophy ; and we encourage 
 it so much as to make it sometimes run out into luxuriance. 
 To reduce and prune luxuriant shoots, is certainly to improve. 
 Indeed, Christians in all ages, especially those who have prided 
 themselves on any opinions, have made too free with Scriptures; 
 and many parts of the Canon have been rejected, at different 
 times, because they were, or seemed, contrary to certain fa- 
 vourite preconceived notions. The Manicheans had an abhor- 
 rence of matter; and therefore all parts of Scripture which 
 mentioned the uses of matter were rejected as spurious : the 
 whole Old Testament was cut off* at one stroke. Our modern 
 philosophers are prodigious friends of matter ; and therefore 
 
 2 Book III. chap. x. sect. 1 and 2. 
 
 ^ See Eusebius’s Life of Constantine. 
 Book II. partic. chap. 64, 69, 70, men- 
 
 tioned in Lardner’s Account of the Coun- 
 cil of Nice. 
 
 Works, 4to, vol. xxvii. p. 452. 
 
520 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION, 
 
 [IV. i. { 6 . 
 
 Scripture must be construed so that even the soul may be ma- II. 
 terial. To set aside whole books of Scripture seems something 
 more gross than to interpret ; yet, if we set aside the genuine 
 sense, we may as well set aside words too ; for, deprived of 
 their right sense, words must either be useless, or mislead. But 
 we have a new way of lessening the force of Scriptures which 
 do not favour us. Instead of treating books as spurious, we 
 diminish the degree of inspiration. A sacred writer, we say, 
 might be biassed by \\\^ prejudices ; he might be mistaken! we 
 must not in all^ cases trust too implicitly 1 &c. 
 
 Surely, when our adversaries go these lengths, they do not 
 perceive that they are in reality confirming those doctrines 
 which they confess themselves unable to overthrow, without 
 measures which take away the whole matter in dispute. All 
 that we affirm is, that supposing the Scriptures, as we have 
 them, to be divinely inspired, so that every thing in them is 26S 
 truth, such and such doctrines are contained in them : the 
 moment that our adversaries change any part of this supposi- 
 tion, there is no longer any question between us. Dean Allix, 
 in the preface to his book already quoted, speaking of the So- 
 cinians, says, that their divisions occasioned their want of 
 success; and those divisions, he says, “will unavoidably follow, 
 till they can agree in unanimously rejecting the authority of 
 Scripture^.” The book was published in 1699; and whoever 
 compares the event with the prediction will be struck with the 
 sagacity of the author. 
 
 The implicit reverence which we ought to shew to the 
 Scriptures is well expressed in a piece about Noetus, the 
 Patripassian, ascribed to Hippolytus., according to Lardner’s* 
 translation: “The Scriptures speak truth, but Noetus does 
 not understand them. But though NolHus does not under- 
 stand, the Scriptures nevertheless are not to be laid aside.*” 
 Noetus was an Unitarian of the '‘ancient sort: substitute a 
 modern one, the passage is still applicable. Dr. Powell, who 
 had as good pretensions to the character of a philosopher as 
 any man, has written a Charge “ On the Use and Abuse of 
 Philosophy in the Study of Religion in which he says^, that 
 “the English clergy” “have wisely avoided the application of 
 it (philosophy), where such application is impertinent or pro- 
 
 - Priestley’s Letters, pp. 149, 159; 
 p. 122 is strong. ^ P. xiii. 
 
 Lardncr’s APorks, vol. 111. p. 
 
 where there is more said to the purpose 
 than is here quoted. 
 
 '* Sect. 5. 5 p. 349. 
 
IV. i. 17.] 
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 521 
 
 II. fane: impertinent, as in interpretation® of Scripture; profane, 
 as in the judging of God’s decrees.” 
 
 264 If I may speak frankly, the truth of the matter seems to 
 be this : The Trinitarians have formed their doctrine in one 
 way, and the Anti-trinitarians in another. The Trinitarians 
 have collected their doctrine from Scripture only : the Anti- 
 trinitarians, disgusted with the difficulties attending that me- 
 thod, or with abuses of it, and hoping to soften and moderate 
 what appeared to them harsh and uncouth, have set out from 
 notions of common sense, reason, natural religion ; and, taking 
 for granted, that Scripture, if rightly interpreted, must coin- 
 cide with these, have interpreted it by bringing it as near to 
 them as possible. I should imagine, from their writings, that 
 they themselves would own this ; but, if any of them disown it, 
 nothing more can be said. However, I will refer to a few 
 authorities^; and then observe, that this is not simple, genuine 
 interpretation ; that, though it be true in theory, that reason 
 and Scripture coincide, yet in practice we are not to take for 
 granted that our present reason is perfectly right reason ; (ex- 
 perience is against that ;) and supposing God to inform us of 
 
 265 any thing, it probably would be something which our reason 
 would be unlikely soon to find out. 
 
 17. If we could accomplish what has just now been recom- 
 mended, an honest simplicity of interpretation, we should 
 naturally advance in improvement, by attending more and more 
 minutely to the particular circumstances in which any expres- 
 sions were used, which seemed to interfere with each other. 
 In popular language, seeming contradictions and inconsisten- 
 
 ® In some ways, and some cases, I am 
 apt to think philosophy may be of use in 
 interpreting Scripture ; as, for instance, 
 about voluntary actions of man. Scrip- 
 ture speaks common sense ; but it is per- 
 verted^ by enthusiasm, or superstition, or 
 by being taken too literally. Perhaps 
 there is no remedy here like true philo- 
 sophy ; for that alone can unfold the real 
 meaning of popular expressions, used 
 from mens feelings. I had some such 
 idea when I said that Bp. Burnet some- 
 times seems to want philosophy. Introd. 
 sect. (5. 
 
 See Socinus on John i. where he ex- 
 presses a fear lest Christianity should 
 become contemptible in the whole world. 
 The same thought appears in modern 
 
 Socinian writings. See Short Defence of 
 Divinity of Christ, pp. 25, 27. 
 
 See also Mosheim^ vol. iv. 8vo, p. 517. 
 (or cent. 16. sect. 3. Part II. chap, iv, 
 sect 15). Macknight somewhere agrees 
 with Mosheim’s account; viz. that the 
 Socinians take that sense which is most 
 agreeable to reason^ without nicely ob- 
 serving the expression ; but I do not 
 now find the place, not having made my 
 reference exactly. 
 
 Tillotson says, they attend to wordsy 
 as opposed to the intention with which 
 those words are introduced : but that I 
 conceive to be only the means of getting 
 their reasonable opinion received, (vol. i. 
 fol. p. 412, on John i. 14.) 
 
522 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. i. 17. 
 
 cies perpetually arise, or contradictions in words, when there II. 
 is no inconsistency whatever in the meaning^. A large list of 
 such contradictions might be taken out of Scripture, as all 
 sects will allow. Why then might not those seemingly opposite 
 declarations concerning the Divine Nature^ which have given 
 occasion to different sects amongst Christians, be in some mea- 
 sure reconciled, if we attended to circumstances with sufficient 
 exactness ? It seems to me as if much might be hoped for from 
 this method. The Scriptures do not, in different circumstances, 
 speak, in the same way, of the equality or subordination of- 
 the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and sometimes one situa- 
 tion succeeds another almost imperceptibly. The 17th chapter 
 of St. John’s Gospel may afford an instance. When Christ 
 prays to the Father in the character of a man sent to teach, 
 
 &c. he speaks with propriety, as if the Father were the only 
 God,'"' and he himself a man. But, when he speaks in circum- 
 stances which imply his earthly office to be expired, then he 
 makes himself equal with God. In this light, compare verse 3 
 with verse 4 and verse 11, looking back to John x. SO, with a 
 reference to Leviticus xxiv. l6. In verse S, he says, ‘‘ this is 
 life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and 
 Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” But, when he has once 265 
 said, I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do,” 
 (verse 4,) then another scene opens upon us: we are in heaven — 
 Christ is ascended to the ‘‘right hand of the Majesty on high;” 
 the earthly things, the earthly offices of the Messiah, are 
 vanished ; and, if we give into this conception, we shall rightly 
 feel and understand what follows: “And now, O Father, 
 glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had 
 with thee before the world was.” In like manner, verse 11, 
 
 “ And noiv I am no more in the world, but these are in the 
 world ” — keep them — “ that they may be one, as we are."’' 
 Christ had before said, (John x. SO,) “ I and my Father are 
 onefi and had been near being stoned, (according to Lev. xxiv. 
 
 16,) for using an expression so like blasphemy. 
 
 Macknight looks ^ upon his oneness as not being unity of 
 Person (or perhaps we should say, of substance,) but only “ a 
 perfect union of counsels and designs.^"* Yet St. Paul says, 
 
 “ who, (what man, or finite being) hath known the mind of 
 the Lord or ^who hath been his counsellor I, for my 
 part, can put no limit to the wisdom of him who has “a perfect 
 
 ’ Book 1. chap. x. sect. 10. “ On the place, p. 5B1). Rom. xi. 34. 
 
VI. i. 17.] 
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 523 
 
 II. union of counsels and designs” with the Deity. I think no 
 finite being could use such language as Christ uses, though it 
 may not convey a definite idea to us^ about being one with the 
 Father, without the greatest arrogance and presumption. Was 
 Christ then arrogant ? Consider the lowliness of his character ; 
 the humble simplicity of this affecting prayer. Read verse 21 
 and 22. He who had a right to utter such things, and was 
 humble while he uttered them, can have nothing too great con- 
 ceived of him. But we must not encroach too much on the 
 subject of the second Article. 
 
 267 St. Paul says^, “ To us there is but one God, the Father, 
 of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus 
 Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” This verse, 
 taken by itself, might lead us to think that the Father only 
 was to be considered as God, and the Son as having some kind 
 of authority, not divine, which made him to be entitled Lord. 
 But, if we consider the circumstances in which the verse is 
 introduced, I think it will clearly favour our doctrines. St. 
 Paul is giving his directions to the converts about their par- 
 taking of the heathen sacrifices, or feasts upon the sacrifices ; 
 or, as our Bible expresses it, eating things ‘‘ ofi[‘ered in sacrifice 
 to idols.''"' He tells them, “ an idol is nothing in the world,” 
 no real object of worship; there is but one object of reasonable 
 worship, the one supreme God; but then, as if recollecting, 
 that this saying, however true, might mislead the converts, with 
 regard to the dignity of the character of Christ, now in heaven, 
 and prevent their addressing any adorations to him, he proceeds 
 to mention Christ as a right object of worship, (the worship of 
 him being supposed some how consistent with the worship of 
 the one true God,) only making some variety in his expression. 
 He calls him Lord, instead of God. The word God having 
 been used before, the repetition of it, in this case, might sound 
 unpleasing ; or even like polytheism ; but he calls him by a title 
 which had belonged to Jehovah, and by which the one Supreme 
 God might at any time be lawfully addressed. Nothing can be 
 more clear to me, than that St. Paul meant to oppose right ob- 
 jects of worship to wrong ones ; and that he mentions Jesus 
 
 268 Christ as a right one. By calling him Lord, he could not mean 
 to deny that he was God ; any more than by calling the Father 
 God, to deny that he was Lord. If Christ is not God, because 
 
 1 Cor. viii. 6 — P. S. Bp. Pearson has a short remark on this text, p. 251, on Creed, 
 1st. ed. — or p. 126, /oL ed. 
 
524 . 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. L 17. 
 
 there is but one God, we must say that the Father is not Lord; II. 
 for St. Paul tells us here expressly, there is but one Lord.” 
 
 St. Paul says, that, amongst the heathens^ there are “ gods 
 many^ and lords many;” and then adds, that we Christians 
 have but one God, and one Lord : making the Father corre- 
 spond, in some sort, to the heathen gods, the Son to the heathen 
 lords. This induces Mr. Locke ^ to conclude, that Christ is 
 called Lord here only as our Mediator^ not in his divine cha- 
 racter. Though there does seem some analogy intended be- 
 tween the heathen^ lords, or lords many^'''' and our Lord 
 Christ, yet that, I think, cannot destroy the force of the • 
 reasoning just now used. I should rather say, therefore, 
 that Christ is Lord both as mediator, and on account of the 
 glory which he had with the Father “ before the world was^” 
 This is also Bishop Pearson’s^ opinion, and the most scriptu- 
 ral. Besides, the description immediately following the men- 
 tion of Jesus Christ does not agree so well with the idea of 
 Mediator^ as of Creator — ‘‘by whom are all things, and we by 
 him.” And let any one compare this with what is said in like 
 manner of the Father: “of whom are all things, and we in 269 
 him.” Let him, who can, interpret these two descriptions, so 
 as to shew that the one belongs to a Being purely divine, the 
 other to a Being merely human. I do not say that these de- 
 scriptions convey distinct ideas, or are intended to do so ; but 
 they prevent our assigning limits to the attributes of the Per- 
 sons described. 
 
 More instances might be produced of the Son being spoken 
 of differently in different circumstances ; in which the con- 
 sideration of the circumstances would remove, or account for, 
 any seeming inconsistency : but the notion being sufficiently 
 opened, I will confine myself to remarking, that Dr. Samuel 
 Clarke, that learned, candid, and valuable writer, might have 
 corrected and improved, as it seems to me, some of his observ- 
 ations, relative to our present subject, by that attention to 
 circumstances which we are now recommending. He quotes 
 many texts in which he seems to think that the word “ God” 
 
 * Locke on 1 Cor. viii. 6. 
 
 2 Hume (Nat. Hist, of Rel. sect. 4) 
 shews, that deities were not always con- 
 sidered as creators of the world. Mr. 
 Locke’s distinction is, into Oeol, gods, 
 who were supposed to reside in heaven, 
 and Aaifiove^ (answering to Baalim)^ 
 
 lords, or \orA.-agents^ who were supposed 
 to reside on earth, and do all business 
 between men and the Geot — the Geol 
 being too great to transact business with 
 men immediately. Locke refers to Mede. 
 
 ^ .John xvii. 5. 
 
 See the passage just now referred to. 
 
IV. i. 17.] 
 
 THK HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 525 
 
 II. is equivalent to the Father ; but at the same time it should be 
 observed, that God is very frequently spoken of in Scripture 
 without any relation to the distinction of Persons in the Holy 
 Trinity — as we should speak of him in reasonings on natural 
 religion, in shewing his power and wisdom in the works of the 
 270 creation^. To introduce the distinction of Persons seems often 
 unnecessary, (always, perhaps, except when we are concerned 
 with the Christian plan of sanctifying and saving mankind;) 
 and, when it is unnecessary, it may also sometimes be improper. 
 However, I should think the word God ” must be, generally 
 speaking, rather equivalent to the three Persons of the Trinity, 
 than to any one of them®. 
 
 With regard to Christ in particular, when he addresses 
 himself in his human character to God, or speaks of him to the 
 Jews, he calls him not so much his God as his Father — some- 
 times the Father. But even this word Father''^ does not 
 seem always to mean the Father in the Trinity. I should 
 conceive it to mean, in many cases, God in general.^ if we may 
 so speak — God, as independent of the trinitarian distinction of 
 Persons. When we say, “ Our Father, which art in heaven,” 
 we mean the one Supreme^ God, not one Person of the Trinity ; 
 and Christ would naturally use the term more frequently than 
 we; though not so often as he does, I should think, if the 
 Socinian hypothesis were well founded — if Christ were a mere 
 man, and only an human teacher, supernaturally assisted : he 
 would, in that case, rather call God his Lord, his Sovereign, 
 or &c. In some places, particularly where the Son speaks of 
 his existence “ before the world was,” or after the consumma- 
 tion of all things, the word “ Father’'’' may signify the Person 
 of the Holy Trinity so called; but that the word God’''* 
 
 In 2 Cor. xiii. 14, (“ the grace of our 
 Lord,” &c.) and in other places, (see 
 Clarke’s Scrip. Doctrine Trin. Part I. 
 chap. iv. also Part I. chap. i. sect. 1, 2). 
 the word God does seem to be used 
 where the Father, a Person of the Tri- 
 nity, might be used ; but my idea is 
 something of this sort: suppose three 
 persons joined in a civil government., 
 after the manner of the Roman trium- 
 virate, and two of them went out in 
 certain offices, (to head an army, treat 
 with foreign princes, &c.) then he who 
 remained, and was merely sovereign, 
 might be called sovereign, when the 
 
 others were called general, admiral, am- 
 bassador, or &c. Nor would it follow 
 that those who were from home had no 
 sovereign power. 
 
 ® Bp. Pearson (Creed, Art. I. p. 59, 
 1st edit.) has this distinction, which he 
 calls vulgar,'"' that is, common; be- 
 tween the Father personally considered, 
 or as a Person of the Trinity ; and essen- 
 tially considered, “as comprehending the 
 whole Trinity." 
 
 7 This language is used by Pope in 
 his Universal Prayer, '^Father of all," 
 &c. ; by Milton, “ These are thy glorious 
 works, Parent of good.” 
 
 ' 3 ^ 
 
52G 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. i. 17. 
 
 should denote the Father^ in ordinary discourses in the New II. 
 Testament, seems very unlikely. 271 
 
 St. Mark gives an account of a dialogue between our 
 Saviour and a Jewish scribe: they seem to agree about the 
 Unity of God. Christ says, ‘‘ The Lord our God is one ' 
 Lord or, he is 07ie : the scribe says, “ there is one God, and 
 there is none other but he.” But this has no more concern 
 with the doctrine of the Trinity^ as it appears to we, than if 
 that doctrine had never been revealed. The Unity of God is 
 here only opposed to polytheism and idolatry; the scribe could 
 have nothing else in his mind ; yet Dr. Clarke says, that, in 
 this place, what is said of God is predicated ^ of the Father ; 
 that is, of the Person of the Holy Trinity usually mentioned 
 first. Surely, a due attention to circumstances would have 
 prevented this remark. The scribe knew that the fundamental 
 principle of the Mosaic law was, ‘ avoid the polytheism and 
 idolatry of your neighbours.’ When, therefore, he heard Jesus 
 quote out of the book of Deuteronomy^, ‘‘ Hear, O Israel; the 
 Lord our God is one Lord,” he could agree to the notion, that 
 this was “ the first commandment of all,” in no sense but this : 
 
 ‘ the command, which we Jews ought to consider as principal, 
 is to keep clear of the polytheism and idolatry with which our 
 neighbours are corrupted. Jehovah is the only object of rational 
 worship. Chemosh, Moloch, Remphan, are all abominations : 
 nay, even the host of heaven, though they declare the glory of 272 
 God, are not themselves to be worshipped.’ 
 
 Dr. Clarke has not noticed the difference of circumstances 
 mentioned above in explaining the 17^^ Chapter of St. John^s 
 Gospel. 
 
 I may be permitted to add, that the Council ^ of Carthage 
 ordered all prayers offered at the altar to be addressed to the 
 Father only. I presume that the notion of the council might 
 be this : — that, when we are at the altar, while we keep up the 
 strict notion of an altar, we look upon Christ in the light of a 
 victim — of the Lamb of God, sacrificed for the sins of the 
 world : now no men ever pray to a victim. Bingham says 
 
 ‘ Mark xii. ver. 29, 32. 
 
 2 Clarke’s Scripture-doctrine of the 
 Trinity, Part I. chap. i. sect. 1 and 2, 
 where the texts stand in the order of 
 Scripture. By the way, it appears, I 
 think, from this part, that Athanasius 
 overlooked the distinction between God, 
 
 considered independently of the doctrine 
 of the Trinity, and the Father, a Person 
 of the Trinity. ^ Deut. vi. 4. 
 
 ■* Bingham, 13. 2. 5, refers. to the third 
 Council of Carthage, (Can. 23,) which, 
 according to Cave, (Hist. Lit.) was held 
 A. D. 252. 
 
IV. i. 18.] 
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 527 
 
 II. much the same^ Mr. Gibbon will have it that Christians have 
 the same being for God and victim. Christ is God in one 
 view, and victim in another view ; but these are not to be con- 
 founded : and the council might aim at avoiding such confusion. 
 
 18. It would be a considerable improvement if we were to 
 increase our caution (and we could not easily increase it too 
 much) in connecting any propositions which we do not under- 
 stand, or in forming them into any kind of syllogism, or argu- 
 ment. For, when we do so, our reasoning is merely verbal^ it 
 has no meaning; and yet by the use of it we may get into 
 hurtful absurdities, which may disgust religious and rational 
 men. Some great writers seem to have fallen into this fault ; 
 and they have done harm by it to the general cause of Christi- 
 anity. I fear I might instance in Bishop Pearson, Bishop 
 Burnet, and Dr. S. Clarke, as well as in ancient writers. 
 
 273 The Patripassians were so called from their being said to 
 maintain that the Father suffered on the Cross. I suppose 
 they were Unitarians of the ® ancient sort : they made too little 
 (or no) distinction between the Father and the Son ; from 
 whence, it seems probable, that their adversaries made them 
 reason thus: ‘The Son suffered; the Father and the Son are 
 one ; therefore the Father suffered.’ Whoever reasoned thus, 
 the fallacy is the same '^. The reasoning may not be illogical 
 in its but two ideas could not be compared with a middle 
 term, when in reality there were no ideas to compare; but only 
 words standing in the place of ideas. When we say, ‘ the Fa- 
 ther and the Son are one,’ we have not comprehension enough 
 of the meaning to ground any reasoning upon. By the way, 
 it has not always been thought proper to say even that the Son 
 suffered; if we mean by the Son one Person of the Holy Tri- 
 nity ; though Jesus Christ, who, in some sense, was the Son 
 of God, suffered indisputably. But I do not wish to revive the 
 controversy of the 6th century, De uno ex Trinitate passo®. 
 
 In the time of St. Ambrose^ baptism was sometimes admi- 
 nistered only in the name of Christ. That great father, wishing 
 probably to soften contention, runs into the fallacy here spoken 
 of% when he urges, that baptizing, in the name of Christ only, 
 is, in effect, baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 
 ® Bingham’s Antiquities, 13. 2. 5. 
 
 ® Sect. 5. 
 
 7 See Aug. Haer. 41 ; or Lard. Works, 
 vol. III. p. 13. 
 
 ® Card. Noris wrote a history of this 
 controversy, which is quoted by Mosheim, 
 6th cent. vol. ii. 8vo, p. 137. 
 
 ^ De Spiritu Sancto, lib. i. cap. 3, See 
 Bingham, 11. 3. 3. 
 
528 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. i. 18. 
 
 Ghost, because they are one. Origen seems more reasonable, II. 
 when he ^ says, it would have been improper in St. Paul, speak- 274 
 ing of baptizing into the death ^ of Christ, to mention the Fa- 
 ther and Holy Ghost ; they having nothing to do with death. 
 Origen here suits himself to circumstances. 
 
 In this train of thinking, we cannot but pity the sufferings 
 of Nestorius. He would not call the Virgin Mary Oeoro/co?, 
 though he had no objection to calling her ^picrroTOKos. ^What 
 perverseness !’ his adversaries would say : ‘ Mary was the mo- 
 ther of Christ ; Christ is God ; therefore was not Mary the 
 mother of God?’ But the fault was more in this syllogism 
 than in Nestorius. When we say, ‘ Christ is God,’ our ideas 
 are not distinct ; we cannot argue on such a proposition ^ 
 Nestorius probably felt or saw this. An human being the 
 mother of her own Creator ! was more than he could admit ; 
 and his sufferings are a disgrace to the religion of his age. 
 Christ, when considered as the Son of Mary, should not be 
 confounded with Christ as being in the form of God, before his 
 incarnation ; or as being King of kings, and Lord of lords,” 
 after his ascension. The orthodox language is, that Christ had 
 two natures in one Person ; to which I have no objection, as 
 things divine and things human are predicated of Christ, as of 
 one agent or person ; and this language brings all the texts into 
 one view. But still it is barbarous to persecute a man because 
 he cannot get over such difficulties as those of Nestorius just 
 now mentioned. Neither do we say, the Son and Holy Ghost 
 are Gods ; though we say the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost 
 God. 
 
 This will let us know what we are to think of some expres- 
 sions, which we meet with now and then, particularly in infidel 275 
 writers; — about Papists eating^ their God — a crucified God 
 — our saying that the Jews were murderers of God; &c. — 
 our having the same being, as God and victim (Gibbon) — 
 decree of the Holy Trinity They are all wrong expres- 
 sions; as arising from inferring, where inference cannot be ad- 
 mitted. 
 
 1 See Bingham, 11.3. 10. 
 
 2 Rom. vi. 3. 
 
 ^ Bp. Pearson calls the Virgin Mary, 
 “the mother of the Son of God.” On 
 Creed, p. 346, 1st ed. 
 
 ^ Hume’s Nat. Hist, of Religion, sect. 
 12, paragraph 2 and 4. 
 
 ® Heylin Quinq. 2. 8. 5. “ Suscipe 
 sancta Trinitas,” p. 37, of Present spi~ 
 rituel ; and p. 58, “ placeat tibi sancta 
 Trinitas.” P. 20, “ Seigneur, je vous ai 
 refu.” Present sjnrituel is a little French 
 prayer-book. 
 
IV. i. 18.] 
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 529 
 
 II. I cannot say but I feel some difficulty about Acts xx. 28 — 
 and some indulgence for those who derive expressions, from that 
 passage, which do not seem justifiable. Bishop Pearson® and 
 Bishop Burnet ' both use this expression, “ the hlood of God^.’'"' 
 I should not dare to use it. I should be more inclined to say, 
 there is no such ® expression in Scripture. In strictness there 
 is not ; nay, I do not believe that any of the sacred writers 
 would have used it. They seem to come very near it, in the 
 276 passage now referred to ; but it seems to be because the course 
 of the sentence led them to it. God’’ was in the first part or 
 member of the sentence ; and perhaps “ Chris f would have 
 been put in the second part, if it had required no force to make 
 the change ; but, as Christ was God as well as man, and as no 
 wrong notion could arise out of the expression, the reasons 
 might seem strongest against interrupting the course of the 
 sentence : but this I am no way positive about. The ‘Church^® 
 of Christ’ might have been a very good expression ; but St. 
 Paul was very earnest — wanted to use as strong an expression 
 as possible. However all this may be, I am in general against 
 changing the expressions of Scripture in any degree, in things 
 above our comprehension, when it can be avoided ’h 
 
 Is not this speaking against the doctrine of the Trinity ? 
 I imagine many Trinitarians would allow, that it might have 
 been as well if the doctrine had continued in that indefinite 
 state in which it was before Christians engaged in controversy 
 about it. To assent to it is not to declare that you would 
 have put the doctrine into its present form, had you had your 
 choice. It is not to approve of such a measure, though I think 
 
 ® On Creed, p. 257, fol. | 
 
 7 On Article 2d, p. 57, octavo. 
 
 ^ Bp. Pearson says (Creed, Art. 4, 
 Dead^ p. 434, 1st Edit.) ^‘God died for 
 us," has been the constant language of 
 the Church. Whereas Lardner says, 
 (Her. Praxeas, sect. 8,) “no man ever 
 allowed that proper Deity suffered.” 
 Bp. Pearson means, that person died, of 
 whom things both divine and human are 
 predicated, so that in one person he is 
 said to have two natures ; so that birth, 
 suffering, and death, &c. are all pre- 
 dicated of him. We should be aware of 
 the reading oi Acts xx. 28, bid toD a'Lpa- 
 Tos toD iciov ; as well as that Bp. Pearson 
 says, and proves, that the Divine Nature 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 I cannot suffer, and that Christ did not suf- 
 fer in his Divine Nature, See Art. 4, 
 pp. 379, 380, &c. 1st edit., or p. 187, &c. 
 fol. 
 
 ® P. S. In this I find myself agreeing 
 with Dr. Priestley, and disagreeing with 
 the author of the Short Defence of the 
 Divinity of Christ, near end of Ap- 
 pendix. 
 
 Acts XX. 28. 
 
 What I have said on Acts xx. 28, 
 does not prevent its being used as an 
 argument for the Divinity of Christ; 
 because it seems clear that such language 
 would not have been used if Christ was 
 not, in some views, to be considered as 
 Divine. 
 
 34 
 
530 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. i. 19. 
 
 it may be approved on a principle of self-defence. As to the II. 
 word Trinity, though it be not scriptural, and though I would 
 give it up, I think it perfectly harmless and unexceptionable ; 
 
 — on the principle already mentioned, that the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost occur so often in Scripture, and ought to occur 
 so often in discourses on baptism, &c., that a collective name 
 for them is highly proper and reasonable. 
 
 As to 1 John in. l6, as the word deov is not in our Testa- 277 
 ments, and therefore the words “ of God” are in italics, we need 
 not dwell upon it. 
 
 19. I do not see why it might not be a subject of inquiry, 
 whether the word God is always used in the same precise sense 
 in Scripture, as implying the same power, wisdom, &c. ? Such 
 an inquiry ought not to determine any thing, but only to open 
 our views. We do not want it for ourselves ; as our arguments 
 go to prove the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost in the 
 highest sense ; but only to give some ease and relief to those 
 who are shocked with our doctrines — to open a path by which 
 they might possibly be able to join us. Particularly such an 
 inquiry might be a means of uniting different sects of Christians 
 in that, which seemed most difficult, in offering up addresses 
 to the Son and Holy Ghost. I use the more words for fear an 
 innocent expedient should give offence to any well-meaning 
 person. Those who should engage in such an inquiry would 
 examine John i. 1, where it is said, that the same Being (the 
 Word) “ was with God” and “ was God.’''' They would consider 
 whether this could be without a plurality of Gods, if the word 
 God was used both times in precisely the same sense k They 
 would consider John x. 34, (with Psalm Lxxxii. 6,) where Christ 
 tells the Jews that they could not consistently stone him for 
 blasphemy, in calling himself the Son of God ; because they ac- 
 knowledged those persons to be gods who were inferior to him 
 — who could not do the works that he did. Christian readers 
 would see that the reasoning of our Saviour had in it something 
 of the nature of the argumentum ad hominem; and therefore 278 
 they would think whether he would have blamed the Jews for 
 calling him God in an inferior sense. It would occur to them, 
 that, in the imperfection of human language, a word was often 
 used to express one kind of thing in different degrees; as a 
 king of Spain and a king of Cherokees have very different de- 
 
 * See Theophylact’s answer to Porphyry’s cavil, mentioned in Lardner’s Works, 
 vol. VIII. p. 211. 
 
IV. i. 20.] 
 
 THE HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 531 
 
 II. grees of power, though both are called kings: and also that 
 one person had in Scripture different titles in different circum- 
 stances, without any change taking place in that person — as 
 Moses was a god and a servant without any actual alteration 
 in his condition. Such inquirers might debate, whether things 
 might not be represented to us with some accommodation to 
 our faculties — as if when it was said such a being was divine, 
 the meaning was, in strictness, only that we should act and 
 speak as if he was so. 
 
 Perhaps nothing material could be objected to an inquiry 
 of this nature ; nevertheless, the result of it could scarcely be 
 more than this : — ‘ W^e do not absolutely conclude^ that under- 
 standing the word God in different degrees, as it were, would 
 solve difficulties relating to the Trinity; but every opportunity 
 of freely thinking, whether something of this sort might not 
 possibly have some concern with the matter, must needs occa- 
 sion a degree of ease and satisfaction to a mind fatigued with 
 doubt and perplexity ’ 
 
 20. The last improvement I shall mention is what consists 
 279 ill discerning more and more clearly the uses of the doctrine 
 of the Trinity. These should always have our diligent atten- 
 tion; but, at the same time, we should be very cautious lest we 
 lay too much stress upon our own conjectures. I have already 
 said, that our Christian Trinity does not seem to have sprung 
 from the fancy ^ or the ear, but from the nature of things. I 
 have mentioned some reasons why we are unwilling to give it 
 up to our dissenting brethren ® ; but I have hinted, that the 
 uses ascribed to the doctrine are only to be put on the footing 
 of the illustrations'^ — not to be considered as perfectly under- 
 stood, but only as tending to abate men’s prejudices against it. 
 I have but little to add : only as the difficulty of the doctrine 
 arises from seeming contradiction and inconsistency, it might 
 be expected, that, when we came to act upon the different parts 
 of it, we should find ourselves entangled and impeded by inter- 
 fering duties and obligations; but that is not the case. We 
 may act and pray, to God ; to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; 
 as we are commanded in Scripture, and never find ourselves. 
 
 2 Exod. vii. 1. Hebr. iii. 5. 
 
 ^ ’ AvdpoaTTOv if/vxv 'Tov Qeiov fiCTex^i- 
 Xen. Mem. 4. 3. 14. Transl. Anima 
 hominis de Divina Natura participat. 
 
 divinae parti culam aurae Hor. 
 
 Could these expressions be of any use ? 
 
 ^ Cornish on the Pre-existence of Christ, 
 and Waterland’s Importance of the Doc- 
 trine of the Trinity, might be consulted. 
 
 ® Sect. 3, near the end. ® Sect. 15. 
 
 ’ Sect. 10, end. See Jonathan Ed- 
 wards’s Sermons, on Faith, p. 141. 
 
 34 — 2 
 
532 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. [IV. i. Append. 
 
 in fulfilling one duty, neglecting another. On this account, II. 
 I should say, that, though the doctrine of the Trinity be unin- 
 telligible in speculation, it is intelligible in 'practice. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 280 
 
 CONCERNING THE GENUINENESS OF 1 JOHN V. 7h 
 
 I MIGHT now proceed to the second Article; but the famous 
 disputed text, 1 John v. 7, being usually acouunted one main 
 support of the doctrine of the Trinity, I may be expected not 
 to pass it over, or leave it undistinguished amidst the forty-eight 
 already mentioned. Whether that text is genuine, being a 
 critical inquiry, belongs properly to our first Book ; but it will 
 seem most worthy of attention in this place ; especially as the 
 controversy on this subject is revived. 
 
 It has been said^, that some Anti-trinitarians have in some 
 degree favoured the genuineness of this text, and that some 
 Trinitarians have thought it spurious. Who the former are, I 
 do not happen to know, or remember, at this time; but amongst 
 the latter may be reckoned Bentley % Michaelis^, and, for a 
 time, Erasmus, and even Dr. Waterland. Dr. S. Clarke^, I 
 should add; as I never conceive him to be what I should call 
 an Arian. We should also add the great Martin Luther: and 
 Bishop Burnet® seems inclined to reject the text. 
 
 Infidels seem fond of opposing the genuineness of this text; 281 
 taking that occasion to revile the orthodox for fraud and forgery. 
 Voltaire blunders'^ most terribly about it; and Mr. Gibbon has 
 been thought very hasty in his assertions respecting it; though 
 I think some Christians seem inclined to defend him Voltaire 
 dates the forgery about the time of Lactantius, who is placed in 
 306. Mr. Gibbon says, the text was first alleged to Hunneric 
 at Carthage, 484. His date, in his Table of Contents^ is 530 ; 
 
 * This Appendix was written in Octo- 
 ber, 1789. 
 
 2 Bengelius, Appar. Crit. 
 
 3 See Biographia Britannica, end of 
 his life. ^ Introd. Lect. Sect. 151. 
 
 “ Vol. iv.fol. p. 121. 
 
 ® On 1st Art. p. 49, octavo. 
 
 7 See his Works, 4to, vol. xxiv. 
 p. 459; and vol. xxvii. p. 426. In one 
 place he makes the 7th the disputed 
 verse ; in another, the 8th. 
 
 ® See his History, vol. iii. p. 544, 
 quarto. Cantabrigiensis in Gent. Mag. 
 1788, and 1789. 
 
IV. i. Append.] 
 
 1 JOHN V. 7. 
 
 533 
 
 II. but he says, p. 544 , and 545 , It (the text) was first alleged” 
 at the Council of Carthage, which, I think, was 484 . 
 
 This text has occasioned much controversy in modern 
 times*’; but the ancients do not seem to speak as if there had 
 been any disputes amongst them relative to it; nor do I happen 
 to remember any controversial language about it, in the short 
 writings of the famous editors soon after the invention of 
 printing. 
 
 The chief opposers of the genuineness of the text are Em- 
 lyn, Wetstein, Michaelis, Benson, and Sir I. Newton: the chief 
 defenders^ Martin and Twells (who converted Waterland). 
 Bengelius is very candid, but favours the verse on the whole ; 
 and Mill does so decidedly, after reckoning up an host of argu- 
 ments against it, which one would think invincible. 
 
 282 The question seemed going against the genuineness, till Mr. 
 Travis^ in 1784 , published some Letters to Mr. Gibbon, in 
 quarto, on the subject, in a spirited and eloquent style. The 
 year after, he published a second edition, in octavo, with correc- 
 tions and additions. These have occasioned some remarks; the 
 most formidable of which, that I have seen, are published in 
 the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1788 and 1789 , under the signa- 
 ture of Cantalwigiensis. This author professes to offer nothing 
 new ; but I suppose his animadversions may not be yet (Oct. 
 28 , 1789 ) completed; and what he has written he has made his 
 own : he has not the style and manner of a compiler. 
 
 This is all the history of the dispute which I will trouble 
 you with. The arguments on the different sides are very nu- 
 merous. I must content myself with giving general views of 
 them, and then making a few remarks. 
 
 In order to prove that the verse in dispute is not genuine, 
 it is urged that it is not found in any Greek MSS, or not in 
 any of any consequence. One at Dublin and one at Berlin are 
 not reckoned to be worth mentioning Voltaire says, it is 
 
 ® 1794. Mr. Person in his Letters, 
 published 1790, speaks as if this contro- 
 versy had then continued two centuries 
 and an half. See p. 69. It seems to 
 have begun with Erasmus’s publishing 
 his first editions without 1 John v. 7, and 
 the editors of Alcala and Stephens vnth 
 it. In the English Bibles of Hen. viii. 
 it is in a different character. See Clarke, 
 Script. Doctr. Part I. chap. iv. 
 
 See Gent. Mag. for Feb. 1789, p. 101, 
 beginning. 
 
 " In the Gentleman’s Magazine for 
 June 1789, I see it is said, ( p. 514. col. 
 2d,) “four of which” (eleven) “omit 
 the disputed passage.” Are we to con- 
 clude that it was found in seven ? These 
 MSS. are (or were) in the King of 
 France’s library. The account is given 
 by Le Long, who is supposed adverse to 
 the passage, and who says these MSS. 
 were what R. Stephens used for his edition 
 of the Gr. Test. 1550. 
 
534 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. [IV. i. Append. 
 
 found in modern MSS., but not in ancient ones ; but he does II. 
 not specify, nor must we take our facts from him, as he appears 
 ignorant of the question. 
 
 It is also urged, that the verse is not in those ancient writers 
 where one might eocpect to find it ; as in those who commented 
 on Scripture, or who were engaged in controversy about the 283 
 doctrine of the Trinity. Bede, for instance, placed by Lardner 
 in 701, comments on the verses immediately before and after it, 
 without noticing it. And the number of these fathers who 
 have omitted this verse is considerable : indeed amongst the 
 Greek fathers, the number is extremely small of those who have 
 introduced it into their writings. 
 
 As to versions, there is doubt whether it was in the old 
 Italic; or whether it was in the Armenian; it confessedly was 
 not in the Syriac or the Coptic. Other versions are mentioned 
 as omitting it; but they do not seem to have been taken from 
 the original, but from preceding versions. 
 
 Sometimes the 7th verse is marginal. Sometimes the order 
 of that and the 8th is^ changed, which indicates an unsteadiness 
 — something respecting it, unfixed, unsettled. Sometimes the 
 7th verse appears as a sort of mystical interpretation of the 8th. 
 
 On the other hand, Mr Travis reckons up twenty-three 
 private persons, or writers, who introduce or acknowledge 
 the disputed text: these are all of the Latin or Western 
 Church, except as Jerom declares that he had consulted Greek 
 MSS. Private persons, or individuals, are here opposed to 
 bodies of men : of bodies of men ten are enumerated who use 
 or exhibit the Text; including the Apostolus, that is, the col- 
 lection of Epistles in Greek, which were read in the service of 
 the Greek Church. In this number are also included three 
 versions, out of five original versions, the Armenian, Jerom’s 
 Latin, (or the Vulgate), and the old Italic. And a number 
 of omissions are shewn in the Syriac and Coptic, such as to 
 take away the effect of their omitting 1 John v. 7. Only two 
 Greek fathers are adduced as having this verse, and one of 
 those is of the 11th century. It is said that the Compluten- 284 
 sian editors and Robert Stephens (and Valla and Erasmus 
 before them) all followed Greek manuscripts. They all un- 
 doubtedly have the verse in question ; though Erasmus had it 
 not in his first two editions. 
 
 And now, what judgment is an impartial man to form on 
 
 ’ Bcngelius thinks it should be so. 
 
IV. i. Append.] 
 
 1 JOHN V. 7 - 
 
 535 
 
 II. these grounds.'^ It is not easy to be quite impartial, but a 
 man may feel more freedom when his determination will not 
 involve him in any difficulties, on which side soever it is made. 
 
 First, as to MSS., particularly the Greek. It seems to 
 me that the text had been wanting in some early ones, and of 
 course in all those transcribed from them. But it might 
 nevertheless be afterwards admitted reasonably, or restored, 
 into the canon of Scripture. Many things are in our Scrip- 
 tures now which have been found wanting in some MSS.; 
 and those MSS. neither modern, as I conceive, nor of bad 
 authority. Instances may be. Acts viii. 37; John v. 3, 4; 
 John vii. 53 ; Matt. xvi. 2, 3 ; Luke xxii. 43. And the ac- 
 count of our Saviour’s treatment of the woman taken in 
 adultery, John viii. 3 — 11. These instances make me more 
 easily fall into the notion, that passages really written by the 
 sacred penman may have been wanting in MSS. older than 
 any now in being. And this I apply to 1 John v. 7. But, 
 though our passage may have been wanting in some early 
 Greek MSS., I cannot read what is said by the Complutensian 
 editors, R. Stephens, Beza, and Erasmus, nor by Valla, whose 
 work Erasmus published, without believing that they did see 
 it in several valuable Greek MSS. And I observe the same 
 of Jerom. All that can make any doubt, with regard to these 
 persons, is the force of preconceived notions, or that these 
 285 learned men might have an opinion, that, by forcing the text 
 into their books, they were doing service to the pure doctrine 
 of the Catholic Church, as they would speak. But the num- 
 ber of the editors at Alcala is against this ; and so is the 
 number of the divines of Louvaine ; (see Travis, p. 296, 
 octavo;) and the characters of the others, their regard for 
 literature in general, and particularly for sacred learning, and 
 the circumstance that no doctrine would fall to the ground 
 by this text being cancelled. On the whole, it seems to me 
 rather probable, that the passage was in some MSS, as ancient 
 as any of those which the Church used, when it fixed upon 
 four Gospels and twenty-one Epistles, out of a large mixture 
 of writings, genuine and spurious ; though at the same time it 
 might be wanting in others. Mr. Travis supposes those Greek 
 MSS. v/hich were used by the first editors, or printers, to be 
 los^ ; and that they might be lost by being neglected after they 
 had been used. Jerom’s in Palestine could not be expected 
 to survive to this time; But destroying MSS. after printing 
 
536 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. i. Append. 
 
 from them seems too common a practice, in general. The II. 
 best judgment that I can form out of what is urged on both 
 sides relative to versions is, that our disputed verse was in 
 the old Italic, because several of the passages of the Latin 
 fathers, in which it is introduced, seem to have been written 
 before that ceased to be the Scripture of the Latin Church. 
 About Jeromes Vulgate, there is no doubt. To consider the 
 Armenian^ would introduce too long a discussion for us. The 
 omissions in the Syriac and Coptic do seem very numerous. 
 
 The old Italic is of consequence. It was much older than any 
 of our Greek MSS.; nay, it seems to have been the Scripture 
 of the Western Church from the earliest times. 
 
 It does seem strange that the passage in question should 286 
 not have been more frequently introduced by the /a f her s. Its 
 
 being omitted in a continued commentary is the greatest ob- 
 jection to it. Indeed, Chrysostom comments in homilies, and 
 he seems to go no farther than the Epistle to Hebrews; but 
 Bede’s is a direct and pointed omission. In such a case we 
 may suppose, that, on the whole, those MSS. were preferred 
 which omitted the verse. Bede must rank with Bentley; 
 though Mr. Travis does not allow this: he thinks Bede would 
 have mentioned the omission, if there had been one. Or he 
 might rank with Luther^ who certainly must have known 
 many arguments on both sides, before controversy began, by 
 being conversant in the works of the ancients. 
 
 Of fathers not commentators it may be said, that their 
 works are only fragments^ generally speaking ; (the losses 
 which we have had of the works of Origen are particularly to 
 be lamented;) and that there might be good reasons for not 
 quoting our passage, which we cannot conceive : that the read- 
 ings of it might be unsettled, and perplexed ; and being so, 
 that the sense of it might seem difficult, when put in its place : 
 that, before controversy arose, it is not a likely passage to be 
 often quoted ; and that, after controversy arose, that contro- 
 versy was not so much about the Trinity as is commonly 
 said. The Arian controversy was more about the Divinity of 
 the Son of God, of which this text could not be any favourite 
 proof. Tertullian did dispute with Unitarians, as such; and 
 he seems to me to have interwoven the text in his writing ac- 
 cording to the manner of the early fathers^; though others 
 
 ’ See accounts of what Scriptures the early fathers owned, in Lardner’s Credi- 
 bility. 
 
IV. i. Append.] 
 
 1 JOHN V. 7. 
 
 537 
 
 II. seem in the same case^ to have passed it by, as if it was not so 
 
 287 much noticed formerly as now. This text is undoubtedly a 
 very good one to justify our speaking of Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost, together; and the union mentioned implies great dig- 
 nity of character in the Son and Holy Spirit ; but yet the 
 Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost (which is included in 
 our Trinity) appears more satisfactorily from other parts of 
 Scripture, where their attributes are described separately. In- 
 deed, I should doubt whether the belief of it ever would have 
 arisen from this passage, especially as many learned comment- 
 ators'^ look upon the union as meaning only what we call 
 unanimity. 
 
 But, supposing the doctrine of the Trinity ever so clearly 
 set forth in this text, yet it might not have been frequently 
 quoted, if it be true, that there was a reserve in the leaders of 
 Christianity about publishing mysteries. Christ himself and 
 St. PauP certainly offered doctrines gradually ; and I am 
 clear, that, if I was a missionary, or was to be employed in 
 making converts, I should be a good while before I insisted 
 on this verse: though I should not wish to® expunge it, as there 
 are so many other texts which join the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 And, after all, we have no fathers, Greek or Latin, before 
 or after the time when it confessedly appeared, that make the 
 least objection to this text, or to its authenticity ; so that the 
 silence of its friends is to be set against the silence of its ene- 
 mies. That the Arians should not deny its authenticity, is a 
 phenomenon, which should be accounted for ; and, if it is said 
 
 288 (what is but too true) that many writings of reputed heretics 
 have been destroyed through mistaken prudence, yet we might 
 answer, that great numbers of arguments of heretics are pre- 
 served in the writings of those who^ answer them ; and that, 
 particularly, it is improbable, that the bishops should have 
 given in so long a confession of faith at the Council of Car- 
 thage^, and should have made use of the text in question, 
 without giving any intimation that the Arians disallowed it. 
 Of all times for its being Jirst alleged, that is the most im- 
 probable which Mr. Gibbon fixes upon. 
 
 2 See Mill on the place. 
 
 3 Beza is one, I think, 
 of this opinion. 
 
 ^ John xvi. 12. ^ 
 
 Bp. Horsley is 
 1 Cor. iii. 2. 
 
 ® See Bengelius on this passage. 
 
 Aug. contra Faustum, &c. Origen 
 contra Celsum. 
 
 ® See Travis’s Appendix, No. xiv. 
 
538 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. i. Append. 
 
 The argument arising from the connection of the contested II. 
 verse is urged on both sides. Those, who reject it, say that 
 the insertion of it^ hurts the sense of the whole passage ; those 
 who are for adopting it say, that the sense is quite maimed and 
 imperfect without it. Bengelius, as I remember, grounds his 
 admission of it chiefly on its suitableness to its place. To me 
 the whole passage seems so difficult, as to admit of different 
 interpretations; yet that given in the paraphrase^ of Erasmus 
 pleases me most. Every one, in such disputes as these, tells 
 his own judgment simply as a fact, claiming liberty at any 
 time to retract it. 
 
 In forming this or any other judgment I may be preju- 
 diced. Those who have got warmed in the controversy shew a 
 considerable bias, I think, one way or the other ; a thing which 
 ought to be attended to : yet I would, if possible, acquit them 
 all of intentional deceit. All have faults. Mill indeed is dis- 
 passionate ; Bengelius seems warmly candid ; even Sir Isaac 289 
 Newton, in some passages, seems approaching to a kind of 
 perihelion. Mr. Gibbon is disdainful ; Voltaire is pert and 
 flippant ; but I am very desirous, if possible, to acquit them 
 all of deliberate fraud. To be sure, when a man, fixed in an 
 opinion, sees a passage that suits him, he seizes on it as his 
 prey, turns to his own writing, and thinks not of going any 
 deeper. If, in such a case, going a page or a sentence farther 
 would have shewn him that he is totally wrong, he does incur 
 some suspicion of having concealed what perhaps he never 
 knew ; but, as this happens to all sides, and as there is no end 
 of critical researches, let us take for granted that degree of 
 innocence which will ensure liberal treatment and liberal lan- 
 guage. Only let every one beware of his own hypothesis — of 
 his own manner of accounting for the text being in or out. 
 
 An hypothesis is a favourite child — must not be blamed though 
 ever so blameable. . 
 
 Thus self-cautioned, I will make only general suppositions. 
 Either this contested verse must be genuine or spurious : if 
 genuine, it must have been expunged unfairly ; if spurious, it 
 must have been admitted unfairly. Which is easier to conceive.^ 
 Could it be expunged ? Many passages, we find, have been. 
 
 ' Michaelis, Introd. Lect. p. 382, 
 quarto, sect. 151. 
 
 “ Travis, p. 338. P. S, Sir Isaac New- 
 ton’s seems ffood : and (darke’s Scrip. 
 
 Doctr. Trin. Part I. chap. iv. would not 
 have been objected to, if it had occurred 
 first. 
 
IV. i. Append.] 
 
 1 JOHN V. 7 . 
 
 539 
 
 II. though we cannot now tell why : so might this. The ancients 
 made very free with Scripture : even whole books have been reject- 
 ed, when they stood in the way of settled notions. While a num- 
 ber of writings of doubtful authority were claiming attention, 
 the judgment of private individuals had more scope than now^. 
 Whoever first omitted any passage in any copy, it would be 
 
 290 omitted by all transcribers from that copy, and from theirs. 
 Some seem strongly persuaded that governors of a Church, or 
 leading men amongst Christians, might order some things to be 
 omitted in some copies. When those who transcribe do not 
 understand what they write, if two things are like, (as the 7 th 
 and 8 th verses are,) one of them is perhaps omitted^. Though, 
 therefore, there are other passages to the same effect with this 
 under consideration, it might be genuine, and yet get expunged. 
 
 Now suppose it spurious ; then it must have got ad- 
 mitted unfairly. Is this equally easy.^^ why should it be forged 
 Voltaire says, a man would be mad to forge it ; but he' did not 
 understand the subject. We may say, that no one would 
 think of forging such a passage till it was wanted in ^contro- 
 versy ; but then enemies would be upon the watch ; and they, 
 by objecting, could stop the forgery. Mr. Gibbon says^, this 
 forgery was committed about the time of the Council of Car- 
 thage ; but durst the African bishops forge it at that time ? 
 would not the Arians, who were then in power, have been cla- 
 morous ? Of such a forgery, at such a time, I see no degree of 
 probability. 
 
 If this text might be more easily expunged unfairly than 
 admitted unfairly, it is more easy to conceive it genuine than 
 spurious. 
 
 Perhaps this question may be determined satisfactorily here- 
 after : new MSS. may be found — in the East, where Jerom was; 
 in Spain, where Cardinal Ximenes had MSS; or in other places. 
 
 291 At present, I should think Mr. Travis’s book might be recom- 
 mended to the perusal of those who wished to learn something 
 of the critical part of theology, and yet did not relish a book if 
 it had not animation and acuteness. Till farther satisfaction be 
 
 ^ Yet Luther is said to have rejected 
 the Epistle of James ; and Michaelis the 
 Epistle of Jude : well might they reject a 
 single verse. 
 
 ^ “ There are three that bear record,” 
 the scribe writes; looks up again, takes 
 
 the second for the first— goes on, “in 
 earth.” 
 
 ® Some suppose it to have been written 
 marginally first, as a gloss upon the 8 th 
 verse, and afterwards to have been taken 
 into the text, as before mentioned. 
 
 ^ Vol. lit. p. .'144, quarto. 
 
540 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 1. 
 
 obtained, may all controversialists be careful in their researches, II. 
 humble in their pretensions, candid in their judgments, and 
 benevolent in their expressions^. 
 
 ARTICLE II. 292 
 
 OF THE WORD, OR SON OF GOD, WHICH WAS MADE VERY 
 
 MAN. 
 
 The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from 
 everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one 
 substance with the Father, took man’s nature in the womb of 
 the blessed Virgin, of her substance : so that two whole and 
 perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, 
 were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof 
 is one Christ, very God, and very Man ; who truly suffered, 
 was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, 
 and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for 
 actual sins of men. 
 
 1 . This Article, if we were to attempt to treat it fully y 
 would carry us too far; considering that we are not to fix our 
 attention upon any one Article, so as to neglect the rest. The 
 volumes which have been written, upon the doctrine contained 
 in this second, are innumerable. Our business must therefore 
 be to select such considerations as seem most essential, and 
 belong most immediately to us. In order to do this, we may 
 observe, 
 
 1 . That what has been said under the preceding Article 
 need not be repeated under this ; and the doctrine of the Tri- 
 
 > 1794 , March 24. This day, in my 
 Lecture, I read to my auditors this Ap- 
 pendix on 1 John v. 7, first written in 
 17B9; and observed, that, supposing the 
 evidence on which the remarks in it were 
 built, as good as it might appear to be to 
 any reasonable man, there was little in 
 them to be ashamed of. Then I men- 
 tioned in what points Mr. Parson's Let- j 
 ters called that evidence into question ; j 
 .Stephens’s MSS., Erasmus’s Codex Bri- | 
 
 tannicus, «Scc. &c. were mentioned ; and I 
 read part of Sir I. Newton’s stricture on 
 Beza ; and some passages from Marsh’s 
 Michaelis. I said, that, as Mr. Travis 
 was about to publish, it would be indecent 
 and unfair to come to any decision at pre- 
 sent. I recommended the eirexei-v on some 
 occasions, and observed that many errors 
 had arisen from impatience under sus- 
 pense. (See Book II. chap. ii. sect, 1.) 
 
IV. ii. 1.] 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 541 
 
 II. nity is so intimately connected with our present doctrine, that 
 2Q3 many things liave been said already which might have been now 
 said with at least equal propriety. 
 
 2. That every thing relating to the last clause of this Ar- 
 ticle, which affirms that Christ was a mctim both for original 
 and actual sin, may properly be omitted till we have gone 
 through the ninth Article; especially as it will have a place 
 under the eleventh. 
 
 3. That we may leave the minuter parts of controversy to 
 those who make the doctrine of this Article their sole object; 
 and content ourselves with more general views of the matters on 
 which disputes are apt to turn. 
 
 Our plan may nevertheless be the same as in the preceding 
 Article. First, to take an historical view of our subject. Se- 
 condly, to give an explanation (which will be chiefly historical) 
 of the expressions of the Article. Thirdly, to prove the truth 
 of the propositions contained in it. And, lastly, to make an 
 application of the whole to the present situation of things. 
 
 First then, we are to take an historical view of the doctrine 
 contained in the second Article of our Church : first, of the or- 
 thodox doctrine ; afterwards, of the deviations from it. 
 
 The Jews seem to have had some notion of a Son of God 
 before the Christian era, and to have applied the term A0709 to 
 him ; as also to have, in some way, connected their ideas of' 
 their expected Messiah with the same personage. It is scarcely 
 to be expected that their notions should be found definite and 
 distinct ; as they had not distinct information, but only obscure 
 intimations. If they only afford a sufficient apology for St. 
 294 John’s mentioning the Word so^ seldom as he does, that will, I 
 presume, be deemed sufficient; — and for his giving a title to so 
 sublime a character, without any preparation or explanation. 
 If he addressed himself to those to whom his term wSiS familiar 
 he had no need to explain it. 
 
 Whence we collect what were the notions of the Jews, has 
 been already^ shewn. 
 
 That what I have affirmed is true, must appear from cori- 
 sulting a number of passages in the most ancient Jewish wri- 
 tings. I will therefore content myself with referring to those 
 
 2 Four times, or however in only four 
 different verses. John i. 1 ; John i. 14 ; 
 1 John V. 7 ; Rev. xix. 13. Abp. Tillot- 
 son talks of St. John’s frequent mention 
 
 of the Word : he must mean his repetition 
 in John i. 1. surely ? 
 
 ^ Art. i. sect. 2. Justin Martyr’s Dia- 
 logue with Trypho might be added. 
 
542 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 1. 
 
 writers^ who have collected such passages; only I will read II. 
 some of them to those who may not happen to have the books 
 in which they are contained. 
 
 There are some passages, especially of the Old Testament, 
 which mention the Word of God, so as to give me no idea of 
 that Word’s being a Person ; and the same of the Breath or 
 Spirit ^ of God. Gardner seems to speak ^ of these as if there 
 were no others ; but there are some passages of the ancient 
 Jews, which I can understand only as making the Word a 
 Person. These may be seen in Allioo^ before referred to. 
 
 It must be confessed that the Jews, in our Saviour’s time, 
 when they came to fact and practice, seem to have not been 
 much influenced, at one time, by these habitual notions received 
 by tradition. They seem to have given themselves up to the 295 
 delusive hopes of being rescued from their state of dependence 
 by a temporal prince ; but that only proves that their notions 
 of Logos^ and Son of God, as connected with Messiah^ were 
 not definite and distinct, (as was just now allowed,) but to be 
 confirmed by facts, like prophecies ; and therefore were such as 
 might be set aside, at times, by the force of passion. See Dr. 
 George Campbell’s Essay on Kupm?, p. 316 ; and Waterland’s 
 Answer to Dr. Whitby’s Reply, p. 51 . 
 
 But we are told ^ that Jews and Christians have both bor- 
 rowed notions of Aoyos from Plato, Our answer to this has 
 been already given, under the preceding Article. 
 
 The opinions of Christians, with regard to the Word, seem 
 to correspond to their several opinions of the Person and dig- 
 nity of Christ. Even Dr. Priestley^ says, ‘^the Word, or 
 Christ;” as if he did not disown, that the Word might mean 
 Christ, as Socinus ® himself supposed ; yet he rather follows the 
 more modern Socinian notion, that the Word means only the 
 power or energy of God.” As the word A070S may mean either 
 inward reason, or audible speech, two epithets have been 
 added to it, in order to distinguish these senses: Xoyos erSid- 
 
 * Allix on Unitarians, beginning, pp. 
 2, 102 ; also chap. xii. p. 181 ; chap, xvi. 
 and xvii. p. 253, and 265. Tillotson, 
 vol. I. fol. p. 410. Pearson on the Creed, 
 p. 117 , fol. or 233, quarto. Grotius de 
 Ver. 5. 21. Parkhurst’s Gr. Lex. under 
 Aoyos. 
 
 2 Psalm xxxiii. 6. Yet those, who 
 were upon the watch for intimations, 
 might consider, “ Word" as meaning 
 
 the Son of God, and “ Breath'^’ as mean- 
 ing his Holy Spirit. 
 
 ^ Works, vol. VI. p. 216. 
 
 Gibbon’s Hist. vol. ii. quarto, p. 
 327, &c. 
 
 ^ Famil. Illustr. p. 30. 
 
 6 “ Verbum vel Filium,” Cat. Racov. 
 p. 61 ; and see Allix, p. 2. See also 
 Gardner’s Works, Index, Logos; and 
 vol. TIT. p. 76 ; vol VI. p. 215, bottom. 
 
IV. ii. 2.] 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 543 
 
 II. 0 eTo?, or inward reason, has been opposed^ 10X0705 TrpoCpopiKos, 
 or speech pronounced or set forth ; but using X0705 in either 
 of these senses seems to interfere with the Personality of the 
 Word : on which account, I suppose, the Council of Sirmium 
 
 296 condemned both®: — “Si quis insitum vel prolativum, verbum 
 Dei, Filium dicat ; anathema sit.” 
 
 The orthodocG hold the A0705 and the Son of God to be the 
 same ; yet this does not occur in our creeds. 
 
 Some writers, as Epiphanius and Philaster, say, there was 
 a sect called Alogians., from their rejecting the Logos, and those 
 parts of Scripture where he is mentioned. Lardner thinks 
 (Her. end) there is not sufficient testimony of the existence of 
 such a sect. It does not in itself seem unlikely; and the evidence 
 is not bad. 
 
 Indeed, our proper business is now with the orthodox doc- 
 trine ; though, that we might not need to return to the history 
 of the A0705, I have mentioned some notions of those who were 
 not orthodox. 
 
 2. What was before said of the doctrine of the Trinity^ 
 may be said of that of the Divinity of Christ, which makes a 
 part of it ; that it seems, in some sort, to have existed at all 
 times, though not to have been made up into a speculative, sys- 
 tematic form, till it was discussed in controversy^. As, in dif- 
 ferent parts of Scripture, written on different occasions, and in 
 different circumstances, some expressions seem to favour one 
 doctrine, some another, so it is in the writings of the early fa- 
 thers And, whilst this was the case, it may either be said 
 that the doctrine existed, or that it did not exist ; though more 
 properly perhaps, that is, more according to the customary use 
 of words, it might be said not to exist, or at least not to have 
 come to maturity. But then the same may be said of any doc- 
 
 297 trine opposed to that of the Divinity of Christ. When one 
 could be said to exist, in any sense, its opposite might be said 
 to exist in the same sense. However, I look upon the doctrine 
 of the Divinity of Christ to have come to maturity before that 
 of the Trinity^ as seems to appear from the Nicene Creed ; 
 which dwells most particularly on the Son of God. 
 
 We may reason thus. The establishment of a doctrine 
 must depend, not only on its being discussed in controversy. 
 
 ’ These two sorts of Aoyos are found 
 in the Trinities^ Art. i. sect. 1. 
 
 ^ Hilary’s Works, p. 1175, 8th Ana- 
 
 thema. A.D. 357 . ^ Art. i. sect. 4. 
 
 Bingham has collected the orthodox 
 passages, 13. 2. 1, &c. 
 
5U 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. S. 
 
 but on the extent of that controversy. Though we suppose II. 
 Tertullian and Praxeas to have discussed the doctrine of the 
 Trinity ever so accurately, yet, if the dispute was known to but 
 few Christians, and was not noticed by the main body of the 
 Church, it might not produce a doctrine^ in the common sense 
 of the word. Now, the extent of the controversy concerning 
 the Son of God was very great; so that whatever opinion was 
 fixed by that might properly be called a doctrine — establish- 
 ed doctrine of the main body of Christians ; who would, of 
 course, call themselves the Catholic Church\ 
 
 If we wished to see particularly the nature of the progress 
 which our doctrine made, we need only put ourselves in the 
 place of the early Christians, and think what they might 
 naturally do. They might at first use warm and lofty expres- 
 sions of Scripture; addressing themselves to the Father or the 
 Son, as the occasion dictated. Then they might vary or para- 
 phrase these expressions a little,* so as to make them suit their 
 own circumstances, without intending to introduce any new 
 meaning: when variations were used, different people would use 
 different variations or phrases, according to their views and dis- 298 
 positions. This would produce mutual remarks^ and remarks 
 would produce controversy. What began in sentiment would 
 end in speculation ; and so religion would be transferred from 
 the heart to the head. 
 
 3 . But I will not dwell longer on the history of the 
 orthodox doctrine. I will now endeavour to look so far into 
 the history of other opinions, or fancies, as may suffice to give 
 us the same views which the compilers of our Article had, while 
 their attention was confined to the business of forming it. 
 
 It seems probable to me that all the notions, ancient and 
 modern, respecting the Son of God, have arisen from a desire 
 and hope of solving the difficulties naturally arising from the 
 scriptural accounts of his Person and character^. These diffi- 
 culties are no doubt very great ; nay, the only way to conquer 
 them is to allow them to be insuperable ; yet, as allowing that 
 might be the effiect of carelessness and indolence, attempts to 
 clear them up cannot be universally blameable. 
 
 ^ Bp. Burnet talks of the Trinity being 
 universally received, &c. On the Arti- 
 cles, p. 48, octavo, near close of first 
 Article. This is mentioned Art. i. sect. 4. 
 
 2 Could it be said, that there is no one 
 of the solutions of heretics which we 
 
 should not be desirous to adopt, while 
 we only considered the arguments for it, 
 and for it alone ? before we came to see 
 what difficulties arose out of it, from its 
 inconsistency with some parts of Scrip- 
 ture ? 
 
IV. ii. 4.] 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 545 
 
 II. It is not easy to determine what method to pursue in reduc- 
 ing to order accounts so heterogeneous, so distant in time and 
 situation, as those relating to Christ ; but it seems as if we had 
 best first mention what are the points on which difference can 
 arise, and what are the sects and persons who have held any 
 opinions with regard to those points. 
 
 The points on which men have differed, when they thought 
 on the subject of the nature and character of Christ, have been 
 
 299 these. 1. His constihstantiality with the Father. 2. His 
 pre-existence^^ before his nativity. 3. The manner of his in- 
 carnation ; or the manner in which the Word was made flesh. 
 4. What is called the Hypostatic Union, or the conjunction of 
 the Divine and human natures^, {(puaei^) in one Person {vTroa- 
 Taai^) or agent, called Christ — ercocn^ KaO vTroaTaonv^. 
 
 The sects, or persons, who have differed on these different 
 points, I should reckon as eleven ; dividing all the early 
 Christian heresies into two classes, and reckoning them only as 
 two. We should notice then, 1. The Oriental. 2. The Jew- 
 ish heretics of the first two or three centuries. 3. The Arians. 
 4. The followers of Photinus. 5. Nestorians. 6. Eutychians. 
 7 . The Monothelites. 8. The Adoptionarii. 9 . The Socinians. 
 10. The Anabaptists. And lastly, some particular persons, who 
 may not have given a name to a sect. Though these may seem 
 numerous, there is no doubt but the compilers of our Articles 
 had them® all in view; indeed, their views were much more 
 
 300 extensive than ours will be, merely for having considered these. 
 
 4. We are to consider, or recollect, what the Oriental 
 early heretics held concerning our present subject — concerning 
 Christ. Here I would wish to have it seen, that men do not in 
 general pay respect enough to their adversaries. Instead of 
 
 ^ This does not mean pre-existence as 
 mere man — a thing which the Jews were 
 inclined to believe. See Macknight on 
 John ix, 2. 
 
 ^ Whoever denies the second point 
 must deny the first; whoever grants the 
 first must grant the second. 
 
 ® 'YTTo'cTTacriy is used for a Divine 
 Person of the Holy Trinity. See 
 Nicholls, fol. on the 1st Art. p. 27- Yet 
 what is here said must, 1 think, be right 
 in doctrine : it must be the evwai^ of two 
 natures in und uTrocrxao-et, though not of 
 the Trinity. I see, in Nicholls, Nestorius 
 was blamed for holding two (nroa-'raeTei^ 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 or two Persons — two Christs : p. 40. col. 2. 
 uTTocrracris in Suicer, signifies this same 
 thing called Person (as in Heb. i. 3;) 
 and, in one quotation, it is said that one 
 person of the Trinity took man’s nature, 
 united it with the Divine Nature (without 
 confusion), and yet still was hat one Per- 
 son. Under 'iuwaL^, there are mentioned 
 several unions : evwa-i^ kutu (pva-iu, eVtoo-is 
 /caT-’ ova-'iav : and the hypostatic union is 
 called €vu}(TLS /caO’ virocrTaaiv. 
 
 ® See title to Doctrina, &c. Ecclesiae 
 Anglicance, and the title of the Articles 
 in that Collection ; or sect. 4. of the 
 Introd. to this Book iv. 
 
 35 
 
546 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 4. 
 
 declaiming against those who oppose us, we should endeavour to II. 
 find out what misled them, supposing their intention good : we 
 should put ourselves in their place, and endeavour to see with 
 their eyes. 
 
 This is difficult with regard to Eastern Christians, we have 
 such different habits and prejudices from theirs; and I suppose 
 that even travel would not put us in their place, because most 
 of their notions have taken their rise in remote antiquity. All 
 that we can now do is only to refer to the account of early 
 heretics given in the Appendix to our first Book, and select 
 what is to our present purpose. The Oriental sects were strong- 
 ly tinctured with notions of a number of cBons. Some of them, 
 from being accustomed to the worshipping of the sun^ let their 
 fancies run to the heavenly luminaries: most of them, if not all, 
 had some abhorrence of matter. These notions subsisted, in 
 some degree, before the coming of Christ ; and those, who were 
 unwilling to relinquish them, endeavoured to incorporate them 
 with Christianity. The consequence was, that they had doc- 
 trines, which seem to us strange, concerning the creation of the 
 world, the nature of Christ’s Body^ and of his residence after 
 his ascension. They held that the material world was framed 
 by aeons, or spirits, amongst whom they reckoned Logos, Mo- 
 nogenes, (hcos, and many^ others; or that some inferior artificer, 301 
 or Demiurgus in particular, was employed in that imperfect 
 work : not any being so perfect as Christ. They maintained 
 that Christ had not a real body, but only an apparent one ; and 
 they were, on that account, called Boeetce, or PhantasiastcE. 
 This was denying our Saviour’s humanity ; and they were 
 obliged, in order to be consistent, to carry on their notions, by 
 saying, that the accounts of the crucifixion, &c. were allegori- 
 cal, or mystical. This was of course to deny a proper nativity. 
 Lastly, endeavouring to connect their notions of Christ with 
 their notions of the luminaries, some of them held, that Christ 
 was taken from the sun^, or stars, and was to return to them; 
 in which case, Christ was only supposed to pass through the 
 womb of the blessed Virgin, as through a tube. This was an 
 old notion. See Lord King on the Creed, pp. Il6, 1.57. See 
 Div. Leg. Index, “Aow/.” Mani made the second person of the 
 Trinity to reside in the sun, and made him correspond to the 
 Persian Mithras. Some conceived Christ to come not from 
 
 ^ Lord King mentions three principles — from Origen. King on the Creed, p. 93. 
 
 ® Valentinus, Lard. Works, vol. ix. p. 444. 
 
IV. ii. 5, 6.] 
 
 THE SON OF GOO. 
 
 547 
 
 II. heaven, but from the four elements ; and to be resolved^ into 
 them again. Valentinus is also said to have supposed Christ, 
 as the Son of God, to be cut off^ as it were, or separated^ from 
 the Father; so that a part of the Father was (or must be) taken 
 away. 
 
 5. As the Oriental early heretics denied the humanity of 
 302 Christ, the Jewish denied his divinity ^ But as what was said*"’ 
 in describing these related wholly to our present subject, we can- 
 not select from it, and therefore must refer to it. Possibly, the 
 Ebionites might think of nothing, with regard to the Messiah, 
 but that he was to be a temporal prince, and a mere man. The 
 Nazarenes might be more impressed with the notions of the 
 Logos, and the Son of God (John i. 49) being the same with 
 the “ King of Israel,” or Messiah. 
 
 We might mention, as before, some Christians, who seem to 
 have mixed Oriental and Judaical notions. Cerinthus and Car- 
 pocrates may perhaps be mentioned in this class. It was not 
 uncommon, amongst the early heretics, to make a difference 
 between Jesus and Christ : and some made two Christs even on 
 Jewish principles, one suffering, another triumphant. (Pearson 
 on the Creed, p. 371, 1st edit.) And we may, lastly, repeat a 
 remark on the difference between those who held two principles, 
 and those who held one; that the former used to deny the hu- 
 manity of Christ, and the latter his Divinity, 
 
 We have now finished our references to the Appendix of the 
 first book ; it relating only to the early heretics. 
 
 6. We pass on to the Arians. Arius seems to have been 
 an African: he is placed in 316. It is well known that he was 
 a presbyter at Alexandria ; a man of parts, and of commanding 
 appearance, though affable ; particularly ready at dispute. The 
 name of his bishop, that is, the bishop of Alexandria in his time, 
 was Alexander. By degrees, Arius got into a dispute with this 
 Alexander, concerning the nature and dignity of the Son of 
 God ; which spread, till the whole Christian world was involved 
 303 in it. Constantine ordered the Council of Nice, in order to 
 
 ^ Lord King on the Creed, p. 277- 
 ^ See Ibid, bottom of p. 133. 
 
 ® Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. 3. 27, calls 
 Ebionites and Nazarenes two sorts of 
 Ebionites. See Lardner’s Works, vol. 
 VII. p. 20. The former thought Christ 
 merely human, though they had an high 
 opinion of him as a man : the latter held 
 
 I Christ to be born supernaturally, but did 
 not allow his pre-existence. Lardner says, 
 that there were few of the former sort, and 
 that their notion is not maintained in any 
 Christian writing. 
 
 ® Appendix to Book I. sect. 21. See 
 also Lardner’s Works, vol. vii, p. 20. 
 
 35 — 2 
 
548 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 6. 
 
 settle it; but without effect. He has been reckoned too partial II. 
 on the orthodox side, though his Epistle before mentioned shews 
 some moderation. Other emperors favoured the Arians, but 
 moderation was but little practised in those days. We have 
 ^already ^ taken a slight view of Arianism from the Council of 
 Nice down to the present time. We may just add the name of 
 Dr. Price; as Dr. Priestley’s Letters to him give that descrip- 
 tion of Arianism which is most recent. 
 
 As to the doctrines of Arius, I do not see that we can learn 
 them better than from two Epistles of his own, written with 
 great care, the one to Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, who was 
 of his own way of thinking, complaining of persecution, and 
 mentioning the particular opinions on account of which he suf- 
 fered ; the other to his own diocesan, Alexander, apologizing 
 for himself and his doctrines, which had probably been misre- 
 presented^. This latter is signed by fourteen others, as well as 
 Arius. 
 
 That there should have been so much acrimony and viru- 
 lence in the Arian controversy, and so much misery arising out 
 of it, seems the most strange when we observe how very near 
 Arius comes to the truth ; and reflect that the difference between 
 the orthodox and him relates to a thing of which we have not 
 distinct ideas. He seemed to think, that, if the Son could in any 
 sense be called by that name, or could be said to have been 
 begotten^ the Father must have existed before him : i. e. there 
 must have been some time when the Father was and the Son 
 was not. He was willing to put that time as far back as any 304 
 one pleased : he would call the Son d^povw^ y€vi/i]9eL^, irpo 
 aicovcou, and the Nicene Creed only says, “ begotten before 
 all worlds irpo rwv alivrcor. We do not conceive Christ to be 
 unbegotten ; only as we want ideas, we do not dare to reason^ 
 or make the least variation in what the Scripture seems to 
 represent. The same may be observed of the reasoning of 
 Arius, when he says, that, as Christ came from the Father, if 
 he was consubstantial with him, Cipart of the Father must have 
 left the rest ; he must be divisible. A saying accommodated to 
 inferior intellects is not to be taken or used as a plain saying 
 not accommodated, to which we have adequate ideas. Indeed 
 Arius does call the Son a creature^ or Kriaiia^ but then he says, 
 that he is not on a footing with other creatures; going probably 
 
 * Art. i. sect. t>. 
 
 2 Epiphanius, Haer. 69, mentioned by Lardner, Works, vol. iv. 
 
IV. ii. 6.] 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 549 
 
 II. upon the text, which calls Christ “the first-horn of every crea- 
 ture^:” — and besides, it seems to be indifferent to him whether 
 he uses the word yeinnjfjia, or Kridfia: he uses them promiscu- 
 ously: KTicFfxa Tou Oeov TeXeiov, aW* ovk ki/ roll' Kricr/uaTcoi / — 
 yevvrjfxa, dXX’ ovk ev tcov yevvrjfKXTwv. And, though he had 
 not used any word but creation^ yet the difference between his 
 creation before all ages, and our generation “ before all worlds,” 
 would not be great to those who estimated ideas by their dis- 
 tinctness : it needed not surely to have been a cause of war and 
 persecution. But we are now only concerned with history. 
 We see then, that Arius and his followers denied the consuh- 
 stantiality of the Son with the Father, but acknowledged his 
 pre-eocistence. 
 
 There is another opinion sometimes ascribed to the Arians, 
 and that is, the opinion that Christ had not properly an human 
 305 soul. On this account the Arians are sometimes^ joined with 
 the Apollinarians ; which will be a sufficient reason why we 
 should mention the Apollinarian doctrine at this time. Indeed, 
 the word Arian has sometimes been used as a sort of generic^ 
 term, including even Socinians. 
 
 Apollinarius (or Apollinaris, for the name is differently 
 written) is placed in the year S 62 : he is called bishop of Lao- 
 dicea, but there is some doubt whether he ever was bishop. He 
 seems to have been a great man, and a great writer. The loss 
 of his thirty books against Porphyry is particularly lamented ; 
 the more, as they seem to have been destroyed merely on 
 account of his solutions of the Incarnation. It seems to have 
 occurred to this eminent man, that, if Jesus was informed by 
 the Word dwelling in him, it was needless for him to have the 
 use of human reason ; nay, impossible for a being, who saw and 
 knew as the Son of God, to investigate slowly after the manner 
 of men. He therefore held, that the Logos must, to Jesus 
 Christ, supply the place of an human^ soul. I see nothing like 
 folly in the notion taken separately; nor do I find any reason 
 
 3 Col. i. 15. 
 
 ^ Lord King on the Creed, pp. 181, 
 182. Pearson on the Creed, “He was 
 conceived,” p. 324, 1st edit. See also 
 p. 380, about the Aoyos suffering. Lard- 
 ner’s Works, vol. xi. p. 80. 
 
 * Mosheim, IJth cent, end of chap. vi. 
 This may perhaps be some defence of 
 Voltaire. See Note on Art. i. sect. 6. 
 
 ® This is the most common idea of 
 
 the doctrine of Apollinarius ; but in the 
 Serm. 191, or 236, de Tempore, where 
 the creed of Pelagius is introduced, that 
 doctrine is described as consisting in this, 
 that the assumed man is only a part of 
 the ordinary natural man, whether de- 
 ficient in came, anima, or sensu. Which 
 agrees with Waterland on the Athanasian 
 Creed. 
 
550 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 7. 
 
 why Lardner should speak of it as a fancy of old ageh Its II. 
 weakness consists in its being inconsistent with some parts of 306 
 Scripture, which describe Christ as perfect man^'‘ in body and 
 mind. Bishop Pearson^ makes Arms' s notion to be this which 
 we have now described ; and that of Apollinarius (as differing 
 from Arius’s) to consist in a distinction between the animal and 
 rational soul ; but body with animal soul seems to me to mean 
 only the body living. And, when the ancients called the fol- 
 lowers of Apollinarius Dimoeritce., I understand them to mean, 
 that the Apollinarians held Christ to be what was really only 
 two thirds^ of Christ; that is, body and A0709, instead of body 
 and soul and A070S. 
 
 Apollinarius seems not then to differ from the Catholics, as 
 to the consubstantiality or pre-existence ; but as to both the 
 other points, the incarnation and hypostatic union. 
 
 Semi-Arians are said to have allowed, that Christ was 
 o/uLoouaio^ with the Father, but not by nature, only by privilege. 
 
 We will not be more particular about the followers of Arius; 
 who softened his doctrine, and approached nearer to orthodoxy 
 than their master. 
 
 7. We are next to mention the notions of the followers of 307 
 Photinus relative to our present subject. This person was of 
 Galatia, and is placed a. d. 431 : he was a bishop, an eloquent 
 speaker, and a good writer ; and extremely beloved in his dio- 
 cese. He had followers, so as to make a sect, called, after him, 
 Photinians. He seems to have been convinced, by the plain- 
 ness of the scriptural accounts, concerning the miraculous birth 
 of Christ; but to have been confounded hy the majesty of those 
 expressions, which proclaim the condition of our Lord before he 
 came into this world : and thus to have fixed his doctrine : — 
 
 ^ Lardner (Works, vol. iv. p. 387) 
 only says, “latter part of his life but 
 at the same time he expresses an irksome- 
 ness about relating the opinion ; that is, 
 perhaps as a sort of Socinian, or Naza- 
 rean. He has written against it — on oc- 
 casion, probably, of Mr. Whiston’s re- 
 viving it. See his Works, vol. xi. p. 80. 
 Lardner’s own notions appear in the same 
 tract or letter. Works, vol. xi. p. 110, 
 lowest line (of text), pp. 97* 104. The 
 Word is not a Person, does not mean the 
 Son (97). The Son and Messiah are the 
 same: the Son was miraculously con- 
 ceived (99); yet he was a man (104); 
 
 but they are very wrong who thought him 
 born of Joseph and Mary (110). Lard- 
 ner disapproves interpretations of pro- 
 fessed Socinians, as far as he has read 
 them (112), but he has not read much of 
 them; has not read Crellius de Uno Deo 
 Patre (112). 
 
 2 On Creed, p. 324, 1st edit. p. 160, fol. 
 
 ^ When difioipia signifies a por- 
 
 tion, there seems to be an idea of dividing 
 the thing between two persons, giving one 
 of them double the other ; that is, two 
 thirds of the whole. 
 
 ^ Mosheim, cent. iv. part 2. chap. v. 
 sect. 16. 
 
IV. ii. 8.] 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 551 
 
 II. that Christ could not be called the Son of God till he was born; 
 and that he was called so because he was born of a Virgin^ by 
 the operation of the Holy Ghost. So that Photinus denied the 
 'pre-exist ence of Christ, and therefore his consuhstantiality with 
 the Father. His enemies called him an Ehionite, but this was 
 reviling ^ 
 
 As Photinus was condemned for following the errors of Paul 
 of Samosata, and of Marcellus., they may be mentioned here. 
 Paul of Samosata (on the Euphrates, near Antioch) was bishop 
 of Antioch in 260. A good deal is said of him, because, by his 
 eloquence and ostentation, he had gained a popularity which 
 made him troublesome. His enemies differ in their representa- 
 tions of him, and we have no accounts of his own. On the whole, 
 I see nothing better for us to conclude, than that his doctrine 
 was really much the same with that just now described ; agree- 
 ably to what is said by Augustin®: The Paulians were, in his 
 time, called Photinians. Marcellus is placed in 320. He was 
 308 bishop of Ancyra; and, as such, a countryman of Photinus: he 
 was also his master. It does not seem as if there was any dif- 
 ference between their doctrines, which we can now ascertain, on 
 good grounds. I have read somewhere, that Paul took the 
 term A0709 in the sense of Xoyos erScaOero^^ or internal reason; 
 and that Marcellus said the A0709, was to be finally absorbed in 
 the Father : which implies that Marcellus made the Logos the 
 Son, or a Persoji though Paul did not. 
 
 8. The next opinions are those of Nestorius. We have 
 already® mentioned him ; but with a different view from our 
 present one. In Scripture, we find many things predicated of 
 Jesus Christ, which cannot be predicated of man; and many 
 which cannot be predicated of God; and yet, though he is 
 sometimes said to do divine things, sometimes human, there is 
 only one subject to those different predicates: he is only spoken 
 of as one agent, or person. The Church has no better way of 
 expressing this matter, though it is unintelligible to all men, 
 than by saying, that two natures, the divine and human, are 
 united in one person. In this, Nestorius fancied he saw some 
 great difficulties ; for though it be true, that things both divine 
 
 ® See Vincent. Lirin. chap. 17. Lard- 
 ner’s Works, vol. iv. p. 361. 
 
 ^ Haer. sect. 44. Augustin died a. d. 
 430. 
 
 ’’ See Bp. Pearson on the Creed, note 
 about Marcellus “ Sitteth on the right 
 
 hand^'"' &c. “Whose Kingdom shall 
 have no end.” Marcellus thought that 
 Christ should reign for ever after his as- 
 cension, but that his human nature should 
 have an end. 
 
 ® Art. i. sect. 18. 
 
552 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 8. 
 
 and human are predicated of Christ, yet this seems to be under II- 
 certain regulations or limitations of reason and common sense. 
 Would any evangelist have said that Mary was the mother of 
 her Creator f that the Divinity died ? that the blood of the 
 Deity was shed on the cross ? that the same person was God 
 and victim ? If they would not, then it cannot be laid down, 309 
 that all language is proper, which suits the hypothesis of two 
 natures in one person. No, says Nestorius, there would be less 
 difficulty in saying, ^divine Jesus Christ knew men’s thoughts, 
 
 &c. ; human Jesus Christ was hungry and thirsty.’ ‘Though 
 there is certainly but one outward appearance.'' But, however 
 such a language might solve any difficulties, the Church was 
 right in not adopting it, because it is not the language of Scrip- 
 ture: nevertheless, it is a lamentable thing that any man should 
 suffer so much as Nestorius did, for an opinion so near to ortho- 
 doxy as his was, and differing only in what was unintelligible. 
 
 For ive say, that Jesus Christ has some things mentioned of 
 him as Gody and some as man, so that he may be said to have 
 two characters. He knew thoughts as God, had appetites as 
 man ; the former, by virtue of his Divine nature ; the latter, 
 by virtue of his human nature. Thus Nestorius leaves our 
 first two points untouched ; but he differs from Catholics, as 
 to the incarnation and the hypostatic union. For his notion 
 led him on to say something, which we should understand thus: 
 the divine Christ was not 6om, Mary was only the mother of 
 the human Christ : she was XpiaToroKo^y not Georo/cos ; 
 though the divine Christ was united with the human Christ 
 in one visible form 
 
 But we have not mentioned that Nestorius may be placed 
 in 428, when he was made bishop of Constantinople. He was a 
 Syrian. He was condemned in 4jl, at the General Council of 
 Ephesus, and was banished to Egypt. The town where he re- 310' 
 sided being attacked, he wandered about in want and misery 
 till he died ! Though Vincent of Lerins speaks of him^ as an 
 enemy, we may collect, from what he has said, that Nestorius 
 was a man of great abilities, which he applied with diligence to 
 the service of Christianity, and was very much revered and be- 
 loved. 
 
 ' See IMosheim, cent. 5. part 2. chap. v. 
 sect. 12. Maclaine’s note. Bp. Pearson 
 does not seem to have been aware that 
 Nestorius used irpocwTrov, instead of 
 Syriac barsopa^ to signify an outward 
 
 appearance; and therefore he says (on 
 Creed, p. 331, 1st edit.) that Nestorius 
 contradicts himself. 
 
 2 P. 330, edit. Paris, 1669. 
 
IV. ii. 9.] 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 553 
 
 II. 9. Eutyches was only the head of a monastery at Constan- 
 tinople. We may place him in 451, the time of the General 
 Council of Chalcedon, by which he was condemned. The er- 
 rors of Nestorius are said to have animated his zeal so much, 
 as to make him run into an opposite extreme ; but, in order to 
 be as candid as possible, let us, as in other instances, put our- 
 selves in his place, and conceive how he might be drawn into his 
 peculiar opinions. ‘ Nestorius certainly,’ we may imagine him 
 to say, ‘ breaks through all scriptural expressions and ideas, in 
 making two Christs. Nothing can be more plain than that 
 there is but one ; nay, it seems impossible in itself that there 
 should be more than one : I should rather be inclined to say, 
 Christ had but one nature ; for, if the Divine nature is united 
 to the human, what alas ! can the human be in such a com- 
 pound it must be as nothing ! Nay indeed, if you suppose it 
 to have any magnitude, or any efficacy as an ingredient, must 
 it not be as so much alloy to lower and debase.^ But the Divine 
 nature is incapable of being debased ; therefore the human na- 
 ture must be annihilated, or swallowed up in the Divine V 
 311 However Eutyches reasoned, this was his opinion. It does not 
 interfere with orthodoxy, as to the points of consubstantiality, 
 or pre-existence; but it does, as to those of incarnation and 
 hypostatic union. For Eutyches was obliged to have a parti- 
 cular theory, as to the conception and birth of Christ. It was 
 obvious to ask him, ‘ if Christ is all divine, by the Divine na- 
 ture swallowing up the human, how could he be born F ’ To 
 this Eutyches must find some answer; but it does not seem 
 agreed whether he said that the Aoyos entered into the Virgin’s 
 womb, and grew in it, as an human being would do; or that 
 the Logos joined himself to an human embryo, converting it, 
 by the union, into Divine. In the former case, his notion 
 would be the same in effect with the old one mentioned before \ 
 as having been ascribed to Valentinus. 
 
 Eutyches seems to have been near the orthodox “ taking 
 the manhood into God.” 
 
 ^ 1 should rather be apt to conjecture, 
 that Eutyches had made use of some 
 illustration taken from metals, so much 
 is said of inconfuse, and other words 
 from confundo ; which seems to imply 
 putting into fusion, or pouring together 
 two things, so that they become one. 
 The Athanasian Creed says, that Christ 
 
 is “one, not by confusion of substance,” 
 (or nature,) “but by unity of person.” 
 Livy has “confundere in unum cor- 
 pus” — to consolidate. Photius, in his 
 account of Theodoret’s 2d Dialogue, uses 
 the expression, rj dcruyxvTos ei/coa-is. 
 
 ^ Sect. 4; and Lord King on Creed, 
 pp. 116, 157. 
 
554 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 10, 11. 
 
 The followers of Eutyches were called Monophy sites ; and II. 
 we are told, that the Eastern Christians are still divided into 
 Nestorians and Monophysites But I suppose that the latter 
 do not acknowledge any veneration for Eutyches, or even own 312 
 that they hold his opinions^. 
 
 10. On the Monothelites we need not dwell much ; they 
 did not exist till the seventh century. They held, as I under- 
 stand, that, as Christ was but one Person, he of course could 
 have but one will, and one operation, or act^. This was not 
 an unnatural idea ; but then, on the other hand, how could the 
 two natures of Christ be perfect, if there was not a will of God, 
 and a will of man? For my own part, I think we understand 
 so little of the hypostatic union, or of the will of God, or even 
 of our own will, that a man might be doubtful, which side of 
 this question would be reckoned orthodox, and which heretical. 
 
 The notion of two wills might seem to approach as near to 
 Nestorius'^s two Persons, as that of one will to Eutyches’s one 
 nature ; yet the notion of each nature having a will, seems the 
 orthodox notion. I mention the question partly to shew the 
 wisdom and moderation of our Church in not meddling with it; 
 though partly because it concerns our present subject, and was 
 once thought important. When it was agitated, it occasioned 
 several councils, though nothing more seems to have been urged 
 (in substance) than what I have now mentioned. Pope Hono- 
 rius, who died in 638, happened to be a Monothelite and his 
 heresy has been quoted against the pope’s infallibility ; other- 
 wise probably the debate had been dropped. This pope was 
 condemned at the sixth General Council, held at Constatinople, 313 
 in 680 ; which demonstrates that the authority of one of them 
 (pope, or general council,) is fallible. 
 
 11. The notion of avoiding all difficulties respecting the 
 
 Lard. (Works, iv. 425) as alive when 
 he wrote. 
 
 2 The more steady or bigoted Mono- 
 physites losing their leaders or heads^ 
 who chose to come into terms and keep 
 their bishopricks, called themselves a/ce- 
 <})aXot, Acephali, under which name they 
 are often mentioned in history. See 
 Mosheim, Index, Acephali. 
 
 ^ See Mosheim, Index, Monothelites. 
 
 ^ See Forbes’s Instruct. Hist. Theol. 
 
 Lib. 5. Mosheim, 8vo, vol. ii. 189. i.e. 
 cent. 7* part. 2. chap. v. sect. 4. 
 
 Called so, in ettect, by Asseman. 
 In Asseman, tom. iii., there is a cata- 
 logue of 198 writers (besides Appendix) 
 who are called Syrian Nestorian writers ; 
 but the New Testament is one book 
 reckoned, and Clemens Romanus one 
 author. The Syrian Nestorians reckon 
 the Apostles to have been of their sect. 
 See tom. iii. part 2. In the 2d tom. 
 til ere is a catalogue of 48 Syrian writers, 
 Monophysites ; the source of whom was 
 Eutyches. 
 
 Dr. Joseph Asseman is spoken of by 
 
IV. ii. 12, 13.] 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 555 
 
 II. miraculous conception of the Son of God, by considering him 
 only as an adopted Son, was held by Elipand in the eighth 
 century^. It was of consequence enough to occasion the Council 
 of Frankfort, in 794. Elipand was archbishop of Toledo, and 
 he was joined by Felioo, bishop of Urgel in Catalonia; but 
 these two only solved the birth of Jesus by their hypothesis of 
 adoption : they owned the Son of God to be really and natu- 
 rally such, in his pre-existent state®. Thus they interfered with 
 the Catholic doctrine only as to the Incarnation, and with that 
 chiefly in words. They would probably urge, that, though 
 Christ in his divine nature was properly called the Son of God, 
 yet it was absurd to say that a man was begotten by God. 
 When therefore Christ in his human nature was called the Son 
 of God, the words must not be taken literally ; Jesus might be 
 an adopted Son, but not a real one. 
 
 12. The Socinians have been mentioned before^. I do 
 not know that I need add any thing here. Socinus is said to 
 have allowed that Christ was born of a virgin by the Holy 
 Ghost ; and that he was a God, so that he might be adored. 
 Dr. Priestley's Letters to Dr. Price give us the most recent 
 314 ideas of Socinianism, and shew the degrees of it^. In the low- 
 est kind of Socinianism, he says, Christ is considered as a 
 mere man, the Son of Joseph and Mary, and naturally as fal- 
 lible and peccable as Moses, or any other prophet.” All this is 
 to banish superstition, it would be said, and foolish admiration; 
 and to restore the authority of reason and common sense 
 
 13. With regard to Anabaptists, as they are expressly men- 
 tioned in another Article we may hereafter have occasion to 
 give some account of them. Menno^^ denied that Christ de- 
 rived his body from his mother ; said that he assumed it : it 
 was created out of nothing — created in his mother’s womb. 
 The Anabaptists in general, at the time of the Reformation, 
 held the old doctrine of Christ passing through the womb 
 of his mother, as through a tube. Joan of Kent was burnt 
 
 ^ Some earlier writers ward off, or re- 
 ject, this notion, as appears from Bp. 
 Pearson’s Note, Creed, p. 281, 1st edit. ; 
 which seems to imply that it had been 
 held before. 
 
 ® See Mosheim, vol. ii. 8vo, p. 274; 
 or cent. 8. 2. v. 3; and Forbes’s Instruct. 
 Hist. Theol. ; and Bp. Pearson as above. 
 Art. i. sect. 6. 
 
 ® See South’s Serm. 7, of vol. iii. 
 
 ® See p. 101, of Dr. Priestley’s Letters., 
 Art. i. sect. 16. 
 
 ** Art. xxxviii. 
 
 ^2 Lived A. D. 1505—1561. Sect.4. 
 Nicholls on Articles, p. 37, col. 1. 
 Hume’s Hist. Edw. vi. chap. i. end.. 
 Fuller, Book vii. 398. K. Edw. vi.. 
 Diurnal. 
 
556 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 14. 
 
 because she would not, after a twelvemonth’s trial, renounce this II. 
 doctrine. Bishop Pearson, from Episcopius, speaks ^ of Flan- 
 drian Anabaptists who took this phrase, “The Word was made 
 flesh,” in a sense strictly literal : who supposed a “ conversion 
 of the Godhead into flesh.” And this expression of the Creed 
 seems to shew that the same opinion had been declared before^. 
 
 14. Lastly, we were to mention the notions of a few indi- 
 mduals. Servede, or Servetus, held some extravagant notions 
 at the time of the Reformation, and suffered death for them at 
 Geneva in 1553, on the prosecution of Calvin; but, as our 315 
 Article^ does not certainly allude to them, and as they are to 
 me'^ unintelligible, I will not transcribe any historian about 
 them. He was a Spaniard, a famous physician^, and much 
 noticed in his time. 
 
 Mr. Whiston*^, well known at Cambridge, in his day, 
 adopted the opinion of Apollinarius. This was mentioned 
 before, as also the opinion of Emanuel Swedenborg. 
 
 The notion of Valentinus Gentilis, who, after recanting, 
 relapsed, and suffered death at Geneva, in 1566, would pro- 
 bably be known in 1562^. 
 
 Here we close the history of the second Article: and I 
 think it will appear from our manner of describing heresies, 
 that heretics might honestly mean^^ in forming their several 
 hypotheses, to avoid difficulties which had given uneasiness, 
 and to give solutions which would afford relief and comfort to 
 the doubting mind. And, moreover, that they have used some 
 arguments, which are powerful, (sometimes irresistible) in 
 themselves, when only the For is considered, and we attend 
 only to their words; though they failed by overlooking some 
 parts of Holy Writ, or reasoning without intelligible propo- 
 sitions. Ought such persons to be persecuted.^ ought they 3] 6 
 not rather to be respected and pitied ? ought we not to own 
 
 * Creed, Art. iii. p. 32f), 1st edit. 
 
 2 See Serm. de Tempore, 236 (or 191) 
 sect. 4. ‘‘ Qui asserere conantur omnia 
 quae erant Divinitatis in hominem demi- 
 grasse.” Amongst the works of Au- 
 gustin. 
 
 ^ That some of our Articles were made 
 against Servetians, see Doctrina, <^c. 
 Eccles. Angl. 1617. Contents. 
 
 ^ Mosheim’s account might be read. 
 See his Index, under Servetus. 
 
 ® Dr. Hunter said, that Servetus saw 
 
 enough to find out the circulation of the 
 bloody but did not infer properly from 
 what he saw. 
 
 ® Art. i. sect. 6. A remarkable mix- 
 ture of science and heated melancholy 
 imagination. He was deprived of his 
 mathematical professorship, and expelled 
 Cambridge University. Died 1752. 
 
 His opinions are best seen in his re- 
 cantation. See Cheynell’s Rise of Soci- 
 nianisrne, p. 9. His death is mentioned, 
 p. 13. * Sect. 3. 
 
IV. ii. 15.] 
 
 TPIE SON OF GOD. 
 
 557 
 
 II. ourselves indebted to them for the services they have done to 
 the common cause, on many occasions ? ought we not to be 
 kindly affectioned towards them, with brotherly love ? If in- 
 deed they attack us, or disturb our social devotions and in- 
 structions, we may defend ourselves ; and acts of defence must 
 precede the actual attack, otherwise they come too late ; but, 
 even in this case, we must not be impatient, nor timid : we 
 must hope all things, and endure all things, as far as is con- 
 sistent with our safety as members of a religious society. 
 
 But I have said such strong things, pleading the cause of 
 those who maintained heretical tenets, that I am afraid of being 
 thought to favour them too much. Such a suspicion would 
 however do me wrong. No ; I wish all Christians happy, but 
 my own opinions coincide with those of our Church ; and I 
 think that our Church, in forming its doctrines, has acted as 
 wisely as possible. All the parts of Scripture relating to any 
 particular subject have been, seemingly, collected '’and arranged: 
 an opinion has been formed out of them all: so that none have 
 been neglected. If any doctrines have only had strong reasons 
 urged on their side, but have been formed by those who over- 
 looked some parts of Scripture, these have been rejected. 
 
 Whatever clamours may have been made by some about 
 our neglecting reason, we can say, that we have been far from 
 undervaluing it; nay, we have, in the method of acting just 
 now described, done what the most enlightened reason would 
 dictate. We do indeed object to reasoning by means of un- 
 317 intelligible propositions, because reason tells us that we cannot 
 reason without ideas ; and experience proves that we get wrong 
 whenever we attempt it. We object to calling preconceived 
 notions at any era the dictates of reason, in the more difficult 
 doctrines of Scripture ; because reason tells us that we are not 
 to trust our preconceived notions against the Scriptures ’®in 
 things which relate to the Nature of God, or to the manner in 
 which he is to act in order to promote the happiness of his 
 creatures ; especially in cases out of the common course of 
 nature. 
 
 15. Having finished our historical view of this Article, 
 we come to the explanation of the expressions contained in it. 
 This will be little more than a brief recapitulation of the his- 
 torical remarks already made, taking the order of the expres- 
 
 » Sect. 8. 
 
 See a passage to this purpose translated in Lardner, Works, vol. iii. p. 16. 
 
558 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 15. 
 
 sions as they stand. We prove nothing now; nay, we affirm II. 
 nothing : we only shew what is affirmed or implied ; what re- 
 jected. Indeed, the best idea of all explanations of Articles is, 
 that they shew what particular errors or heresies are intended 
 to be rejected or denied by the words made use of. The lan- 
 guage of each Article is affirmative, but the true meaning 
 negative. In some cases it may perhaps, in strictness, mean 
 only, that no one has a right to affirm that which we reject. 
 
 Our Church first declares, that the A0709 is not merely 
 either reason or speech.^ but a Person^ the same who is called 
 the Son of God ; who is not to be on a footing with what have 
 been called ceons^ except in the same sense in which the Scrip- 
 ture says, that “ God is a Spirit^. When it is said, that this 
 person is begotten'^'’ of the Father, the meaning is, to acknow- 
 ledge the relation of paternity and filiation, without pretending 318 
 to have any distinct or adequate ideas of it ; to acknowledge it 
 as what has been mentioned to us by authority, as the thing 
 most proper /or us to conceive as far as we are able ; as least 
 likely to make us run into impiety or profaneness. The re- 
 lation itself may possibly bear some analogy to that which we 
 call by the same name. This we say with diffidence ; but we 
 use the word begotten'''' with more confidence to deny and 
 reject the notion, that this person was created, at any time 
 whatsoever, either before all worlds,” or in the virgin’s womb: 
 to deny, that the Son can with propriety be said to be cast 
 forth, or separated^ from the Father; to come from the stars, 
 or the elements. 
 
 When it is said, that this generation was ^\from everlast- 
 ingfi it is meant, not only to reject the notion, that Christ 
 might be called the Son of God merely because he was con- 
 ceived by the Holy Ghost, but to deny that any limit whatever 
 can be assigned to the duration between the generation of 
 Christ and his birth of the blessed virgin : which is to declare 
 that duration to be infinite^. 
 
 ‘‘ Of the Fat her j'' serves to make the generation just now 
 mentioned still more definite ; and to distinguish it still more 
 clearly from that operation of the Holy Ghost, by which the 
 Son of God “ took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed 
 virgin.” 
 
 * John iv. 24. 
 
 ^ This explains impartibilis in the first 
 Article; and may afterwards be of use, 
 
 when the words, ‘‘ of one substance with 
 the Father,” occur. 
 
 ^ Art. i. sect. 10. 
 
IV. ii. 15.] 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 559 
 
 II. When our Church calls this Person the very and eternal 
 God,"'"' the meaning is, that he is not only divine, or a God in 
 some inferior sense, but that we have no right to distinguish 
 between him and the real God ; that we are incapable of 
 
 319 settling any precedence between them, so as to say, with Arius, 
 that the Father was before the Son. Whatever the truth may 
 be, we declare against that being professed by any Christian ; 
 and in several points, we may perhaps be said not so much to 
 reject a notion^ because we see it to he false, as to declare that 
 no man has a right to hold such a notion. Any of these 
 expressions must of course disclaim the notion that the first 
 existence of Christ was upon earth. 
 
 The expression, “ of one substance with the Father,” one 
 spiritual substance, was explained under the last Articled 
 This seems opposed to the notion that the Son was (a 7rpo/3o\>7) 
 cast forth or separated from the Father. A Son is always 
 of the same rank with his Father ; and in this rank there is 
 but one Being. 
 
 This divine Person, our Church affirms, took human nature 
 in the Virgin’s womb ; in opposition to those who held only 
 the Divinity of Christ. The words “ o/ her substance^ 
 mean to reject several errors. They deny that the Logos or 
 Word passed through the womb of the Virgin as through a 
 tube ; that Christ was created in her womb, and every fancy 
 which describes her as different, in her conception and nutrition 
 of her unborn embryo, from a proper human mother. They 
 also seem to deny that the human nature of Christ was, from 
 the time of conception, swallowed up in the divine. 
 
 The next words at least do this undeniably ; two whole 
 and perfect natures^ 'I'hey also reject the error that the 
 was literally made flesh, or converted, or transub- 
 stantiated, into the bodily substance of man ; as well as that 
 
 320 the divine and human natures were melted down, as it were, 
 into one. 
 
 The words one Person j’* or vTroaTa(ji<s, reject the idea, 
 that, because there are two natures conjoined, there must of 
 necessity be two agents, or persons; and imply the same as 
 if it had been said, all is predicated of one, all was performed 
 by one. And therefore, that Christ, both in his pre-existent 
 and present state, should be called the Son of God. 
 
 ^ Art. i. sect. 10. 
 
 5 Serm. de Tempore, 193, (or 238), sect. 3. 
 
560 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 16. 
 
 Never to he divided^"''' in Latin inseparahiliter^’' seems II. 
 to reject the imagination that Christ will finally be absorbed in 
 the Father, or restored to the luminaries of heaven, or the 
 elements of earth. It seems also calculated to hinder us from 
 presuming to assign any time when Christ will become entirely 
 unconnected with human nature’. But we ought not here 
 to encroach on the 4th Article. 
 
 “ One Christ''"' — the one person, of whom we have spoken, 
 is called Jesus and Christ, Jesus being his name, and Christ 
 the name of his office ; but yet Jesus is not to be looked upon 
 as a different character from Christ, much less as a character 
 opposed to Christ ; nor can it be properly said, that Jesus 
 suffered and Christ did not suffer; or that Jesus suffered 
 when deserted by Christ : neither is any one, in imitation of 
 Nestorius, to imagine two Christs. 
 
 “ Very God and very man.'''' This expression implies, that 
 the person, of whom we are speaking, is not more truly and 
 really God than he is man, both in soul and body. And there- 
 fore, with regard to the human soul, it sets aside the notion that 
 the A 6 yo 9 supplied the place of the rational faculty to our 
 Lord ; and with regard to the body, it declares that there was 321 
 no deception in appearances — no continued trope or mystical 
 expression in the evangelical history, relative to the body of 
 Christ^. 
 
 This last thing, with regard to the body, is more par- 
 ticularly marked in the word ‘‘ truly."'"' Christ suffered, &c. 
 not €v ^oKyaei in appearance only, as the Docetae, Gnostics, or 
 Oriental heretics thought, but in reality ; and not only Jesus, 
 but Christ may be properly said to have suffered, though it 
 cannot properly be said that the Deity'^ suffered. 
 
 If the remaining expressions want any explanation, it 
 must be deferred till after the ninth Article; for the reason 
 already mentioned, at the opening of this Article. 
 
 16. Having then offered an explanation of the expressions 
 found in our Article, we come, in the next place, to attempt a 
 proof of the propositions of which it is made up. And here 
 our best method seems to be, to prove first the principal doc- 
 
 ' See Marcellus’s notion, sect. 7 — 
 One of Cerinthus' s noi\on% was, I think, 
 that Christ was not, after his death, any 
 longer the Son of God. But I do not see 
 this in Gardner’s Heresies ; nor in Lord 
 King on the Creed. 
 
 2 Every English academic will here 
 recollect the title of Corpus Christi given 
 to a college in each of our universities. 
 As also Tertullian’s writing De Came 
 Christi. 
 
 ^ Impassibilis, Art. i. 
 
IV. ii. 16 .] 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 561 
 
 IL trine of the Article, the Divinity of Christy and afterwards the 
 secondary, incidental, or subordinate doctrines. 
 
 In proving the Divinity of Christ, I will beg leave to make 
 use of a small pamphlet^ printed in 1772 at Leeds, which seems 
 to me to give the arguments or proofs in a good form. The 
 title is, ‘‘ A short Defence of the Doctrine of the Divinity of 
 
 322 Christ^” The author’s idea of the manner of proving any 
 Being to be divine, agrees in a good measure with that which 
 I have already mentioned^ as my own. 
 
 That Being is declared by the Scriptures to be divine, to 
 whom the Scriptures ascribe the distinguishing perfections and 
 qualities of Divinity. Such are the following: — 1. Eternal 
 existence. 2. Power of creating. 3. Power of preserving things 
 created. 4. Omnipresence. 5. Omniscience. 6. A right to be 
 worshipped. — It is now to be shewn, that these perfections 
 and qualities are really in Scripture ascribed to Christ. 
 
 1. Eternal existence. John i. 1 ; John xvii. 5 ; John viii. 58 
 (with the interpretation of the Jews, shewed by their stoning 
 
 323 Christ); Phil.ii. 6; Col. i. 17; Rev. xxii. l6. Add Isai. XLiv. 6, 
 compared with Rev. i. 17, and xxii. 13 ; also Micah v. 2. 
 
 If any of these texts seem only to prove pre-existence, but 
 that not eternal, it may be considered whether, in any of them, 
 Christ is made inferior to the Father ; as he so frequently is, 
 when his earthly situation is described. 
 
 ^ Written by my brother, William 
 Hey^ surgeon at Leeds, Yorkshire. Seve- 
 ral years after 1 first used it, I asked and 
 received permission to mention his name. 
 The following is an extract from a letter 
 of his : “ The occasion of my writing the 
 Short Defences was as follows. A large 
 number of penny pamphlets against the 
 leading doctrines of Christianity were 
 published here, and were_ circulated with 
 great industry. Without entering fairly 
 into the controversy, they were calculated 
 to unhinge the minds of the unwary. A 
 very zealous man, but a wild enthusiast, 
 who lived here then, published an an- 
 swer, which Dr. Priestley, the supposed 
 author of the short tracts, seemed to 
 glory in. Indeed it was most injudicious- 
 ly written. Other short answers after- 
 wards came out; but these were so de- 
 fective in argument and so acrid in style, 
 that they were clearly a matter of triumph 
 to the Socinians. Having for many years 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 carefully considered the subjects for the 
 satisfaction of my own mind, and being 
 urged by some friends, with whom I had 
 conversed on these subjects, I ventured 
 to submit to the public my thoughts on 
 Dr. Priestley’s Arguments. 1 first in- 
 tended to have published three penny 
 pamphlets on the subjects of the Divinity 
 of Christ, the atonement, and man’s 
 moral depravity. But the two first swell- 
 ing out unavoidably beyond my design, 
 1 would not any farther break in upon 
 my professional studies. Whether future 
 leisure may ever tempt me to finish my 
 original plan, I cannot say. At present, 
 I have laid aside all thought of proceed- 
 ing. What I have said proceeded from 
 the fullest conviction of my judgment. 
 I wish it may do good.” 
 
 The above letter was written in 1789, 
 seventeen years after the publication of 
 the pamphlet. 
 
 ® Art. i. sect. 10. 
 
 36 
 
562 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 16. 
 
 2. Creative power. Heb. iii. 4 , both as a proof and a prin- II. 
 ciple. Heb. i. 10, &c. ; John i. 3 , 10; Col. i. i6; Rev. iv. 11. 
 These are direct proofs. But 1 Cor. viii. 6, and Heb. ii. 10, 
 might be reckoned^ ; and it might be observed, that using dif- 
 ferent prepositions is like trying to catch something beyond 
 our grasp. Does not the miracle of loaves imply a creative 
 power ? 
 
 3 . Power of preserving. Heb. i. 3 ; Col. i. 17. 
 
 4 . Omnipresence. John iii. 13 , with circumstances. Matt, 
 xviii. 20; 1 Cor. i. 2 (invocation in any place, implies presence 
 in that place) ; Matt, xxviii. 20, compared with Acts iii. 21 ; 
 
 Heb. ix. 24 , and i. 3 ; and parallels. Both Omnipresence 
 and Omniscience are implied in the 6th — a right to be wor- 
 shipped. 
 
 5 . Omniscience. John xxi. 17 - Then with 2 Chron. vi. 
 
 30 , compare Matt. ix. 4 , and parallel passages. John ii. 25 
 (contrast Luke ii. 52 , and Mark xiii. 32 ); Col. ii. 3 . 
 
 6. A right to be worshipped. John xx. 28 ; Matt. viii. 
 
 2; Matt. XV. 22, 25 , 28 (contrast Acts xiv. 14 ; Acts x. 25 ; 
 
 Rev. xix. 10) ; Matt, xxviii. 17 . 
 
 Before the name of Christians was given at Antioch, calling 
 upon (or invoking^) the name of Christ served as a title. 324 
 
 1 Cor. i. 2. (l Cor. i. 3 , is a species of prayer, and has pa- 
 rallel passages.) ; Acts vii. 59 , leaving out the word ‘‘ God.” 
 Heb. i. 6, compared with Psalm xcvii. 7; Rev. v. 8. Add 
 
 2 Cor. xii. 8^ 
 
 In general, or collectively: — 1 John v. 20; 1 Tim. iii. l6; 
 Rom. ix. 5 ; Heb. i. 8; Matt, xxviii. 19 (compared with 
 1 Cor. i. 14 , 15 .) ; Col. ii. 9. 
 
 If these proofs should not be thought sufficient, any one 
 might consult Bishop Pearson on those words of the Creed, 
 ^‘his only Son T or Waterland’s Sermons at Lady Moyer’s 
 Lecture ; or other works. The confirmations and illustrations » 
 of our doctrine, arising from a continued study of the Old and 
 New Testament — from sometimes taking comprehensive views, 
 
 ^ A comparison of these two, with 
 Rom. xi. 36, and parallels, would be 
 useful in shewing that the same high and 
 lofty expressions are used of the Father 
 and the Son. 
 
 2 Parkhurst, iiriKaXeafiai. 
 
 3 In this proof, we must regard some- 
 thing more than the English word zvor- 
 
 ship ; as that sometimes, in old English, 
 signifies no more than respect. A wor- 
 shipful of peace, or mayor. “ With 
 
 my body 1 thee worship &c. &c. We 
 must therefore take notice of the thing, 
 and the original language, as well as the 
 English word. Yet Christ refuses to 
 worship Satan. Matt. iv. 9. 
 
IV. ii. 17.] 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 563 
 
 II. and sometimes examining minutely — would prove inexhaustible. 
 This may appear from Bishop Pearson on the Creed. Here 
 might be recollected^ that the Son of God is divine, as far as 
 is consistent with the Unity of God, and the Divinity of the 
 Father and of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 The next thing, to the proof of the principal proposition, 
 must be the proof of the subordinate propositions contained in 
 the Article. Of these I can conceive thirteen. 
 
 17- 1. The Word is a Ferson: not merely a power or 
 
 325 wisdom^. There are but four verses in which the Word is 
 mentioned, as has been already observed®: John i. 1; John 
 i. 14 ; 1 John v. 7; Rev. xix. 13. Now, that the Word means 
 a Person in the last., I think even the Socinians^ do not doubt. 
 We will only say then first, might not St. John use the same 
 term in the same way, in other parts of his writings ? But 
 every one must look at the context of the other passages for 
 himself, and see whether he thinks that what is said of the 
 Word can be meant of a quality. Tropes^ no doubt, will do 
 a great deal in making things into persons; but it must be 
 considered, how little figurative St. John’s language is in 
 general, in other parts of his narrative. 
 
 In the way of direct proof we can only say then, look at 
 John i. 1 ; read on ; judge, without wishing to confirm any 
 particular opinion, whether St. John was likely to be so very 
 figurative, as to relate what he does of the Word, if he did not 
 mean that you should have a feeling or conception of some 
 Person. ' Consider what could induce him to say, that the 
 power and wisdom of God were with God, and were God : 
 what end he could have in view, in giving a serious account at 
 the opening of his Gospel, or history, of the world being made 
 by these divine attributes. (“ He came to his own.”) 
 
 The Arians and Socinians give different constructions of 
 these words, in order to suit them to their respective opinions ; 
 and so do those, who are between these, whom Lardner seems'’ 
 
 326 to call Na^areans, himself one of the number. Considering 
 these constructions now would be rather answering objections 
 than giving direct proof ; yet, as there may be no other oppor- 
 
 Art. i. sect. 13. 
 
 5 Lardner’s Works, vol. xi. p. 97. 
 
 ® Sect. 1. 
 
 7 Where is the passage, in which a 
 Socinian says, that because the Word \s 
 
 a person here, he is called so elsewhere ? 
 I do not find this in Priestley’s Letters 
 to Dr. Price. See Famil. Illustr. p. 32, 
 something like this. 
 
 ® Vol. X. Works, pp. 619. 626. 
 
 36 2 
 
564 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 17. 
 
 tunity, I will now say, that Lardner’s Paraphrase on John i. II. 
 (vol. XI. p. 95 , &c.) seems to me very forced and confused. 
 When he is not able to avoid allowing that some Person is 
 spoken of, he makes that Person to be God in general : when 
 he comes to some place where God in general cannot be meant, 
 he puts, instead of God, the power and wisdom of God; though 
 the same subject, or nominative case, is continued. Our con- 
 struction is, at least, more consistent and simple; and, in my 
 opinion, more honest or downright. Neither of them is per- 
 fectly clear to any human being. 
 
 As to the next passage in which Logos occurs, ‘‘ the Word 
 was made^esA,” this may come under the observations just 
 now made on John i. 1 : indeed, it is a part of the same passage; 
 
 I see no material break between them. 
 
 If this arguing seems slight^ it must be considered what the 
 nature of the question allows of ; and that more solid argument 
 is not used on the other side. We only consider which side 
 preponder at es^ not how much weight there is in either scale. 
 
 Of the other passage in which the term Logos occurs, 
 
 1 John V. 7, “ There are three that bear record in heaven ; the 
 Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:’’ we may say, the 
 Father here is a person beyond dispute ; why not the Word ? 
 if he is not, is he a witness in the same sense with the Father.^ 
 
 But then, alas ! this goes to prove the Holy Ghost to be a Per- 
 son, which must be denied, it seems, at all adventures. So we 
 must leave this till we come to the 5th Article. 
 
 It is to the purpose to observe, that St. John"' meant to 
 adopt a notion already received, which was, as we have^ ven- 327 
 tured to conclude, that the Logos was a Person. 
 
 2. The Word means the Son of God. I suppose it would 
 not be questioned, that, if the Word was a Person, he must be 
 the same as the Son of God : therefore, if we have proved the 
 Word a Person, we have proved our point. But our arguments 
 may not convince every one ; therefore we will endeavour to 
 prove that the Word means the Son, and so infer from thence 
 that he is a Person. 
 
 By the way, Lardner^ who allows^ no pre-existence to the 
 Son, rejects the Socinian interpretations of John i., and holds, 
 that the expressions, in which the Word is spoken of, imply 
 proper eternity and divinity. Therefore, if any one is con- 
 
 ‘ Sect. 1. I says the same, as to the Divinity of the 
 
 2 Works, vol. XI. p. 95. Dr. Priestley | Logos. Letters, p. 114. 
 
IV. ii. 18, 19.] 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 565 
 
 II. vinced that the Word is the Son, he must, according to the in- 
 terpretation of one of our most able adversaries, allow the Son 
 to be eternal and divine — according to the interpretation of 
 one who probably would be much inclined to adopt those 
 senses, which he rejects. 
 
 That the Word means the Son, must appear from observing 
 the connection and consistency of different parts of Scripture. 
 In John i. 15, it seems to be allowed by^ our adversaries that 
 the Son is meant ; therefore every one must look back (with as 
 little prejudice as may be) from that verse to the beginning of 
 the chapter, and see whether he can find two different agents 
 mentioned Only let him not determine to find two, because 
 the notion of one would occasion him some difficulties: that 
 328 would be to make a revelation, not to interpret one made by 
 the Deity. 
 
 A comparison of other passages with the first chapter of 
 John, would influence me very strongly. Compare verse 3 with 
 Col. i. 16, and with Heb. i. 2^. The same effects and opera- 
 tions seem to be ascribed to the Word and to the Son ; yet 
 these could only proceed from one. Compare also 1 John v. 7, 
 with Matt, xxviii. 19: the Word in the former answers to the 
 Son in the latter ; and, in that case, there can be no difference 
 between them. When, in near fifty places^. Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost, are mentioned together, it is not likely that, in 
 this, two of them should be the same, and the third different. 
 
 18. 3. Our Church is justified in using the term ‘‘^hegotten^' 
 by John i. 14, and Heb. i. 5, 6, were there no other texts to the 
 purpose: but “begotten” is implied., whenever Father or Son^ 
 is mentioned ; and in the high sense of our Article, when a 
 time is supposed prior to the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem 
 One might add John i. 18 ; hi. 16. 18; 1 John iv. 9. 
 
 19. 4. Our Church is to be justified in using the expres- 
 sion “yVom everlasting.'''' The expression occurs several times 
 in our translation; but, with regard to the Son of God, perhaps 
 only in Micah v. 2, before® quoted. Indeed, the other texts 
 
 ^ Lardner, Works, vol. xi. p. 97- 
 ^ Dr, Priestley makes but one agent. 
 Famil. Illustr. p. 31. “ Christ being 
 
 called the Word of God,” &c. 
 
 5 If it be said, that aicoua9 must be 
 translated affes, (Dr. Priestley’s Letters, 
 p. 119,) compare Heb. xi. 3, there it 
 seems to mean worlds. 
 
 * Art. i. sect. 8. 
 
 ^ Every sonship implies a generation ; 
 the kind of generation must correspond 
 to the kind of sonship. St. Paul calls 
 some Christian converts his sons. Onesi- 
 mus was begotten in his bonds. Phile- 
 mon, ver. 10. (Parallels are 1 Cor. iv. 15. 
 Gal. iv. 19.) 
 
 ® John xvi. 28; Rom. viii. 32, &c. 
 
 ** Sect. 16. 
 
566 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 20,21. 
 
 before quoted to prove the pre-eosistence of Christ, belong to II. 
 this point. Add John xvii. 24. The ancients used to say, 329 
 that, as father and son are correlatives^ the Father could not be 
 eternal, except the Son was : there cannot be a father without 
 a son^. Neither, we may add, can there be a son without 
 generation. 
 
 20. 5. Of the Father^'' Though father is a correlative 
 
 term to son, and therefore implied in it, yet it seems proper for 
 our Church to take notice of the different circumstances in 
 which it is said that the Son is begotten of the Father^ and con- 
 ceived by the Holy Ghost. If it appeared, from a survey of 
 the Scriptures, that the former mode of expression was chiefly 
 appropriated to a state previous to that described by the latter, 
 such a survey would confirm the notion of our Church, that 
 Christ is described as having existed before his coming into 
 this world, for a time unbounded. 
 
 ^21. 6. Of one substance. This is an expression which 
 has occasioned much dispute. The word o/uoouo-to? was that on 
 which debates chiefly turned at the Council of Nice^ and even 
 at the Council of Antioch fifty years before ; and those debates 
 have never yet been wholly given up^ We see that, in 1552, 
 the Article seemed to avoid them. 
 
 That the Son of God can properly be called of one substance 
 with the Father, is not said in Scripture in so many words. If 
 it had, however difficult the conception, disputes must have 
 been terminated before this time. It is rather implied than 
 expressed. Supposing the divinity of the Son to have been 330 
 proved, we say, the Son is Goid, and the Father is God, and 
 yet there is but one God, therefore they must be ‘‘ of one sub- 
 stance.” Or, supposing only that we have proved Christ to 
 be properly called the Son of God, antecedent to his being 
 concerned with humanity, then we say, it is implied in the 
 idea of a Son that he is of the same species with his Father. 
 
 In the species of the Divinity there is but one individual; 
 therefore the Son must be of the same substance with the 
 Father. 
 
 How much is implied in “ only-hegotien !” 
 
 But, however exact our arguments may be as io form, we 
 
 * Ser. de Tempore, 236 (or 191 ), sect. 2. 
 Append, to 5th vol. Aug. “qui semper 
 pater fuit semper filium habet.” 
 
 2 “ The very and eternal God." These 
 
 words contain the main proposition of the 
 Article, the proof of the truth of which 
 was given first. 
 
 ^ See Petavius de Trinitate. 
 
IV. ii. 21.] 
 
 THE SON OF COD. 
 
 567 
 
 II. are to use them as sparingly as possible, when we have not‘‘ 
 distinct ideas. Therefore we will mention some passages of 
 Scripture^ which declare the Father and the Son to be one, re- 
 ferring to what has been ^ before said to shew, that though the 
 union expressed may be thought by some not to be, beyond a 
 doubt, unity of substance, it yet amounts to an intimacy of 
 connection beyond our defining — one quite out of our reach — 
 one which we can only look up to with silent awe and admira- 
 tion. The following passages are of the sort now mentioned : 
 — John xvii. 11, 21, 22, 23. In John x. compare verse 30, with 
 38 ; remarking the stoning for blasphemy. After these, consi- 
 der John xiv. 28, and xvi. 28, as pointing out a derivation of 
 the Son from the Father, of a sort consistent with the preceding 
 passages, and with John xiv. 9? lO? H ; which are so strong, 
 that any candid man will at least pardon their having given 
 occasion to the profession of what we call consubstantiality. 
 Those who account 1 John v. 7 genuine, will consider that also: 
 ‘‘ these three are owe.” 
 
 331 It seems as if Athanasius had thought that persons might 
 be called opoovcnoi who were of one mind®, if they were of the 
 same species ; and Curcellceus, who quotes him in his Preface^ 
 to the works of Episcopius, says, of the ancient fathers in 
 general, that they held this notion ; and blames the moderns 
 for not confining themselves to it, as if their consubstantiality 
 was Sabellianism. But this solution, though intended to avoid 
 difficulties, would make the thing no easier to me (except it 
 came from the same authority with the Scriptures) than what 
 I just now observed, that if two could, in any sense, be of the 
 same species, when there was but one individual of that species, 
 they must be of the same substance: for the difficulty still 
 remains, of reconciling this solution with all the Scriptures. 
 Therefore I still seem compelled to maintain consubstantiality; 
 though I am ready to own, that perfect union of will, in 
 infinite wisdom and spirituality, seems to my mind not distin- 
 guishable from unity of substance. However, when I say this 
 I am in no danger of Sabellianism ; because I never think any 
 thing in Scripture relative to the Trinity is repeated or applied 
 in a proper and legitimate manner, except when the Christian^ 
 
 ^ Art. i. sect. 18. 
 
 5 Art. i. sect. 17. 
 
 ® Art. i. sect. 10, towards end. 
 
 Preface to Episcopius, sect. vi. Atha- 
 nasius, (as Curcelljeus here says) called 
 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost consub- 
 stantial, only “quia in eadem specie 
 Deitate conveniant, et summa inter eos 
 sit voluntatis consensio.” 
 
 ^ Art. i. sect. 17. 
 
568 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii.21. 
 
 scheme is in view, and the different provinces of the Son and II. 
 Holy Ghost are plainly seen and acknowledged ; and then, 
 there is not so much danger of confounding the Persons as of 
 dividing the Substance. 
 
 After all, though the expression of our Church seems de- 
 fensible, and justifiable, yet I can conceive a very well-meaning 
 and a thinking man to say, ‘ had not such obscure and difficult 332 
 expressions better be avoided f I should answer, ‘yes;’ but 
 only in the same sense in which I should say, all wars and all 
 lawsuits had better be avoided ; that is, without meaning to 
 blame every prince who enters into war, or every private man 
 who engages in a lawsuit. The truth seems to be, that such 
 expressions as we are apt to be shocked at, or discontented 
 with, have been adopted only in the way of defence ; and it is 
 of consequence to be aware of this, because the meaning of 
 expressions, in such forms as Articles of Religion, depends upon 
 the occasions on which they were made, and the errors^ which 
 they were intended to obviate. 
 
 The doctrine of eternal generation is certainly what the 
 mind of man will never clearly comprehend. We are lost if 
 we think on a being existing from eternity ; yet there seems 
 additional difficulty with regard to an event (and generation is 
 an event) happening from eternity, or having happened an 
 infinite time ago. If any one chose to attempt a direct or 
 positive solution of the difficulty, he might perhaps say, that 
 the generation of the Son of God may not perhaps be an event, 
 in strictness, though in some respects like our generation ; or 
 that even an event, such as a communication of power, &c., 
 may have happened so that it may be represented as eternal 
 to us ; it may have happened before any time assignable by 
 the human faculties ; the duration between that and the In- 
 carnation may be one, to which any duration relating to 
 human affairs may bear no proportion. In like manner, the 
 direct proofs, of the con substantiality of the Son with the Fa- 
 ther, just now urged may not be without weight ; yet I should 
 prefer, as more reasonable and just — as entering better into 
 the minds of those who have expressed these difficulties — 333 
 a negative'^ solution of both. I should therefore say, that the 
 true intent and meaning of laying down the doctrines of the 
 eternal generation of the Son, and his consubstantiality with 
 
 ^ Book in. chap. ix. 
 
 2 Under Art. i. sect. 10. See quotation from Ser. de Tempore. 
 
IV. ii. 21.] 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 569 
 
 II. the Father, was, because no other method could prevent the 
 opinions of those from spreading, who gave positive repre- 
 sentations of his nature, which the Scriptures did not seem 
 to warrant ; who declared, that he was a creature^ that a pre- 
 cedence might be made out ; or that the Son came out from 
 the Father, as something is cast out of an engine {TrpojSoXi]) ; 
 or was separated from him, as a part is from the whole; or 
 had no being before he was man. In such a negative way 
 may the words of our Nicene Creed, “God of Godf &c. be 
 understood. 
 
 It may seem strange, that, in our second Article of 1562, 
 there should be these additional expressions, which were not 
 in the former Article of 1552 ; “ begotten from everlasting of 
 the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with 
 the Father.” But I take for granted, that the history of the 
 growth of Socinianism, during those ten intervening years, 
 would fully account for the addition, which perhaps the Pu- 
 ritan interest might contribute to secure. I do not mean to 
 say, that the growth of Socinianism made it absolutely neces- 
 sary to insert these words : it might, or might not ; but I 
 believe that, in fact^ it occasioned the insertion. Religious 
 men are sometimes too impatient and indignant ; too apt to 
 consider attacks on their own opinions as attacks on the Honour 
 and Majesty of the Supreme Being. 
 
 But it is one thing to say, that possibly expressions might 
 334 have been safely omitted, and another to desire to eject them 
 because they contain what is not agreeable to reason^. To 
 do this, when the expressions are collected from Scripture 
 by a comparison of different passages, is to run into several 
 faults and errors. It is to run into the fault of an officious 
 friend, who frustrates all your good plans by intermeddling, 
 without a sufficient knowledge of your intentions : — it is pre- 
 sumption ; it is to intrude into the place of him who reveals 
 knowledge, instead of studying what revelation truly means : 
 — nay, in effect, it is to mislead and deceive ; for the chances 
 against a man’s judging right, when he follows hk own acquired 
 notions about what it is fit for God to do, are infinite ; and, if 
 once it is resolved to support one false opinion, a number of 
 other false opinions are propagated as arguments to support 
 it. Nay, I might have said, that the person who does this 
 acts insincerely ; for he pretends that he believes that to be 
 
 ^ Sect. 14, towards end. 
 
570 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 22 — 24. 
 
 the true sense of words, which he adopts for a different reason. II. 
 If men often dealt out their own revelations (as we might call 
 them) in this manner, we should have Revelation a very vari- 
 able thing : it would vary with every change of fashionable 
 philosophy — it would veer about with every wind of doctrine. 
 
 Let a man then, if he pleases, meditate upon the incom- 
 prehensible doctrines of religion with awful diffidence^ and 
 lowly suspense ; but, if it be proper for the good of religious 
 society, that he should give some preference of one opinion to 
 another, let him not presume that the true meaning of Revela- 
 tion must be something that is level and familiar to his ordinary 
 habitual conceptions. 
 
 But let us return to the original Article, and proceed with 
 our subordinate propositions. 
 
 22. 7. Christ ‘‘ took man’s nature ” — was a real human 335 
 being, in soul and body : — “ of a reasonable soul, and human 
 flesh subsisting — ^Luke ii. 40, 52 ; Mark xiii. 32. He had 
 the appetites of hunger and thirst. Matt. iv. 2 ; John xix. 28 : 
 was wearied^ John iv. 6 : he zvept^ Luke xix. 41 ; John ix. 35 : 
 this implies both body and affections: he slept^ Mark iv. 38. 
 And, as a reason for the fact must confirm the fact, take Hebr. 
 
 ii. 17, 18 ; iv. 15 ; v. 2k 
 
 23. 8. Our Church is not wrong in saying, that the Per- 
 sonage before described took marCs nature in the womb of 
 the blessed Virgin.” The thing to be observed here is only, 
 that Christ began to be an human being before he was born, as 
 other human creatures begin to be. If he had not, he must 
 not have been at first properly human, and therefore some 
 change would have been announced when he became so. To 
 which we need only add, that we have plain accounts of his 
 conception and birth: Matt. i. 18 — 23; Luke i. 26 — 38 ; 
 ii. 5, 6. His conception was supernatural ; but that is told us 
 plainly ; so that we have no reason to think that any thing 
 farther was out of the course of nature. 
 
 24. 9. We have ground to say, ‘‘ 0 / her substance.'^'' 
 Here we may mention John i. 14; Gal. iv. 4; Rom. ix. 5; 
 Hebr. ii. 14 ; 1 John iv. 3. But, if any one should urge, 
 that these passages do not expressly say, “ of her sub- 
 stance,” in so many words, I should answer, that, if even these 
 passages were wanting, we might conclude, against heretics, 
 
 1 Lardner’s Works, vol. xi. p. 84; where the humanity of Christ, as a favourite 
 point, is well proved. 
 
IV. ii. 25.] 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 571 
 
 II. that, if Christ was human, and began to be so from his con- 
 ception, it must be understood, that he received that nutrition 
 
 336 from the substance of his mother which an human mother 
 commonly gives. To assert the contrary would be arbitrary^ 
 and without foundation, and going contrary to all analogy of 
 nature. In all reasoning we must take for granted that effects 
 are produced by their usual causes. In order therefore to 
 disprove any notion that Christ merely passed through the 
 virgin’s womb, we need only prove, that he was very man, or 
 really man. Phil. ii. 7? end, would be sufficient. 
 
 25. 10. Amidst the difficulties, which arise from the de- 
 
 scription of Christ, the best language we can use is, that he 
 had two natures in one Person. This is not a scriptural 
 expression, but a kind of classing of many different scriptural 
 expressions, or a reducing of them into a small compass. Not 
 that it would have been used merely on that account. It was 
 intended to keep the Church clear of the errors of Nestorius 
 on the one hand, and of Eutyches on the other ; though every 
 such classing, when judiciously made, must greatly relieve the 
 mind, labouring amongst a number of texts seemingly incon- 
 sistent ; — afraid to omit any, or to take any one in so strong 
 a sense as to encroach upon the true meaning of others. Of 
 one person^ we find it said in Scripture, that he existed before 
 Abraham, and yet that he was the seed of Abraham ; that he 
 was the Lord of David, and yet his Son, or descendant ; that 
 all things were made by him,” and yet that he was com- 
 passed with infirmity;” that he knoweth all things, John xxi. 
 17 ; that all the world must stand at his judgment-seat; and 
 yet that he was ignorant when his judgment would take place. 
 
 337 How can we express these seeming inconsistencies (which 
 could not possibly be real ones) better than by saying, that the 
 divine and human natures were joined in one Person If such 
 an expression will reconcile all expressions of Scripture, and no 
 other will, our Church must have sufficient warrant for using 
 it. But we have already ^ mentioned this expression repeatedly. 
 One of our creeds means to lay down something equivalent to 
 it, when it says, that Christ is one, not by confusion of sub- 
 stance (not by confounding the divine and human natures, or 
 conceiving them to be melted^ down, as it were, into one) but 
 
 2 See John viii. 58 ; Matt. i. 1 ; Matt, 
 xxii. 45; John i. 3. or Col. 1. 16; 
 Plebr. V. 2 ; 2 Cor. v. 10; Mark xiii. 33. 
 ^ Art. i. sect. 18. Art. ii. sect. 8 and 1 5. 
 
 ^ d(Tvyx^'^o^ evcoa-Li, the unconfound- 
 ed union, is mentioned by Photius, in 
 his account of Theodoret’s 2d Dialogue. 
 See before, sect. 3, towards beginning. 
 
572 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 26, 27 . 
 
 by unity of Person,'"'' Confounding the divine and human na- II. 
 tures would bring on a denial of either the Divinity or the 
 humanity of Christ ; and speaking of a plurality of Persons, 
 would be going contrary to the tenor of the Scripture language. 
 
 26 . 11. The divine and human natures, united in Christ, 
 are “ never to be divided'' — are “ inseparahiliter conjunctcB.^^ 
 This part seems little attended to by Commentators. I know 
 not whether it would not be enough for the words, to prove 
 that this union will continue as long as we have beforehand any 
 distinct views ; — but there is not occasion to mention any limi- 
 tations. It is not disputed that Christ had honours and dignity 
 as a reward ^ for his obedience in his human condition : it is 
 not to be conceived that there will be any time when he will be 
 deprived of these : and yet, according to our doctrine, they 
 must be, in some way, attached or annexed to his humanity ; 
 for, independently of that, we do not conceive him to stand in 338 
 need of additional glory, or to admit of any. Some authority 
 
 he is to give ^ up ; but no hint is given of any division to take 
 place in the Person of Christ. “ Blessing and honour,” &c., 
 are to be given both “ unto him that sitteth upon the throne, 
 and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever ^” 1 Tim. ii. 5; Acts 
 
 hi. 21 ; xvii. 31, confirm this. 
 
 But, if it seems above our comprehension to know how 
 Christ, being Divine, enjoys additional glory, though we might 
 urge, that Christ as the Son of man may possibly enjoy glory 
 or rewards of a peculiar kind, answering purposes of some gra- 
 cious dispensations, perhaps to many more worlds than ours — 
 yet we seem to be on firmer ground, when we use the words, as 
 before, in a negative sense, as excluding the notions and fancies 
 mentioned in the explanation ; or as affirming that no one has 
 a right to hold them ; and put it upon our opponents to prove 
 that a separation will take place. That Christ, considered as 
 man, may receive additional glory, dating the account from his 
 residence on earth, is perfectly intelligible. 
 
 27 . 12. Our Church is right in insisting upon the ex- 
 pression “ one Christ but enough has been said upon this, 
 under the tenth of these subordinate propositions, and in the 
 explanation. 
 
 “ Very God and very man,” has already occured, in other 
 words. 
 
 * Phil. ii. 9; Hebr. xii. 2; ii. 9; Ephes. i. 20, &c. 
 
 2 1 Cor. XV. 24—28. ^ Kcv. v. 8. 
 
IV. ii. 28—30.] 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 573 
 
 II. 28. 13. Lastly^ the Article takes the true sense of Scrip- 
 
 ture, when it considers the accounts of the suffering, crucifix- 
 ion, death, and burial of Christ, as plain narratives of facts. 
 If we have proved that Christ had a real human body, we have 
 
 339 in effect proved all the rest; for no one ever doubted the reality 
 of his sufferings^ &c., who did not doubt the reality of his body. 
 
 However, the sufferings of Christ are particularly described 
 by the Evangelists^, and referred to in the Epistles^. They 
 are finely enumerated and represented by Bishop Pearson. 
 
 His crucifixion is also expressly related, and alluded to 
 That he was “ deadfi is not only related, but referred to as a 
 fact unquestioned : illustrations and exhortations are founded 
 upon it. See Luke xxiii. 46 ; John xix. 33 ; Also Rom. v. 
 7 — 10 ; Rom. vi. 4, &c. ; 1 Cor. xi. 26, &c. 
 
 The same may be said of the burial of Christ. It is both 
 related with many circumstances, and made the ground of spiri- 
 tual advice and persuasion. See the close of any of the Gos- 
 pels; — and Rom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 12'. 
 
 If any one was to suggest that Christ might not suffer, &c., 
 though he appeared to do so, I would answer, that there is no 
 reasoning against such an arbitrary supposition. To suppose 
 that common phenomena are not to be solved by ascribing them 
 to their established ® causes, is to take away all power of con- 
 cluding any thing from experience. It is like saying there is 
 no matter, when all the properties of matter are observed. 
 Such an hypothesis makes no difference : every thing must go 
 on in the same train, whether it is admitted or not. Indeed, 
 none but the enemies of matter ever denied that the Body of 
 
 340 Christ was material. Not that they denied the existence of 
 matter ; they only held it in abomination, as the source of evil. 
 
 29. What relates to Atonement, or implies original Sin, is 
 deferred, as before. 
 
 30. Thus have we gone through the direct proofs of all 
 the propositions contained in our Article. But still a great 
 quantity of argument remains ; I mean, the answering of objec- 
 tions. These are innumerable. Not one of the texts, of which 
 we have given an interpretation, but has had different construc- 
 tions put upon it by our adversaries ; and, though these con- 
 
 ^ Matt. xxvi. and parallels. 
 
 5 Hebr. V. 7, 8. ^ ^^1. v. 24, (or 11.) 
 
 7 It might have been said, in short, 
 that all four (suftering, crucifixion, death. 
 
 and burial) are related and alluded to — 
 as some passages allude to more than 
 one. 
 
 ” As was observed before, sect. 24. 
 
574 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 31. 
 
 structions appear to me forced, inadmissible, what such able II. 
 men as those who have made them could not have run into 
 without a design of obviating difficulties, yet others may think 
 differently. The question is, what course to take. Answering 
 objections is certainly a part of proof; and, as we blame our 
 adversaries for using arguments already answered, so may they 
 blame us if we pass by their reasonings without notice ; espe- 
 cially if we neglect what they may call improvements. And 
 yet to answer all objections, in the present case, should be a 
 separate undertaking; not only on account of their number 
 but because, in many of them, truth and error are got so entan- 
 gled, that they cannot be disentangled in a little time. We 
 must therefore hit upon some middle way. 
 
 The best medium seems to be, to give up the idea of answer- 
 ing single objections, and only lay down a few general rules or 
 observations, each of which may be applied on more occasions 
 than one. It will be found then that several objections may be 
 solved, by attending to the following things : 
 
 31. 1. By attending to the three several conditions in 
 
 which Christ is mentioned. Owe, in which he existed before he 
 assumed man’s nature, in which he is spoken of as equal to the 341 
 Father, though some kind of communication ox generation had 
 taken place, from unbounded time, which we can only confess, 
 not understand : a second, in which Christ was a partaker of 
 human nature and lived upon earth : a third, in which he is 
 said to sit at the right hand of the Majesty on high, invested 
 with dignity as Head of the Church, or general Society of those 
 who worship God under the Christian dispensation; interceding 
 for sincere believers, and looking forward to the time when he 
 will pass judgment upon them. 
 
 It is not likely that these three conditions should be all 
 mentioned, whenever one of them is ; nor that it should be ex- 
 pressly declared to which of them any account of Christ belongs, 
 which is introduced incidentally, as it were, in the course of an 
 easy and artless letter, or exhortation. This is to be discovered 
 from the context — from the occasion on which such account 
 is introduced. We should always keep them all in mind, and 
 let circumstances determine of which we should understand any 
 particular saying. In the Epistle to the Philippians^ , Christ 
 is set forth as an example of condescension: the very idea takes 
 in an higher and a lower state ; and the reward points out a 
 
 ’ Phii.ii. 
 
IV. 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 575 
 
 II. third, which must be more exalted than the second. In the 
 first chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians^, the intention 
 might probably be, to give the converts high ideas of the Son 
 of God, in comparison of those cBons, to which many of them 
 ascribed the creation of the world, and, I believe, continued su- 
 perintendence over their favourites. Here, the humiliation of 
 Christ would be less to the purpose than his first condition, 
 342 when “ all things were made by him,” and his last, when he 
 protected the Saints ; — though his suffering was not to be 
 wholly omitted. 
 
 The opening of the Epistle to the Hebrews, or Jews, was 
 probably meant to obviate the low notions which the Ehionites 
 entertained of the character of Christ ; in which case the digni- 
 ties belonging to the first state naturally came to be mentioned: 
 the second state must be mentioned at least as a connecting 
 link, and the third subjoined. The third is not, probably, 
 very unlike the first (John xvii. 5) in our conceptions; and 
 what difference there is was not to be marked out here. To 
 the first state belong, “ let all the angels of God worship him” 
 (Heb. i. 6) : to the second, ‘‘ who was made a little lower than 
 the angels and, for the suffering of death” — “ crowned 
 him with glory and honour” (Heb. ii. 9), to the third. John 
 xiv. 28, Christ is speaking as being in the form of man, and 
 as going to quit this world ; he is therefore in his second state, 
 and what he says is suitable to our notions — “ my Father is 
 greater than I.” The Epistle to the Ephesians seems intended 
 to induce the Jews to admit other men into religious society 
 besides those who had lived under the law of Moses : and 
 therefore what is said of Christ, in the first chapter of that 
 Epistle, commences^ from his resurrection, and relates wholly 
 to his third state or condition. 
 
 Now, many objections to our doctrines concerning the dig- 
 nity of Christ may be solved by attending to the difference of 
 these three states; as our adversaries make their arguments 
 against us by confounding them together, and taking what is 
 343 said of one as if it belonged to another. Dr. Priestley makes 
 ‘‘ being in the form ^ of God,” to belong to Christ after he had 
 been on earth : and describes his power in his third state, as if 
 it was all the kind of power he ever had. He also makes the 
 
 2 Col. i. 16—20. 
 
 ^ Ephes. i. 20, &c» to the end. 
 
 ^ Phil. ii. 6. Familiar Illustr. pp. 23, 
 
 46 : the latter is from 1 Pet. i. 20, 21, 
 which gives hints of all three states. See 
 also Priestley’s Letters, p. 119. 
 
576 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 32. 
 
 glories ascribed to Christ, Heb. i. 10, to have been conferred on II. 
 him in consequence of his suffering ’ ; though the sixth verse 
 mentions bringing him into the world. An hint has been al- 
 ready^ given of something like this rule, with relation to John 
 xvii. ; but he who would see these three conditions described in 
 a masterly manner, must read Bishop Sherlock'"?, first discourse 
 in his fourth volume — in four parts. 
 
 32. 2. Objections may be answered, by attending to the 
 
 two characters or natures of Christ, divine and human. The 
 meaning, oi these has been sufficiently explained. But, though 
 our adversaries will agree, no doubt, to reconcile Christ’s being 
 called a lAon^ with his being called a Lamb; and, though they 
 would not object to uniting all the characters of a suffering and 
 a triumphant Messiah in the person of Jesus^ ; yet they are 
 not willing, in like manner, that we should unite the marks of 
 Godhead and manhood in the person of one Christ. I confess 
 I do not understand how the divine and human natures are 
 joined in him ; but yet the mode of expression seems necessary 
 (as before mentioned) to collect into one agent all the acts and 
 qualities ascribed to Christ. Socinus declares against this — 
 as any one may be apt to do who denies the divinity of Christ 
 — for his divinity is presupposed ; and Dr. Priestley (Letter 5. 344 
 to Students, p. 80, 81) says things against it something like 
 what I have said in sect. 8, in the character of Nestorius. But 
 no one should say any thing upon it who does not previously 
 acknowledge the divinity of Christ. It concerns only our method 
 of classing texts; which, supposing some of them to express the 
 divinity of Christ, seem contradictory, by sometimes making 
 him God, sometimes man. Till any one thinks that there are 
 some texts which represent Christ as divine, he has no concern 
 with our method of classing — or settling a seeming inconsis- 
 tency, which he does not allow to exist. This remark may 
 possibly preclude some dispute. 
 
 The form of the objections, which I am now speaking of, is 
 this : Christ is spoken of in Scripture as mere man, as inferior 
 to the Father, and so on ; therefore he cannot be equal to the 
 Father. Our answer is, we acknowledge Christ to be human, 
 and inferior to the Father as much as you can ; but besides 
 those passages, which you allege in order to prove him man, 
 there are others which seem to us to speak him divine. Dr. 
 
 * Illustr. p. 35. 2 Art. i. sect. 17. I works, and making one doctrine out of 
 
 ^ Reconciling passages about faith and them, is a process of the same nature. 
 
IV. ii. 32.] 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 577 
 
 II. Priestley seems to argue in this manner % from John v., where 
 he says, “ that the honour to which Christ is entitled is” (&c.) 
 “on account of what he derives from God, as his ambassador.''’' 
 No doubt, his being the sent of God is one reason for his being 
 honoured. To argue from human qualities of Christ against 
 divine ones, would be the same as to argue from marks of a 
 suffering Messiah against his being triumphant ; or to infer, 
 from Christ’s divine qualities, that he was not human. To 
 
 345 prove that we are inconsistent is nothing in this case ; we own 
 that we cannot reconcile Christ’s divine qualities with his human. 
 Suppose, on a law trial, that the evidence of Marcus seemed 
 inconsistent with that of Quintus, that these witnesses were men 
 of equally good character, but that the judges had made out 
 the best decision in their power ; what would be thought of a 
 man who dwelt upon the evidence of Quintus as certain ? and 
 insisted that the evidence of Marcus mu,st be false, because it 
 contradicted that of Quintus, as Quintus was a man of good 
 character : would this be entering into the difficulty ? would 
 not there be the same ground for arguing that Quintus’s evidence 
 was false, because it contradicted that of Marcus ? would such 
 arguing prove any thing wrong in the judges 9 
 
 The text before mentioned, Mark xiii. 32, having always 
 appeared to me the most difficult of any of those quoted 
 in the Socinian controversy, I am inclined here to take some 
 notice of it. This text may be considered in two lights, 
 as the word ‘‘ No7^” is understood to mean Christ as superior 
 to the angels (Heb. i), or as mere man. His being men- 
 tioned, in rising to the Father, after the angels, makes some 
 (as Macknight) conceive him here in a rank higher than the 
 angels ; his being said to be ignorant, makes him seem mere 
 man. Now, in the former sense, as above angels, the passage 
 may afford an argument against the divinity of Christ; and in 
 the latter sense, the difficulty is to conceive how one person 
 could, at the same time, know and be ignorant of the same 
 event. If Christ had the divine nature joined with the 
 human, he knew alP things; yet, at the same time, he did 
 not know the day of judgment. Taking the text in the 
 
 346 first light, one might say. First, supposing one text inex- 
 plicable, that does not seem a sufficient reason for giving up a 
 doctrine built on many others. The text might be left in 
 
 ^ Familiar Illustr. p. 25, top. See also I “How could he be” “our brother, if 
 Letters, p. 71. 1 Tim. ii. 5, p. 144. ' he was our Maker T' ® John xxi. 17. 
 
 VoL. I. 37 
 
578 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 32. 
 
 suspense. 2. Macknight understands the verse to mean, that II. 
 the Son of God was not to make known the time of his 
 coming to judgment; but by uncertainty was to keep up the 
 vigilance of his disciples — on the principle, watch, for ye 
 know not^"" &c. 3. The style is prophetic; and probably 
 
 the passage has a double sense ; which puts it upon a diflPerent 
 footing from other descriptions of Christ. 4. It may mean to 
 describe the office of the Son of God, as ambassador from 
 heaven to earth, who might not in that office have the fixing 
 of the day of judgment in his department. But the text may 
 be taken in the second light, as speaking of the Son of Man, 
 notwithstanding his being mentioned between the angels and 
 the Father. Had the gradation been, ‘ man, the Son, angels, 
 the Father,’ it would have been much more harsh and un- 
 couth than as it is now — ‘man, angels. Son, Father;’ nay, 
 it is scarcely conceivable, that an artless writer, who had 
 a good ear, would not prefer the second series to the first, 
 except falsehood was clearly declared by it. But, when we 
 consider, that Father, Son, andj Holy Ghost, are not always 
 mentioned in the same order, in different passages, we must 
 not lay very great stress upon order in the present case; 
 especially when we consider that the Son must be in some 
 respects higher, though in others “lower than the angels” — 
 and that here Christ is not spoken of in his pre-existent state. 
 
 The Socinians will allow “ the Son'''' to mean here the Son 
 of Man, though a good part of our difficulty arises from 
 there being this gradation — “no man,'''' “not the Angels '''' — 
 “neither the Son'"'' — “but the Father:'''' — man, angels. Son, 
 Father. Let us then suppose “ the Son'''' to mean here the 347 
 Son in his human nature; our observation, founded on this 
 supposition, may be of general use. We cannot conceive how 
 the same person can know as God, and yet be ignorant 
 as man I apprehend it might be sufficient to observe here, 
 that there is the same difficulty in conceiving how the same 
 person can be strong and weak ; have dominion over the 
 elements, and yet be^ wearied with a walk; for this would 
 put us on seeing, that the hypostatical union is, what it 
 might be expected to be, totally above our comprehension ; 
 and therefore, that we cannot reason about it. When we 
 presume to think and perplex ourselves about any part of it, 
 we deceive ourselves, by fancying that, because we have an 
 
 John iv, G. 
 
IV. ii. 33.] 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 579 
 
 II. expression, we have some sort of idea : but we should never 
 fancy this, if we did not forget how it was that we arrived 
 at that expression. AVe find different qualities, some divine, 
 some human, predicated of the same person ; we want to 
 express this briefly, in order to relieve the mind, and preserve 
 unity of doctrine : we get a mode of speaking^, but that 
 is all : we cannot stir a step farther. If we kept this process 
 in mind, we should never expect to solve any such question as 
 the present ; therefore it would never give us any pain or 
 perplexity : we should aim at nothing but noting accurately, 
 and recording faithfully. This seems the true answer to the 
 Nestorian^ difficulties, and to Dr. Priestley"' . 
 
 When we reason in mathematics, or in any subject which 
 348 we really comprehend, if we arrive at some proposition, we 
 can go on from it as an axiom ; but when, as in the present 
 case, we arrive only at a verbal proposition, though it may be 
 very useful, we cannot proceed any farther. This thought 
 ought to cut short our arguing on the doctrine of the Trinity^ 
 as well as on that of the Incarnation. For in neither do we 
 do more than collect various texts of Scripture, and arrange 
 them, so as to ease the mind, and ward off error — so as to 
 promote, or not obstruct, religious sentiments. So that 
 Mark xiii. 32 does not contain a peculiar difficulty : every 
 particular union of qualities divine and human, which have 
 any correspondence, contains the same. 
 
 33. 3. We may, not unfrequently, solve objections, 
 
 by attending to the difference between the Deity of natural 
 religion, and a divine person of the Holy Trinity^. We 
 may give the form of these objections, and an instance at 
 the same time. Dr. Priestley® says, with regard to John xvii. 
 3, ‘‘How can the Father be the only true God, if the Son 
 
 2 Something like this has been said 
 before (see Art. i. sect. 18) ; yet the idea 
 was not precisely that of getting up to 
 what would be called a doctrine, and 
 being unable to proceed upon it as a 
 principle. 
 
 ^ Sect. 8. ^ Letters, p. 81. 
 
 5 This paragraph might be better put. 
 The substance is this: — sometimes the 
 word God means God in general, some- 
 times a person in the Holy Trinity ; and 
 sometimes the word Father likewise sig- 
 nifies God in general, sometimes a person 
 
 in the Trinity. We have then/owr pro- 
 positions, all proved or illustrated here, 
 or under the first Article ; but the proofs 
 might be better arranged. In which 
 sense God, or Father, is to be taken, at 
 any time, must depend on context and 
 circumstances. God in general will be 
 always in some way plainly or tacitly 
 opposed or contradistinguished to idols ; 
 a Person of the Trinity will always be 
 contradistinguished to other Persons of 
 the Trinity. 
 
 Famil. Illustr. p. 33. 
 
 37 2 
 
580 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 34, 35. 
 
 be true God also?” Here, “the only true God” is opposed II. 
 to false gods, and means the Deity in natural religion : the 
 Divinity of the Son is, according to our doctrine, entirely 
 consistent with the Unity of the Supreme Being. That 
 unity is a part of our doctrine of the Trinity. It may 
 indeed seem at first, that, if Christ prays to the Father^ 349 
 he must mean a person of the Trinity; and therefore, if 
 the Father be the only true God, another person of the 
 Trinity cannot be God. But yet I think we have before^ 
 shewn, that Christ, as the sent, or the ambassador of God, 
 may call God his Father, meaning God in general, as it 
 were, and not a Person of the Holy Trinity. A prince 
 calls his father sometimes his king, sometimes his father^ ; 
 and if, as in the first Article (section 17.), one of a trium- 
 virate went on an embassy, having himself a share in the 
 government, his despatches might, if any one pleased, be 
 said to be directed to"^ himself And the same, if any one 
 of a commercial partnership travelled abroad as agent, and 
 sent home accounts of his negotiations. There are some- 
 times stories of a king’’s son being a servant: he would 
 always have royalty ; he would rule (in right and justice) as 
 a prince, and serve as a servant. 
 
 1 Cor. xi — “ The head of Christ is God.’"'' Certainly no 
 member of the Church of England conceives that the Deity 
 is not superior to the Messiah as such — or to Christ con- 
 sidered as the Head of the Church, or “ the Head of every 
 man.” 
 
 34. 4. Objections may sometimes be answered by ex- 
 amining quotations made from Scripture to support them ; 
 and seeing, whether they are complete, or partial. Thus, 
 when Dr. Priestley quotes Phil. ii. 8 — lU, we say, the quo- 
 tation is incomplete, as leaving out the account of Christ’s 
 pre-existent state. He ought to have begun with the 5th 
 verse. As incomplete quotations are frequent in controversy, 
 it should be a general rule always to read what comes im- 
 mediately before and after any passage that is quoted. Not 
 that all partial quotations must be deemed to be made so 350 
 purposely. 
 
 35. 5. Objections may often be solved, by attention to 
 that imperfection of language which consists in the same 
 
 * Art. i. sect. 17. I ^ Dr. Priestley’s Letters, p. 83. 
 
 2 Jolin XX. 17 . 2 Cor. xi. 31. | '• Famil. Illustr. p. 45, bottom. 
 
IV. ii. 35.] 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 581 
 
 II. word being the sign for several different ideas. The general 
 form of such objections is this — ‘an expression has sometimes 
 this meaning, therefore it can never have that.’' As if a 
 man were to say, ‘ momentum signifies sometimes a small 
 portion of time., therefore it can never signify force.’' This 
 is not said quite plainly ; only you see, by the conclusion, 
 that it is implied or insinuated. The kind of argument is 
 not wholly wrong, but it is not wholly right : for an ex- 
 pression may mean one thing in one case, and another thing 
 in another case ; and the meaning is to be determined, in 
 each case, by circumstances, and legitimate interpretation. 
 But, when a mind is on the stretch, anxious, scrupulous, 
 feeble; and has been used to affix a certain sense to an ex- 
 pression ; this kind of argument, which proposes another 
 sense, and supports it by instances, gives a shock, un- 
 hinges, unsettles; and therefore its effects ought to be ob- 
 viated. 
 
 It is said, that we take the expression the Son of God 
 in too high a sense ; men^ are the sons of God ; &c. No 
 doubt, God fs the common Parent of mankind, and Christians 
 are his adopted sons, as opposed to those who laboured under 
 
 bondage to the elements of the world (Gal. ii. 4 iv. 3, 9, 25); 
 
 and as they will inherit eternal life, it is a fair topic of holy 
 eloquence to say, that they are “ heirs of God,” and therefore 
 joint-heirs^ with Christ.” But may not the first-begotten., 
 whom all the angels were to worship, be Son in an higher 
 sense if not, how is he the only-hegotien? But, instead 
 351 of criticising on words, we will bring the testimony of the 
 Jews, who understood the force of the language used, and the 
 Mosaic Law. “ The Jews sought to kilV’' our Saviour, 
 because he said “ that God was his Father, making himself 
 equaV with God.” 
 
 It is said, that eijuLi means nothing more than ‘ I am 
 he,’ and is so translated, except in the contested place, John 
 viii. 58®. Here, the shortest way would be to call in the same 
 interpreters, the Jews : they took up stones to punish Christ 
 for blasphemy according to their law. That® iyw eljul might 
 be translated here so as to exhibit an uncommon expression, is 
 plain enough, because the passage, quoted as it were from the 
 book of Exodus, was uncommonly expressed. And, supposing 
 
 * John iii. 2. Famil. Illustr. p. 23. I ^ Famil. Illustr. p. 41. 
 
 ^ Rom. viii. 17. John v. 18. I ^ Sect. IH, before. 
 
582 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 36. 
 
 we were to adopt “ I am he,” instead of “ / «m,"” the confu- II. 
 sion of tenses remains — ‘‘ before Abraham was, I am he.” The 
 meaning, we are told, is, ‘ before Abraham was, I was intended^ 
 fixed upon in the Divine counsels, as the Messiah.’ The pro- 
 bability of our Saviour’s expressing such a thought by such 
 words, shall be left to every one’s private judgment. 
 
 We say, that eiriKoKeo^aL signifies to invoke ; but we are 
 told, in answer, that it signifies to surname^. Why may it not 
 signify hoth one and the other ? and also to appeal f There 
 seems good reason to think that the LXX. often used it to 
 imply invocation; and therefore the Jews would be accustomed 
 
 to it in that sense. I refer to Parkhurst’s Lexicon Creation‘s 
 
 sometimes is used in a comparative or metaphorical sense ; 
 may it not therefore be sometimes used in a plain and proper 
 sense, even with regard to the Son of God ? That it should 
 be understood figuratively in Col. i. l6, seems^ strange to me. 352 
 It appears to me, that it would not have been so interpreted, 
 if any other way of denying Christ’s pre-existent state could 
 possibly have been invented. Bishop Pearson has replied to 
 this interpretation, in his masterly manner, long ago'^: but it is 
 urged again and again. 
 
 36. 6. As the force of objections often depends upon 
 
 authorities, and the credit of witnesses, we may not unfre- 
 quently obviate them by attending to the particular situations 
 and views of those witnesses. Such attention will sometimes 
 enable us to confirm an evidence which is reckoned weak — 
 weaker than it really is ; sometimes to overturn one, which is 
 accounted stronger than it really is : in hoth ways obviating 
 that prejudice by which men are led into error. 
 
 If, in an objection, the Fathers are spoken of as credulous, 
 attention to circumstances will enable us to confirm their evi- 
 dence, by shewing that Pliny and Plutarch were^ equally weak ; 
 and therefore, that the charge falls on the age, without aft'ect- 
 ing the character of the persons ; who therefore may be deemed 
 credible witnesses in all things not connected with the vulgar 
 errors of the times. If it is said, that the Jews were unpolished 
 and ignorant, we can ask, were they ignorant of those laws 
 against blasphemy^’ which they themselves executed ? or were 
 
 ‘ Illustr. p. 40. 
 
 2 Famil. :^7. 
 
 Famil. Illustr. p. 44. See Dr. Priest- 
 ley’s fifth Letter to Dr. Price, p. 120. 
 
 4 Pearson on the Creed, p. 227, first 
 edit., or p. 114, fol. 
 
 5 Book I. chap. xii. sect. 16. 
 
 .John viii. 58 ; v. 18. 
 
THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 583 
 
 IV. ii. 37.] 
 
 II. they, in general, more ignorant in matters of religion than 
 S5S idolaters? Oneirocritics are folly, but do they not shew us 
 the language^ of symbols? Most men are weak in some things; 
 but were those, who attest any thing, weak in the principal 
 matter ? A doctrine is confirmed by a writing ; it is objected 
 that that writing is spurious : what then ? did not many 
 ancients put the names of famous authors to their works rather 
 than their own names ? and that with a good® intention ? 
 
 Attention to circumstances and views will sometimes enable 
 us to overturn an authority, which seems stronger than it 
 ought. Sir Isaac Newton^ has proved that such a text of 
 such a MS. has been corrupted. Which way did the preju- 
 dices of that great man (mentioned by our adversaries, because 
 he was a great man) particularly incline him ? Hume was 
 indeed a philosopher, but an infidel: Whiston had studied 
 church history, and read the Scriptures, but his Apollinarian 
 hypothesis drew every thing into its vortex. 
 
 37. 7. Lastly, we may often solve objections by substi- 
 
 tuting the interpretation instead of the words interpreted. We 
 have already asked, what could induce St. John to say, that the 
 power and wisdom of God were with God in the beginning^®. 
 Socinus himself, as I remember, makes the Word to mean the 
 mandate of God. An academic might say, in the same way, 
 the king's mandate is the same as the king ; a degree by man- 
 date is a degree by the king; but would he say, In the begin- 
 ning (before mandate-degrees began to be taken) was the 
 mandate, and the mandate was with the king, and the mandate 
 was the king : the same was in the beginning with the king ? 
 354 Would he, particularly, say this in the opening of an history? 
 
 V/e have an instance of the effect of substitution in the 
 Short Defence^ &c., recommended before, in which the Socinian 
 interpretation of Matt, xxviii. 19. is put instead of the text”. 
 Let us try its effect now, while we are suggesting this caution. 
 
 These are all the rules or observations on the controversy 
 concerning the Son of God, with which 1 shall trouble you. 
 In several arguments, our adversaries prove what we hold as 
 well as they ; (see Short Defence, p. 29, and note,) which is 
 sometimes an insinuation that we do not hold what they prove ; 
 and, when it is so, it is a misrepresentation^ and an unfair- 
 
 ’’ Book 1. chap. xvii. 
 
 ” Lardner’s Works, vol. ii. p. 310. 
 Of this, Book I. chap. xii. sect. 4. 
 
 » Famil. Illustr. p. 38, twice, 
 10 Sect. 17 . 
 
 ” Short Defence, p. 32. 
 
584 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 38, 39. 
 
 ness and injustice to us. They prove what we call the third II. 
 condition or state of Christ (Lard. vol. xi. p. 91) ; they prove 
 that Christ is inferior to the Father ; that the Unity of God is 
 maintained through the Scripture (Lard. vol. x. p. 619, &c.) ; 
 that creation does not always mean literal creation ; that 
 Christ’s being wearied is not reconcileahle^ in our minds, with 
 his creating all worlds. All these things we are far from deny- 
 ing : to prove them, in controversy with us, is to misrepresent 
 us. Nor must they say, that we cannot hold these things, 
 because they are inconsistent with our other tenets. We must 
 not be charged with any consequences of our doctrines, except 
 those which we ourselves acknowledge. We may speak fool- 
 ishly, or inconsistently ; but what we profess to hold we should 
 be allowed to hold. I could have wished to say something on 
 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; but it would lead us into discussions too like 
 those on 1 John v. 7 : and what observations I had to make I 
 made in reading to you Bishop Pearson’s note upon it. Dr. 
 Priestley seems to refer ^ to the Aleocandrian MS. when he 
 speaks of it: I produced Dr. Woide’s fac-simile, and gave my 
 opinion on the modern appearance of the word 6 e 6 <$. Bishop 3.55 
 Hurd has a sermon on the verse; and Mr. John Berriman has 
 published an octavo volume upon it, which seems to contain 
 much useful instruction to the critical divine. 
 
 38. Having now finished the proof of our Article, we come 
 to what we have called the Application, which will consist of 
 the same parts as before. 
 
 39. We are first to consider, in what sense a thinking man 
 would now assent to this second Article. Let us conceive such 
 an one meditating upon it in his closet, with a view to deter- 
 mining whether he should give or withhold his assent. ‘ Let 
 me reflect,’ he might say, ‘ can I with a safe conscience 
 subscribe to what is now proposed to me for subscription ? 
 
 “ The Son, which is the Word of the Father.” Yes, it appears 
 to me much more probable, that the Logos means a Person, 
 than that it denotes only the power or wisdom of God, or his 
 mandate; and I do not see, from the connection of expressions, 
 that any Person can be meant different from him who is called 
 the Son. That this Person may be said to have been “ be- 
 gotten of the Father,” is plain from the very appellation of 
 Son., and from many passages of Scripture. But, from ever- 
 lasting T that may require a pause. I find the idea of eternal 
 
 ’ Faniil, lllustr. p. 38. 
 
IV. ii. 39 .] 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 585 
 
 II. generation too much for my grasp ; yet I can say, that, accord- 
 ing to the Scriptures, the Son was begotten of the Father 
 before he was conceived by the Holy Ghost. Nay, it seems to 
 me that no man has a right to assign any time as p7'ior to that 
 derivation or communication which is represented to us as in 
 some sort parental ; or to say, that the Son of God is a crea- 
 ture. I so far understand what I say as to deny that; and I 
 355 apprehend, that such negation was what the compilers of the 
 Article principally intended.'" 
 
 “ The very and eternal God!'"'" — ‘ The Son seems to me to 
 have the title of God given to him several times, though verbal 
 criticism has contended to the contrary, in some instances ; but 
 besides that, he who could do what Christ did, could, as far as 
 my notions reach, do every thing: he who knew what Christ 
 knew, must know every thing; and he who is able to do 
 all things, and who knows all things, and has existed ‘‘from 
 everlasting^'" and moreover is set forth as preserving all things, 
 is to me God^. Superior beings may have different views, but 
 I think I may deny that any man (and this was the thing 
 chiefly intended in the framing of the article) has a right to 
 refuse that title to Christ, or even to call him a God ; that is, 
 a God of some inferior sort ; the worship of whom would be a 
 kind of Aero- worship ; or to fix any priority or precedence 
 between the Father and him, considered as Divine. Expres- 
 sions relating to these high matters might, for me, have been 
 left indefinite, as promoting rather a devout heart than a spe- 
 culating head ; but, when I am called upon to prevent the 
 spreading of what appears to me error and heresy, I must rea- 
 son and define as well as I am able.’ 
 
 “ Of one substance with the Father /” — i Here again I 
 pause. But, if I may proceed at all upon the notion of Christ’s 
 being the jirst-begotten or ow/y-begotten Son of God, I must 
 say, that the Son is universally of the same species with the 
 Father; and here, in this species, it is the fundamental princi- 
 ple of all rational religion to assert that there is but one indi- 
 vidual. I do not understand this, but I see, that, if this is 
 357 Dot allowed, the Church must either make the Son of a dif- 
 ferent species from the Father, or make a plurality of Gods; 
 and I conjecture, that this might induce the ancient Christians 
 to insist so much upon the consubstantiality of the Son with 
 the Father. And I must have as great an insight into the 
 
 2 Art. i. sect. 10, towards beginning. 
 
586 
 
 AllTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 39. 
 
 subject as those have who would make the Father and Son of II. 
 different substances; which I must declare against; and the 
 intimacy of connection between them being unbounded or inji~ 
 nite^^ I am willing to express that infinity by the affirmative 
 expression prescribed by authority,’' 
 
 “ Took mai'Cs nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin.” 
 
 « However wonderful, it seems clearly set forth in Scripture 
 (and I am now thinking of nothing else) that this great Per- 
 sonage became a real man in soul and body. This settled, I 
 should consider it as implied, that he became an human being 
 when others became so, that is, before birth. His conception, 
 indeed, on the part of the Holy Ghost, was supernatural; but 
 there is no reason to doubt, that, on the part of his mother, 
 it was natural; as was all that followed. Some have been 
 shocked at this idea, and have proposed their suppositions in 
 order to avoid it ; but, if Christ was real man after his birth, 
 why not before ? and, if he received not from his mother what 
 is usual before parturition, how could he be said repeatedly 
 to be the seed of a woman, and a Jew according to iheffesh?'* 
 
 “ Two perfect natures’'"' were joined together in one Per- 
 son.’'"' — ‘ This is diffcult ; and, when I try to conceive the 
 knowledge of God co-existing in Christ with the ignorance of 
 man, the power of God with the weakness of man, I find my 
 rational faculties feeble and impotent. Yet I acquiesce in this 
 mode of stating the matter, in preference to any other, because 358 
 it is simply and fairly taken from Scripture — from the whole 
 of Scripture ; and because I think it most dangerous and pre- 
 sumptuous to modify, or tamper with Scripture, where we 
 understand the least, and are likely to understand the least. 
 Nevertheless, I feel neither surprise nor indignation at those 
 Christians (I mean noiv such as have previously allowed both 
 the Divinity and humanity of Christ) who have proposed 
 methods of avoiding difficulties so striking. The supposition 
 that the human nature of Christ must be swallowed up in the 
 Divine, may solve some difficulties. Imagining two Christs, 
 two Agents, or Persons, the one Divine, the other human — 
 the former all-wise, the latter ignorant — the former powerful, 
 the latter weak — may solve other difficulties. And the same 
 may be said of other suppositions (such as the confusion of the 
 two natures, or the conversion of one into the other) ; but yet 
 all these suppositions have one radical fault, that they neglect 
 ’ Art. i. sect. 10, beginning. 
 
IV. ii. 40.] 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 587 
 
 II. some parts of Scripture, in attending to others. I cannot but 
 prefer abiding by the whole of Scripture; leaving the difficulties 
 of doctrines evidently above our comprehension to that time 
 when we ‘‘ shall know even as we are known^.” 
 
 Never to he divided.'"'' — ‘ If Christ, after his ascension, is 
 called man., even as Mediator and Judge ; and if honour shall 
 be ascribed to the Lamb for ever and ever ; I am clearly against 
 any man‘’s presuming to assign any time when the Divine and 
 human natures in Christ shall be finally separated. Which 
 seems to coincide with the true intent and meaning of the ex- 
 pression, ‘‘never to be divided.’” 
 
 ‘ There is then but “owe Christ'"'" — truly Divine, truly hu- 
 man. That he “ truly suffered,'"'" died, and was buried, can be 
 359 denied only by mere arbitrary supposition, or by the extrava- 
 gance of mystical interpretation ; except indeed by those whose 
 principle it is to hold all matter in abomination, with whom I 
 have nothing to do. Concerning the reality therefore of Christ’s 
 sufferings, death, and burial, I have no doubts or difficulties 
 (except such as have been already considered, arising from the 
 union of the two natures in him). I reject all suppositions 
 which are perfectly arbitrary, when they are opposed to ana-- 
 logy and experience; I allow no mystical exposition, except 
 where it is warranted by the soundest reason ; and I account 
 every work of God good in its kind. The rest I will consider 
 hereafter^.'" 
 
 40. After determining in what manner one of ourselves 
 may be supposed to give his assent to the Article under con- 
 sideration, we come to consider how it seems possible that any 
 mutual concessions should take place, between our Church and 
 those who dissent from it, tending to an union. 
 
 The general end and design of such concessions (it must 
 always be remembered) is not to produce perfect unity of pri- 
 vate opinion^, but only unity of doctrine and worship. 
 
 In what remains to be said on this second Article, there is 
 such a resemblance and connection between it and the first, that 
 we must be brief, in order to avoid repetition. There is the 
 same reason here, as in the first Article, why we should profess 
 our doctrine to be unintelligible, why we should constantly 
 make public claim to the title of Unitarians, and why we 
 should consider the nature of invocation of the Son of God ; 
 and what might be expected from dissenters, in return for con- 
 
 2 1 Cor. xiii. 12. ^ opening of this Article. ^ Book III. ch. iv. 
 
588 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 41. 
 
 cessions and healing expedients on our part, is much the same II. 
 as under the preceding Article. Nay, we may extend the 360 
 observation even to improvements. These must arise here, as 
 well as before, from attending to the true nature and use of 
 philosophy ; from watching nicely the circumMances in which 
 expressions are introduced; from being cautious of forming 
 unintelligible, that is, verbal propositions, into syllogisms^ or 
 arguments ; from investigating the different scriptural senses of 
 the word God ; from attaining a clearer notion of the uses of 
 our doctrine. Moreover, we might make a critical inquiry 
 into 1 Tim. iii. l6, an Appendix to this Article, as we made 
 an inquiry concerning 1 John v. 7, an Appendix to the last. 
 
 The difficulty^ in short, is, how to keep up our form, and 
 suggest any thing new. 
 
 41. What was said, under the preceding Article^, of the 
 general effect of invidious names and appellations, is applicable 
 here ; but the particular word there specified, viz. Trinity, 
 does not belong to us at present. As it seems to be of great 
 consequence that we speak the^ same thing; and as men are 
 generally more affected by sounds than ideas; we might propose 
 it as a question, whether the word God, in such expressions as 
 ‘^God the Son,” and “ God the Holy Ghost,” could be omitted 
 in our Offices, without a material fault. Though Christ seems 
 to us to be called God in several places, yet there is some dis- 
 pute on that head ; and, for the sake of Unity, we would pay 
 all possible respect to the opinions of our adversaries. I should 
 imagine, that such an omission would tend, almost as much as 
 any thing, to mollify and conciliate. There is not perhaps any 
 express command to invoke Christ under the title of God. The 
 early Christians'^ used to invoke Christ; and Pliny says, 36l 
 tanquam Deum ; yet Pliny'' s idea of a God was not confined 
 to the one supreme invisible Being. St. Stephen addresses 
 Christ, but does not use the word God, though it is found in 
 our translation, in italics ; and his address is the ejaculation of 
 a man dying in the Christian cause. If Christ was to be wor- 
 shipped on earth, he must be a proper object of worship when 
 ascended into heaven ; but it may be considered, whether he 
 might not be entitled Mediator, Intercessor, Judge, Head of 
 tlie Church, instead of God. The equality of Christ to the 
 Father was most perfect in his pre-existent state : in his state 
 
 ' Art. i. sect. 11. ^ 1 Cor. i. 10. 
 
 ^ 1 Cor. i. 2. Book 1. chap, xviii. sect. 13. 
 
IV. ii. 42.] 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 589 
 
 II. after his ascension, in which he now exists, he deigns to be 
 called man^ in some sense : he has not entirely put off his 
 human nature. 
 
 42. It might tend to promote unity, as far as it is 
 necessary for the purposes of religious society^ if we brought 
 some of our forms nearer to expressions of Scripture : not 
 only those which we are to use in prayer^ but those which 
 contain confessions of faith. We have already^ given a scrip- 
 tural address to Christ. But to be frank here, I suppose that 
 some might hope for more from this measure than it would in 
 fact produce. All Christians will assent to Scripture, but 
 then we do not use the Scriptures in the original languages, 
 and different parties translate differently ; and, even according 
 to our own translation. Dr. Balguy’s observation has great® 
 weight ; — “ Subscription to the Scriptures is absolutely no- 
 thing. It is consistent with every imaginable absurdity and 
 mischief,” &c. We may add, that the manner of placing and 
 introducing passages of Scripture is, in a way, interpreting 
 362 them : as would appear from comparing two scriptural cate- 
 chisms together in disputed^ points. Nevertheless, I should 
 imagine, that some good might be attained, in some instances, 
 by the measure here proposed. It was, I doubt not, an ease 
 of mind to Eusebius to use TrpcoTOTOKou^ iraarj^ kt'io'€ws<, as he 
 thereby suited his own opinions, and avoided any invidious 
 opposition to them. And ‘‘ the Son of God'''' has been used 
 by different persons, united in worship, in different^ senses. 
 The more candid people are, the more use will they make of 
 this expedient. 
 
 Episcopius^ as a leader of the Arminian sect, has com- 
 posed (or was greatly instrumental in composing) a confession 
 of faith, in terms chiefly scriptural. The intent of this was to 
 comprehend men of different religious opinions in one religious 
 society ; and the effect has been in some measure answerable to 
 the design. For the leading writers of the Arminians do 
 differ in many points, though they unite in public doctrine. 
 However, this agreement has its limits. Papists are excluded 
 
 ^ Acts xvii. 31. 1 Tim. ii. 5. 
 
 * Art. i. sect. 14. ® 8vo, p. 277. 
 
 Compare an orthodox scriptural Cate- 
 chism with Biddle's. In Cambr. Library, 
 the former is E— 5— 72; the latter C— 14 
 — 60. Dr. Priestley has compiled a 
 Scriptural Catechism. 
 
 ® Eusebius’s Creed is in Socrates. L. i. 
 c. viii; and a Translation into English, 
 in Dr. Rutherforth’s last Charge, p. 82. 
 And in the histories of the first Nicene 
 Council. 
 
 9 Book III. chap. iv. sect. 5. 
 
590 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 43, 44. 
 
 from Arminian societies as persecutors, and those Protestants II. 
 who favour predestination^. 
 
 In my Sermon on the Athanasian Creed, I have recom- 
 mended inserting Mark xvi. l6, repeatedly, instead of the 
 damnatory clauses. 
 
 43. With regard to what might be done by dissenters 363 
 towards a coalition, little need be added to ^ what was said 
 under the preceding^ Article. It appears from thence that 
 they may more easily^ yield than we. Such is the nature of 
 what we hold, that they might suffer us to proceed in our own 
 way, though with contemptuous pity. They might suffer us 
 
 as fools gladly, seeing they themselves are wise. But dis- 
 senters from the Church of England are not all upon the same 
 footing. The ancient Arians^ (and some, I suppose, of their 
 way of thinking continue), spake high things of Christ ; the 
 original Socinians^ did the same: but, with regard to dis- 
 senters in general, on the subject of the second Article, we 
 may say, that our claim to their assistance in reconciling and 
 uniting, is built on the nearness of our doctrines to theirs; 
 particularly in all points nearly affecting and virtue; on 
 
 our not having, in many of the disputed points, what can pro- 
 perly be called an opinion ; and on their relating not to man, 
 and what he has to do, but to the Divine nature, and what is 
 to be done on the part of God. But I do not perceive, that 
 dissenters are contriving healing measures : they seem all mere 
 advocates. 
 
 The doctrine of Atonement we take no notice of at present. 
 
 44. We are, in the last place, to see what openings there 364 
 seem to be for improvements relative to the subject of our 
 Article. Here again, as I have lately observed, we have anti- 
 cipated, under the first Article, what might have been offered 
 under the second. 
 
 1 See Episcopius, torn. ii. part 2, p. 69. 
 An account of the Confession, Part ii. 
 p. 169. Also Mosheim, 8vo, vol. v. p. 
 
 461. cent. 17 ii. 2. iii. 12. The Pref. of 
 
 Curcelleeus, sect. 6, was mentioned be- 
 fore, Art. i. sect. 10, near the end; and 
 sect. 21 of this Art. 
 
 Arminius died in 1609 ; Episcopius in 
 1643. 
 
 ® Sect. 15. 
 
 ^ 1794. I am mortified to find that Dr. 
 Priestley holds the contrary. Letters, 
 
 pp. 20, 22; and expresses wishes of being 
 accommodated. 
 
 ^ Lard. vol. iv. p. 127- Dr. Priestley’s 
 Letters, p. 100; and other Letters to 
 Dr. Price. Waterland’s Case of Arian 
 Subscription, p. 33. 
 
 ® See Cat. Racov. pp. 52, 53, and 115, 
 with preceding. For modern Socinians, 
 see sect. 12, or Dr. Priestley’s Letters, 
 
 p. 101. 
 
 ® Book III. chap. iv. sect. 4 and 5, 
 quoted Art. i. sect. 15. 
 
IV. ii. 45.] 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 591 
 
 II. 45. But yet it seems as if some improvement might pos- 
 sibly arise from examining whether the expressions of Scrip- 
 ture, about which we contend, are to be studied in a scientific 
 manner ? whether they are not some of them rather expressions 
 of strong afil'ection and sublime devotion ? Consider the case. 
 In the first ages of Christianity, Christians seem to have felt a 
 great deal of pious^ gratitude, and devout admiration, and to 
 have uttered what they felt in an artless manner. Passionate 
 expressions are always understood as indefinite ; and the lan- 
 guage of Scripture, being natural language, must be inter- 
 preted as such. Expressions that are merely sublime must be 
 indefinite, I mean such as, in human language, relate to the 
 nature and counsels® of God ; because they cannot convey dis- 
 tinct ideas ; and they are the more indefinite, because they are 
 affecting, or excite passion. Now, if the expressions of the 
 earliest Christian writers were at first indefinite, they certainly 
 ought always to continue so ; to give any such a definite sense, 
 is to misinterpret them. We have mentioned the word ttX?;- 
 pcopa, as an® instance; others^® might be added; only there is 
 365 danger lest it should be thought, of any one instance, that its 
 being indefinite is too positively asserted. Instances here are 
 only to give a general idea. 
 
 Making expressions to be, after this manner, taken in 
 an indefinite sense (supposing that their right sense), would 
 not only be an improvement- in interpreting, but it would 
 probably tend greatly to lessen dissension, and to promote 
 devotion. People would not quarrel about the sense of a 
 passage, which would only be understood as sentimental and 
 affecting, any more than about an exclamation or an inter- 
 jection. And, if senses of expressions were indefinite, they 
 would be pliable ; all might adopt them, in one way or other, 
 without finding fault with their brethren : there would be no 
 dread of consequences, and probably no jealousy or bitterness. 
 Then, devotion arises naturally on the absence of dispute^^; 
 and we should have a great number of fine, sublime, and 
 
 Art. i. sect. 4. 
 
 ® John iii. 12, might he applied here ; 
 substituting for belief a necessary pre- 
 vious step, understanding : — If I have 
 told you earthly things, and ye” under- 
 stand not, how shall ye understand, “ if 
 I tell you of heavenly things ?” 
 
 ® Sect. 17 of Appendix to Book 1. 
 
 Heb. i. 3, brightness of his glory. 
 Eph. i. 23, the fulness of him that filleth 
 all in all. 1 Cor. viii. 6. Heb. ii. 10, the 
 prepositions: see before sect. 16. They 
 shall be as the angels. John xxi. 25, 
 the world would not contain the books. 
 
 Book III. chap. iii. sect. 4. 
 
592 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. ii. 46. 
 
 pathetic expressions, which we have not now, to help our II. 
 devotion 
 
 46. And, when we are looking forward to imaginary 
 improvements, it is natural to consider, not only what will 
 probably happen, but what may possibly. Now there seems 
 nothing out of the reach of possibility in supposing, that per- 
 sons, differing in the points which we have now been dis- 
 cussing, and even in other points, may join in divine worship., 
 and with a sufficient agreement in opinion. A perfect agree- 
 ment seems beyond all possible expectation; but a perfect ease, 
 composure, and quiet of mind, and freedom from actual dis- 
 sension, does not seem so. Such reflections as we have been 
 making must shew the mode of beginning ; and the instances 
 formerly produced must afford hopes of success. Some for- S66 
 bearance is certainly required, but not more than might be 
 attained. The truth is, most men are under the dominion of 
 some hypotheses ; in most things perhaps ; but particularly in 
 the mysterious parts of religion, where education" has given a 
 particular view of the Scriptures, and controversy has fixed us 
 in our favoured notions. After this, we are never so easy as 
 in our own habitual train of ideas and conceptions. If this 
 was once universally allowed, and thoroughly acquiesced in, it 
 would be so far from dividing us, that it would be the means 
 of our living quietly together, and even uniting in religious 
 worship, without taking offence at each other‘’s peculiarities. 
 
 We should let the Quaker and the Dutchman keep their hats 
 on, and they would let us take ours off. And the same 
 mutual indulgence would take. place in expressions of devotion, 
 and declarations of faith, though made in the presence of all 
 parties. 
 
 If it would not seem extravagant, I would propose, as a 
 question for discussion, how much greater forbearance it would 
 require for men, who differed in religious notions, to worship 
 together, so as to attain the proper ends of religious society ; 
 than for men, who differed in their manner of eating and 
 drinking, to partake of the same meal, so as to attain the 
 proper ends of convivial society ? Eating and drinking dif- 
 
 ^ It might be worth while to read here 
 a passage which Dr. Burney quotes 
 from Augustin. See his account of the 
 Commemoration of Handel, p. 90, and 
 Hist. Music, vol. it. p. 172. 
 
 ^ See Dr. Priestley’s Letters, p. 168. 
 
 In this passage I have the satisfaction to 
 agree with this author ; not in many — I 
 mean, of his controversial writings; in 
 things unwritten I agree with him, I 
 suppose, generally. For the instances 
 just now mentioned, see Art. i. sect. 15. 
 
IV. ii. 46.] 
 
 THE SON OF GOD. 
 
 503 
 
 II. ferent things, you will say, arises only from a difference of 
 tq^ste — it is a matter of liking and disliking ; it would be very 
 367 idle if people were to eat at separate tables, because they did 
 not all prefer the same dish. But have liking and disliking, 
 have taste and distaste, nothing to do with religion.? In the 
 extended sense, a great deal. One man loves sacred music 
 above all things ; another abominates an organ : one is edified 
 and moved with a fine picture, of a nativity, or a taking down 
 from the Cross ; another would banish all pictures from every 
 place of worship. And hymns, and sermons, or pulpit-e/o- 
 quence, and even the eloquence of prayers, are much connected 
 with taste ; and, if some of the lofty sayings, on which specu- 
 lative doctrines have been built, are really expressions of senti- 
 ment and affection, the reception and application of them may 
 be guided by taste, in a considerable degree. Those who 
 are of noble and generous dispositions, and have been liberally 
 educated, give into doctrines which are sublime and pathetic ; 
 whilst the more cold, precise, barren minds rather give into 
 those doctrines which lower the dignity of Christ, and reduce 
 all religious notions to vulgar and ordinary conceptions. 
 Gloominess of temper has probably often made a man embrace 
 the doctrine of absolute Reprobation — of condemnation by a 
 direct decree of God to eternal misery. But moreover, dis- 
 sensions concerning meats and drinks, though perhaps they 
 really arise from taste, may be supported by much philoso- 
 phical reasoning. What may not be urged concerning acids, 
 and alkalis, and inflammatory liquors.? what concerning con- 
 coction and digestion .? the effects, natural and moral, of 
 animal and vegetable sustenance .? The rules of different con- 
 vents, orders of monks, &c. &c., are founded on these prin- 
 ciples. If people were as much inclined to bigotry and 
 persecution about these things, as some have been about 
 spiritual food, a convivial meeting would be a thing impracti- 
 .368 cable. And now, suppose men divided into small parties, re- 
 fusing to eat, except with those who used the same quality 
 and quantity of nourishment with themselves, what would 
 you say to them .? If your exhortations to unity of repast be 
 in general terms, observe whether many of them are not ap- 
 plicable to unity of worship. 
 
 I conclude these remarks with observing, that what has 
 been said in order to shew that men might possibly unite in 
 worship, though they differed greatly in opinion, does not affect 
 VoL. I. 38 
 
594 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. iii. 1. 
 
 the force of any thing which has been urged in defence of the II. 
 doctrines of the Church of England, either as to their truth or 
 importance. It supposes each person to rest in his peculiar 
 notions, upon what seem to him good grounds ; but only to 
 shew great candour and forbearance towards the opinions of 
 others^ notwithstanding all his reasoning in favour of his own. 
 
 If agreement in mind and judgment^ as well as in teaching 
 and worship, is finally to be accomplished in any way, it must 
 be in this. 
 
 ARTICLE III. 3fi9 
 
 OF THE GOING UOWN OF CHRIST INTO HELL. 
 
 As Christ died for us, and was buried, so also is it to be 
 believed, that he went down into Hell. 
 
 1. In treating on this Article, we shall follow our usual 
 plan; attempting history, explanation, and proof; and then 
 some application to the present state of things. 
 
 History is the first thing. The case seems to be the same 
 with the doctrine of Christ’s descent into hell, and many others; 
 they were heliered in an indefinite way, before they were pub- 
 licly and formally professed. The passage of Augustin seems 
 to be well known : ‘‘ Quis ergo nisi infidelis negaverit fuisse 
 apud inferos Christum 
 
 This continued for some centuries ; perhaps, if we speak 
 with respect to the Church at large, we may say till the begin- 
 ning of the fifth century ; that is, as far as we are informed by 
 the ancients. At length, the doctrine got to be inserted in 
 creeds. It is said^ to have been inserted as an antidote to ‘ 
 the Apollinarian heresy^, as it is inconsistent with the notion 
 that Christ had no human soul, and that the functions of the 
 soul were performed by the Aoyo^. Yet, though the Apolli- 
 narians had some affinity to the Arians, the doctrine of Christ’s 
 descent into hell does not seem to have entered into the Arian 370 
 controversy. It was in some Arian creeds before it was (seem- 
 ingly) in any that were orthodox ^ ; yet it was not to be called 
 
 * Lord King, chap. iv. ^ ii. sect. C. 
 
 3 Bingham, 10. 3, end. Pearson, Creed, p. 472, 1st edit. 
 
IV. iii. 1.] 
 
 THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 
 
 595 
 
 11. an Arian doctrine, because several Arian creeds omitted it. 
 The Arian presbyters, who write to Alexander bishop of Alex- 
 andria % have it not; neither is it in the creed delivered by Arius 
 and Euzoius to the Emperor® Constantine. 
 
 It appears that the descent of Christ into hell has been 
 confounded with his burial. So that it has happened some- 
 times, that, where one of these was inserted in a creed, the 
 other was omitted. Our Nicene Creed has the burial without 
 the descent; and the Athanasian Creed has the descent without 
 the burial. 
 
 As this may seem unaccountable, we will just mention here, 
 that the words 3-nd have been used in various senses. 
 
 has been sometimes rendered the body, as the context in 
 some passages ® of the LXX. fully allows. That it should be 
 rendered soul., will seem obvious. is several times in 
 
 Scripture translated gram^ on account of the meaning of the 
 sentence in which it occurs ; and it is frequently translated hell. 
 *H ek a^ov, then, may be construed according to these 
 
 senses, either the body in the grave, or, the soul in hell ; and 
 therefore those who thought it meant the one might think it 
 could not mean the other ; and consequently, if they made pro- 
 fession of the burial of Christ’s body, might pass over the descent 
 of his soul into hell. Perhaps more satisfaction may be had 
 with regard to as understood to mean the body, when 
 
 we come to the explanation. 
 
 371 Bishop Pearson, in his exposition of the Creed says, very 
 truly, that “ The first place we find it” (the Article of the de- 
 scent into hell) ‘‘used in was the church of Aquileia he means, 
 about the year 400. Though this is true, yet perhaps caution 
 may be required, lest it should induce us to think that our first 
 observation is ill-grounded ; or, that the doctrine was then in- 
 vented (Voltaire), or not expressly acknowledged before. Eu- 
 sebius^ gives a very short explication of the Christian faith, 
 which he reckons very ancient ; and says, he translated it from 
 the Syriac, as what had been given by St. Thaddaeus to the 
 people of Edessa. In this, we find Karej^rj ek t6i/ alrjv. And 
 Lord King^ mentions the Article or doctrine as in a creed of 
 
 ^ Epiphanius, Art. 2. sect. 6. 
 
 ® Socrat. Hist, i, 19. 
 
 ® Lev. xxi. 1, 2. Numb. v. 2 ; vi. 6. 
 These passages had better be considered 
 in the explanation. 
 
 7 Opening of 5th Article. 
 
 ® Euseb. i. 13, cited by Bingham, 10. 
 4. end. Eusebius is placed in 315. 
 
 ^ On the Creed, p. 261. 
 
 38 2 
 
596 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. iii. 2. 
 
 Epiphanius^ ; and in an Arian creed delivered to the Council II. 
 of Ariminuin, held under Constantins in 359. Rvffinus does 
 indeed mention that it was not in the Roman, nor in the Orien- 
 tal creeds in his time ; on which we may just remark, that the 
 Roman Church was not then so extensive as it was afterwards; 
 and that there might possibly be Oriental creeds unknown to 
 Ruffinus, a presbyter of Aquileia; and lastly, that the doctrine 
 might be taught at many places, and even at Aquileia, before 
 the time of Ruffinus. 
 
 Should this caution with regard to Bishop Pearson be 
 thought unnecessary, yet it will be thought right to say some- 
 thing of Bishop Burnet. He has, in his contents, “ Ruffin 
 
 published this in the Creed;” which must not give us an 
 idea that it was not publicly rehearsed before; but only, that 372 
 the first hook we find it in is Ruffin’s exposition ; which indeed 
 is rightly expressed by Bishop Burnet afterwards”, where he 
 owns that Ruffin found the doctrine in the creed of his own 
 church. The same prelate speaks ^ as if Ruffinus confounded 
 the descent with the burial in his own opinion; whereas he held 
 them to be distinct events ; only he thought, that when any 
 church, which had the descent, omitted the burial, it was be- 
 cause that church confounded ^ the two together. Bishop Bur- 
 net also says, that though the descent was in the Aquileian 
 creed, ‘‘ there was no^ other article in that symbol that related 
 to Christ’s burial which does not seem accurate, as the word 
 SEPULTUS is in capital letters, as part of the creed expounded®. 
 
 2. The doctrine under consideration was at first founded 
 on some teocts, which have since been thought not intended to 
 support it. Ephes. iv. 9. Col. ii. 15. 1 Pet. iii. 19- The 
 
 only pillar on which it now rests is Acts ii. 24 — 31. But, when 
 we come to our proof, I hope that we shall find that pillar suf- 
 ficiently strong. It is probable that controversy and discussion 
 have reduced it into its present shape. And I think there is 
 an appearance of ingenuousness and fairness in dismissing texts, 
 as it were, and retaining only one ; at the same time that the 
 doctrine is thought so essential a part of the history of our 
 Lord, that it is not to be omitted even in our shortest creed. 
 
 The more settled the general doctrine of Christ’s descent 
 
 * Haer. lib. 3. Epiphanius is placed 
 in 308. Ruffinus in 397- 
 2 Art. iii. opening. ^ Art. iii. end. 
 ^ See Bp. Pearson, p. 472, first edit, or 
 
 332, sixth edit. 
 
 ® Burnet on Art. iii. first paragraph. 
 
 ° See also Bingham ; who gives “ se- 
 pultus, et descendit ad inferna.” 
 
THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 
 
 597 
 
 IV. iii. 2.] 
 
 II. into hell was in the mind of any one, the more he suffered his 
 
 373 imagination to wander in search of particulars. The idea of 
 Marcion ^ was, that Christ preached in hell to the good spirits 
 without success, as they suspected him ; but that the damned 
 spirits, confined by the Creator^ Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, 
 heard him, and were rescued. Other divines asked questions., 
 and answered them according to their own fancies. Did Christ 
 really descend ? to what place ? in what manner ? to what be- 
 ings? with what views? These questions might admit a variety 
 of answers. Philosophers had liberty to get wrong by taking 
 popular words in a philosophical sense. Judai%ers might fol- 
 low the Jewish traditions about Paradise and another world. 
 And, to come nearer ourselves, we find, that men of gloomy and 
 austere tempers, who conceived ill enough of the Deity to hold 
 the doctrine of absolute reprobation^ determined that Christ 
 went to the place of the damned, and suffered their pains; and 
 that it was highly proper he should do so, in order to complete 
 the redemption of mankind. Such were Calvin and Be%a., and 
 the other divines of Geneva. Those of milder dispositions 
 (I suppose) held that Christ went only to Paradise. And pos- 
 sibly it might be a noble turn of thinking which set others on 
 maintaining, that Christ descended to hell in order to triumph 
 over the hosts of Satan and the powers of darkness. 
 
 But we should not entirely pass over the Limbus Patrum; 
 yet it is scarce worth while studying it, so as to get a precise 
 idea, though it is irksome to lay down any thing incorrectly. 
 Before the coming of Christ there were the patriarchs^ and 
 many well-meaning men ; they surely could not be all damned; 
 
 374 though we must not think they were sent to absolute Paradise: 
 nor could they reside amongst vulgar ^ ordinary spirits ; they 
 must be, then, in a Limbus., an outer border., in the suburbs 
 (TTpoacrreLov) — the purlieus of Paradise. And Christ must have 
 descended to hell, in order to transport them from thence to a 
 better place. It would be hard, too, that harmless infants^ 
 when they die, should go into a place of torment ; and there- 
 fore this Limbus may supply a suitable accommodation for 
 them — though it be properly the Limbus Patrum. So con- 
 siderate and provident were some of the ancients in their pious 
 reveries ! 
 
 The Article of 1552 differs from our present one, in making 
 the doctrine more particular, and to be built upon a particular 
 
 Lardner’s Haer. Marcion, sect. 18. 
 
59S 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. iii. S. 
 
 text; so that no one could subscribe to it who did not believe II. 
 that the spirit of Christ, between the time of his death and re- 
 surrection, preached to the spirits in prison, and that 1 Pet. iii. 
 
 19 referred to Christ’s descent into hell. The leaders of the 
 Church in the time of Queen Elizabeth seem to have been very 
 wise in the alteration they made ; and in leaving the doctrine 
 grounded on the Scripture at large, and on the nature of the 
 thing ; more especially as the text, of which every subscriber 
 to the Articles was supposed to form a judgment, is, by someS 
 accounted one of the most difficult passages of Scripture. It 
 is possible that the Puritans may have contributed to the alter- 
 ation ; as they were Calvinists, and therefore probably adopted 
 the notion of Calvin just now mentioned, that Christ went down 
 to hell, not to preach, but to redeem. 
 
 If we look into Strype'^s^ Life of Archbishop Whit gift, we 
 shall see that the notions of Calvin and the Geneva divines 
 continued to be popular, and occasioned some disturbance : 
 occasioned a breach in the unity of doctrine^. Though no 375 
 opinions appear there but such as have been already mentioned, 
 it may be interesting and useful to read a page"^ or two, in 
 which the disputes on this head are described. It may also 
 afford a reason why Bishop Pearson and Lord King treat so 
 largely on this subject. 
 
 The Americans leave out this article in the Apostles’ Creed 
 of their new Liturgy. 
 
 3. I have now finished my history, and therefore will pro- 
 ceed to explanation. But, though our Article is expressed in 
 general terms, and may therefore admit of several meanings, 
 yet I will confine myself to that which seems to me the right 
 one ; as it is the one now generally received. It is here then 
 declared, as what every Christian should believe and profess, 
 that the humanity of Christ was uniformly maintained, from 
 the time of his death to the time of his resurrection. As his 
 body was in the grave during that time, so every thing happen- 
 ed to his spiritual part which is naturally incident to man. 
 
 Our Church avoids all particulars as to the meaning of hell, 
 its inhabitants, &c.; nay, does not so much as mention the 
 soul of Christ, only says, “ He went down,” &c.; yet, as 
 it seems decisive, that the Descent is something distinct from 
 
 ' See Poole’s Synopsis. 
 
 ^ Book IV. chap. xxi. 
 
 ^ Book III. chap. iv. sect. 3, end. 
 
 A.D. 1597. 
 
 '* Particularly the first halves of pp. 
 502, and 504. 
 
IV. iii. 3.] 
 
 THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 
 
 599 
 
 11. the burial, we may well suppose that by is meant his5o^^/. 
 
 ‘‘As Christ” “was buried^ so — “he went down into hell.” 
 
 Were not the expression limited by the context, it might 
 signify, either that his body went down into the grave, or that 
 his soul went into the usual habitation of departed souls, or 
 both : and avrov KaTej^rj ei? tou aSr]p, admits of all 
 
 .376’ these senses ; which is the thing that is now to be shewn^ It 
 does not seem to me to be said quite accurately, that 
 means the body, but it means the animal, the man^, the same 
 as ipse, or as He in our Article ; and therefore it may denote 
 either part of the man, according to the circumstances in 
 which it is introduced. The case is the same of the word or 
 noun man, and its pronouns. ‘ I saw a dead man,"* does not 
 mean a dead soul ; ‘ I have been conversing with a wise man^ 
 does not denote a wise body. So \l/vx^ TereXevrrjKvia, as it 
 means a dead man, may mean a dead body, but that is not 
 quite the same as that properly means a body. We find 
 
 ek xfruxjji^ ^waap, Gen. ii. 7, and 1 Cor. xv. 45. If it be said, 
 xl^oxv primarily signifies soul, I do not deny it ; it may signify 
 first the animal soul, then be put for the man. Soul, in 
 English, means the man, in familiar language — ‘ when I went 
 into church not a soul was there.’ See Lev. xxiii. 30. In- 
 deed, body sometimes stands for the whole man, as when we 
 speak of somebody and nobody : but this is not carried on, so 
 that these familiar words denote either part of the man : that 
 is, body is not used to signify soul, nor soul to signify body. 
 In Syriac is used as a reciprocal pronoun, i.e. for my- 
 
 self, itself, &c®. 
 
 377 We^ have now only to apply to the general remark, 
 
 5 Mentioned, sect. 1. 
 
 ® This remark may seem to be contra- 
 dicted by Lev. xix. 28, where e-n-l \f/vxv 
 signifies a dead body: (compare Dent, 
 xiv. 1,) but my idea is this; the Jews 
 had a number of things to observe with 
 regard to the dead, or to dead men, and 
 therefore the expression for a dead man 
 would occur frequently ; and expressions, 
 which occur frequently always get short- 
 ened. In a more formal way, the expres- 
 sion for one dead, or a dead man, was 
 're'reXevTtjKvia ; but the long par- 
 ticiple seems sometimes to have been 
 omitted for convenience. 
 
 ’ Masclef’s Grammar, vol. ii. p. 145. 
 
 ^ Hence, by the word “//e,” in our 
 
 Article, may be understood the soul of 
 Christ; though the word “ws,” 1 Cor. vi. 
 14, in the expression God ‘‘ will raise up 
 us,” must denote the body, (the soul is 
 re-united not raised) ; and Virgil has the 
 phrase, animam sepulchro condere, (see 
 Ormerod’s Remarks on Priestley, p. 13,) 
 yet mens cujusque is est quisque. 
 
 ^ The fact is, ^vxn sometimes is un- 
 derstood to signify body^Lev. xxi. 1, 11. 
 Numb. V. 2 ; vi. 6) — sometimes soul. In 
 like manner a^rjs sometimes signifies, or 
 is tahen to signify, the grave (as will 
 appear by and by), sometimes the recep- 
 tacle of departed spirits. Accounting for 
 this fact is another business : every one 
 must use his own solution. My con- 
 
600 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. iii. 4.. 
 
 that, when a ivord stands for any thing which is compounded, II. 
 it may, in particular circumstances, stand for either component 
 part. The true sense of seems to be the habitation of 
 man after death. The habitation of a body after death is the 
 grave ; the habitation of a soul after death has unfortunately 
 no name^ in our language; and that must cause the more 
 words to be used in explanation ; but I think, that what I laid 
 down is now intelligible — that y either 
 
 mean, the body in the grave, or the soul in the place of de- 378 
 parted souls, or both ; that is, the 7nan in the state of men 
 after death “. 
 
 4. Nothing farther seems to be wanting in the way of 
 explanation; therefore I will go on to the proof We have 
 here, according to this explanation, only one proposition to 
 prove : ‘ The Soul of Christ went into the ordinary receptacle 
 of departed human souls.’ Now, though the Scripture were 
 silent on this head, this might be presumed, in the same manner 
 as that Christ was of the substance of his mother ; except in- 
 deed it appeared that Christ was to put off human nature 
 when he gave up the ghost. But as the contrary appears^, as 
 to his state after his resurrection, either our proposition must 
 be true, or Christ must have ceased to be man on his death, 
 and have again become man upon his resurrection : which is a 
 supposition not to be admitted without particular proof; and 
 therefore our proposition is true. 
 
 But now let us examine Acts ii. 24 — 31, and see whether it 
 does not prove what we want to demonstrate. Ver. 25 is not 
 
 jecture is this : in every language, when 
 a thing consists of two parts, especially 
 if it be not well understood, that word 
 which expresses the whole may come to 
 express either part, as that part happens 
 to be principally noticed. Thus, Man 
 may mean either body or soul, as in a 
 dead man, ‘ a wise man,’ or ^man is im- 
 mortal.' Also, the word which expresses 
 either may stand for the whole; and, 
 as signifying the whole, may, as before, 
 denote either part — as in, ‘not a soul,' 
 
 *• somebody,' ^nobody.' Thus ^{/oxv de- 
 notes first the soul, then the man, (Gen. 
 xLvi. passim,) then the man in that state 
 in which his soul is not noticed ; and so 
 may be said to signify body. The same 
 reasoning applies to only that is, I 
 
 think, primarily the place of the dead | 
 
 man, after he disappears on earth. 
 
 ^ There is a difference, which seems 
 neglected, between not having a word, in 
 a modern language, answering to abr]<i, 
 and not having a word expressing the re- 
 ceptacle of departed souls. A word an- 
 swering exactly and properly to abr\'s 
 would express the habitation of man 
 after death, and so include the receptacle 
 of bodies as well as of souls. Lord King 
 reckons to mean the receptacle of 
 departed souls — scarce correctly, in my 
 opinion. 
 
 2 With regard to body or soul being 
 self, Epictetus might be read, concerning 
 Socrates, i. 29. 3, with Mrs. Carter’s 
 Note. See Carter’s Epictetus, p. 86. 
 
 ^ Art. ii. sect. 26. 
 
IV. iii! 5, 6.] 
 
 THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 
 
 601 
 
 II. only concerning''’' Christ, but is spoken in his Person. Ver. 
 27 is part concerning what we call the soul^ and part about the 
 body; which appears plainly enough from the verse itself, 
 though the expression for the hody^ ‘‘ thine holy one,” is the 
 title of the whole man ; but indisputably, in my opinion, from 
 the resuming of the subject in ver. 31, where the word jlesh is 
 used. The words “ soul in ei? aSou, cannot here 
 
 (for the same reason as in our Article) have any meaning as to 
 
 379 the body of Christ, or the grave. This appears, in some mea- 
 sure, from being translated soul and anima in the l6th 
 
 Psalm. Why is it not translated body^ or the dead, as in 
 other places, but that the sense requires ? St. Paul, in 
 Acts xiii. 34 — 37, speaking only of the resurrection, omits 
 that part of the prophecy which relates to the soul, and men- 
 tions only what is liable to corruption. 
 
 5. Voltaire says^, “ en effet, ni les Evangiles, ni les Actes 
 des Apotres ne disent que Jesus descendit dans Fenfer.” I think 
 we have shewn that the Acts of the Apostles do say that Christ 
 descended into hell, or what is equivalent to saying so. It is 
 not indeed in the way of direct narration, but by an autho- 
 ritative interpretation or application of a prophecy. And it 
 must be owned, that the Evangelists do not relate this descent; 
 not even St. Luke, the author of the Acts of the Apostles. It 
 is not likely it should be related in the Epistles. But yet I ap- 
 prehend we have sufficient foundation to build our doctrine 
 upon. The descent into hell is an event of which the Evange- 
 lists could not possibly be witnesses ; and therefore, that they 
 do not relate it, is rather a proof of their general veracity, than 
 of the falsehood of our opinion : we value their testimony be- 
 cause they speak’^ what they have known. And they have the 
 greater right to our esteem, if (when it can be) they forbear to 
 speak what they have not known. Indeed, the miraculous 
 conception is an event which the sacred historians could know 
 only by immediate revelation ; but it is one on which so much 
 depends, that we cannot conceive how they could have been left 
 ignorant of it. With regard to the descent into hell, it seems 
 
 380 to me more satisfactory to be informed of it by an application 
 of a prophecy, than by a relation of such a fact. 
 
 6. After the proof comes the application. And first, we 
 are to consider, in what sense a thinking man can now give his 
 assent to the Article under consideration. The principal nicety 
 
 ^ Vol. xxjv. quarto, p. 430. ■’ John iii. 11 ; xv. 27 ; xix. 35. Luke i. 2. 
 
602 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. iii. 6. 
 
 is this: may a person subscribe to the assertion, that Christ II. 
 went down into hell^ who only believes that his soul went into 
 the receptacle of departed Spirits? I apprehend he may, for 
 the following reasons. 
 
 1. Any sense, which is agreed upon between the person who 
 makes and the person who receives the declaration, may be 
 considered as a right sense. And those, who may be looked 
 upon as receiving a declaration in our present case, are the 
 generality of learned^ and judicious men in our Church. 
 What they agree upon may be looked upon as the sense of 
 the Church ; and the Church may be considered as receiving 
 a meaning, which is offered to them, and accepted, though 
 tacitly. Now, since Bishop Pearson’s exposition of the De- 
 scent into Hell, all other eminent writers have agreed with him, 
 and adopted his opinion ; which, I think, agrees with ours. 
 Whitby does this; and Dr. S. Clarke^ \ and Bishop Burnet, 
 
 2. Supposing our construction of going down into hell 
 was not known to the compilers of our Articles, yet they are 
 not to be supposed to have made Articles so as to preclude 
 improvements, or new solutions of difficulties^. 3, It being 
 evidently the intention of our Church to translate aSrjs, and 
 there being no word in English, French, or Dutch answering 
 to it, the subscriber must have a greater liberty in translating 
 
 it for himself. At present, for want of such a word in English, 381 
 our translation appears unsteady; sometimes the word grave is 
 put for it, sometimes the word hell, 4. But, though there is 
 this variety, our sense of will make the passages, in which 
 it is differently translated, perfectly consistent. In 1 Cor. xv. 
 
 55, it is grave in the text, and hell in the margin : “ O grave, 
 where is thy victory?” In Matt. xvi. 18, we have ‘Hhe gates 
 of hell shall not prevail,” &c. Whereas in Isaiah xxxviii. 10, 
 the same words are translated the gates of the grave. In Psalm 
 Lxxxix. 48, we have the word grave in our Bible, and the word 
 hell in our Book of Common Prayer, Shall he deliver his 
 Soul from the hand of the grave?” We may also 
 
 compare Prov. xxx. l6, where one of four things never satisfied 
 is the grave j’' with Prov. xxvii. 20: ^^Hell and destruction‘s. 
 
 ‘ Book III. chap. vii. sect. 3, 4. 
 Powell, p. 35. 
 
 2 Sermons, vol. v. 8vo. Serm. 14. 
 
 3 Book III. chap. ix. sect. 11. 
 
 '* Lord King, chap. iv. 
 
 ® To find these two passages in the 
 LXX. look first between chap. xxiv. and 
 XXV. ; and then, after chap. xxv. Prov. 
 xxx. 16, in Mill’s Sept. 12mo, appears 
 p. PJ8 ; and Prov. xxvii. 20, appears 
 page 203. 
 
IV. iii. 6.] 
 
 THE DESCENT INTO HELL. 
 
 603 
 
 11. are never full.” Luke xvi. 23. mentions inhabitants of aSrf9, 
 who are good and bad — Abraham who was happy, and the 
 rich man who was tormented ; though a ^dcrima was between 
 them. And Rev. xx. 13, 14, when “death and heW (or the 
 grave, in the margin,) had “ delivered up the dead which were 
 in them,” still these dead were to be ‘^judged, every man accord- 
 ing to their works.'"’ ''ASrj^ therefore does not imply the goodness 
 or badness of its inhabitants ; nor can it in our sense, as ‘ the 
 382 habitation of rnan^ after death.’ It seems to comprehend 
 Paradise (sometimes called Abraham’s bosom) and Gehenna'^. 
 And our judgment seems confirmed by heathen^ authors. 
 
 5. A fifth reason why we may subscribe to this Article, 
 though we do not understand the word hell to mean the place 
 of torment, is this : “ ad inferos” is the expression in the 
 Latin Article, which is reckoned authentic. “ Inferi” seems 
 to be used in an indefinite sense for any place to which men go 
 after death, when they disappear; though in its etymology it 
 implies some subterraneous place : it was probably first used 
 when the fancy was, that every thing belonging to man was 
 after death disposed of under ground 6. When I say, there 
 is no word in English answering to Hades, I mean in English 
 at this time, or at the times when our Bible was translated, and 
 our Articles composed. We are told^°, that the very ancient 
 word hell {Saxon, rather than English) had the sense which we 
 have affixed to a^v}^ ; and this might always prevent another 
 word from being used in that sense. 
 
 Bishop Burnet gives” three senses of the Descent into 
 Hell: — 1st, Going to preach to the spirits in prison; 2d, Burial; 
 
 ® Parkhurst published his Greek Lex- 
 icon in 1769, and his Hebrew one in 1778. 
 
 If one compares his 4th sense of xj/uxn 
 and his first sense of with his sixth 
 sense of and his sixth sense of bxtr, 
 it looks as if he had changed his opinion 
 in the nine intermediate years ; and 
 thought Ps. xvi. 10, and Acts ii. 27, re- 
 lated more to the soul, at last, than he 
 had done before. 
 
 Dr. S. Clarke’s 14th Serm. vol. v. 
 
 8vo. 
 
 ® See Pearson on the Creed ; Nicholls 
 on this Article ; Ormerod’s Remarks on 
 Priestley’s 14th sect. p. 12, &c. ; and 
 Parkhurst’s Lexicons. 
 
 ^ This reminds one of Pope’s Indian, 
 
 who was to go to some distant invisible 
 island; his faithful dog to bear him 
 company. — Essay on Man. Ep. 1, line 
 95, &c. 
 
 Children are dug out of the parsley- 
 bed — the parsley-bed before an human 
 being appears ; the inferi after he disap- 
 pears : both underground — out of sight. 
 Psalm cxxxix. 14, about the bod^ being 
 formed in the lower parts of the earth, is 
 to be understood in this negative indefi- 
 nite sense, and means only invisibly 
 formed. 
 
 10 See Lord King, chap. iv. p. 194. 
 Parkhurst under 
 
 11 Introduction. See Contents. 
 
604 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. iii. 7, 8. 
 
 3d, Our sense; and thinks a person may subscribe in any IT. 
 of them ; but I think I could not subscribe in the second^ as 383 
 that would annihilate the Article, which says, as Christ “ was 
 buried, so also''' he “ went down into hell.’’ 
 
 7- Mutual concessions need not be considered on our present 
 subject, as our Church is not engaged in controversy about it. 
 
 8. With regard to improvements, I will not propose any 
 myself, but rather consider whether our language, about the 
 soul and its local motion, can stand against refinements pro- 
 posed by others. I have not here a proper occasion to go into 
 a proof of the immateriality of the soul. For that I refer to 
 Bishop Portetis‘’s Sermons ; at the same time I recommend the 
 pamphlet of Mr. Ormerod, entitled. Remarks on the l^th Sect, 
 of Dr. Priestley’s Disquisitions on Matter and Spirit. 
 
 I, for my own part, have no objection to using the word 
 soul, or to saying it descends, or it is in a place of happiness. 
 
 I only describe which must be described very imperfectly. 
 
 A dead body has all its nerves, &c., but that is gone which 
 makes it an animal. This is fact. Why may I not say its 
 souV is departed? To prevent this something from being 
 thought to be omnipresent, I am apt to speak as if it was 
 somewhere; I am habituated to have a place for every thing, 
 and every action; and so, as we conceive the soul capable of 
 happiness and misery, I say, this soul is in a state, or place, of 
 happiness, if I conceive it to enjoy happiness. Not that my lo- 
 cality is strict : it is indifferent to me whether Paul ^ ascends 384 
 into Paradise, or Christ descends into which includes Pa- 
 radise. To take locality of spirits exactly in the same sense 
 with locality of bodies, is only for the lowest vulgar^. I would 
 adopt the notions of the most improved philosophy, not that 
 “falsely so called;” but, as to language, I would hsivc popular 
 language to express things really felt, though not philosophi- 
 cally viewed : and such language is pretty nearly as good as 
 
 * In what animate things differ from in- 
 animate, TouTo eoTTi yf/vxv — Bp. Pearson 
 on Creed, p. 429, 4to, quotes this from 
 Sallust De Diis et Mundo, c. 8. Cicero 
 has, with regard to souls, “cum e cor- 
 pore excesserint,” Tusc. i. 17. H ; efflare 
 animam, ib. sect. 9. And a man is said 
 excedere e vita. And “ animus in locis 
 ccelestibus habitaturus. Also, Ubi ubi 
 sit animus, certe in te est.” Tusc. i. 29. 
 
 - 2 Cor. xii. 4. In the Greek I do not 
 
 see any thing that certainly implies up- 
 wards, or ascent: dpTraX^w is used with 
 eais and eU ; why not snatched away to, 
 or, as far as. Paradise? p. 233, Lord 
 King cites from Cic. Tusc. i. Animas 
 cum e corpore excesserint, in sublime 
 ferri. 
 
 3 Use might here be made of the lan- 
 guage concerning the mind^ borrowed 
 from sensible objects. The soul is de- 
 jected, why may it not descend f 
 
IV. iv.] 
 
 THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 
 
 605 
 
 II. scientifical language. ‘Iron is hof expresses all facts, as well 
 as ‘ iron raises heat in me."' In like manner, you cannot use 
 language more taken from things, than that the soul is departed, 
 and will be for ever in a state or place of torment or bliss ; 
 though it is certainly wise not to deceive one's self, by fancying 
 that one has more ideas affixed to such language (or to any 
 language) than one really has. 
 
 385 ARTICLE IV. 
 
 OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 
 
 Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his 
 body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the per- 
 fection of Man’s nature ; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, 
 and there sitteth, until he return to judge all men at the last 
 day. 
 
 Before we enter upon the consideration of this Article, we 
 may as well observe, that it does not exactly conform to the 
 idea of an Article given in the third'^ Book. An Article, as 
 such, is not against Infidels, but against such Christians as, 
 allowing the Divine authority of the Scriptures, interpret them 
 differently from ourselves. Yet, in some enumerations, we 
 cannot omit doctrines, which are essential and fundamental, 
 merely because they have not been much contested. Here, in 
 this fourth Article, we continue the history of Christ ; which 
 was probably put into several different Articles, because the 
 arguments about the Divinity of Christ and his Incarnation had 
 best not be confounded with those about his Descent into Hell 
 and his Resurrection. Though an Article is not properly di- 
 rected against infidels, yet, if any arguments against them are 
 introduced more conveniently and effectually under an Article 
 386 than elsewhere, (i. e. in our fourth book than in our first,) the 
 general nature of an Article need not prevent our introducing 
 them. What we shall have- to say on the sixth Article, con- 
 cerning the authority of the Scriptures, will, in a good measure, 
 suit all sects of Christians; and therefore might have come into 
 
 Chap. ix. sect. 9. 
 
 5 Ibid. 
 
606 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. iv. 1. 
 
 the first Book. Nevertheless, some opinions of Christians II. 
 might be aimed at by those, who compiled this Article. 
 
 We may also previously remark, that it will be best to 
 keep the subject of the Resurrection of Christ distinct from 
 that of the resurrection of the hody^ or the general resurrection. 
 They are nearly connected in most writings which treat of 
 either of them ; but it seems best to keep them so far separate, 
 as to throw the latter into an Appendix to this Article. 
 
 1. These things being premised, there is nothing to prevent 
 our adhering to our old plan in treating this Article. We be- 
 gin therefore with history. 
 
 The history of the Article now before us, regularly and 
 •fully treated, should consist of four parts; relating, 1. to the 
 Resurrection of Christ; 2. to his Ascension; 3. to his Session, 
 as it is called ; and 4. to his coming to Judgment. 
 
 With regard to the Resurrection of Christ, the DocetcB, as 
 holding that our Saviour had not a proper material body, must 
 of course deny that he rose from the grave, in the ordinary 
 sense of the words; but moreover, they are said to have insisted 
 more frequently than common on this part of his history. With 
 the Docetae we may join all those who are called Allegorists^ 
 
 — all those who interpreted facts allegorically. Under Docetae 387 
 are included the Manicheans. 
 
 Of Cerinthus and his followers Augustin" says, ‘‘Jesum 
 hominem tantummodo fuisse, nec resurrexisse sed resurrectu- 
 rum, asseverantes.” But I would always wish any single au- 
 thority respecting an early heretic to be compared with other 
 authorities as collected by Lardner. 
 
 I might have mentioned the prejudices which St. Paul had 
 to encounter, when he preached Jesus and the resurrection, 
 from doctrines of heathen philosophers and the sects of the 
 Jews ; but these are more nearly connected with the subject of 
 the general resurrection. 
 
 Early in the fifth century lived Synesius, a man of uncom- 
 mon character, whose ordination, as contrary to rules of church 
 discipline, has occasioned several books ^ This man had his 
 
 * See Rogers on the Articles, p. 17 ; 
 and Woolston, Letter 6, beginning. Alle- 
 gorists must take the metaphorical resur- 
 rection, mentioned Rom. vi. and elsewhere, 
 to be meant also in the Gospel narratives ; 
 as the Socinians make the creation by 
 
 Christ to be all moral. Woolston was 
 famous for allegorizing. 
 
 2 Aug. Haer. 8. See also Lard.vol. ix. 
 pp. 325, 326. 
 
 ^ This part of ecclesiastical history is 
 interesting, especially to young people. 
 
IV. iv. 2.] 
 
 THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 
 
 007 
 
 II. doubts about the resurrection, calling it lepov tl Kal aTropprjTov^ 
 3S8 which Bingham ^ well translates, a sort of mystical and inef- 
 fable thing.” But I do not see, even from his own expression, 
 whether he meant the resurrection of Christ, or the general 
 resurrection: rather, I think, the latter; but they are nearly 
 related. 
 
 In the sixteenth century, Caspar Schwenkfeld, a Silesian 
 knight, is said to have held, that Christ was not a real man 
 after his resurrection. In general, he seems to have magnified 
 the character of Christ, by supposing him something above 
 human ; though he would not own that he adopted the notions 
 of Eutyches. Our Reformers must have known of this man, 
 when they composed this Article, as he was very eminent^. It 
 is said that there are still some of his followers ® in Silesia. 
 
 2. Some notions of the ancients, with regard to the ascen- 
 sion of Christ, have been mentioned under the second ^ Article. 
 We are moreover told®, that Carpocrates and Montanus denied 
 the ascension of Christ’s and maintained that only his 
 
 soul ascended into heaven. Some have wanted to set aside the 
 ascension entirely; and, in order to support their notion, have 
 said, that the scriptural expressions might be interpreted of 
 Christ’s rising, or ascending, from the grave. The idea, that 
 Christ ascended into heaven with Jlesh and hones., was con- 
 demned in the second Nicene Council in 787, and in a Council 
 at Constantinople next before ® it. Socinus^ in order to evade 
 the force of John vi. 62 , as proving the pre-existence of Christ, 
 feigned what he called a preparatory ascension ; which, though 
 389 iiot the ascension here meant, may be mentioned for the sake of 
 
 Synesius was a man of liberal sentiments, 
 and one who indulged himself in innocent 
 pleasures: he was so beloved, or esteemed, 
 that the people of Ptolemais demanded 
 him for their bishop. When it was pro- 
 posed to him to be ordained for that pur- 
 pose, he said, that he could not give up 
 his wife, nor play of some sort, nor the 
 chase. Moreover, that he held some opi- 
 nions which he could not disclaim, though 
 they would be objected to. Nor did he 
 give up his correspondence with the 
 learned Hypatia. Notwithstanding these 
 things, which would be striking at the 
 time, he was ordained, and made bishop 
 of Ptolemais, about the year 410. Pro- 
 bably men had an high notion of his 
 abilities, pleasing qualities, integrity, and 
 
 honour. His Epistles are extant; the 
 105th, out of which I read some passages 
 at Lecture, is pleasing : the part about 
 refusing to put away his wife is beautiful 
 and noble. Mention of him may be 
 found in Lardner’s Works, by the Index. 
 
 ^ Antiquities, 4. 3. 3. 
 
 ® Yet he is not mentioned amongst 
 those against whom our Articles were 
 composed, in the Politia Eccles. Angl. 
 A single notion would not entitle him to 
 mention. 
 
 ® Mosheim, 8vo, vol. iv. p. 317; or 
 Index. He died in 1561. 
 
 Art. ii. sect. 4 and 15. 
 
 8 Philaster, Theodoret. See Rogers. 
 
 8 See Bingham’s Apology. Works, 
 fol. vol. II. p. 724. 
 
608 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. iv. 3, 4. 
 
 distinctness''. Christ ascended, according to Socinus, before II. 
 he began his ministry^ in order to be instructed in the nature 
 of it. Was ever any fancy more arbitrary.? how unsuitable to 
 a sect pretending eminently to reason and common sense ! I 
 apprehend that this strong hold of Socinianism has been aban- 
 doned. 
 
 3. With regard to the session of Christ, we may mention, 
 that, in the time of Tertullian, there were some who, though 
 they believed in the ascension, thought that what is said of 
 sitting implied, that the mere body of Christ was placed at the 
 right hand of God, void of animation, or emptied of Christ^., 
 as they used to speak ; and of course not employed in the ex- 
 ercise of government. The idea, that dignity and pre-eminence 
 are shewn by indolence and freedom from care and action, has 
 frequently been favoured. It seems to have been a funda- 
 mental idea with the Epicureans. 
 
 4. There^ have been some different notions held with re- 
 gard to Christ’s returning “ to judge all men at the last day.” 
 
 I believe this is called by some the second coming of Christ, 
 but that expression has sometimes a more extensive meaning^. 
 
 The horror of eternal punishment has set several persons on 
 imagining ways of avoiding it. Very early Christians thought, 
 that the Being, who was the Author of Christianity, was too sgo 
 benevolent to condemn^ any one : and some evaded the dread- 
 ful sentence of eternal fire even by fatality^ itself ; insomuch 
 that, in some very ancient creeds, there was what seems now a 
 redundancy of expression on this head, which has since been 
 discontinued 
 
 The Manicheans have been said to deny a future judg- 
 ment ; but^ Lardner has brought passages from their writings, 
 found in the controversial works of Augustin, which prove the 
 contrary. Yet they seem to have denied the eternity of hell- 
 torments^ or to have maintained that all men will be saved 
 Jinally. It is owing to the moderation of our Church that we 
 
 ^ Op. Socini, tom. ii. p. 380, col. 2. 
 See also Pearson on Creed, p. 108, fol. or 
 216, 4to. 
 
 ^ Tert. de Came Christi, p. 24, cited 
 by Lord King, p. 285. 
 
 ^ It might explain some expressions, 
 to notice the German and Popish noi\ox\% 
 of the bodily ubiquity or omnipresence of 
 Christ. (See Rogers on the Art. and 
 Reformatio Legum, de Trin. cap. iv. 
 
 Chambers’s Diet, under Ubiquity. Also, 
 for corporal ubiquity, Fulke’s Rhem. 
 Test, on Matt. xxvi. sect. 4). Though 
 this properly belongs to Art. xxviii. 
 sect. 10. 
 
 ^ Hurd on Prophecy, opening of 
 Serm. V. 
 
 5 Lord King, Cr. p. 290. 
 
 « Ib. p. 304. 7 lb. p. 313. 
 
 8 Works, vol. III. pp. 440, 478. 
 
IV. iv. 5.] 
 
 THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 
 
 609 
 
 II. are not called upon to subscribe to the eternity of hell-tor- 
 ments®; nay, we are not required even to condemn those who 
 presume to affirm that all men will be finally saved, though 
 that was required in the last Article of Edward vi., and I 
 think reasonably. Though one were inclined to hope^ with Dr. 
 Hartley’®, that all men will be happy ultimately; that is, when 
 punishment has done its proper work in reforming principles 
 and conduct ; yet, to affirm it must always be presumption". 
 A sect which subsisted in this country at the time of the Re- 
 formation, called the Family of Love, or Familists, held that 
 wicked men will be annihilated'^ as did some Gnostics of old. 
 
 Spi 5. It is natural here to mention the Millennarians^ or Cliili- 
 asts^ who believed that Christ would come to reign, with his 
 saints, a thousand years upon earth ; and would gratify them 
 with sensual pleasures. This was to take place before the ge- 
 neral resurrection, though there must be a resurrection of saints 
 previous to it. This notion was founded on the 20th chapter 
 of Revelation’^; and one can scarce wonder, that the passage 
 should occasion some expectation, though, as all prophecies 
 should be interpreted by their completion, it must be rash to 
 act, or dispute in a peremptory manner, upon any prophec}^ not 
 completed. Irenaeus and Lactantius were Chiliasts; and Ne- 
 pos, a Bishop in Egypt. Some passages in Lactantius are 
 sanguine enough ’‘’j though his ruling ideas seem to be peace and 
 concord^^. When the Chiliasts came to imagine particulars^ I 
 suppose there was a great difference between them. Cerinthus 
 is said, by some, to have taught that the pleasures of the millen- 
 nium would be very gross’®. But others, of respectable cha- 
 racter, conceived, that, though sensual^ they would not be 
 vicious — that they would consist in eating and drinking, and 
 marriage’^. The name of the N'ew Jerusalem^^ being used. 
 
 ® There is an expression of the Atha- 
 nasian Creed about everlasting fire 
 but it seems only a quotation of Matt. 
 XXV. 41 ; so must be understood in the 
 same manner. 
 
 On Man, sect. v. prop. 94. See also 
 Origeniani^ in Aug. Haer. 43. 
 
 The title of the Article, “All men 
 shall not be saved at length,” seems in- 
 accurate; as I think, the meaning is. It 
 is not to be affirmed that all men shall be 
 saved finally, or after a definite time. 
 This appears from the body of the 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 Article. 
 
 See Lord King, p. 407. Though this 
 may belong to the Appendix, yet it an- 
 nuls future judgment. 
 
 Add 1 Thess. iii. 13; iv. 14, &c. 
 
 Lard. vol. iii. p. 114. Lact. de Vita 
 Beata, conclusion. Lard, under Diony- 
 sius of Alexandria, who opposed Nepos 
 about the millennium. 
 
 Quieta et placida erunt omnia. 
 
 Aug. Hasr. 8. 
 
 Lard. vol. in. p. 112. 
 
 1® Rev, xxi. 2. 
 
 39 
 
610 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 riV. iv. 6, 7. 
 
 those who were inclined to Judaism flattered themselves with II, 
 the hopes of a literal^ restoration of the Jewish polity. This 
 makes Eusebius'^ say, that the promises made to the saints had 392 
 been expected (by Nepos) to be fulfilled “in a Jewish sense;” 
 and this makes the Article of Edward vi. say, that the Millenn- 
 arii, or they who encouraged the revival of their doctrine, cast 
 themselves headlong “into a Jewish dotage.” In the time of 
 our^ Charles ii. some fanatics were called Millennarii; but they 
 were low and illiterate persons, not such as would take any 
 pains to follow ancient models, or even to study the Scriptures 
 with exactness. Mosheim seems not to speak of Millennarians . 
 after the time of Dionysius of Alexandria. And the accurate 
 Tillemont'^ seemed to think there had nothing passed about 
 Millennarians from the time of Augustin ; though in his own 
 time^ he heard that they were reviving in Sweden and Brand- 
 enburgh. 
 
 6. I am not aware that any thing more need be said on 
 this Article, of the historical sort. I should therefore proceed 
 to an explanation ; but I do not see that there is any thing 
 explanatory to be offered here, which will not be better offered 
 hereafter. Something might be said of the nature of the session 
 of Christ, and of the expression, the last day f but if any 
 little difficulties relating to them are thrown into the form of 
 objections^ they will be more thoroughly discussed, and will fall 
 in better with the course of our reasoning. 
 
 7 . We come then to the proof of the propositions contained 
 in the Article, which may here, as in the historical part, be re- 
 duced to four. 1. Christ did rise from the dead as a being 
 truly human. 2. He did ascend into heaven, without any 
 change in his person. 3. His session was from that time till 393 
 his return to judge the world. 4. He will return to judge all 
 mankind. The proofs of these propositions must be wholly 
 taken from Scripture ; the authenticity of which must there- 
 fore be taken for granted.^ or must be considered as having 
 been proved. This is mentioned, because Bishop Burnet^ on 
 this Article, goes back to first principles. 
 
 We must distinguish, as before, between direct and in- 
 
 ^ Lard. vol. in. p. 114. 
 
 2 L. vii. c. 24, quoted by Lardner, 
 vol. III. p. 103. And Jerom says, speak- 
 ing of the Apocalypse, “ quam si juxta 
 literam accipimus, judaizandum est;” 
 &c. The Allegorists tiien were those 
 
 who did not judaize ; as appears by Lard- 
 ner’s account of Dionysius of Alex- 
 andria. 
 
 3 Hume, 1G60. 
 
 4 vol. II. 
 
 ^ He died 1690, aged 71. 
 
IV. iv. 8— 11.] THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 
 
 611 
 
 II. direct proof. The direct proof in this Article will consist of 
 teccts of Scripture, such as are in general so well known^ that 
 some of them perhaps need not now be adduced, were it not for 
 the sake of regularity. The indirect proof, or answering 
 objections, will, in our present subject, occupy more of our 
 attention®. 
 
 8. 1. For the direct proof of Christ’s resurrection, I refer 
 
 to the 24-th chapter of Luke‘’s Gospel, verse 3 — 6, 39, 4-0, 42, 43; 
 John XX. 28, and preceding. Acts ii. 29 — 31 ; and Acts xiii. 
 30 — 37. Also to 1 Cor. xv. 5 — 8. To which might be added 
 a passage or two, which takes the Resurrection for granted, 
 and reasons upon it; such as Rom. vi. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 13; Col. 
 iii. 1, &c.; or Rom. iv. 25; 2 Tim. ii. 8. 
 
 394 9. 2. For proof of the Ascension, we may refer to Mark 
 
 xvi. 19; Luke xxiv. 51 ; and Acts i. 9, &c. One might also 
 add (or take first) John xx. 11, and vi. 62 ; and afterwards, 
 Eph. iv. 8; Col. iii. 1, &c.; Heb. vi. 19, 20. 
 
 10. 3. For proof of Christ’s sitting at the right hand of 
 God, we may have recourse to Mark xvi. 19; Acts ii. 34, &c.; 
 Ephes. i. 20, &c.; Heb. i. 3, and 13. And afterwards, to Eph. 
 ii. 6 ; Col. iii. 1 — observing, that the sitting does not imply in- 
 dolence, but government. 
 
 11. 4. The proofs of Christ’s returning lo judgment are 
 numerous. The 25th chapter of St. Matthew’s Gospel, from 
 the 31st verse, is a capital one. The 24th chapter has two 
 senses’^. Mark viii. 38. Add John v. 22; Acts i. 11; x. 42 ; 
 
 xvii. 31 ; Rom. xiv. 10; or 2 Cor. v. 10: to which should be 
 added some texts expressing Christ’s coming, or his returning, 
 more absolutely or independently, as that is an expression of 
 the Article : such as 1 Cor. xv. 23 ; 1 Thess. iv. 15 ; and iii. 
 13; V. 2, 3, 23; James v. 7, 8 ; 2 Pet. iii. 4. &c. Though 
 Acts i. 11 does express the return of Christ; so does Matt. 
 XXV. 31. 
 
 ® Bp. Burnet’s proof is addressed to 
 infidels ; ours will only shew to them that 
 the Resurrection of Christ is affirmed in 
 Scripture. Their disbelief of the gospel 
 history will be combated in our indirect 
 proof, (indeed Bp. Burnet obviates diffi- 
 culties) ; though even that must be only 
 looked upon as an occasional supplement 
 to our reasoning in the first Book. Our 
 scriptural proof is applicable to Wool- 
 ston'^s arguments, as he only wants to set 
 
 aside the literal sense, in favour of the 
 mystical (see the opening of his 6th Let- 
 ter, and my account of him, Book I. 
 chap. xvi. sect. 7)? s^^d his Jewish 
 Rabbi., in his 6th Letter, argues on the 
 absurdity of Christ’s Resurrection, from 
 the account of it given by the Christian 
 Evangelists (p. 5). And indeed anp per- 
 son may argue upon an account of facts, 
 as given by those who believe them. 
 
 7 See Book I. chap. xvii. sect. 10. 
 
 39 2 
 
612 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. iv. 12—14. 
 
 12. All the proof requisite for the question respecting the II. 
 Millennium^ is only to recollect what has been said before about 
 the premature application of prophecies; and to observe, with 
 Bishop Gibson^ ^ that there is no appearance that the pleasures 
 
 of such a state, whenever it may take place, will be sensual; 
 and, with Lardner^, that impurity is represented as a disquali- 
 fication for the state. Whether the enjoyment of sensual 
 pleasures, not reckoned vicious, can be called impurity, in any 
 sense, is a question about which all men may not be perfectly 395 
 agreed. The marriage-service of the Church of England calls 
 married persons ‘‘ undejiled members of Christ’s Body^.” 
 
 13. Having then gone through a direct proof of the 
 doctrines of our Article, we come to the indirect; or to the 
 answering of objections. These have been numerous: we must, 
 as in the second Article, make a selection. 
 
 This part of our subject has been more fully treated since 
 the time of Bishop Burnet, than before it ; by the publication 
 of Mr. West's book on the Resurrection, and of the pamphlet 
 ascribed to Bishop Sherlock, called the Tryal of the Witnesses, 
 
 &c. which has something particularly interesting in its style 
 and plan. It was written against the objections of Mr. Wool- 
 ston, of whom we once gave an account'*. 
 
 14. 1. The first objection I shall mention, may be thus 
 expressed : It is more likely that the body of Christ was stolen 
 by his disciples than that it revived. This is the objection 
 which the Jews made at the time ; nay, St. Matthew tells^ us, 
 that the priests thought it worth while to bribe the guards to 
 testify the fact, on which it is founded ; and that the peo- 
 ple were credulous enough, or enough prejudiced, to believe 
 the fact, and so adopt the objection. Certainly, if the dis- 
 ciples of Christ wanted to use any deceptions, and by any false 
 appearances make men believe what they themselves knew to be 
 false, they could much more easily do that, if they had the ‘ 
 body of Christ, than if it was in the possession of their enemies, 
 
 so that it might, at any time, be produced against them. But 
 how could they procure the body.^^ they would not attempt to 396 
 force a guard of sixty men. No, say the Jews, it was not 
 
 1 P. 209. 
 
 2 Vol. III. p. 112. Rev. xxi.27; xxii. 
 14, 15. 
 
 ^ See about Paphnutius, Art. xxxii. 
 sect. 3. Cohabiting with a virtuous wife, 
 
 he said, ( though a monk himself) is chas- 
 tity itself. 
 
 ^ Book I. chap. xvi. sect. 7. 
 
 5 Matt, xxviii. 12 — 15. 
 
IV. iv. 15.] 
 
 THE RESUllRECTIOiX OF CHRIST. 
 
 613 
 
 11. force that was used, it was sleight and cunning; the guards 
 were asleep. Could the disciples expect that ? or be prepared 
 to take advantage of it ? or, would they dare to run the hazard 
 of awakening them But is it credible that they were asleep ? 
 a guard of sixty men all asleep ! or even a sixth part of them ! 
 Nay, suppose they were asleep, can they be admitted as compe- 
 tent witnesses of what passed during their slumbers ? No 
 more, I think, need be said on this objection®. 
 
 15. 2. It has been objected, that Christ was not in the 
 grave a sufficient length of time to answer the predictions^ or 
 that he rose too soon. Then he did rise.? We might say, 
 that is the principal thing. Whether, in an affair so very 
 extraordinary, some circumstances were just as might be ex- 
 pected, is a matter of secondary consequence. If a man only 
 performed a journey^ or any very ordinary act, and performed 
 it too soon, or too late, it might not answer its purpose ; but, 
 if Christ did really rise from the dead, the main purpose 
 must be answered, whether we can clear up all circumstances 
 or not. 
 
 But you reply, though we could not find out the fallacy of 
 evidence any other way, yet, if we find inconsistencies in it, 
 they invalidate the whole. It had been said beforehand^ ^ that 
 Christ would be in the grave three days, or three days and 
 three nights; whereas he was but one whole day. We answer, 
 there are in Scripture four different forms of expressing the 
 time during which our Lord was to lie in the sepulchre : he 
 397 was to rise the third^ day; in three^ days; after three days; 
 and it is said, “ the Son of Man” shall be three days and 
 three nights in the heart^^ of the earth.” Now these expressions 
 must mean the same thing, if the Evangelists invented their 
 narrations ; because no persons ever write inconsistencies pur- 
 posely, or except where something escapes them, or seems 
 likely to escape others ; never, where the inconsistencies must 
 be glaring to every eye. And, if they mean the same thing, 
 there is no inconsistency amongst them^". And our remark may 
 
 « See Tryal, &c. pp. 36, 43. 
 
 ^ Matt. xii. 40; ’’Matt. xx. 19, and 
 other passages ; or Matt, xxvii. 63, with 
 parallels. s xx. 19. 
 
 ^ Matt, xxvii. 40. xxvii. 63. 
 
 Matt. xii. 40 : the word three is a 
 leading word in them all. 
 
 It has occurred to me, that the com- 
 mon phrases about a musical octave might 
 
 seem contradictory, or inconsistent, when 
 they were not so ; and much in the same 
 manner with the phrases about a number 
 of days. An octave comprehends three 
 thirds and one second; the mind sums 
 these into eleven: yet it is sometimes 
 said, an octave contains only seven tones, 
 even reckoning as tones the two semi- 
 tones. 
 
614 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. iv. 15. 
 
 be extended to the seeming inconsistency between these expres- II. 
 sions and the fact. Suppose the Evangelists to be inventing, 
 and so writing what would best promote their cause^ nothing 
 so easy as to Jit the event to the 'prediction. It must be as 
 easy to make Christ rise^ on the fourth day as on the third. 
 Upon a supposition then of the narratives being feigned, the 
 fact was agreeable to the predictions in that one sense in which 
 they would all be understood. No one can say these accounts 
 are inconsistent, and therefore invented ; for, if they had been 
 invented, they would 'not have admitted the inconsistencies now 
 under consideration. 
 
 If we put the supposition, that the narratives were not 
 feigned, we are rid of our principal dijjiculty ; we have only to 
 consider the question before us as a critical question, which we 
 should be glad to resolve, if we can ; but which we may leave S98 
 as a difficulty in suspense, if we cannot. On this footing, it is 
 comfortable to remark, that, when we say two events were dis- 
 tant three days, we may mean incluswely, reckoning into the 
 number three, the days on which both events happened : and 
 the very existence of the word inclusively, in this sense, shews, 
 that this mode of reckoning is common : this will be admitted 
 still more easily of the expression ‘‘the third day.” Yet, if 
 we compare the 63d and 64th verses of Matt, xxvii. we shall 
 see, that this expression means the same thing with after 
 three days;” — which will be confirmed by observing, that, in 
 John XX. 26, “ after eight days'"' means the day se'nnight, as 
 we call it : the two days meant were (most probably) two suc- 
 cessive Sundays The only expression remaining therefore is, 
 
 “ three days and three nights :” but this means the same as 
 “three days Evening-morning is a Jewish expression for a 
 day^ — three evening-mornings for three days; and “three days 
 and three nights” means only the same as three ‘ evening-morn- 
 ings^ or three day-nights, which may be reckoned inclusively 
 as well as three days. Our word day is of itself oii&o. taken 
 for the whole twenty-four hours. If we had a compound word 
 something like ^fxepovvKTiov, day-night, three day-nights would 
 seem familiar, and reckoning them inclusively would occasion 
 
 ' Woolston, Letter 6th, p. 13. 
 
 2 We might add the reckoning of 
 the day of circumcision, Tryal, p. 49. 
 (ien. xvii. 12, “ eight days old.” Luke 
 i. 59. Lev. xii. 3, “in the eighth day 
 and Phil. iii. 5. Luke ii. 21, “when 
 
 eight days were accomplished.” To 
 which add, that (14th night) fortnight 
 in English, is quinze jours, fifteen days, 
 in French. 
 
 ^ Gen. i. passim. 
 
IV. iv. 16,] 
 
 THE RESURRECTION OE CHRIST. 
 
 615 
 
 II. no difficulty: such a word would have been equivalent to the 
 expression ‘ tliree days and three nights.’ 
 
 .spq That the time elapsed was, in the event before us, expressed 
 by the Jews according to what has been said, appears from the 
 words of Cleopas. “ To day is the third day since those things 
 were done^.” The reckoning after the event is the same as 
 before it. 
 
 But it has been urged that, if the body of Christ had 
 laid a day longer, witnesses would have attended on the spot, 
 who would have disproved our present account. In this argu- 
 ment, something in the Gospels is allowed to be true : — Christ 
 had been really buried^ and his body missing on the third day. 
 If so, either it must have been stolen^ or it must have revived : 
 the former having been disproved, the latter remains true. 
 
 16. S. It has been objected, that Christ appeared only 
 to select witnesses^. Their being chosen has probably an air 
 of art and contrivance. But surely there is no fact which re- 
 quires, in order to its being credible, that all men who lived 
 when it happened should have seen it. In the case of the 
 resurrection of Christ, supposing it really to have happened, 
 it was proper that those should be witnesses who had not only 
 eyes to see, but candour to embrace truth on sufficient evidence, 
 and resolution to persist in the profession of it in spite of all 
 dangers. Those who ascribed the miracles of Christ to Beel- 
 zebub, might have rejected even sufficient evidence of the re- 
 surrection. Those who would have shrunk at persecution, or 
 betrayed their cause, like Judas, for money, would have been 
 improper witnesses, however true the accounts committed to 
 them. 
 
 But, might not some indifferent .persons have been wit- 
 400 nesses Not if the fact was true. What man fit to be a witness 
 could have known the resurrection of Jesus to be real, and have 
 been indifferent about the success of his religion Such an one 
 must have embraced the Christian religion, and then he would 
 have been as partial as any other disciple. 
 
 We are not here considering the force of the evidence in 
 favour of the resurrection of Christ ; for that we refer to the 
 l6th chapter of the first Book : we are only considering one 
 particular^ the selection of certain persons for the purpose of 
 bearing testimony to it. 
 
 Luke xxiv. 21. Tryal, p. i’»7. AVoolston, p. 13. 
 
 ^ Acts X. 41. Tryal, pp. 55, anti 711* 
 
616 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. iv. 17. 
 
 The Jewish magistrates have been mentioned^ as those to II. 
 whom Christ ought to have shewn himself ; but to say this 
 seems at least presumptuous. It is right to see whether we 
 have sufficient evidence; but we cannot fix upon any specific 
 evidence, or mode of proof, and say, that God ought to have 
 made use of that. A fact may be true^ and we may have rea- 
 son to think it so, though many sources of proof may have been 
 left untouched. If the fact before us be true^ we need inquire 
 no farther. Magistrates are often worldly-minded men, and 
 want to keep things in their old course at all hazards. Some 
 of them, though moved by the arguments of the Apostles, might 
 have gone away sorrowful^ like the young man in the gospel ; 
 or, like Agrippa, have been only almost persuaded to embrace 
 Christianity. 
 
 Bishop Sherlock, or the author of the Tryal of the Wit- 
 nesses^, makes an important observation on this matter. He 
 suggests, that Christ took a solemn leave of the Jews when he 
 spoke what is written at the close of the 23rd chapter of St. 
 Matthew’s Gospel; that he had then finished his commission to 
 the Jewsy as their Messiah ; that, after his Resurrection^ he 401 
 opened a new commission, addressed to the world at large. 
 When that was once opened, all preference of them was at an 
 end — all men became upon the same footing ; and therefore if 
 magistrates, as such, were to be made witnesses of sacred truth, 
 newly revealed, the Roman magistrates should have had the 
 preference. Indeed, the Jewish had been found^ too much 
 Massed to be entrusted with such truth as Jesus had to ofier. 
 
 But the argument of the infidels would prove too much ; that 
 no country, no age, should be left without original testimony k 
 
 17 . 4. The next objection seems as if it might proceed 
 
 from a mind neither disingenuous nor captious. If we take the 
 incidents of the life of Jesus after his resurrection, there is 
 something in them uncommon and extraordinary. They give 
 him the air and appearance of not being so strictly and properly 
 man ^ as he had been before his death. Some incidents and 
 circumstances must be here enumerated. The ‘‘ noli me® tan- 
 gere;” the two disciples not knowing'^ Christ in going to Em- 
 
 • Tryal, pp. 55, and 77. 
 
 2 Page 79. 
 
 ^ Witness their whole conduct on the 
 trial : though Pilate thought Christ inno- 
 cent, they cried out, “crucify him.” 
 
 They ascribed too his miracles to the 
 prince of the devils. ^ Tryal, p. 80. 
 
 * See sect. 1, the notion of Schwenk- 
 feld. 
 
 ® John XX. 17. 
 
 7 Luke xxiv. 
 
IV. iv. 17.] 
 
 THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 
 
 6I7 
 
 II. mans: his being said to appear “ in another^ form^’' — to vanish 
 out of their® sight, — to stand in the midst, when the doors were 
 shut for fear of the Jews. At the mountain in Galilee, some^^ 
 doubted^’' Very few transactions are recorded, considering our 
 Lord passed forty days on earth after his resurrection ; and 
 seemingly only three appearances. To which must be added, 
 
 402 the ascension of the body of Christ. I do not remember seeing 
 it noticed in any objection, that the wounds of our Lord were 
 fresh, though he walked to Emmaus, and suffered Thomas, in 
 a v/eek’s time, to thrust his hand into the scar in his side. 
 
 Before we attempt to account for these appearances, we 
 must observe, that their not being perfectly accounted for, is 
 not a sufficient reason why the gospel history should be reject^ 
 ed : all that we have a right to require is suf[icient evidence on 
 the whole. 
 
 1. If we might suppose that Christ had the glorified or 
 spiritual body of a man, after his resurrection, it seems as if 
 none of these incidents or circumstances would give us much 
 trouble Their probability, on such a supposition, and our 
 ignorance of the nature of such body, would partly satisfy, and 
 partly silence us ; we should receive what is written, and wait 
 for a clear understanding till we ourselves were clothed with 
 , our heavenly tabernacle. That the human body, in its exist- 
 ence in a future state, is of such a sort as to be properly called 
 a ‘^spiritual bodyf is clear from many texts of Scripture ; but 
 they will most properly be produced when we treat of the ge- 
 neral resurrection. That Christ did assume his spiritual body 
 
 403 before his ascension, is a supposition somewhat countenanced 
 by 1 Cor. xv. 50, ‘‘ Flesh and blood cannot inherit the king- 
 dom of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” 
 This is a general assertion ; we have no reason to think Christ 
 
 ® Mark xvi. 12. ® Luke xxiv. 31. 
 
 10 John XX. 19, 25. 
 
 “ Matt, xxviii. 17. 
 
 John xxi. 14. 
 
 The wounds of Christ are mentioned 
 several times in the Tryal. 
 
 John XX. 27. 
 
 Does not EpipharJus seem to have 
 thought that Christ had his spiritual 
 body after his resurrection? Har. 64. 
 sect. 64. {Origeniani). Works, vol. ii. 
 p. 538, about Origen's notion of 1 Cor. 
 XV. 7 ; though Epiphanius is writing 
 against Origen in the passage above 
 
 mentioned. Origen had denied the re- 
 surrection of the body, or had been said 
 to do so : Epiphanius obviates his objec- 
 tions by saying, that the body of Christ, 
 after his resurrection, was of such rarefied, 
 aetherial matter, that it could pass through 
 a door, &c. 
 
 Here “ flesh and blood” means what 
 is commonly so called ; the natural body; 
 though even the spiritual body may be 
 said to consist of all parts which are 
 essential to an human body. But it 
 would be premature to dwell on this just 
 at present. 
 
618 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. iv. 17. 
 
 an exception to it. In Phil. iii. 21, we are told, 'that Christ II. 
 ‘‘ shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto 
 his glorious body but we are not told the time of his as- 
 suming that glorious body. If it was not before his ascension, 
 when could it be ? not, 1 should think, at his transfiguration ; 
 the change in ChrisPs body made then, seems to have been 
 external and superficial^ o^i^yj and partial. John does not 
 record the transaction ; the three other Evangelists all speak of 
 the garments being changed; Mark of the garments only; and 
 the other two mention nothing in the body or person of our 
 Saviour as changed but the face or countenance. By analogy 
 we should judge, that, as Christ was perfect man in life, in 
 death, and in hades, so he would, after his resurrection, assume 
 such a body as all men will assume after the general resurrec- 
 tion. Besides, he is represented (l Cor. xv. 20, and Acts xxvi. 
 
 23) as the first-fruits and (Col. i. 18) as “ the first-born 
 from the dead.” Ignatius confirms this, Ep. ad Trallianos, 
 p. 34, Oxon. 1709. See Rutherforth’s Charges, p. 87* It 
 must not be asked here, whether Lazarus and others^ had spi- 
 ritual bodies after they arose from the grave. They were to die 
 again, in the common manner of other men; and to take their 
 spiritual bodies at the same time with the rest of their species. 
 
 I do not know that this hypothesis is inconsistent with Scrip- 404 
 ture, or with our Article^; but it will probably be rejected, 
 from a general idea of its being too bold and fanciful. If men 
 come to particular reasons for rejecting it, they will urge seem- 
 ingly one of these three things. 1. That it is inconsistent with 
 the scriptural expression adopted by our Article, about fiesh 
 and bones^. Or 2. That the time in which it supposes the 
 body of Christ to have been changed, is much less than that 
 between death and the general resurrection. Or 3. That, ac- 
 cording to it, Christ might not be strictly the same man before 
 and after his resurrection. At least, a moment’s consideration 
 of these three things may have its use. 
 
 1. The spiritual body of an human being must have fiesh 
 and bones, as well as his natural body ; at least, so we must 
 always express ourselves. We have no idea of any human body 
 without flesh and bones : they are constituent parts of it, and 
 
 ’ Take the accounts, as in ]\Iacknight’s 
 Harmony, sect. 72. 
 
 2 JMatt. xxvii. 52. 
 
 ^ When I first oficrecl this hypothesis, 
 
 it was my own thought ; but it seems to 
 have been (like many original thoughts) 
 mentioned in antiquity. 
 
 ^ Luke xxiv. 39. 
 
IV. iv. 17.] the resurrection of CHRIST. 
 
 619 
 
 11. essential to it. In whatever sense^ therefore, we say that we 
 have bodies in heaven, in the same sense we must say that we 
 have wliatever are the constituent parts of bodies. Flesh and 
 hones cannot be supposed to be the same things in natural and 
 spiritual bodies ; but there is no reason why we should change 
 our terms in speaking of them. 
 
 2. The time during which Christ was in the grave seems 
 sufficient for his changing his natural into a spiritual body. 
 St. Paul says^, ‘‘we shall all be changed in a moment^ in the 
 twinkling of an eye.” 
 
 If any one preferred the hypothesis, that Christ assumed 
 
 405 his spiritual body gradually between his resurrection and his 
 ascension, we should have no occasion to object. Such an one 
 would watch whether the things related of Christ become gra- 
 dually more spiritual. St. Thomas’s handling of his body, 
 John XX. 27j was about a week after his resurrection. In John 
 xxi. 13, it is not expressly affirmed that he eat, whatever may 
 seem to be implied: “Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, 
 and giveth them, and fish likewise.” 
 
 3. Though it were true that Christ changed his natural 
 body for a spiritual one before his ascension, yet he might, in 
 common propriety of speech, be spoken of as still the same 
 man; or, the body he had after his resurrection might be called 
 “ his bodyT Whenever we make such change, we must con- 
 tinue each the same man; otherwise we could not be susceptible 
 of rewards and punishments, supposing the Deity a just Being. 
 Identity is so far from excluding all change, that, in common 
 questions concerning it, it presupposes some'^; and when iden- 
 tity is destroyed, seems to depend more upon convenience and 
 custom of language^ than upon the quantity of change. A 
 reptile may undergo less change in becoming an insect^ than a 
 man undergoes while he continues to be called the same man ; 
 or, I should rather say, than another animal of its own si%e 
 undergoes without being accounted to lose its identity. 
 
 By the way, it may be considered, whether this notion of 
 identity will not sufficiently obviate those difficulties which 
 arise from the parts of man’s body becoming ^ parts of vegeta- 
 
 406 hles^ and so of animals which feed upon those vegetables ; or 
 even of other men. 
 
 ® 1 Cor. XV. 51, 52. 
 
 ^ When you ask, whether such a thing 
 continues the sa)nc, the meaning is, can 
 
 it be called the same notwithstanding 
 such and such changes? 
 
 7 Voltaire, vol. xxvi. 4to, p. 411. 
 
620 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. iv. 17. 
 
 It does not then appear impossible, that Christ might as- II. 
 sume his spiritual body before his ascension, notwithstanding 
 his body is said to consist, in part, oijiesh and hones; notwith- 
 standing he lay but a short time in the grave, and must under- 
 go, on that supposition, some very material changes h 
 
 But still we must remember, that the Scripture does not 
 plainly inform us of such an event ; and therefore we must not 
 rest here. We must inquire farther, how the incidents and 
 circumstances just now mentioned, as giving an air of some- 
 thing extraordinary to the person of Christ, may be accounted 
 for. 
 
 2. The power, by which Christ was raised from the dead, 
 must be accounted a miraculous power: may we then be allow- 
 ed to suppose that such a power was exercised after his resur- 
 rection, as well as in effecting it ? if we may, our present diffi- 
 culties will, in a great measure, receive a solution. And a 
 miraculous power does not interfere with the humanity of 
 Christ, which is now our principal concern^ ; nor is it for us to 
 say, a priori, when God shall, and when he shall not, make use 
 of such a power. The history of the resurrection of Christ 
 may be a true history, and yet it might please God to use mira- 
 culous power in some incidents subsequent to it. 
 
 3. But some are most inclined to solutions which keep 407 
 clear of every thing supernatural. “ Touch me not, for I am 
 not yet ascended to my Father,” ‘may mean only^, pass not 
 this precious time in salutations (such as embracing the knees); 
 
 it will be some time before my ascension takes place; there 
 will be opportunities to shew your rejoicing, when there is no 
 particular business to prevent it.’ Again, two disciples might 
 walk with Jesus, side by side, and not know him; they might 
 never look at him^, or not see him clearly, especially in the 
 dusk of the evening ; their minds might be intent upon some- 
 thing else ^ ; he would speak in a style different from that in 
 which they had usually heard him speak : why not purposely .? 
 
 — and yet, when lights were brought, at supper, and they sate 
 
 ' Bp. Pearson, on the words From 
 the dead.," quotes Greg. Horn. 26, in 
 Evang. “corpus suum et ejusdem natures 
 et alterius glories." The nature is proved 
 by the handling ; the new glory by the 
 entering in while the doors were shut. 
 Creed, p. 517, first edit. 
 
 ^ There are miraculous events inter- 
 
 spersed through the life of Christ. He 
 passes safe through a multitude, he walks 
 upon the sea, &c. 
 
 3 See Tryal of Witnesses, p. 68. 
 
 * See Macknight’s instance (p. 647) of 
 Odyssey, Book 19th, (or T), line 479. 
 And another, Tryal, p. 70. 
 
 * Luke xxiv. 14, 15. 
 
IV. iv. 17.] 
 
 THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 
 
 621 
 
 II. opposite to him, they might knoiv him. As to their eyes bi’ng 
 holden.) ver. l6, (Luke xxiv), and opened, ver. 31, that is cnly 
 Jewish phraseology ; it means nothing supernatural. Minerva 
 held the eyes of Penelope, that she did not know her husband. 
 His being in another form, fxop(pr], might mean only the effect 
 of a different dress. His vanishing, or becoming invisible 
 (acpavTo^ e 76 VeTo), might only be his retiring out of the room% 
 while they were attending to something else, expecting him to 
 return. He might, consistently with the Scripture expressions, 
 enter by the door in a common way : who, that would stop the 
 Jews, would stop him? Though it seems strange that any of 
 his disciples should doubt at the interview in Galilee’’', yet it 
 408 might only mean had doubted, (Grotius) ; or it might only 
 be some of inferior note — some who had not been at Jerusalem, 
 had not weighed the evidence, and whose minds were possessed 
 with ideas of ghosts and apparitions. The greatness of so 
 wonderful an event might terrify men out of their judgment, 
 and make them distrust even their senses. It is better they 
 should doubt than be too hasty to believe. Though no great 
 variety of transactions is recorded, as having passed during the 
 forty days, yet we find nothing wanting in particular. No 
 Evangelist ever composed a journal; and detached facts, if of a 
 wonderful nature, have a romantic air and appearance. What 
 could Christ do more in his then situation, though it would 
 produce no variety of incidents, than employ himself in speak- 
 ing of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God*^.'^” Mack- 
 night reckons up seven appearances which he made, in all. It 
 may moreover be considered whether, if the Evangelists had 
 invented their histories, they would have abstained from throw’^- 
 ing in more incidents in this part of their fable : whether we 
 should not have had prodigies, discourses, enigmas, in abun- 
 dance. Of the Ascension we will speak by and by. 
 
 As to the wounds of Christ, we know so little of a miraculous 
 revival, that we are not able to give a solution of their being 
 healed, on our present plan of avoiding every thing supernatural. 
 It does not seem likely that a body should be supernaturally 
 restored to life, and the wounds remain. Whatever events were 
 natural and ordinary, we are sure that the restoration of life 
 
 ® Macknight. 
 
 ’ Lardner says that Theophylact is 
 well worth reading on this passage. See 
 his Cred. on Juvencus, Works, vol. iv. 
 p. 297. (Theophylact on Matt, xxviii. 
 
 17. In Evangelia, p. 183.) It seems a 
 good exposition. 
 
 8 Acts i. 3. See also John xx. 30. 
 “ Many other signs,” &c. 
 
622 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGIOJ^. 
 
 [IV. iv. 17. 
 
 and health to the body of Christ was not one of them. He II. 
 was put to death in the jlesh^'' but was “ quickened by the 409 
 Spirit 
 
 Thus, here are three ways of solving the difficulties pro- 
 posed. It is possible, that some might make use of more than 
 one of them ; i. e. might allow some of the incidents to be com- 
 mon, some miraculous, and others to imply a spiritual body. 
 
 But let every one consider whether the remark before made on 
 the time of Christ’s rising might not be extended to every one 
 of them ; whether they might not all have been easily avoided 
 by any one who was inventing a narration merely to serve some 
 purpose. If so, the conclusion is, as before, the narratives 
 which we have are not fictitious. 
 
 I mentioned^ the ascension of Christ as one of those things 
 which gave our Saviour’s body an air of being not perfectly 
 human. This will come best under a separate observation ; 
 especially as our Article has been objected to, on account of 
 what it affirms respecting the ascension of Christ^. It has 
 been mentioned before^, that two Councils condemned the no- 
 tion of our Article, that fiesh and bones^ were parts of that 
 body wherewith Christ ascended. These Councils may, on that 
 account, seem to consider the human body of Christ as ineon- 
 sistent with his ascension ; but I should rather say, that they 
 only adopted our first solution of the difficulty in preference to 
 any other ; that is, they thought that Christ must assume his 
 spiritual body some time before his ascension. When they de- 
 creed against flesh and bones being admitted into the heavenly 
 mansions, they most probably meant to speak of the body in its 410 
 present corruptible state ; as St. Paul does, when he speaks of 
 flesh and blood ®.” And indeed ^ there may be some ambigu- 
 ity, when the parts of the body are mentioned : there may be a 
 doubt whether the natural body is spoken of, or the spiritual; 
 as we must use the same terms for both ; which can only be 
 resolved by the connection and design of the expressions. I 
 think we have sufficiently shewn, that any component parts of 
 an human body, which are necessary to our idea of such body, 
 may be spoken of as belonging either to heavenly or earthly 
 bodies. 
 
 MPet. iii. 18. 
 
 ^ Pingham, vol. ii. p. 724, part of his 
 Apology. ^ P. 572. 
 
 ^ I follow Bingham’s expression, though 
 I do not see bones mentioned in the acts 
 
 of the Councils. ® 1 Cor. xv. 50. 
 
 ’’ This conjecture is confirmed by the 
 expressions of the Council (or Councils, 
 for the latter adopts the words of the 
 former.) 
 
IV. iv. 18.] 
 
 THE RESUIUIECTION OF CHRIST. 
 
 623 
 
 II. In the ascension then of our Lord, he might have an hu- 
 man body, though it were a spiritual one ; or, in other words, 
 the difficulty we are speaking of may admit of our first solution. 
 Can the second or third be applied to it.^ First, could the ascen- 
 sion be miraculous ? I should rather say, it might be superna- 
 tural ; it might be above any law of our nature, and yet it 
 might not be a violation of any law; which every miracle seems 
 to be. Neither do I see how the third solution can be of any 
 use to us. The ascension of Christ cannot be an event of an 
 ordinary nature; it is wholly out of the reach of our common 
 experience. 
 
 I shall not mention any more objections, as what may be 
 strictly called such; but I said, that, instead of directly explain- 
 ing some expressions of the Article, I would propose any diffi- 
 culty contained in those expressions, in the form of objections, 
 that the explanation of them might be the more distinct. 
 
 18. 1. The first of these explanatory objections may be 
 
 this: Our Article speaks of Christ as sitting on the right hand 
 411 of God; whereas he is represented in Scripture as standing^ at 
 the right hand of God. Whatever difficulty there is here, is a 
 difficulty of Scripture, for we have shewn that Christ is fre- 
 quently described as sitting; which however does not afford a 
 reason why it should be passed over. In truth, all we want, at 
 present, is to improve our own conceptions. We must there- 
 fore again apply what was formerly^ laid down. When we use 
 our own language concerning any thing spiritual or heavenly 
 — any thing which we express, not properly, but in borrowed 
 terms — we mean something of the following sort: — -when we say 
 the hand of God, we mean that cause, in the Supreme Being, 
 of certain effects, which, if produced by man, we should ascribe 
 to his hand. When we speak of the providence of God, we 
 mean that cause in God of effects, which, in man, would be as- 
 cribed to foresight. In like manner, when we speak of sitting, 
 we mean that state of things which would produce sitting in 
 man; and so of standing. By Chrisfs sitting at the right 
 hand of God, we mean that state of dignity, authority, equality 
 of rank, which, according to our customary notions, would oc- 
 casion a person to sit at the right hand of a great personage. 
 By Chrisfs standing. Acts vii. 55, that state of shewing protect- 
 ing care over a dying servant, which would cause the same per- 
 son, if man, to stand. The postures therefore are only different 
 
 9 Book I. chap. xix. sect. .5. 
 
 ® Acts vii. 55. 
 
624 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. iv. 19, 20. 
 
 circumstances; and the descriptions of them no more contra- II. 
 diet one another, than a man contradicts himself by sometimes 
 giving orders to his servant, and sometimes paying him his 
 wages. Tell ei painter to draw a picture of a prince exercising 
 his authority, and another of the same prince shewing a com- 
 passionate tenderness for a servant who has been wounded in 
 his defence, giving him no directions about particular postures; 412 
 and he will, of course, draw his prince sitting in the former 
 picture, and in the latter standing h 
 
 19. 2. Another explanatory objection may be this: Why 
 
 should our Article use a different language from every one of 
 our three Creeds^ with regard to the persons whom Christ is to 
 judge.? The Article says, all men;'"'' the Creeds, ‘‘the quick 
 and the dead.’'"' But certainly the expression of the Article is 
 the less ambiguous ; and therefore, if any thing more be said 
 upon the difference, it will be, not so much to explain the Arti- 
 cle, as the Creed, or rather the Scriptures ; for from Scripture 
 the expression of ‘quick and dead’ is derived ^ Nevertheless, 
 as we subscribe to the Creeds, it may not be improper briefly to 
 observe, that by “ the are probably meant those who 
 
 will be at the time of Christ’s coming to judge the 
 
 world : though I should not blame any one who thought it was 
 not intended to declare positively that any would be then alive ; 
 but only to affirm, that Christ would judge “a// men^’' whether 
 any happened to remain alive, or all had paid the debt of mor- 
 tality. To those who favour this sense, the Creeds and the 
 Article coincide. 
 
 20. 3. The last explanatory objection I shall mention is 
 the following : Is there not a material difference between the 
 Article, which speaks of Christ as sitting only till the last day, 
 and the Creed, which describes him as one “ whose kingdom 
 shall have no endf'^ 
 
 The short answer is, that our Article seems only to reach, 
 as it were, to the day of judgment, but the Creed to that eter- 
 nity which follows it; in contradiction, perhaps, to the error of 413 
 Marcellus and Photinus, who thought the end'^^’' (so I con- 
 ceive) to mean the end of Christ’s kingdom ; which, in one 
 sense, it is. The gcwexsil judgment is at a distance not to be 
 defined by us; but it will happen, and then is the end of time — 
 
 ' See Pearson on the Creed, p. 560, 
 first edit. 
 
 ^ Acts X. 42. 2 Tim. iv. 1. 1 Pet. iv. 5. 
 
 ^ 1 Thess. iv. 15, 17. 1 Cor. xv. 51. 
 
 ^ 1 Cor. XV. 24. See Pearson on the 
 Creed. And Art. ii. sect. 7* 
 
IV. iv. 21 — 23 .] 
 
 THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 
 
 625 
 
 II. “the last day but a proper eternity follows; and one, to 
 our views, unvaried. When judgment has been executed (so I 
 understand), “then cometh the end C"* — the end of God’s dis- 
 pensation towards man ; the end therefore of all Christ’s medi- 
 atorial offices. As prophet, he will no longer instruct^ ; as 
 priest, he will no longer avert punishment; as king, he will no 
 longer protect. Sitting may be no longer ascribed to him : 
 yet, as God the Son, he may reign for ever; nay, he may, 
 though it be unintelligible to us, still retain some connection 
 with humanity^ — still enjoy the rewards of his sufferings and 
 obedience. I own this connection with humanity, and enjoy- 
 ing rewards, to be above my comprehension ; and I believe it 
 to be above the comprehension of every man ; but I can see 
 clearly that it is our business to keep in mew, at the same time, 
 what St. Paul delivers to the Corinthians and what St. John 
 teaches in his Book of Revelation ® : the joint effect of which 
 passages I can no better express than by saying, after the last 
 day, God “ shall be all in all” — shall rule no more by a Medi- 
 ator, but immediately Christ, as he who was Mediator, shall 
 be subject — shall no more retain even his kingly office; yet, as 
 God the Son, he “ shall reign for ever and ever,” King of kings, 
 “ and Lord of lords 
 
 414 21. Thus we have gone through our history, explanation, 
 
 and proof. Our Application will be short. In giving assent, 
 a question might arise, how far any one was at liberty to under- 
 stand what is said of the body of Christ, of his spiritual body. 
 But, as every human body, natural and spiritual, must have 
 something to be called Jlesh^^, &c., and as identity of person is 
 consistent with the change of body from natural to spiritual, it 
 seems as if he who assents might either take the body of Christ 
 (and its parts) as denoting its ordinary corruptible state on earth, 
 or as being the same with our future spiritual bodies, or as be- 
 ing, indeterminately, either one or the other, as a truly human 
 body would be in like circumstances. 
 
 22. Mutual concessions may here be passed over, for the 
 same reason which was mentioned under the third Article ; be- 
 cause our Church is not engaged in controversy concerning it. 
 
 23. Improvements may arise from new objections, as they 
 have done before. It is scarce possible to answer a new and 
 
 5 Pearson. « Art. ii. sect. 2t). 
 
 7 1 Cor. XV. 24—28. 
 
 8 Rev. xi. 15. 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 8 Whitby in 1 Cor. xv. 28. 
 Rev. xix. If). 
 
 Sect. 17. 
 
 '2 Ibid. 
 
 40 
 
626 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. [IV. iv. Append. 
 
 specious objection, without diving deeper into a subject — with- II. 
 out making something more clear and definite — without getting 
 a more perfect knowledge of the sense of Scripture, and a 
 stronger relish for its excellencies. The harmonies in the parts 
 of Scripture which give an account of the Resurrection, and 
 which should assign the series of events as they really happened, 
 are as yet unsettled. Macknight’s is very ingenious; but Lard- 
 ner is dissatisfied with it in some respects. A comparison of 
 these two, and others, would scarce fail of producing improve- 
 ment in one way or other. 
 
 APPENDIX TO THE FOURTH ARTICLE. 415 
 
 OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY. 
 
 There is an intimate connection between the resurrection 
 of Christ and the general resurrection. St. Paul reasons from 
 the one to the other ^ ; and indeed^ this appears from several 
 things already mentioned. On this account, we may say some- 
 thing of the latter here, as well as any where ; and it cannot 
 be considered as a digression to do so, because we assent to the 
 resurrection of the body in two of our Creeds, and to the resur- 
 rection of the dead in the third ; and to these Creeds we assent 
 in the eighth Article. 
 
 No one can think attentively concerning the nature of man, 
 without inquiring what will be his fate after death. Amongst 
 the philosophers of old, the Stoics thought that the soul con- 
 tinued after death, though it was corruptible {(pOaprov) ; but 
 the Epicureans rejected totally the notion of a future state. 
 Accordingly, when St. Paul preached “Jesus and the resur- 
 rection” at Athens^, the Stoics^ said they would hear him 
 again, but the Epicureans “ mocked 
 
 Amongst the Jews., a similar difference prevailed between 
 the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Bayle ® calls the Stoics 
 Pagan Pharisees; and Josephus calls the Pharisees Jewish 4l6 
 Stoics. “ The Sadducees'^ say there is no resurrection, neither 
 angel nor spirit” (human soul) ; “ but the Pharisees confess 
 both.” The Essenes, favouring Oriental notions, thought the 
 
 * 1 Cor. XV. 13, 49. 
 
 ® Phil. iii. 21. Col. i. 18, &c. 
 ^ Acts xvii. 18, 32. 
 
 ■* Parkhurst, S-rwi/coi. 
 
 ® For the notions of modern philoso- 
 phers, see Bp. Porteus’s Charge of this 
 year, 1794. 
 
 ® Under Epicurus. ’ Acts xxiii. 8. 
 
THK RESCJRllECTION. 
 
 IV. iv. Append.] 
 
 627 
 
 II. body would be annihilated after death, though the soul would 
 be rewarded or punished. 
 
 Permit me, as I have not mentioned it before, just to 
 observe, that the three Jewish sects were confined to what we 
 call the gentry^ and collectively opposed to the people; whereas 
 our sects reach to the very bottom of the people : and I have 
 a notion none but people of liberal education were Stoics, &c.^ 
 The Pharisees were grave and regular, and in general were 
 magistrates : opulent rather than noble, yet numerous ; stately, 
 but preserving order ; adopting maxims established amongst 
 the people, yet not very popular ; or however rather respected 
 than beloved. The Sadducees were but few in number: rather 
 affecting the importance of high rank than of opulence ; too 
 insolent and haughty to bear the drudgery and formality of 
 administering justice ; affecting to think in a singular manner, 
 without low prejudices; and to despise all established notions, 
 as vulgar and barbarous. This is, in substance, the represen ta- 
 417 tion of Josephus ; but perhaps something is to be allowed for 
 his being a Pharisee himself. 
 
 With regard to our present subject, we may say, in general, 
 that mere philosophers have been too ready to give up the 
 body to destruction in the grave ; and the people have been too 
 ready to transfer the present imperfections to the future. How 
 Christianity has reconciled the dictates of reason with the feel- 
 ings of simple nature, is well shewn by Bishop Sherlock^. 
 
 To come then to Christianity. It seems to be well proved, 
 by Lord King and Dr. Rutherforth, that the resurrection of 
 the body or Jlesh was a part in orthodox confessions of faith, 
 from the earliest times’®: even Clemens Romanus and Ignatius 
 mention it in their artless manner”, but in a manner sufficiently 
 plain. As to heretics, we may be sure, that such as we have 
 called Oriental would be invincibly averse to every thing mate- 
 
 ® Mr. T. Twining, the translator of 
 Aristotle’s Poetics, with original Notes 
 and Dissertations, on account of a Note 
 on his Sermon, preached Sept. 29, 1794, 
 says, in a letter dated Colchester, Nov. 7, 
 1794, “In those times” (the times of 
 Xenophon) “there was, I think, nothing 
 of that moral and intellectual level among 
 the members of a state, which education, 
 reading (in consequence of printing), &c. 
 has produced in later times. All, then, 
 was divided nearly into educated gentle- 
 
 men, and ignorant mob — patricians, and 
 plebeians — o djj/ios and ol eXevdepoL, 
 &c. &c. There was very little among 
 them, 1 apprehend, of that respectable 
 sort of persons whom we call the middle 
 rank." 
 
 » Sherlock, vol. i. Disc. vi. p. 199. &c. 
 Also vol. III. Disc. xvii. 
 
 Lord King on Creed, pp. 402, 403. 
 Dr. Rutherforth’s 4th Charge. 
 
 Dr. Rutherforth’s Charges, pp. 86, 
 87. 
 
 40~2 
 
628 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. [IV. iv. Append. 
 
 rial entering into the kingdom of heaven ; accordingly, Augustin II. 
 says of Simon Magus, ‘‘ negabat etiam carnis resurrectionem 
 and of Carpocrates, “ resurrectionem corporis simul cum lege 
 abjiciebat.” Those who thought the soul was taken from stars^ 
 and restored to them, did, in effect, deny the eternal existence 
 of a living body. Those who said the resurrection was 
 already past^, got rid of their difficulties about matter^ by 
 taking the moral comparisons and allusions to the resurrection 
 as descriptions of plain This is the nature of allegorical 
 
 interpretation. 
 
 Origen is accused by Epiphanius of having denied the 418 
 resurrection of the body (see Epihan. Haer. 64. pp. 532, 539, 
 
 556, 591, 592) ; but an account of one single ancient is seldom 
 to be depended on without comparing it with others. Huet 
 has entered into the subject of Origen’s opinions, in his Ori- 
 geniana. Cave gives a good short account of them. He holds 
 Origen to have maintained, that the souls of good men shall be 
 clothed with bodies refined and ethereal; and that the souls of 
 bad men shall suffer punishments after death. 
 
 The orthodox doctrine, once settled, continued so uniform, 
 that we may pass on to the times of our Reformation. What 
 was the case then appears best from our Articles of 1552, and 
 the Reformatio Legum before^ mentioned : from which we 
 perceive that the prevailing error was what we have mentioned 
 last of all, the error of Hymemeus and Philetus. There seem 
 also to have been opinions concerning the slee^ of the soul^ and 
 the resurrection of the soul, which our reformers thought too 
 much fixed ; but they are not a part of our present subject^. 
 
 Of the early Socinians it has been said, that ‘Hhey^ deny 
 the resurrection of these bodies which seems to be a revival 
 of an ancient distinction of OrigeribS^ between the resurrection 
 of a body and the resurrection of this body Origen is said to 
 have held, that each man shall have a body, but not the same 
 he has here — he shall have “ aereum corpus et paulatim in 419 
 auras® tenues dissolvendum.” Against this was introduced 
 into the Creed the expression of the resurrection of the Jiesh ; 
 for even air is a body. Indeed, there has but been one diffi- 
 
 1 2 Tim. ii. 18. 
 
 2 Introduction to this Book, sect. 4. 
 
 ^ See Reform. Legum, de Haeresibus, 
 cap. 12; and the 39th and 40th Articles 
 (the last but two) of 1552. 
 
 ■* Cheynell on Socinianisme, p. 24 ; but 
 
 1 do not see this notion in the works of 
 Socinus; judging by the Index. 
 
 * See Lord King on the Creed, pp. 
 401 — 403 ; from different authors. 
 
 ® Lord King, p. 401; from Jerom on 
 Isai. Lxvi. 
 
IV. iv. Append.] 
 
 THE RESURRECTION. 
 
 629 
 
 II. culty on this subject, properly speaking — that arising from the 
 gross impure nature of our body here, and the idea, that “ flesh 
 and blood,” such as ours, cannot enter into the kingdom of 
 heaven. And people may dispute for ever, if, while they main- 
 tain that our future bodies will be the same^ they allow that 
 the qualities of the same body will be changed'^. 
 
 So much for history. An eoc'planation of the doctrine of 
 the resurrection of the body could consist in nothing but 
 describing the glorified body ; and that could only be described 
 in negative terms, by removing all the imperfections of our 
 natural body. “ Resurgent,” says Augustin “ corpora sine 
 ullo vitio, sine ulla deformitate, sicut sine ulla corruptione, 
 onere, aut difficultate.” ' And even this removal of imperfections 
 may be called imaginary'^. It admits therefore of various 
 degrees ; and hence all the disputes which have arisen on this 
 head. Imagine the spiritual body very refined^ and the plainer 
 orthodox are alarmed for its identity ; they fear it should not 
 be left corporeal^ or carnal. Speak of the spiritual body in 
 terms usually denoting solid matter, talk of Jlesh and bones, 
 420 and the more philosophical orthodox are alarmed for its spi- 
 rituality ; they say, you want to have our future bodies too 
 gross — “ flesh and blood cannot enter into the kingdom of 
 heaven.” The rational man leaves the whole matter to the 
 disposal of God. 
 
 The doctrine before us can only have a proof horn Scrip- 
 ture, though Bishop Sherlock has given good illustrations and 
 confirmations of it, from the nature of the thing ; as indeed did 
 the 39 th Article of 1552, in very few words, that the whole 
 man^'' &c. Dr. Rutherforth^® has confined himself to scriptural 
 proof. Supposing the resurrection of Christ sufficiently proved, 
 the passages quoted at the beginning of this Appendix” would 
 be a sufficient proof of ours. To which we may add 1 John 
 iii. 2, ‘‘ we shall be like him.” Matt, xxvii. 52, 53, may shew 
 a case not exactly similar to that resurrection, which brings 
 
 ’ See Lord King on the Creed, pp. 404, 
 405, from Augustin. 
 
 ® Enchir. c. xix. cited by Lord King, 
 p. 406. 
 
 ® Epiphanius (Haer. 64. sect. 63) makes 
 animal and spiritual bodies to consist in 
 this, that animal bodies have propensities 
 and appetites, which may carry men to 
 evil ; spiritual bodies have none. And it 
 may be true, that, where men neither 
 
 marry nor are given in marriage, their 
 propensities may be suited to their con- 
 dition ; but even this must imply some 
 change or refinement in the body itself. 
 
 Charge 4th. 
 
 11 Acts xvii. 31,32, is to this purpose : 
 ver. 31 is about raising Christ as a proof; 
 in Ver. 32, it is “the resurrection of the 
 dead.” 
 
630 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. V. 1. 
 
 men into a state of immortality ; yet it seems improbable that IL 
 the bodies of saints, or Christians, would have been raised, if 
 there was afterwards to be no resurrection of the body. Indeed, 
 it may not be certain what kind of bodies these persons had : 
 they appeared unto many — how different they were from 
 Christ in the nature of their bodies cannot, probably, be deter- 
 mined. John V. 28, seems a proof of the resurrection of the 
 body ; the grave (luvtjfxelov, not aSrii) is not the receptacle of 
 the soul. Rom. viii. 19 — 23, is not a perspicuous passage ; 
 therefore it is rather to be recommended for study, than to be 
 quoted. Those who read it attentively should compare with 
 it 2 Cor. V. 1 — 4. 1 Cor. vi. 13, 14, is sufficiently plain ; but 
 
 1 Cor. XV. 35 — 49, is a capital passage to our purpose. And, as 421 
 the difficulty arising from the gross nature of our body is pro- 
 perly the only one incident to our present subject, it will be 
 proper to go on, and read ver. 50, as expressing that difficulty; 
 and ver. 53, with Phil. hi. 20, 21, as giving a solution of it. 
 
 2 Pet. i. 14, probably means the same thing; but might want 
 explaining and defending, if any one should be contentious 
 about it. 
 
 Though I have said that the grossness of our present bodies 
 is the only difficulty, which has occasioned divisions amongst 
 Christians^ yet that of Voltaire ^ (and of others), mentioned in 
 the 17th section, might be mentioned here. It appears to our 
 judgments more easy to collect particles sufficient to constitute 
 identity, than to create out of nothing. And identity, as before, 
 is consistent with many and considerable changes. God only 
 knows what changes of material particles are consistent with 
 that sameness which is requisite for the purposes of a just re- 
 tribution. 
 
 ARTICLE V. 422 
 
 OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, 
 is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the 
 Son, very and eternal God. 
 
 I. In treating this Article, we will follow our usual method, . 
 and therefore begin with history. 
 
 ’ Voltaire, vol. xxvi. quarto, p. 411. 
 
IV. V. 1.] 
 
 THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 631 
 
 II. The expressions of Scripture concerning the Holy Ghost 
 being of various kinds, and varying, like those concerning the 
 Son of God (Art. ii. sect. 31 , 32 ), almost imperceptibly, with 
 the circumstances in which they are used, nothing better could 
 be done at first than to use them in the same manner. This 
 would be done of course, through the mere help of feeling or 
 sense, so long as the circumstances implied were plainly per- 
 ceived ; but, when circumstances began to be seen more faintly, 
 or to be forgotten, then a greater degree of attention would be 
 required. And therefore the inattentive would come to use ex- 
 pressions of Scripture perversely, perhaps too literally^ as that 
 arises from neglecting circumstances — so as to require correc- 
 tion ; which would give occasion to controversy^ and that to 
 precise and systematical use of terms, though in different or 
 opposite senses. One of the most obvious faults, in such a 
 423 case, would be using indefinite, popular, passionate expressions, 
 as if they had been used originally in a literal, philosophical, 
 scientifical sense 
 
 From such wrong interpretation of eocpressions must arise 
 wrong notions and doctrines. What those were, which were 
 professed in very early times of Christianity, it may sometimes 
 be difficult to ascertain. In order to approach as near as pos- 
 sible, let us first consider the sources of information, and next 
 the particular information which they yield, in the matter be- 
 fore us. Orthodox writings expressed the same notions which 
 we now maintain : writings deemed heretical used to be de- 
 
 We have already^ mentioned Doxologies^ and the conclusions 
 to be drawn from them. We will now shew how something 
 may be learned from acts of ancient Councils. An error would 
 not have been condemned if it had not actually existed — not 
 merely because it might exist: this we may at all times take for 
 granted. But a difficulty sometimes arises from errors being 
 condemned without any mention of the names of those by whom 
 they were held : however, circumstances will sometimes solve 
 this difficulty. One kind of order of Councils should be here 
 mentioned particularly; that is, the order for re-baptizing here- 
 tics. When any persons had been baptized in a sect, which 
 was thought to have something radically and essentially wrong 
 in the form of its baptism, if such persons wished to quit that 
 sect, and come to the main body of Christians, or the Catholic 
 
 * Of this before, Art. i. sett. 4; and Art. ii. sect. 45. Art. i, sect. 4. 
 
632 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. V. 2. 
 
 9 
 
 Church, it was decreed that they should be baptized afresh. II. 
 Now, as regular baptism was in the name of the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghosts re-baptizing must be owing to an omission of 
 something in this form ; which would be caused by some hete- 424 
 rodox opinion ; probably either concerning the Son^ or Holy 
 Ghost ; but errors were more frequent and more likely to hap- 
 pen concerning the latter than the former. The scriptural 
 ground of re-baptizing was what is recorded Acts xix. 5, of 
 baptizing, in the name of Jesus, those who had before only re- 
 ceived “ John''s baptism k” 
 
 It may also be mentioned here, that several persons, in dif- 
 ferent ages of the Church, seem to have run into an analogy 
 between the Son of God and the Holy Ghost, with respect to 
 the union of two natures in one Person. So that, as the Word 
 was made Jlesh and was sent^^ the Holy Ghost became an hu- 
 man Comforter or Paraclete. Some seem to have said, that, 
 as Christ acted with men as a Man, so the Comforter, sent by 
 Christ, may be, and probably is to be, a Man. The famous 
 Peter Lombard might have an idea of this sort, when he made 
 ‘‘ a double proceeding of the Holy Ghost — one temporal, the 
 other ^ eternal. Here is fine scope for enthusiasm ! a man of 
 an heated imagination, who was settled in this notion, that there 
 must be an human Comforter, or Holy Ghost, might find no 
 great difficulty in persuading himself that he was this human 
 Comforter : and this several fanatics seem to have done. But 
 when it is said that they pretended to be the Holy Ghost, the 
 account seems to me rather inaccurate; they probably pretended 
 to be nothing more than men, though each fancied himself the 
 Comforter, or Paraclete. 
 
 Those who have been less used to read the Scriptures in 
 the original than in our translation, may not have observed 
 that the word 7rapa/cXr/ro?, when applied to the Son of God, is 425 
 rendered Advocate, and when to the Holy Ghost, Comforter. 
 
 Yet, though these words are different, the fundamental ideas 
 are much the same. The Paraclete who is above pleads with 
 the Father, the Paraclete who is below pleads with men ; 
 though the happiness of mankind is the object of both- 
 
 2. These things premised in general, we might divide our 
 historical observations into three parts : the first taking in the 
 first four centuries, or perhaps part of the fifth; the next relat- 
 
 ^ Mentioned in Lord King on the 1 ^ L. Senten. 1. 14, quoted by Rogers 
 
 Creed, p. 318. ^ 7 ^ gt passim. ’ on this Article, p. 25. 
 
IV. V. 2.] 
 
 THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 633 
 
 II. ing to the eighth and ninth centuries; the last regarding the 
 age of the Reformation. 
 
 We must not speak of very early times of Christianity with- 
 out diffidence; but still it seems as if it might be useful to 
 mention, in a cursory way, that Simon Magus has been charged 
 with making the pretensions now described ^ Menander., his 
 follower, was thought worthy of notice^ on account of his errors; 
 and particularly on account of his saying, that baptism was 
 valid if administered in the name of Menander. Montanus is 
 said by Augustin ^ to have called himself Paraclete., and to have 
 affirmed that the promise of the Holy Ghost was fulfilled in 
 him — as Comforter, I suppose. He is also said to have bap- 
 tised his followers in the name of the Father, Son, and Monta- 
 nus: which receives some confirmation from his followers being 
 426 ordered, by two Councils % to be re-baptized. Sometimes he 
 used to put the name of one of his prophetesses (Priscilla and 
 Maximilla) instead of his own ; (could this be in baptizing fe- 
 males ?) Mani has been charged with making the pretensions 
 here spoken of (to be Paraclete) ; but Lardner defends him, 
 and says, that he pretended to nothing more than communica- 
 tion with the Deity. We have had his Trinity^ before: he 
 supposed the residence of the third Person to be in the air — a 
 thing not unlikely to occur. His oriental philosophy did not 
 immediately suggest this. In that, the Spirits are said to be 
 called (j}d)Ta^, or lights; to which St. JohrCs use of the word 
 Light may refer. 
 
 Christians have been said to judaise, when they have used 
 the word Spiritus in the sense in which the Jews used 111*1, for 
 an energy of God, particularly that by which the prophets 
 prophesied. Its sense in Acts“ sometimes seems to approach 
 to this. 
 
 The connection between Paul of Samosata, Marcellus, and 
 Photinus, has been shewn under the second Article. Their 
 
 ^ Aug. Haer. 1. Simon affirmed 
 “postea” (after he had given the Law 
 as Moses, and appeared on earth as 
 Christ) “se in linguis igneis spiritum 
 sanctum super Apostolos venisse.” 
 
 ® What Bingham says, 11. 3. 5, I 
 have found confirmed by writers on here- 
 sies, Aug. Theod. Philaster, &c. Aug. 
 calls Montanus’s sect Cataphryges, No. 
 26. Aug. makes Cataphryges different 
 from Pepuziani ; but Lardner makes 
 
 them the same ; the latter name from a 
 village in Phrygia, which the Montanists 
 held sacred — a sort of Jerusalem. Aug. 
 indeed mentions that some persons 
 thought them the same. ® Hjer. 26. 
 
 7 That of Laodicea, and the first of 
 Constantinople. 
 
 8 Sect. 3 of Appendix to Book 1. 
 
 ^ Michaelis, sect. 100, p. 245, quarto. 
 
 John i. 4, 9. " Acts. xix. 6. 
 
 Art. ii. sect. 7- 
 
634 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. V. 2. 
 
 works not being extant, we may aim at a general idea of them II. 
 all taken together. They seem to have held, that the Holy 
 Spirit in Scripture does not mean a Person^ but some efficacy 
 of God — some effect of his goodness, some specimen of his di- 
 vine power — which probably it sometimes does. Augustin says', 
 that the Pauliani were ordered by the Council of Nice to be 
 re-hapti%ed: but the acts of that Council are not all extant^; 
 nor does it, I think, appear what it was which vitiated the Pau- 
 lian baptism. 
 
 OrigerCs works have been so mangled and interpolated, that 427 
 I will only recommend it to the student not to depend absolutely 
 on any single passage of his works, in points which have been 
 much disputed; except he should wish to enter into the 
 subject, and then I would refer him to Huefs Origeniana. 
 
 The Sabellians, of whom we have spoken ^ before, were to 
 be re-bapti^ed'^ ; but their particular form of baptism is not 
 extant : and the Priscillianists have been reckoned a species of 
 Sabellians ^ 
 
 Lactantius has been mentioned ® before. 
 
 The Arians were so much engaged in controversy about 
 the Son of God, that they attended less to fixing a doctrine 
 concerning the Holy Ghost : yet Augustin says’'' of them, that 
 they called him “ creaturam creatures which, by the way, 
 allows to the Son a creative power. This agrees too with Epi- 
 phanius^^ and might be taken from him. However, only the 
 Eunomians of the Arian sects, seem to have been re-bapti%ed 
 by the Catholics. They baptized into the death ^ of Christ 
 only; though the following was a form ascribed to some of 
 them : In the name of the uncreated God, the created God, 
 and the sanctifying Spirit, created by the created Son. 
 
 But the Christians most distinguished for their opposition 
 to the Holy Spirit were the followers of Macedonius, called, on 
 that account, TrvevniaTond'^oi. Macedonius was a patriarch of 
 Constantinople, and deposed by a council there in the year 360. 
 
 His followers were the more noticed for their heterodoxy in 428 
 regard to the Holy Ghost, because they were orthodox with 
 regard to the Son; and could urge, in their own defence, that 
 
 > Haer.44. 
 
 ^ The Creed, Synodical Epistle, and 
 20 Canons, remain. Lard. vol. iv. p. 
 191. 3 sect. 4. 
 
 * Seventh canon of first Council of 
 Constantinople. 
 
 * Aug. Haer. 70, end. Also Art. i. 
 sect. 4. 
 
 ® Art. i. sect. 4. 
 
 ’ Haer. 49. 
 
 ® See Lard. Works, vol. iv, p. 113. 
 
 ® See Bingham, 11. 3. 10. Rom. vi. 3. 
 
IV. V. 3.] 
 
 THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 635 
 
 II. they received the whole of the Nicene Creed What the pre- 
 cise idea of the Macedonians was, we do not seem to know cer- 
 tainly. Augustin reckons them only Semi-arians; and Sozomen 
 says, that they looked upon the Holy Ghost as a kind of ser- 
 vant — ^LaKovov Ka\‘ vTrrjpeT7]v\ but our Reformatio Legum only 
 says'^, ilium pro Deo non agnoscentes, speaking of those Chris- 
 tians who conspire with Macedonius against the Holy Ghost. 
 
 3. We will now take some notice of the disputes of the 
 eighth and ninth centuries. Mosheim, a professed historian, 
 acknowledges that the origin of them “ is covered with per- 
 plexity and doubt;” and the occasion and rise of a dispute ge- 
 nerally influences the whole of it: so that, if the occasion is 
 doubtful, there will be doubts and different opinions concerning 
 the rest. What opinion I have formed of this part of history, 
 from the materials which have come in my way, I will give you 
 frankly. In the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, various dis- 
 putes took place with the followers of Macedonius^ with respect 
 to the nature and procession of the Holy Ghost. It might be 
 particularly mentioned, with a view to what followed, that, so 
 soon as the years 430 and 431, in the Councils of Alexandria 
 and Ephesus, it was declared that the Holy Ghost proceeded 
 from the Son as well as from the Father. In order to termi- 
 nate these disputes, the Church in general made a sort of settle- 
 ment or determination what should be accounted the Catholic 
 429 doctrine; and, to avoid farther adjustings of formularies, agreed 
 that nothing should from that time be added to those then un- 
 der consideration. It is probable that, at that time, the ques- 
 tion, whether the Holy Ghost should be spoken of as proceeding 
 from the Father and the Son {Filioque is the famous word), 
 did not occur to men’s minds. Filioque was not in the Creeds ^ 
 though it was not new. The students in the Western Church 
 seem to have ere long contracted an opinion, that it was proper 
 for them to profess in a Creed that the Holy Ghost proceeded 
 from the Son ; they therefore inserted (or one might say, re- 
 stored^^) Filioque; meaning, probably, no harm : and then the 
 Eastern Church thought as little of complaining as the Western 
 of offending. Afterwards, however, contentions for worldly 
 grandeur produced contentions about theological truth. Rome 
 and Constantinople were rivals ; not only for imperial, but for 
 
 See Lord King, p. 319, from Epi- l De Haeresibus, cap. 6. 
 phanius. Mosheim, vol. ii. 8vo, p. 268. 
 
 " Lib. 24, cap. 27. I Sec Long’s Councils, p. 104. 
 
636 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. V. 4. 
 
 spiritual pre-eminence. The Patriarch of Constantinople styled II. 
 himself Episcopus jEcitmenicus : Gregory the Great, Bishop 
 of Rome, was more lowly in the title he assumed — he was 
 “Servus servorum^^'' scilicet Dei; but, in his pretensions to 
 authority, he was equally ambitious. The Patriarch was the 
 head of the Eastern Church ; the Pope of the Western. This 
 rivalship made the Churches seek occasions of blaming each 
 other; and thus the insertion of Filioque came to be complained 
 of as a breach of faith. It was defended by the Western 
 Church, because the word contained right doctrine; this was 
 enough to make the Eastern Church dispute the doctrine ; they 
 did so, and the dispute still subsists, and still causes a separation 430 
 betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches. One Pope (Leo 
 III.) did once, for the sake of peace, order Filioque to be put 
 out of the Creed; at the same time ratifying the doctrine which 
 it comprehends : but he could only prevail in those churches 
 which were under his most immediate inspection; and that only 
 for a time. The obstinate resistance of the Greek or Eastern 
 Church, to the insertion of Filioque, is the more likely to be 
 owing to some worldly considerations ; as several of the Greek 
 fathers have the doctrine in their works, clearly expressed 
 
 4. The doctrine, which has the best claim to be called Ca- 
 tholic, is that which our Church professes : but, in the age of 
 the Reformation^ when every one was heated, and eager to dis- 
 tinguish himself, some extravagances broke forth — some of the 
 old enthusiastic pretensions shewed themselves again.. Mosheim 
 does not say that Servetus ^ pretended to be the Paraclete, but 
 I think others do; and he says, that Servetus pretended to a 
 divine commission to explain genuine Christianity, which had 
 been long lost. Gentilis'’s scheme before mentioned makes the 
 Holy Spirit distinct from the divine essence : he has also been 
 said to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son 
 
 In the book mentioned in the Introduction to the Articles^, 
 called a Necessary Doctrine^ &c., the words made use of seem 
 calculated to express both the personality of the Holy Ghost 
 and his being ~ an energy. He is holy and “holinesse itselfe;"* 
 ^\full of all goodnesse and benignitie, yea goodnesse 
 
 1 Bp. Hallifax’s Sermons on Pro- 
 phecy, Serm. 11th, p. 341, note; where 
 he shews that “ Vicarius Dei” means 
 the same with “ Servus servorum Dei.” 
 
 ® See Nicholls on this Article. — Epi- 
 phanius, Cyril, and Basil. 
 
 ^ Index, Servetus. 
 
 Art. ii. sect. 14. 
 
 ® Long’s Councils, p. 104. 
 
 ® Introd. to Book IV. sect. 4. 
 ’ See on the Crede. 
 
IV. V. 5.] 
 
 THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 637 
 
 II. and so, charitie itselfe.’’ In the Reformatio^ Legum^ those 
 
 431 were to be subject to all the pains and penalties of heresy who 
 denied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. Yet our present Ar- 
 ticle was not in those of 1552. Perhaps the main substance of it 
 was considered as already in the first Article ; but, as that did 
 not then prevent the second from being made separately, so nei- 
 ther need it have prevented the fifth : though there is certainly 
 more fresh matter in the second than in the fifth. 
 
 The Socinians, though they changed their language con- 
 cerning the Son of God, seem always to have denied the Per- 
 sonality of the Spirit. Even in their old Catechism, we have 
 Spiritus Sanctus est Virtus Dei.” And the Racovian cate- 
 chism says the same^; and denies that the Holy Spirit is ‘Mn 
 Deitate Personam.’'"' 
 
 Lastly, Mosheim^® mentions Paul Maty as having published 
 at the Hague, in 1729, an hypothesis, that the Holy Ghost has 
 two natures^ as before^’ mentioned; which hypothesis he is said 
 to have adopted from Dr. Thomas Burnet. 
 
 I think pretensions to being the Paraclete were not uncom- 
 mon amongst the enthusiastic Anabaptists in the age of the Re- 
 formation ; but I have no instances before me at present. 
 
 5. Having finished our history, we come to the explana- 
 tion : which will be confined to the meaning of the term Holy 
 Ghost, or Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit is the same as the 
 Spirit of God. The Holy One''"' was one of the names of God. 
 Luke i. 49, we have ‘‘ Holy is his Name.’'"' 
 
 432 When we compare this Article concerning the Holy Ghost 
 with the second concerning the Son, this seems the more difficult 
 as to the principal term made use of ; but I much question 
 whether it ought to seem so. Ghost is only (as appears from 
 Skinner’s Lexicon) an old word for spirit; and of spirit we 
 talk continually ; and, though there may be something in it 
 which is unintelligible, yet there is also something that is clear. 
 Whenever we use any word familiarly, it is to express something 
 which very frequently comes in our way ; and so long as we 
 keep to that which occasioned its being used, it is intelligible ; 
 though there is nothing so plain but we may perplex ourselves 
 about it, if we endeavour to view it on that side which is hid 
 from us in ordinary life. 
 
 ® De Haeresibus, cap. 6. 
 
 » Cap. 6, p. 167, edit. 1651. 
 
 Index, Maty. The account is ra- 
 
 ther Maclaine’s, but from a work of 
 Mosheim’s. 
 
 Sect, first of this Article. 
 
638 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. V. . 5 . 
 
 Now, as God calls the second Person of the Holy Trinity II. 
 his Son, in order to give us some faint idea of his nature, by 
 comparing what we cannot comprehend with what is familiar to 
 us — it is highly probable, that, when he calls the third Person 
 his Spirit, he means to answer the same purpose — to give us 
 some obscure conception of his nature, by comparing him to 
 something of which we speak familiarly every day. It is our 
 business then to take both the words Son and Spirit in that 
 view of them which is most familiar to us ; otherwise we per- 
 vert their meaning. Son and Spirit may both be made unintel- 
 ligible. Though we can talk to the plainest man about his son, 
 there are inexplicable mysteries in generation. In like manner, 
 though every man knows that he has life to be preserved, and 
 a soul to be saved, nothing is easier than to lose ourselves in 
 metaphysical labyrinths about spirit. The popular sense and 
 views of Son and Spirit are the only right ones in reading the 
 Holy Scriptures. 
 
 But though we say, that, in getting an idea of the Spirit of 433 
 God, we ought not to think metaphysically, but think, or rather 
 feel, popularly — yet we do not say that the word Spirit has 
 only one single sense, either in ordinary discourse, or in Scrip- 
 ture. The most familiar terms have often more meanings than 
 one ; especially if they denote things which are not the objects 
 of our senses. The way to investigate different meanings 
 is, with common men, to trust to common sense and common 
 feelings ; but, with thinking and philosophical men, it is to 
 trace out the natural progression of our thoughts and feelings. 
 
 If we could find out that progression, different meanings would 
 not perplex or embarrass the mind. One proof, that affixing 
 different senses to one word is owing to such progression, is 
 this: that, in dfferent languages, the same train of ideas is 
 expressed by a single word in each: IT1"1 has the same mean- 
 ings, or nearly all, with Trvevfj.a, and with spiritus ; which 
 could not be except the mind affixed the meanings by some 
 acts common to all men. If a new idea occurs, which is inde- 
 pendent of other ideas, we give it a new name ; but if an idea 
 occurs by means of its connection with another idea, we more 
 easily make some use of a known word, than invent one quite 
 new ; except indeed our two ideas are to be contradistin- 
 guished ; in that case we are sure to use two different names, 
 though we may not in other cases. The connection of ideas 
 is a curious thing. It is only by experience and observation 
 
THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 639 
 
 IV. V. 6.] 
 
 II. that we can judge how one idea introduces another. Mr. 
 Hume seems to have given this matter due attention : he 
 observes \ that one idea introduces another by resemblance, 
 
 434 contiguity, and causation. Let us see how this has place in 
 the different significations of the word Spirit ; remarking first, 
 that, as all our ideas are acquired originally by sensation, the 
 primitive signification of every word must be something which 
 is the object of our senses. 
 
 6. 1. Then it seems as if the primitive meaning of the 
 
 word Spiritus were a current of air, or a wind. In this sense 
 nn, TTvevixa, spiritus, are used Job i. iq. John iii. 8 
 
 2. It may be owing to resemblance that spiritus means 
 breath — that important current of air which proceeds from the 
 lungs. Spiritus and spiro are related in Latin, like irvevp.a and 
 TTveu) in Greek. If any one chose to call this the primitive'^ 
 sense, I should not contend with him. Both this and the last 
 meaning belong to the senses ; and the mind might be led by 
 resemblance from either of them to the other ; TTvedna signify- 
 ing breath, 1 Kings xvii. 17; Job xvii. 1, &c. 
 
 3. When words come to express things not objects of sense, 
 they do it by some kind of comparison ; and comparison implies 
 resemblance. Here we should observe, that, when any words 
 are first transferred {fieracpepovTai) to stand for new ideas, by 
 comparison, all men, that write or speak accurately, keep up in 
 their minds a constant reference to the original proper idea. 
 Such an one would not say a man had sagacity to see a thing, 
 but that he had sagacity to smell it out, or find it out. Thus 
 the word spirit has always, at least after its first translation 
 (as Cicero would call it), a tacit reference to moving as a 
 
 435 current, or proceeding forth as breath'^. In this way proceed- 
 ing may have come to be used, probably, with regard to the 
 Holy Spirit: at least, how far proceeding implies this idea, 
 should be attentively considered. 
 
 4. Breath is the cause of life — the causa sine qua non. 
 Hence it becomes natural to use breath for life, and losing 
 
 * Inquiry — Understanding, sect. 3. 
 
 2 Junius calls this the primitive sense 
 of ghost. And breath comes before “air, 
 wind'' Ormerod, p. 53, on Priestley. 
 
 ^ The schoolmen used to call proceed- 
 ing, spiration. (Burnet.) Acts ii. 2, 
 “a rushing mighty wind" accompanies 
 it. When a Being has been called the 
 
 Son, to call his derivation by the term 
 Generation, is only going on with the 
 same idea; it cannot be called any thing 
 new : so, when a Being has been called 
 Spirit, his derivation will, of course, be 
 called something different from genera- 
 tion, more nearly belonging to a current 
 of air. 
 
640 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. V. 6. 
 
 breath, or spirit, for losing /i/e : we call it expiring. And in 11. 
 Scripture and a<p^K€ to^ TrreD/xa, are used in the 
 
 same manner. To expire.^ is the same thing as to give up the 
 ghost. Breath is used for Z^/e, in many passages of Scrip- 
 ture 
 
 5. But when we die we not only lose /i/e, but all our 
 
 incorporeal faculties — understanding, will, affections; these 
 therefore, taken collectively are sometimes denoted by the 
 same name. This collection of the incorporeal qualities of 
 each man is sometimes called his soul, as making a part of the 
 man ; and so spirit, in one sense, becomes synonymous with 
 soul % or mind : though sometimes there may be occasion to 
 separate soul into and vov^, animal and intelligent. 
 
 6. The soul, or spirit, being supposed to have quitted the 
 body, is conceived as having a separate existence, or as being a 
 distinct person or agent ; though, for a while, it is conceived, 
 
 as well as the body, to belong to the man. Thus it is said, his 486 
 body is buried^ in peace, but his soul liveth for evermore. 
 Heb. xii. 28, we read of “ the spirits of just men made perfect;” 
 but Luke xxiv. 87, and 89, spirit is spoken of as more inde- 
 pendent — “ a spirit,” that is a man's spirit, “ hath not flesh 
 and bones.” And in this sense we speak of the habitations, or 
 receptacles, of our souls or spirits. 
 
 7. From calling the incorporeal part of man spirit, we are 
 led, by resemblance, to give the name to any incorporeal agent 
 whatsoever ; to make a genus or species of spirits. And thus 
 we say “ God is a spirit®,” and, ‘‘ he maketh his angels spirits^.” 
 
 Nor is it necessary that incorporeal beings should have any 
 particular moral character, in order to be called by this name : 
 there are not only good but evil spirits. 
 
 8. It is not material, but we may as well add, that the 
 
 spirit is sometimes® opposed to the letter. In this case, the 
 letter is compared to the body, and the meaning to the animal 
 soul, or This sense may be conceived therefore to 
 
 branch off from the fourth sense ; and indeed it is only men- 
 
 * Luke xxiii. 46. 
 
 2 Matt, xxvii. 50. See also Acts vii. 
 59, and James ii. 26. 
 
 ^ The end of the Psalms (irdau irvorj ). 
 Eccles. iii. 19 — Trvevfia opposed to Qdva- 
 'To^ — &c. 1 Kings xvii. 17, might be 
 here, as well as before, under the second 
 sense 
 
 ^ 1 Cor. ii. 11, former part of the verse : 
 Rom. viii. 16. Acts vii. 59, may belong 
 to our fifth or sixth observation. 
 
 ® Imitated from Ecclesiasticus xLiv. 
 14. 
 
 ® John iv. 24, 
 
 Ps. civ. 4. See also 1 Pet. iii. 19. 
 
 ^ 2 Cor. iii. 6. 
 
IV. V. 6.] 
 
 THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 641 
 
 II. tioned in order to shew, that, from any of our senses, others 
 may divaricate, which it is not to our purpose to specify. 
 
 And now, from the instances given by the way, it must 
 appear, that the language of the Scripture is accommodated to 
 the natural feelings and operations of the human mind. But 
 this will appear more fully, if we recollect that the sacred 
 writers do not only comply with our imperfect conceptions in 
 speaking of things human, but in their descriptions of the 
 
 437 actions and qualities of the Supreme Being: — 1. The invisible 
 influence exercised by God on the heart of man is illustrated 
 by being compared to the wind, as in John iii. 8, where iwevya 
 is first translated wind^'' and then spirit.^'' 2. (and 4.) 
 Breath is not only very frequently put for life, (which is some- 
 times called ‘‘ the breath of life,”) but God himself is said, in 
 giving life, to breathe into® man’s nostrils the breath of life. 
 And the Son of God performs the act of breathing, emblema- 
 tically, when he bids his disciples to receive the holy Tri^eu/ixa — 
 the Christian life. 3. The Spirit is said to proceed — in what 
 way, remains to be considered 5. The ‘‘ mind of the Lord” 
 is several times mentioned in Scripture ; the original being 
 sometimes irvevixa, and sometimes roD?. Let any one compare 
 Rom. xi. 34, with the 2d chap, of 1 Cor. from the 10th verse, 
 and he will acknowledge the propriety of our present method 
 of investigating the Divine mind, by a comparison with the 
 human. 
 
 6. The Spirit of God is sometimes spoken of as a distinct 
 Person ; but this, having been questioned, must be reserved for 
 the proof: though we may mention a sense in which irvcduia is 
 taken by a great number of Christians. To those who acknow- 
 ledge the personality of the Holy Spirit, we may say here, that, 
 when the Spirit of God is spoken of as a distinct Person, it is 
 so as to be consistent with the Unity of God ; in like manner 
 as we speak of the spirit of a man, so as to be consistent with 
 the Unity of a man. 
 
 7. God is a Spirit 
 
 438 It may be a separate remark, that in Scripture the word 
 Spirit often stands for the eflicacy, effects, or, as it is usual to 
 speak, the gifts of the Spirit. This may easily happen by 
 causation ; but whether we have a sense of spirit in common 
 
 ® Gen. ii. 7, Trvotjv ^ojrjs. 
 
 John XX. 22. ^ John xv. 26. 
 
 1* See p. 639, note. 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 13 Lev. xxiv. 12 ; Rom. xi. 34 ; 1 Cor, 
 ii. 16. 
 
 1^ John iv. 24. 
 
 41 
 
642 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. V. 7, 8. 
 
 life answering to this, will perhaps be doubted. In other II. 
 things, the same word which signifies the cause is put also to 
 denote the effect, ‘ This is your kindnessf means often ‘this 
 is the effect of your kindness.’ The Greek word which signifies 
 the pangs of parturition, is used also for the young^ brought 
 forth. Whether spirit^ in the sense of vivacity or animation, 
 will be reckoned to come under this remark, I do not determine. 
 
 The gifts of the Spirit mentioned in Scripture are either mira- 
 culous powers, or good dispositions. The gift of tongues seems 
 sometimes to take the name of the Holy Spirit or Ghost, by 
 way of eminence; as it was conferred first in a most striking 
 manner, and served afterwards almost to distinguish Christians 
 from heathens, as well as to propagate the Christian religion. 
 
 In this sense may be taken the expression, “ whether there he 
 any Holy Ghost.” Compare Acts xix. 2, with viii. l6. 
 
 On the whole, I hope it appears that the Author of the 
 Christian Revelation, by calling the third Person in the Holy 
 Trinity his Spirit, or the Holy Spirit, did not intend to increase 
 our perplexity, but illustrate to us what we cannot directly 
 comprehend, by a comparison with that which we constantly 
 speak of as familiar. And this is all that I can conceive ne- 
 cessary to be said in explanation of our present Article. 
 
 7. I therefore now proceed to the proof. 
 
 All the propositions of this Article may be reduced to four. 439 
 
 1. The Holy Ghost is set forth to us in Scripture as a 
 Person, or Agent. 
 
 2. We are authorized to say that he proceedeth from the 
 Father. 
 
 S. Also, that he proceedeth from the Son. 
 
 4. It is the meaning of Scripture that Christians should 
 treat this Person as Dimne. 
 
 8. 1. The Holy Ghost is set forth to us in Scripture as 
 a Person. It must be owned that this proposition is not ex- 
 pressly mentioned in our present Article ; but yet it is clearly 
 implied in it, and expressed in the first Article. 
 
 The following passages represent the Holy Ghost as a 
 Person: — Matt. xii. 32; xxviii. 19. John xiv. 16, 26; xvi. 
 
 8, 13. Rom. viii. 26. 1 Cor. xii. 11. Eph. iv. 30 ^ 1 John 
 V. 7^ Veneer observes (p. 113), that the Holy Spirit is op- 
 posed to evil spirits ; who are persons. 
 
 * Tvos, wSTves: see Parkhurst’s [ ^ See Dr. Priestley’s Familiar lllus- 
 
 Lexicon bnn, sense ii. ; or 1 tration, p. 36. ^ See Art. ii. sect. 17. 
 
IV. V. 9-11.] 
 
 THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 643 
 
 11 . 9 . 2 . This Person is rightly said, in any Christian con- 
 
 fession of faith, to proceed from the Father. This appears by 
 John xiv. 26; xv. 26; and 1 Pet. i. 12 , where the word 
 Heaven''"' is equivalent to the Lord of Heaven. It appears 
 also by all those passages in which the Holy Ghost is called 
 the “ Spirit of Godf or the “ Spirit of the Lord’’"' — as Matt, 
 iii. l6. Acts V. 9. 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11, 14 . 1 Cor. iii. 16. 1 Cor. 
 
 vi. 19^. For, if the Spirit of God did manifest his influence 
 on earth.^ he must have proceeded from God. If you say, that 
 is not from the Father^ 1 answer, if it was from God, and not 
 from the Father, it must be “ from the Father and the Sonf 
 
 440 as the Article says. The Holy Ghost, however, is called the 
 Spirit of the Father^ Matt. x. 20. And the same in effect, 
 Rom. viii. 11 . 
 
 10 . 3 . The Holy Ghost ought to be confessed by Chris- 
 tians to have proceeded from the Son. John xv. 26, is of itself 
 a sufficient call upon Christians to acknowledge this. But we 
 may add the authority of John xvi. 7 ; xx. 22 ; and Acts ii. 33. 
 As also of those passages in which the Holy Spirit is called the 
 Spirit of Christ, as Rom. viii. 9; Gal. iv. 6; Phil. i. 19; 
 1 Pet. i. 1 1 ; arguing as about the Spirit of the Father. These 
 texts seem quite sufficient to justify the Western Church, in 
 point of doctrine, for inserting Filioque in the Creed ; though, 
 with Bishop Burnet, we would judge the Eastern Church with 
 candour. Two of the texts, proving the procession of the Holy 
 Ghost from the Son, prove also the procession from the Father ; 
 namely, John xv. 26, and Rom viii. 9 - Hoes not this look as 
 if the Holy Spirit might be said to proceed from either, or both, 
 as was most suitable to circumstances.'^ and is not that a far- 
 ther proof of the propriety of our speaking as we do of the 
 Holy Trinity ? 
 
 11 . 4 . It is the meaning of Scripture that Christians 
 should consider the Holy Ghost and treat him as Divine. 
 One single passage of St. Paul seems sufficient to prove this — 
 namely, 1 Cor. ii. 11 ; since, according to all our notions, which 
 he well knew who was both the Author of our nature and of 
 Revelation, as the soul or spirit of man is human, the Spirit of 
 God must be divine. But we might use the plan which we 
 used in the second ^ Article ; and prove the Divinity of the 
 third Person of the Holy Trinity, as we proved that of the 
 
 441 second. 1 . The Holy Ghost is called eternal, Heb. ix. 14 . 
 
 See Parkhurst, TrveZfia. ® Art. ii. sect. 16. 
 
 41 — 2 
 
644 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. V. 12, 13. 
 
 2. For creative power, see Gen. i. 2. 3. We have instances of II. 
 
 \ns power, equivalent to a power of preserving: 1 Pet. iii. 18, 
 he is said to have raised Christ from the dead. 4. His omni- 
 presence is frequently mentioned. John xvi. 13, He is to 
 guide us into all truth. He is to be a Comforter, not to one 
 Christian, but all. 5. His omniscience sufficiently appears 
 from his omnipresence : and from his being Guide and Com- 
 forter to all Christians, which may be to all men. And 1 Cor. 
 vi. 19, we are told, that our bodies are inhabited by him as a 
 temple by its Deity. Besides, He who is called the Mind or 
 Spirit of God, an omniscient Being, must be omniscient: 1 Cor. 
 
 ii. 11. 6. Lastly, He is a proper object of worship; so must 
 
 every one be who has properly a temple. Matt, xxviii. 19, 
 implies this; Rom. ix. 1, is a kind of oath; 2 Cor. xiii. 14, a 
 benediction. 
 
 Besides what proof arises under this plan, we may urge, 
 that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost implies that he is divine. 
 Especially as it is an unpardonable sin, either absolutely, or 
 comparatively. 
 
 In Acts V. the 3rd verse compared with the 4th, seems a 
 full proof, that we ought to consider the Holy Ghost as God. 
 
 As also 1 Cor. iii. 16, ‘‘ the temple of God,” compared with 
 1 Cor. vi. 19, the temple of the Holy Ghost.''' 
 
 Supposing it made out in general that the Holy Ghost is 
 God, there needs not any particular proof that he “ is of one 
 substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son.” 
 They have been proved divine, and the Unity of God is con- 
 fessed. What was ^ before said of infinite intimacy, may be 
 applied here, with great propriety, to him who knows the mind 
 of God; and perhaps received with the less difficulty, on account 442 
 of the freedom of the Holy Ghost from the imperfections of 
 matter. 
 
 12. Here then I close the direct proof of the truth of our 
 Article. We must next proceed to the indirect proof, or to 
 answering objections: not that we need examine every objection ; 
 we may content ourselves, as under the second Article, with 
 arming ourselves in such a manner that we may be able to resist 
 any particular attack, as occasion may require. 
 
 13. 1. We will take notice of what our adversaries say, 
 with regard to rhetorical personification, or Prosopopceia. The 
 Holy Ghost, say they, is no more a Person, than Charity, or 
 
 * Art. i. sect. 17 ; and Art. ii. sect. 21. 
 
IV. V. 13.] 
 
 THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 645 
 
 II. Sin, or than the Wind, which ‘‘ bloweth where it listethV’ 
 ‘‘ Charity^ suffereth long, and is kind,’" &c. ; that is, the chari- 
 table man : his actions are, by prosopopaeia, ascribed to the 
 virtue. Sin deceived St. Paul (or some one in whose person 
 he speaks) and slew ^ him ; that is, sinful principles, ascribed 
 rhetorically to Sin as a person. In like manner, they urge, 
 that what is said to be done by the Spirit, is really done by an 
 inspired^ man; or else by God himself^, whose energy or virtus, 
 is personified. We own that the Spirit does not always mean 
 a Person, in speaking of Deity, any more than Trvevfxa, in what 
 is said of man. We might own farther, that those who profess 
 the personality of the Spirit may sometimes take passages as 
 implying that personality, which really do not ; but that which 
 chiefly keeps us to our old opinion still remains : it is, that 
 there are some passages of Scripture, which, supposing them 
 figurative, would neither have rhetorical beauty, nor, in truth, 
 443 common sense. In Rom. viii. 26, 27 ^ the Father must make 
 intercession to himself ; or the saints for themselves. In John 
 XV. 26, Christ must send the Father /row the Father; and ac- 
 cording to John xvi. 13, he must speak not of himself, but only 
 what was dictated to him. Bishop Pearson dwells on John 
 xvi. 14 : ‘‘ He shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto 
 you.” God, in the Socinian sense of the word, could not re- 
 ceive of Christ’s ; nor could an inspired man shew it unto 
 himself. 
 
 How then, you will say, shall we know when a real person 
 is spoken of, and when one merely rhetorical ? from particular 
 circumstances ; as in the instances now produced. We could 
 sometimes judge from the general style of the composition or 
 passage, of which any doubtful expression made a part ; the 
 whole air or manner of an eloquent passage is very different 
 from that of an argumentative or historical one. But, if there 
 were no criterion which would take away all doubt in all 
 cases, no argument would arise against what we have said. We 
 every day allow that some things are beautiful and proper, 
 other things deformed and improper ; yet no criterion seems 
 yet discovered, by which, in all cases, we can distinguish 
 beauty or propriety beyond a doubt. Nay, all men are not 
 
 2 John iii. 8. ( ^ ^ 
 
 ^ 1 Cor. xiii. 4. ^ There is something about this pas- 
 
 ^ Rom. vii. 11. sag^ in Short Defence of the Atonement, 
 
 ® Acts X. 19 ; xiii. 2. | p. 85. 
 
646 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. V. 14, 15. 
 
 yet come into one criterion of virtue; may we not venture II. 
 to say, nevertheless, that some things are right, and others 
 wrong ? 
 
 14. 2. Again, it may be urged, how can the Holy Spirit 
 proceed from the Son, if in many places the Spirit is described 
 as superior to the Son ? Places of this ^ sort are Matt. i. 20 ; 
 
 iv. 1 ; xii. 28. 32. John i. 33. Acts i. 2. But, in such an 444 
 economy as that described in the doctrine of the Trinity, it 
 may happen, that any one person, who has an ojffice, may be 
 spoken of sometimes as superior, sometimes as inferior to an- 
 other. In general, he who gives a commission is superior to him 
 who receives it ; and therefore, if either the Son or the Holy 
 Ghost take upon him some commission from the Deity, he, in 
 executing that commission, may be considered as inferior to that 
 Being who appoints to it ; — or, a Person of the Holy Trinity 
 in office, though he be divine, is, as in that ^ office, below Divi- 
 nity. I would not fix upon this solution positively, but I 
 think I dare recommend to the student to make trial of it. 
 
 And I should hope some advantage, as to the clearing up of 
 difficulties, might result from the experiment. 
 
 15. With regard to other objections, I will only refer to the 
 general precautions mentioned under the second ^ Article. I 
 was so full upon them, that any one would easily apply them 
 to the present subject ; that is, transfer them from the second 
 Person of the Holy Trinity to the third. A few hints will 
 now be sufficient. I. Fallacies are apt to arise from not attend- 
 ing to the state in which the Holy Ghost is supposed to be 
 when any thing is said of him. 2. Or, particularly, from not 
 observing whether he is spoken of in his divine or his official 
 capacity. 3. If in the latter, it is to be kept in mind that the 
 Father and the Son may then be said to constitute the Deity, 
 while that case continues ; and therefore that it may be a 
 matter of indifference whether the Holy Ghost be said to pro- 
 ceed from the Father, or the Son, or both. 4. Partial or 
 incomplete quotations may mislead on any subject whatsoever. 
 
 5. As the word Spirit has so many senses, that kind of fallacy 445 
 which arises from implying, that, because such a word has such 
 a particular sense in one place, it cannot have a different sense 
 in another place, is one which may occur still more frequently 
 
 4th book against Nestorius, vol. vi. 
 p. 103. “ See Art. ii. sect. 33. 
 
 ^ Art. ii. sect. 30. 
 
 • Nestorius cited some of these pas- 
 sages against the Arians; also 1 Tim. iii. 
 10, “justified in the Spirit.” See Cyril’s 
 
IV. V. 16.] 
 
 THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 647 
 
 II. under this Article than under the second. 6. The caution 
 about attending to the views of those who are cited as witnesses, 
 or authorities, seems just of the same force here as before. 7. 
 Substitution of the interpretation, for the words interpreted, 
 may be here also equally useful. Indeed, one substitution 
 before^ mentioned, did extend to our present subject. Any 
 one might substitute, either in Matt, xxviii. 19 , or 1 John v. 
 7, for the Holy Ghost, either the Virtus ® Dei of the Socinian 
 catechisms, or emanation.^ or activity^ or any other word which 
 was exclusive of personality. 
 
 16. The proofs direct and indirect, being now concluded, 
 we come to the application ; consisting of the same parts as 
 before. 
 
 First then we ask, in what sense a thinking man would at 
 this time assent to this Article ? Conceive such an one, in his 
 retirement, informed as we now are, seriously examining whe- 
 ther he could sincerely subscribe to it or not. ‘ Let me con- 
 sider,’ he might say, ‘ to what I am about to give a solemn 
 assent. Of the Holy Ghost I certainly have not a clear and 
 distinct idea : but is it possible that I should have No ; the 
 nature of God must be above the comprehension of man. Yet, 
 when I am told that the Being, in whom I am to believe, is to 
 be considered by me as the Mind or Spirit of God, I under- 
 stand this as an illustration of something in the Divine Nature, 
 by a comparison with something human. An human mind I 
 446 do not understand perfectly, nor indeed an human body, nor 
 any thing else ; but practically^ I can speak of it with ease 
 and consistency. The notion in which I so speak of it is the 
 one which I ought to have in view when I compare it with the 
 divine mind ; else it is I who make my own difficulties : not 
 that the most popular and practical way of viewing my own 
 mind, can make that, which is illustrated, even so clear as that 
 by which the illustration is made. 
 
 ‘When I speak of Spirit with regard to things human, the 
 word has various senses. So may it when applied to things 
 divine. Sometimes it may denote things which are effects of 
 the divine mind : be it so. Yet, when I consider all the pas- 
 sages of Scripture in which Spirit occurs, I find some which 
 seem void of rational meaning, if I do not conceive the Holy 
 Spirit to be a Person. I cannot, without the greatest violence 
 
 * That in the form of Baptism, Matt, xxviii. 19. Art. ii. sect. 37. 
 
 ^ This Article, sect. 4. 
 
648 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. V. 17. 
 
 of interpretation, reject the personality of the Holy Ghost, and II. 
 therefore I do acknowledge it. My ideas here are certainly 
 inadequate ; but so are they with respect to the Son of God ; 
 especially when I conceive him independently of his human 
 nature. 
 
 ‘ This incorporeal person is said to proceed from the Deity ; 
 or from two Persons^ which (according to the doctrine of the 
 Trinity) may be conceived to constitute the Deity ^ when the 
 third Person is commissioned to execute any office'^ or from 
 either of them. Here again my ideas are inadequate; but 
 yet, in some sense, that the Holy Spirit proceeded, or was 
 sent, or commissioned, is declared ; and, if it had not been 
 expressly declared, it would have been implied. As that divine 
 person, who was called the Son of God, must of course, with- 
 out any new idea, be said to be generated; so He, who is 
 called the Spirit^ must, of course, be said to have some other 447 
 derivation : to proceed, is as well as any thing else. How then 
 might this be.^ I know not. Might it be as breath proceeds.? 
 or “ like a rushing mighty wind f’' Might it be as an ambas- 
 sador is commissioned.? I know not; and it probably imports 
 me not to know. 
 
 ‘Of this Person things are affirmed in Scripture, which are 
 peculiar to the Divinity himself. Indeed, the mind of God 
 must be divine. I therefore, with sacred awe, acknowledge the 
 Divinity of the Holy Ghost ; in such a way that it may be 
 consistent with the Divinity of the Father and the Son, and 
 with the Unity of God. Some more expressions, I see, are 
 contained in the Article ; but I see not that they increase my 
 difficulties. I have no idea of any difference of “ substance^'' 
 or any inequality of “ majesty and glory j"* amongst those Per- 
 sons whom I acknowledge to be divine, when I at the same 
 time profess that there is but one God. I mean well, and 
 therefore, if I err, I shall hope to be forgiven,’ 
 
 17* (2d and 3d of the four parts, of which ihe application 
 
 consists.) The next thing to be considered is the nature of 
 any mutual concessions, which might be adopted in order to 
 bring about, amongst those who differ in private opinion, a 
 sufficient agreement in doctrine for the purpose of social 
 worship. But I have enlarged on this head under the first 
 and second Articles ; and there is such an affinity between the 
 doctrines of those Articles and the present, that to enlarge again 
 would be useless repetition. 
 
IV. V. 18-22.] 
 
 THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 ()49 
 
 II. Our doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost seems rather to 
 afford additional motives to good conduct, than motives to 
 action which are opposed to any practical principles of our 
 adversaries. And this seems to afford a reason why, if we 
 
 448 were mutually candid and accommodating, we might coincide 
 in worship tolerably well. At least, additional motives to 
 virtue in one party, cannot hinder a coincidence so much, as 
 motives or rules of action in that party, which were contra- 
 dictory to some held sacred by the opposite party. 
 
 18. In the last place, we come to the subject of improve- 
 ments. 
 
 19. The passages of Scripture, from which the doctrine 
 concerning the Holy Ghost is derived, may possibly admit of a 
 more exact and minute attention than has hitherto been paid 
 them, with regard to the circumstances in which they occur. 
 It is from circumstances that a judgment must be formed as to 
 personality, and as to any difference which may arise from his 
 being spoken of as engaged officially. 
 
 20. More may be done in ascertaining whether expressions 
 relating to the Holy Ghost are to be considered as indejinite, 
 and in what degree. It is not impossible that expressions may 
 be (I do not say they are) more definite about the Holy Ghost 
 than about the Son ; though the illustration from sonship is 
 more definite than that from mind. We find the expression 
 seven^ spirits in five or six places of Scripture : if that expres- 
 sion be indefinite, (as forgiving seven times, and seventy times 
 seven, seems to be), it may be admitted into expressions about 
 the Spirit of God. 
 
 21. Perhaps a criterion to distinguish rhetorical from 
 real persons might be found out. Or, at least, we might 
 approach towards one, so as to be nearer to one than we are at 
 present. 
 
 22. It would be an improvement if forms could be in- 
 vented in which Socinians could join : in which, while we 
 addressed ourselves to the Holy Ghost, they should use the 
 
 449 same words, and address themselves to God independently of 
 the Holy Trinity. While we took some expressions as plain, 
 implying a real person, they should take them as rhetorical, or 
 as instances of the prosopopaeia, or metonymy. Under the first 
 Article I gave a short prayer ^ addressed to the Son in scrip- 
 
 See Park. Hebr. Lexicon, under 2"iD. 
 
 2 Art. i. sect. 14. 
 
650 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. V. 23, 24. 
 
 tural terms, and in a manner promised^ a similar one addressed II. 
 to the Holy Ghost. The difficulty, as before ^ mentioned, is, 
 that those who did not own the Holy Ghost for a Person would 
 think they had no object to address. And perhaps there may 
 be few, if any, who own him for a Person, and deny his being 
 divine^. Nevertheless, I will perform my promise, and exhibit 
 a short specimen, in order that it may be improved upon : it 
 may be useful as briefly expressing the attributes, &c. of the 
 Holy Ghost. 
 
 ‘O thou Spirit of God ! foretold by the prophet^; thou, by 
 whom our blessed Saviour was conceived, thou, who presidedst 
 at his Baptism ; by whom he was even raised from the dead^ ; 
 by whom he wrought his miracles ® ; in whose name we are 
 admitted into the community of Christians ; — do thou be ever 
 our Comforter and guide ! — do thou, who art the Spirit of 
 Truth, guide us into all truth : teach us to acknowledge Jesus 
 for our Lord ^ ! O may we be renezved and horn again of thee ! 
 mayest thou enable us to mortify the deeds of the body ! of 
 those bodies which are ennobled by being thy temples ! May we 
 be so led ^ by thee, that we may be truly the sons of God ! — . 
 then shall we be also heirs; heirs of God and joint-heirs 450 
 with Christ! and we shall finally receive ‘‘an inheritance'^ 
 incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved 
 for us in heaven.” ’ 
 
 23. As our affections seem to depend on associations and 
 sympathies, it might be inquired, whether increasing the 
 number of our relations to the Deity would not heighten our 
 devout affections f 
 
 24. Lastly, it might be considered, whether our difficulties 
 respecting the Holy Trinity, in all its parts, do not depend 
 greatly on our not confining ourselves to those vieivs, and those 
 modes of thinking, which are most properly human ? 
 
 * Art. i. sect. 15. ^ Art. i. sect. 14. 
 
 ^ The Macedonians did this, if any. 
 See this Art. sect. 2. end. 
 
 ^ Ezek. xxxvi. 27. ® 1 Pet. iii. 18. 
 
 ® Matt. xii. 28. ^ i Cor. xii. 3. 
 
 ® Rom. viii. 14. 
 
 9 1 Pet. i. 4. 
 
 Book III. chap. iii. sect. 10. 
 
IV. vi. Tref.] 
 
 THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 651 
 
 II. 
 
 451 
 
 ARTICLE VI. 
 
 OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES FOR 
 SALVATION. 
 
 Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: 
 SO that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved 
 thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be 
 believed as an Article of Faith, or be thought requisite or ne- 
 cessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do 
 understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testa- 
 ment, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. 
 
 Of the Na7nes and Number of the Canonical Books. 
 
 Genesis, 
 
 Exodus, 
 
 Leviticus, 
 
 Numeri, 
 
 Deuteronomium, 
 
 Joshua, 
 
 Judges, 
 
 Ruth, 
 
 The First Book of Samuel, 
 The Second Book of Samuel, 
 The First Book of Kings, 
 The Second Book of Kings, 
 
 The First Book of Chronicles, 
 The Second Book of Chronicles, 
 The First Book of Esdras, . 
 The Second Book of Esdras, 
 The Book of Hester, 
 
 The Book of Job, 
 
 The Psalms, 
 
 The Proverbs, 
 
 Ecclesiastes, or Preacher, 
 Cantica, or Songs of Solomon, 
 Four Prophets the Greater, 
 Twelve Prophets the Less. 
 
 And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth 
 read for example of life, and instruction of manners ; but yet 
 doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these 
 following : 
 
 452 The Third Book of Esdras, 
 
 The Fourth Book of Esdras, 
 The Book of Tobias, 
 
 The Book of J udith. 
 
 The rest of the Book of Hester, 
 The Book of Wisdom, 
 
 Jesus the Son of Sirach, 
 
 Baruch the Prophet, 
 
 The Song of the Three Children, 
 The Story of Susanna, 
 
 Of Bel and the Dragon, 
 
 The Prayer of Manasses, 
 
 The First Book of Maccabees, 
 The Second Book of Maccabees. 
 
 All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly 
 received, we do receive, and account them Canonical. 
 
 Preface Our Church, having laid down some fundamen- 
 
 tal doctrines, comes to settle the principles on which any disputes 
 are to be carried on. This might have been done first ; but 
 the Articles being formed with a view to a separation from the 
 Church of Rome, it might seem most proper to lay down, in 
 
652 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. vi. 1,2. 
 
 the first place, such things concerning the nature of the Deity II. 
 as had not occasioned any controversy with the Romish Church. 
 
 It is always useful to put ourselves in the place of those 
 who wrote what we are to subscribe, by means of historical 
 reflections ; but the present Article differs from the preceding 
 in respect to history. Generally, we have only to take one 
 station, as it were, and look back into past times ; but here we 
 must take several stations — a circumstance which will be the 
 occasion of our using a different method^ in treating of the 
 present Article, from that to which we have adhered in the five 
 preceding Articles. 
 
 1. A person well informed in History, if he was to read 453 
 our Article, would first cast his eyes on those whom the reform- 
 ers had most immediately in view; and run over the different 
 notions of men who lived at the time of the Reformation. 
 Then, when he saw a set of books mentioned as sacred, the 
 last of which had been published above 2000 years, he would 
 find himself, in the second place, carried back to those remote 
 times; nay, to all the ages of which those books gave an account. 
 When he perceived, in the third place, a question, whether a 
 certain number of books should be ranked in this old class, or 
 not, he would contemplate those events, persons, circumstances, 
 
 by which such question should be decided. And lastly^ when 
 he read of another set of books, which had been gradually re- 
 ceived as of Divine authority in the earlier times of Christi- 
 anity he would examine the state of things in those times ; as 
 relating to Christians, Jews, and Pagans. 
 
 These four different views, or stations, will divide our con- 
 siderations on the present Article into four parts ; in each of 
 which historical reflections will naturally occur before others. 
 
 2. 1. Let us first, then, consider those whom the authors of 
 our Article had most immediately in view. And here, I think, 
 we need do little more than look into the earlier sessions of the 
 Council of Trent, especially the fourth h This council met 
 Dec. 13, 1545, for the purposes of reformation, &c. and “ad 
 extirpationem hceresiumfi but adjourned till after the holidays. 454 
 At their second session, Jan. 7, 1546 (N. S.), they settled the 
 manner of conducting the Council ; at the third, Feb. 4, they 
 fixed upon a Creed ; and at the fourth, (April 8), they settled 
 their Canon of Scripture. But, besides Scripture, they men- 
 
 ^ It might be proper to oppose to the I De summa Trinitate, and De Haeresibus, 
 Romish Council our Reformatio Legum. I cap. 3. 
 
IV. vi. 2.] 
 
 THK HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 653 
 
 II. tion, as the ground of their faith, Traditions ; and pronounce 
 an anathema on those who do not receive both their Scriptures^, 
 according to the ancient Latin Vulgate^ and their Traditions. 
 They mention also^ the Fathers^ the Councils^ and the Church. 
 Sometimes these seem to be separate from the traditions, and 
 sometimes they look as if the traditions were made up of them, 
 or things contained in their records. Our reformers would 
 have all these in view. The canon of Scripture will come under 
 our second part. At present we may confine ourselves to tra- 
 dition ; for we have treated ^ of the Fathers in the first book ; 
 and the subjects of the Church and Councils will occur in the 
 20th and 21st Articles. 
 
 It is natural to ask, whether there are any collections of 
 traditions, as there are with us of maxims of unwritten law .? 
 The Council of Trent mentions none, nor Calmet, under Tra- 
 ditions. Several doctrines founded on tradition are to be found 
 in the Rhemish Testament^; and Bishop Burnet speaks® of se- 
 veral of those doctrines, which our Articles oppose seemingly, as 
 having this origin. Bishop Porteus, from Achbishop Seeker, 
 455 mentions “ the Popish creed,’’’ as composed of a great number 
 of doctrines (amongst others) founded on tradition ; but I sup- 
 pose this is not meant of any written creed, properly so called®. 
 
 Perhaps traditions are only proved occasionally, from 
 Fathers, &c. 
 
 One might mention here the Legends of the Romish 
 Church. Legends were originally only things legenda, to be 
 read at religious meetings; chiefly narratives, either from Scrip- 
 ture, or from accounts of devout men, or martyrs. Ere long 
 the histories of saints seem to have superseded the Scripture ; 
 probably by being made more striking or extravagant, better 
 suited to a weak judgment, or a vitiated taste. What is called 
 the Golden Legend was a collection of these histories of saints, 
 made by an Archbishop of Genoa, near the end of the 13th 
 century. Some legends used to be printed in the Breviaries, 
 or abridgments of liturgies : but, at the revival of learning, 
 
 ^ Our Art. of 1552 seems to take for 
 granted that the Romish Church and 
 ours hold the same Scriptures, by saying 
 only Scriptura sacra, and not giving a 
 list. 
 
 ^ See fifth session, and safe conduct in 
 the 15th. 
 
 ^ Book I. chap. xii. sect. 11 — 16. 
 
 ® The Index to Fulke’s Rhem. Test, 
 shews one what things are founded on 
 tradition. 
 
 ® Burnet on Art. vi. p. 97, 8vo. 
 
 7 Brief Confutation. Chap. iv. p. 7. 
 
 ® In books of travels one finds many tra- 
 ditions mentioned. See also Broughton’s 
 Dictionary, Legends. 
 
654 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. vi. 2. 
 
 people began to be ashamed of them ; and even prelates began II. 
 to be ambitious of shewing themselves enlightened by lopping 
 off a legend. 
 
 But, when the Reformers opposed the authority of tradi- 
 tions, is it to be conceived that they despised all traditional 
 knowledge ? not so ; but the number and the folly of things 
 built upon tradition had got to be so great, and they had be- 
 come of such high authority, that it was necessary to rescue 
 the judgment from the slavery, under which it laboured, to 
 papal decrees, canons of councils, and passages of fathers, 
 genuine and spurious. Otherwise, while every thing else 
 became improved and enlightened, religion would have con- 
 tinued in darkness. However, it is to be remembered, that 
 those who did thus labour to free the judgment from the deci- 456 
 sions of barbarous ages, and give scriptural authority its due 
 pre-eminence, were not of the common people — they were no 
 moh : they were so qualified to judge, that no man had a right 
 to impose any judgment upon them, so as to check the 
 
 course of their own. And, though decrees, &c. profess to be 
 
 founded on Apostolical authority, yet we consider them as 
 merely human. Bishop Pearson insists on the perpetual vir- 
 ginity of the Mother of our Lord, as proved by tradition ; but 
 then this is not made, by our Church, an article of faith 
 ‘‘ necessary to salvation.” 
 
 Such was the situation of those whom the authors of our 
 Article had most immediately in view. As to explanation^ 
 this part does not seem to admit of any, except what arises from 
 the historical account.” Under the 34th Article, indeed, we 
 shall see a different kind of tradition mentioned ; such as 
 our Church approves, in its way ; relating to customs in 
 matters of inferior moment. And it might here be observed, 
 with regard to the doctrinal tradition now before us, what is 
 the real state of the question between us and the Romanists. 
 
 We are not contending that all regard to councils, fathers, 
 ecclesiastical decrees, traditional notions (really such) should 
 be set aside : in our Article it is implied that both sides respect 
 all these highly : the question is only, whether they should be 
 obeyed implicitly as divine^ or only reverenced as human — 
 reverenced, when it appears to our reason that they are worthy 
 to be reverenced. If the Romanists are right, these things are 
 to judge us ; if we are right, we are to judge them 
 
 ' In this place, we might refer to 1 might compare the Articles of 1552 and 
 Book III. chap. ix. sect. 10; and we | of 1562. 
 
THE HOLY SCllIPTURES. 
 
 655 
 
 IV. vi. 3.J 
 
 II. Some Christians have undervalued the study of Scripture, 
 
 457 who have been no particular friends to tradition ; these are 
 some species of mystics ; but, as we have treated largely of 
 mysticism in the last chapter of the third Book, and as mystics 
 will be mentioned under the seventh Article, we need not con- 
 sider them here : we may however refer to Reformatio Legum, 
 de Haeresibus, cap. 2 . 
 
 3. We might now proceed to prove the truth of the first 
 part of our Article ; but as the proof must be taken from what 
 is said in Scripture with regard to the traditions of the Jews^ 
 it will be requisite to give some idea of them ; and, when we 
 have once begun, it will be natural to go on, so as to take in 
 the Jewish traditions after our Saviour’s time, as well as before 
 it ; indeed they are, in themselves, much the same. 
 
 Long before our Saviour’s time, it seems probable that the 
 Jews had some sort of traditions ; — traditional narratives, 
 prophecies, or modes of interpreting prophecies — modes of 
 arranging, construing, applying the Psalms, and other parts 
 of Holy Writ — methods of allegorizing. All these our Saviour 
 and his Apostles seem to have so far adopted as to make use of 
 them in reasoning with the Jews. It seems generally allowed, 
 that we see, in the New Testament, instances of referring back, 
 and quoting, which imply some old writing allowed as authentic 
 by the Jews, when we do not find in the Old Testament the 
 passage ^ quoted or referred to. For a more particular account 
 of this, I refer to Allioo's Judgment of the Jews, chap. ii. iii. iv; 
 from which I will read a passage^ or two by way of illustration. 
 
 458 Besides these traditions, the Jews seem to have had some which 
 they made a had use of, and which seem indeed to have been, 
 for the most part, faulty in themselves, or of a bad tendency. 
 Allix reckons Jive sorts of traditional subjects, which the Jews 
 profess to study : J. Inferences from the law ; though of these 
 he approves, supposing them to be rightly drawn. 2. Cere- 
 monies and rites. 3. Judicial cases, like law precedents. 
 
 4. Constitutions, intended as a fence or fortification to the law. 
 
 5. Customs^. All these might contain something reasonable, 
 supposing no want of reason in using them ; but, in the hands 
 of a people who prided themselves on productions of religious 
 
 2 See Book I. chap. xvii. sect. 19. 
 
 ® These passages of Allix, chap, ii, 
 iii, iv. will easily appear from running 
 over the heads; or paragraphs. 
 
 4 Allix, p. 12. See Wotton, Misna, 
 chap. ii. Wotton has five orders, as well 
 as Allix, and there is a considerable like- 
 ness between them ; but some difference. 
 
656 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. vi. 3. 
 
 fancy, it is easy to imagine that these latter sorts of traditions, II. 
 especially the two last, would get too far from the law of God, 
 and become fanciful and trifling, or pernicious. Nay, probably 
 they would many of them be mere evasions^ of the law. How- 
 ever, as what is most outre generally strikes and takes most, 
 one may conceive how it came about that these traditions were 
 even preferred ^ to the law. Though, besides evading the law, 
 and indulging foolish fancies, there was the spirit of contra- 
 diction to help them forwards — I mean in the controversy 
 with the Caraites, who denied the authority of tradition wholly. 
 Here we see what it principally was that our Saviour so much 
 condemns. Those who are opposed to the Caraites are called 
 Rabbanists^ ; but the “ Pharisaical innovations” were rejected 
 by the Shammeans^. 
 
 Though we may make a distinction between the times be- 459 
 fore and after the time of Christ, yet the same traditions seem 
 to have been continued; except that they multiplied^ and at last 
 got recorded. About the middle of the second^ century, (or 
 according to Lardner in the year 180) R. Judah, surnamed the 
 Holy, gathered the Jewish traditions into one volume, con- 
 sisting of six books, containing 63 treatises. This is called the 
 Misna ®, or secondary law. As soon as it was published it was 
 studied and commented upon : the comment is called Gemara^ 
 or the completing of the Misna. Indeed the Jews of Judea 
 made one Gemara, by about a. d. 300, called the Jerusalem ; 
 those of Babylonia, another, by about a. d. 500, called the 
 Babylonish. The word Talmud is not used steadily and uni- 
 formly : it sometimes signifies the Misna, or text ; sometimes , 
 the Gemara, or completion, or comment ; and sometimes the 
 whole, consisting of Misna and Gemara. However, when we 
 read of the Jerusalem Talmud, we must understand only the 
 Gemara made by the Jews of Judea; and so of the Babylonish 
 Talmud. The former is in one volume folio, the latter in twelve 
 volumes folio : the Babylonish is the most fanciful and extra- 
 vagant, and the most followed. I will now only add how this 
 tradition is supposed by the Rabbanists to have been carried 
 
 1 Wotton, pp. 68, 69. 
 
 2 See Wotton, p. 69. Collier’s Sacred 
 Interpreter, vol. ii. p. 21. 
 
 3 Wotton, chap. vi. or p. 72. 
 
 * Ibid. Preface, p. xLvi. note. 
 
 * Prideaux. See Lardner’s Test. 
 Works, vol. VII. p. 138. 
 
 ® By the Jews the plural word Mis- 
 naioth is more commonly used. See 
 Wotton, note to the beginning of 2d 
 chapter. — to reiterate, do a thing a 
 second time. -|?3a perfecit, &c. nob 
 didicit, docuit. 
 
IV. vi. 4.] 
 
 THE HOLY SCTIIPTITRES. 
 
 657 
 
 II. on. “ Many things were delivered orally to Moses from Mount 
 Sinai^ which were not written in the law. These he delivered 
 to Joshua^ and he to the Elders, and they to those that came 
 
 460 after them, one generation after another; and these were thus 
 orally delivered, till this [oral] law was [in danger of being] 
 forgotten ; and then the men of the age thought it proper to 
 write them with ink in a book, as every man had received them 
 from those that were ' before him.” 
 
 4. We may now proceed to the proof of the first part of 
 our Article ; namely, of this proposition, ‘no doctrine is neces- 
 sary which is not supported by the written word of God.’ 
 
 1. We have sufficient reason to think, that whatever was 
 necessary to be known or done would be written in the Chris- 
 tian law, from what was done with regard to the Jewish. In 
 the earliest times, indeed, the will of God must (humanly 
 speaking) be taught without writing; and simple manners, 
 with great length of life, might, for a while, keep such teaching 
 tolerably incorrupt ; but it seems as if writing had been used 
 as soon as possible. What could be more likely to be remem- 
 bered than the Law delivered at Mount Sinai ? yet it was 
 written, or engraved. What could make a deeper impression 
 than the deliverance from Egyptian bondage ? yet it was 
 written., even though ceremonies were appointed to renew 
 annually the sense of it. While the Urim and Thummim 
 might be consulted, why write so much, if oral law could be 
 so perfectly preserved.^ If you say, the danger of idolatry made 
 writing the more needful, you only give another general reason 
 against trusting to tradition ; yet nothing could make writing 
 so necessary, in the Jewish religion, as it is in the Christian. 
 The Jews were a small body, kept united by a number of 
 ceremonial observances, separated more from other nations than 
 any other people ever were. Christianity was to be preached 
 
 461 to all nations, was to mix with all kinds of customs and man- 
 ners, with all sorts of philosophy, all sorts of business and 
 pleasure : it was to be supported by a very small number of 
 external duties — only two indeed that were positively enjoined. 
 What tradition could withstand so many shocks ? 
 
 2. We may collect, that oral law would not contain any 
 thing necessary to salvation, from our Saviour'' s practice and 
 discourses. Though he docs sometimes, seemingly, adopt some 
 
 ’ Wotton’s Misna, p. 72. See Maimonides’s account, p. 10, which is longer and 
 more Rabbinical. 
 
 VoL. I. 
 
 42 
 
658 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. vi. 4. 
 
 traditional rules, in arguing with the Jews, it does not appear II. 
 that he would have used the same in converting the Gentiles^ 
 though he would have mentioned the prophecies of the Old 
 Testament. His preaching tended much more to invalidate 
 tradition than to confirm it. What was his sermon on the 
 Mount ^ or the chief part of it, but rectifying errors of tradi- 
 tion ? If he had intended that his religion should be grounded 
 on tradition in any considerable degree, would he have spoken 
 of tradition in the manner he has ^ spoken ? of any tradition 
 whatsoever ? But, say the Romanists, the tradition spoken 
 against in Matt. xv. is either “repugnant to God’s ^ Laws,” or 
 “ frivolous, unprofitable,” &c., not like theirs ! Then we are to 
 judge of the rectitude and utility of tradition ! we wish nothing 
 more. May we not judge of evidence too A real tradition, 
 that is virtuous^ and useful, no reasonable man can object to: 
 but, if we are to judge tradition, its authority is gone; that is, 46*2 
 if we are only to adopt it when we think it useful. 
 
 3. The Apostles do not give encouragement to tradition. 
 They taught, indeed, first by preaching ; but they took oppor- 
 tunities of writing to their converts, and more fully, as it should 
 seem, than they would have done if they had meant to leave an 
 oral law. Four disciples, that we know of, undertook to write 
 the acts and discourses of their Lord ; and one of them records 
 the acts of the Apostles also: might not many things, which 
 are written, have been as well trusted to tradition as those 
 things which have been said to be trusted to it Had we 
 sufficient evidence that the Apostles really did preach a parti- 
 cular doctrine, we should accept it as well as those persons 
 who were told it half an hour after it was preached : but we 
 hope we shall not be blamed for searching whether things re- 
 ported are really true ; we hope we shall be reckoned, like the 
 Bereans, “ more noble” {ev^eveoTepoi) for our disposition to 
 examine. The Apostles, like their Master, seem inclined to 
 reason with the Jews on their own principles and received his- 
 tories ; but I do not remember their saying, or implying, that 
 the Jews would lose the favour of God, or be accursed, if they 
 
 • Collier, vol. ii. p. 21. 
 
 2 Matt. XV. 1 — 9. 
 
 ^ Rhemish Test, on Matt. xv. 9. 
 
 * Our Art. of 1552 seems to allow 
 something to tradition, which that of 
 1562 does not. Perhaps the order and 
 
 decorum might be thought to belong 
 more properly to the 34th Article than 
 to this ? — no ; rather see afterwards Art. 
 XX. sect. 1, where this being left out is 
 thought one possible reason why the 
 first clause in the 20th should have been 
 inserted. 
 
IV. vi. 5.] 
 
 THE HOLY SCllIPTUllES. 
 
 659 
 
 II. neglected some particular traditional observance. When they 
 seem to adopt traditions they do it in things not ^ essential ; 
 and even then some have thought they referred to some part of 
 the Old Testaynent ^ ; if they did not^ they might only argue 
 with the Jew from what he would allow. Augustin might 
 4d3 often admit traditions, though he did not think himself hound 
 to admit them. “ Quia canonicum non est, non me constrin- 
 givr 
 
 It appears to me that some passages are urged on the side 
 of our Church, in this question, which have not much weight. 
 As Deut. iv. 2, and xii. 32 ; which seem only to mean, ‘ It is 
 God who gives laws to the Israelites ; he does not intrust men 
 as legislators ; they therefore can neither make new laws, nor 
 repeal old ones.’ Yet they might interpret^ and even make 
 %e-laws, so long as they grounded them on the old ones, or 
 only applied the old ones to particular cases^ and settled the 
 means of executing them : such sayings might be added to 
 bodies of college statutes^ &c. Indeed, when the Jews came to 
 evade their written law, they then disobeyed these precepts ; 
 but many bye-laws might have been made, without doing that. 
 They disobeyed the rest of the law, in general, when they dis- 
 obeyed these precepts. St. Paul may mean no more by Gal. 
 i. 8, 9, than to exclude all subsequent gospels ; nor, by 2 Tim. 
 iii. 14, 15, &c. than to desire his assistant to adhere to the Old 
 Testament, rather than favour any of the notions of the Gnos- 
 tics^ &c. And, by Rev. xxii. 18, 19, nothing more may be 
 meant than that the Apocalypse was to be the last public pro- 
 phecy^. To make these passages exact to our purpose, the 
 scriptural authors and those who were cautioned, or forbidden, 
 to add, should both have a respect and reverence for that which 
 was forbidden, so long as it was not carried too far ; whereas 
 464 St. Paul had no respect whatever for a new gospel: and so of 
 the other passages. 
 
 5. I shall add nothing to what I have now said, in the 
 way of direct proof ; but it may be proper to mention an objec- 
 tion or two. It may be said, that St. Paul introduces a saying 
 
 ® See Hammond’s note on 2 Tim. iii. 
 8. Parenthesis about Jannes and Jam- 
 bres. 
 
 ® See Lardner, Suppl. to Cred. Works, 
 vol. VI. pp. 618, 620. 
 
 7 Contra Faustum, 1. 9, in Pearson, 
 Creed, Art. 3, p. 346, 1st edit. 
 
 ® It is natural, on putting the finishing 
 stroke to any great and important work, 
 to feel, with the glow of self-applause, 
 some fear lest the busy and impertinent, 
 by their forward attempts to rectify and 
 amend, should destroy the effects of in- 
 dustry and ingenuity. 
 
 42 2 
 
660 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. vi. 5. 
 
 of our Lord, “it is more blessed to give than to receive^;” II. 
 which may be considered as traditional. We might reply, 
 
 1. That these words, of themselves, do not contain “an article 
 of faith^"' which could not be derived from Scripture. But 
 
 2. They are a 'part of Scripture. St. Luke might have his 
 choice whether he would put them into the mouth of Christy in 
 his Gospel^ or into the mouth of St. Paul, in his history of the 
 Acts of the Apostles. 3. Now again suppose the clause a mere 
 tradition, we say, give us as good evidence of a saying of our 
 Lord, as St. Paul had of this, and we will accept it joyfully 
 
 Again, it may be urged, that, even in Scripture, traditions 
 are sometimes commended. First., take 1 Cor. xi. 2, “ keep the 
 ordinances'^ as I have delivered them to you’”* — in Greek 
 Trapa^oo-et?, and indeed in our margin “ traditions^"' though 
 the Rhemish Testament blames us for concealing traditions. 
 There is no doubt but every founder of a church must make 
 hye-laws and give directions not worth writing down, which yet 
 it is laudable to observe, and blameable to neglect. That ordi- 
 nances here relate to matters of inferior consequence, is very 
 probable from the whole passage., consisting of sixteen verses. 
 
 But this objection belongs properly to the 34th Article., about 
 customs. “We have no such custom., neither the churches^ 465 
 of God.” 
 
 Another instance in which traditions are commended is 
 2 Thess. ii. 15 : “ Stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye 
 have been taught, whether by word., or our epistle.” Nothing 
 is more clear than that the Thessalonians must have had verbal 
 as well as written instruction ; but the difficulty with us is, to 
 know what the verbal instruction was : this to them was no 
 difficulty at all. Let us know any thing that St. Paul said, as 
 well as they knew what he had delivered to them “ by wordf 
 and we shall raise no dispute about receiving it. St. Paul had 
 been represented as encouraging a notion which was propagated 
 in the church of Thessalonica ; he means only to disclaim 
 giving such encouragement, and to exhort his converts to abide 
 by what he had really taught them: for TrapaSocrei^ here seems 
 to denote whatever had been delivered: it clearly includes 
 whatever had been taught by writing. 
 
 ' Acts XX. 35. 
 
 2 See what Menard says, Lard. vol. ti. 
 p. 22, on a saying of Barnabas, which 
 he (Barnabas) probably heard from his 
 Lord. 
 
 3 1 Cor. xi. 2. 
 
 ^ On 2 Thess. ii. 15, where, in our 
 present translation, the word tradition is 
 used. 
 
 * 1 Cor. xi. 16. 
 
IV. vi. 5.] 
 
 THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 661 
 
 II. Here an objection occurs of a very different nature from 
 the preceding. 
 
 It is the nature of morality to keep constantly improving, 
 if men make a right use of their experience. Now, suppose 
 any new virtue to appear, are we not to practise and enforce it 
 because it is not in Scripture? will not disobedience to it be 
 punished? even in a future or will it be said that 
 Scripture now contains a perfect morality ? I answer, I suppose 
 that scripture-morality may, in some sense, be considered as 
 imperfect. It is not systematical.^ it does not describe limits 
 &c. of rights and obligations ; it rather enforces what it takes 
 
 466 for granted'^, than teaches what is perfectly new. But this is 
 not any reason against its divine original. Why should moral 
 philosophy be revealed all at once, rather than natural? We 
 improve gradually in making natural bodies promote our happi- 
 ness; why should we not improve gradually in making our own 
 conduct promote happiness? indeed, improvement in morals is 
 sometimes impossible without improvement in understanding 
 the powers of nature — as in the case of temperance. Shall 
 virtue be so revealed that man shall have no occasion to study 
 it ? that is against all our ideas of the government of the world. 
 Besides, all the dispensations of grace are progressive^; why 
 not the improvements of natural virtue ? Indeed the lower 
 degrees of virtue, as well as of Revelation, seem necessary in 
 order to prepare us for the higher. The uncivilised can neither 
 conceive nor feel the refinements and delicacies of the improved 
 heart and mind. 
 
 Well, but now give us an instance of a virtue invented 
 within these last 1800 years (surely a sufficient time), and not 
 to be found in Scripture, nor proved thereby.” Dares any 
 system of philosophy make pretension to such a virtue ? As we 
 are at liberty to prove by inference, it is probable that we shall 
 find your virtue in Scripture : for Scripture searches, rectifies, 
 and warms the heart., from which all particular modes of con- 
 ferring happiness flow. There it fixes principles that act inces- 
 santly ; — love of God — of man (and love worketh no ill to his 
 neighbour); forgiveness of injuries; overcoming evil with good; 
 doing to others as you would they should do to you : being 
 pitiful, courteous; pleasing your neighbour to edification; sym- 
 pathizing with the happy and the miserable. Give us your 
 
 467 newly-invented virtue ; let us try whether an heart warmed 
 
 ® Balguy, pp. 87, 184, 196. Ephes. vi. 1. ’’ Law’s Theory of Religion. 
 
662 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. vi. 5. 
 
 with these sentiments, and impelled by these motives of Scrip- II. 
 ture, would not have practised it, in the proper circumstances. 
 
 Suppose we fail, yet the failure could not affect any one 
 who was only inquiring whether he could assent to our Article^ 
 though we own that the new virtue ought to be practised : for 
 the case has nothing to do with the purpose ^ of the Article ; 
 nor can any dispute about it turn upon opposite interpretations 
 of Scripture^ which is the case with all our Christian Articles 
 of Religion. 
 
 Lastly, when you have found a virtue which you fancy is 
 not supported by Scripture, you have no authority to enforce 
 it. Can you say, it is “ necessary to Salvation P” All men 
 have a right to oppose you, and to question such necessity ; 
 and run what hazards they please. You cannot “ require"'’' of 
 any man that he should believe what you assert : and therefore 
 our present proposition remains unshaken. 
 
 But how wonderful is it that the moral part of the Scrip- 
 tures should be so framed as continually to give a sanction to 
 virtue, of every kind^ and in every stage of its progression ! 
 whether its improvements happen to be quicker or slower! How 
 astonishing, that moral precepts, published as these were, should 
 be thought more and more excellent, in proportion to the 
 advancement men make in virtue, taste, and wisdom ! I verily 
 believe this to be the fact ; and, if it is, how absurd does it 
 make the supposition appear, that such morals could be invented 
 by a set of fishermen and mechanics ^ ! 
 
 To conclude this first part of our Article, concerning tra- 468 
 dition. Whatever particular traditions we may think it right 
 to set aside, it does not seem as if we ought to entertain any 
 general prejudice against every thing that is unwritten. In 
 times of simplicity and unimproved ignorance, all knowledge 
 and all laws must be unwritten, or traditional ; and in every 
 state of literature there must be some bye-laws, some particular 
 methods of obeying general rules, which cannot well be com- 
 mitted to writing, and which had better be left unwritten and 
 changeable : there will also be respectable interpretations of 
 what has been written, and customary practices implying 
 unwritten regulations. Sometimes we only collect previous 
 regulations from their present presumed effects. This is appli- 
 
 ‘ See Book III. chap. ix. sect. 10. I xiii. conclusion ; but it is wanted in both 
 
 ® This last thought is much the same, places, and cannot appear uninteresting 
 or entirely the same, with Book I. chap. | any where. 
 
IV. vi. 5.j 
 
 THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 G63 
 
 II. cable to Christianity. For some considerable time there were 
 comparatively very few written records in the Christian Church; 
 during that time a good deal must go on tradition. If we had 
 any verbal directions, which had been really given, by Christ or 
 his Apostles, to the newly-formed churches, we should value them 
 very highly. These indeed seem advantages not to be expected 
 in any degree ; but very early customs and practices^ in such 
 churches afford so strong a presumption of their having been 
 owing to such directions, as to demand our highest respect. 
 And writings of fathers and decrees of councils are to be con- 
 sidered in the same light ; that is, as conveying an evidence of 
 something unwritten. Early comments also are esteemed, as 
 telling us received interpretations. All these ought to have 
 weight, whenever there is no appearance of indirect motives; 
 and when the persons, whose accounts we receive, were compe- 
 tently qualified to inform us. 
 
 469 But, whenever we have any reason to distrust, we should 
 be at full liberty to neglect every thing of this kind ; which is 
 a very different thing from its being held “ necessary to sal- 
 vation.” And herein consists the happiness of us reformed 
 Christians, that we have got rid at once of an enormous quantity 
 of such tradition, as we could not but believe to be corrupt. 
 In a course of years there will generally be a good deal to be 
 rejected ; but, if there have been ignorance and superstition 
 and interest to generate, and artifice, party zeal, ambition, and 
 enthusiasm, to nourish, there is no saying to what degree the 
 corruption may have increased. At our reformation, it was 
 high time to extirpate all that diseased tumor which had been 
 formed. The same notices are still to be examined as at first, 
 and the same respect to be paid to whatever appears to be cre- 
 dible evidence ; but now we are not afraid of examining freely: 
 be our minds ever so improved, we can make use of all their 
 powers, to judge of the past, and provide for the future. 
 
 Yet, when we say, that we can do this, we must not forget 
 the distinction between those who are qualified to judge for 
 themselves, and those who ought to be guided, in a good mea- 
 sure, by the judgment of others — between philosophers, as we 
 have called them, and people. Indeed, the distinction is never 
 more wanted than there; for all imperfect reasonings with regard 
 to traditions seem, on both sides, to owe their imperfections to 
 
 ^ Wall reasons about Infant-Baptism on this principle. 
 
 * Book II. chap. iv. sect. 3, &c. 
 
664 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. vi. 6-8. 
 
 the want of it. Those, who are against^ all traditions, reason II. 
 as if all men were philosophers: those, who plead most strongly 
 for traditions reason as if all men were ordinary people. 
 
 6. 2. We come now to take our second station, and con- 470 
 sider the Books of the Old Testament. The difference, between 
 our Old Testament and that of our adversaries, will easily 
 appear, from a comparison of our Article with the acts of the 
 fourth session ^ of the Council of Trent ; but any reasoning 
 concerning that difference will come under the third part of 
 our Article, about what we call the Apocrypha. 
 
 If we were here to attempt to deliver all the historical 
 reflections which might occur to the mind of a thinking person 
 very conversant in history, we must stop short ; the field is too 
 wide for us ; and I should hope that we might receive satis- 
 faction concerning the truth of every part of our Article, with- 
 out involving ourselves in perplexed and intricate disquisitions 
 concerning events of very remote antiquity k 
 
 7 . With regard to explanation of this second part of our 
 sixth Article, I do not see that it is wanted, except with regard 
 to the word “ canonical^’' which has been considered in the 
 
 JirsT Book, It may be as well to add here, that, in the 
 Article, those books are called the First and Second Book of 
 Esdras, which we commonly call the books of Ezra and Nehe- 
 miah. Ezra and Nehemiah were employed much in the same 
 way ; and the hook called Nehemiah is a sort of continuation of 
 the Book of Ezra; hence the Jews often counted them as one 471 
 Book ; and hence they have been named as two parts of the 
 same book; its name taken from the principal person concerned. 
 Esdras is the way in which the LXX. write the Hebrew name 
 Ezra, Nity ; but, in the Hebrew Bible, the second book is 
 called Nehemiah, n’DHl The Council of Trent, session 4, 
 say, Esdrae “ secundus qui dicitur Nehemias.” 
 
 8. We will come then to that which seems our principal 
 concern, the truth of this second part of our Article ; and we 
 will endeavour to prove that we may have sufficient reason for 
 
 * See Lardner’s article of Vincent of 
 Lerins. Works, vol. v. 
 
 2 Popish writers. See also Vincentius 
 Lirinensis, p. 360. Edit. Baluz. though, 
 in the Galilean Church, the bishops and 
 doctors claim a right to think and judge 
 for themselves and the common people; 
 
 but the popes do not approve. Mosheim, 
 8 VO. vol. IV. p. 209. 
 
 ^ Council of Trent, Sess. 4th, De- 
 cree 1st. 
 
 ^ What Collier says, vol. i. p. 284, 
 about the settlement of the Canon by 
 Ezra, «&,c. might be read here. 
 
 * Chap. xii. sect. 2. 
 
IV. vi. 8 .] 
 
 THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 665 
 
 II. receiving, as sacred and authentic, those ancient writings which 
 we commonly call the books of the Old Testament. 
 
 Perhaps, if we wanted no more than a strict proof, it might 
 be sufficient to use the single argument, which we used for- 
 merly®, that, as Christ and his Apostles acknowledged the 
 authority of these books, we ought also to acknowledge it. 
 This argument we must use of course ; but there seem to be 
 some reasons independent of this, which are not to be neglected. 
 Let us first conceive these to be weighed by some one before 
 the coming of Christy and then let us see what reasons a 
 Christian, as such, has for adopting the same conclusion. 
 
 Before the coming of Christ, those who were not Jews were 
 Idolaters ; yet some there might be ready to acknowledge, that 
 an idol is nothing ’ and desirous to worship, at least prin- 
 cipally, a supreme invisible God. Nothing could be more 
 natural for a person so disposed, than to endeavour to unite in 
 divine worship with those who would take no offence at his 
 opinions. Let us conceive what would be his reflections. 
 
 472 ‘ Here is a people wonderfully separated from the rest of 
 
 the world! they worship no idols^ but acknowledge one supreme 
 Deity, spiritual in his nature. How could this happen ? they 
 are no way improved beyond their neighbours in philosophy 
 or arts. The account they give of this matter themselves is 
 quite out of the course of common experience ; but yet I see 
 no other which can solve the difficulty ; and, if I allow theirs, 
 I must confess all is at least consistent. Here is a system of 
 government which no lawgiver can have invented ; and it has 
 been carried on for a long succession of ages. The Pounder 
 of it, as far as any man is entitled to be called a founder, seems 
 to have something in common with the Egyptians ; but yet he 
 contradicts the notions of Egypt in several important ® parti- 
 culars. According to the history of this singular people, a 
 series of miracles has been performed in their favour and sup- 
 port, which would exceed all credibility in common cases, 
 but here it seems to make an indispensable part of the whole 
 plan ; — the religion would be more strange without the mira- 
 cles than the miracles would be without the religion. And 
 these miracles are believed, not, like prodigies amongst us, 
 only by the vulgar, but by all the most eminent — by the rulers 
 themselves. Nay, at this time the teachers seem not only to be 
 
 ® Opening of Introd. to Book I. chap, i ^ 1 Cor. viii. 4. 
 
 1 Div. Leg. Book IV. sect. 6. prop. 3. 
 
 Xll. 
 
666 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. vi. 9. 
 
 sublime and pathetic beyond any thing I can conceive, but seem II. 
 also to be continually supported by divine power ; and to con- 
 sist of a regular succession. Many of them seem to have had 
 a supernatural power of fortelling future events. 
 
 ‘ What am I to think of this people ? if what they say 
 is not true, the wonder is greater than the aggregate of all the 4*73 
 miracles of which they boast. I therefore give myself up to 
 worship their God ; whose unity and spirituality accord with 
 all my best notions. 
 
 ‘Now this people have a number of books which they account 
 sacred. These they have preserved carefully, and read^ pub- 
 licly ; and a number of copies of them have been in different 
 families^. Am I to make any question of the authenticity of 
 these books ? if I do, I must give up all my reasoning, and 
 revoke the belief of every thing which I have now concluded to 
 be credible.’ 
 
 Can we doubt, that a person, who reasoned thus before the 
 coming of Christ, had sufficient ground of assent to the authen- 
 ticity of our Books of the Old Testament.? and there is nothing 
 in the reasoning which any person may not make use of at this 
 time. 
 
 Indeed it should be observed, that, if our examiner was 
 supposed to live after the building of the second temple^^ there 
 are some of the above expressions which he could not use with 
 strict propriety ^ ; namely, those which imply a set of prophets 
 actually existing; but then he has a longer series of proofs. 
 
 And he might have the advantage of this material question, 
 why, if the prophets were impostors^ should no man prophesy 
 of the Messiah after Malachi ? who lived 450 years ® before 
 Christ. 
 
 We, at this time, though we may not see this evidence in 474 
 so striking a light, nor be so much affected by it, have a strict 
 right to make use of it in all its parts. 
 
 9. We are next to see what reasons a Christian^ as such, 
 has for receiving the Books of the Old Testament as sacred and 
 authentic. And it must be enough to say, that our Saviour 
 and his Apostles constantly acknowledge them as sacred. The 
 
 1 See Deut. xxxi. 10. 
 
 2 See Deut. vi. 7 - The account of the 
 single copy in the time Josiah (2 Kings 
 xxii. 8) is understood in different senses 
 (see Collier, i. p. 263). Supposing it 
 literally true, copies would multiply 
 
 afterwards. 
 
 ^ Built 415 years before Christ. Blair. 
 Collier’s Sacred Interpr. vol. i. p. 
 
 281. 
 
 ® Josephus contra Apion. lib. i. p. 1333. 
 Edit. Hud. 
 
IV. vi. 9.] 
 
 THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 667 
 
 II. Jews are commanded to ‘‘search the Scriptures®;” Timothy 
 is told particularly their beneficial effects Prophecies are 
 frequently applied to Jesus; and, with regard to the greater 
 and more extraordinary events, the Jews are called upon to 
 acknowledge, that “ thus it was written ® that it behoved 
 Christ (the expected Messiah, whenever he came) to suffer; 
 and so on. And St. Paul expressly calls the Jewish Scriptures, 
 “ the oraeles ^ of God.” A point so clear need not be laboured. 
 
 But it may be said, this is only to acknowledge the volume 
 collectively ; not to tell us that the particular books, which we 
 receive, were those meant. The answer to this is, that we re- 
 ceive the same books which the Jews^° received, and their Scrip- 
 tures are authorized by our Saviour, without any exception. 
 When he blames the Jews for superseding their Scriptures by 
 their traditions^ he gives no intimation of their having added 
 to their Scriptures, or diminished, or in any way corrupted 
 them. And St. Paufs calling them the “ oracles of God,” in 
 the manner he does, seems also to imply that he found no fault 
 with the usual number, nor had any difficulties on that head. 
 
 475 One passage of the New Testament contains a division of 
 the sacred books of the Old Testament into the “ Law of Mo- 
 565,” “ the Prophets^'' and “ the Psalms ’h” But it may be 
 said, are not the historical books here omitted First, we might 
 say, that if there were any books merely historical, the rest 
 might be considered as the Scriptures, in the strict sense, and 
 the historical books as an illustration. What the Jews did is 
 not always what they were commanded to do; and history re- 
 lates what they did. The Scriptures were the same, whatever 
 use was made of them. But I know not that this remark is of 
 much use. The books called historical are not merely such ; 
 and the authors of them were prophets in the scripture sense; 
 that is, inspired persons and teachers: consequently, the histo- 
 rical books must either come under Law, Prophets, or Psalms. 
 We can immediately see how these three kinds of sacred books 
 must be the most eminent and important. Law commanded ; 
 Prophecy was requisite to shew the plan of God’s dealings ; and 
 such parts of the Psalms as were not prophetic would act as 
 incitements to piety and virtue. 
 
 ® John V. 39. 7 2 Tim. iii. 15. 
 
 ® Luke xxiv. 26, 46. 
 
 ® Rom. iii. 2; ix. 4, 5. 
 
 “ Jerom’s Canon of the Old Testa- 
 
 ment was that of the Jews.” Lard, 
 vol. V. p. 21; and there have always 
 been Jews. 
 
 ” Luke xxiv. 44. 
 
668 
 
 ARTICLES OB’ RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. vi. 9. 
 
 Different solutions have been here ^ offered; but the true II. 
 answer to this question, concerning our Saviour’s omission of 
 the historical books of Scripture, must seemingly come from 
 Josephus^ though he does not fully explain himself. In his 
 first Book against Apion, he says, that the Jews have only 22 
 books ; which he divides into three classes ; the first contains 
 the Law^ the second the Prophets^ and the third the Psalms. 
 
 In the first class he reckons Jive books; in the ?>QQ.or\(\ Jhirteen ; 
 in the third, four. How our 39 books are more particularly 
 reduced to this number, does not seem to be settled by any ^ 476 
 authority ; but we have evidence enough, from the modern 
 Jews compared with Josephus, that all our books are compre- 
 hended in the three classes. The Jews used to be desirous to 
 reduce their sacred books to 22, because that was the number 
 of letters ^ in their alphabet ; but now, we are told % they make 
 twenty-four books. This is easily accomplished, as the Chron- 
 icles may be either as two books or one ; the minor Prophets 
 are reckoned as making one book ; and so of Ezra and Nehe- 
 miah, &c. 
 
 It may be objected to our present argument for the authen- 
 ticity of the books of the Old Testament, namely, their being 
 acknowledged by Christ and his Apostles, that our Saviour 
 might mean only to argue with the Jews on what they acknow- 
 ledged, in order to convince them they were wrong in some re- 
 spects. And it does indeed seem as if he had^ sometimes this 
 end in view ; but it cannot thence be concluded that he always 
 had. That would be to admit the fallacy before marked out 
 that because a remark is true in some cases, it is true in all. 
 Besides, how could it answer any purpose to apply prophecies 
 to Christ, if they were not to be understood’ as really divine.^ 
 And, in other things, we cannot conceive our Saviour to carry 477 
 
 ' See Lardner, vol. v. p. 24. 
 
 ^ See ways of reducing them in Hud- 
 son’s Josephus, fol. vol. ii. p. 1333. 
 Also in Lard. Works, vol. v. p. 25. 
 
 ^ Jerom’s Prol. Galeatus, beginning. 
 
 ^ Broughton’s Dictionary, under Bible. 
 ^ Matt. xii. 27 . Johnx. 35. See Div. 
 Leg. vol. IV. 8vo. p. 3(56. Sherlock’s 
 Discourses, vol. ii. p. 3, top. Also Book 
 I. chap. xvii. sect. 19, of this; and 11. 
 ii. 13. 
 
 Art. ii. sect. 35. and Art. v. sect. 15. 
 
 7 Book I. chap. xvii. something was 
 said of Collins’s scheme, now and then ; 
 that is, as the prophecies are applicable 
 to some event before Christ, it is not 
 right to apply them to him also : — they 
 ought therefore to be applied to Christ 
 only in an argumentum ad hominem. 
 But here we do not want to see how 
 Christ ought to have applied prophecies 
 to himself ; but only how he did apply 
 them . If he considered the sacred books 
 as authentic, that is enough for our argu- 
 ment. 
 
IV. vi. 10.] 
 
 THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 669 
 
 II. compliance with Jewish notions so far as to mislead a great 
 number of his disciples. 
 
 The Mosaic dispensation receives great support from the 
 l6th chapter^ of Grotius's first book De veritate religionis 
 Christianae: the chapter is entitled, Testimonium ewtraneorum, 
 and the matter of it seems well digested. The passages refer- 
 red to may exercise the diligence of the student, if he endea- 
 vours to form a judgment concerning the weight which ought 
 to be allowed to each. To co-operate with him in such a work 
 would carry us out too far. The authorities are now reduced 
 into a small compass, and the work is in every one’s hands 
 
 10. 3. We now take our third station. 
 
 After considering what our Article affirms with regard to 
 the books of the Old Testament, we come to what it lays down 
 respecting those books which have made pretensions to be 
 ranked in that number — those which we commonly call collect- 
 ively the Apocrypha. 
 
 As our proof of what is affirmed will be chiefly historical^ 
 we shall not need to give much previous history. If a person, 
 in our present situation, were well versed in history, he would 
 naturally take a view of all the sorts of writings which had been 
 thought divine by some, and not by others ; or which had been 
 composed with a view of being admitted into the sacred canon, 
 478 or read in religious assemblies, but had failed of success. Now 
 this might in a great measure be done by recollecting what has 
 been mentioned in our first Book ; both as to the several kinds^^ 
 of writings which come under this description, and as to the 
 means of distinguishing between them and such as ought to be 
 deemed canonical. 
 
 There were nine sorts of writings mentioned : on the pre- 
 sent occasion, the sixth sort would be particularly recollected — 
 those composed by weak and credulous men ; also the seventh 
 sort, called heretical. The idea would also recur, that writings 
 may be useful in some respects, though some foolish or hurtful 
 things have crept into them ; that some writings have acquired 
 respect by bearing respectable names ; and that some anony- 
 mous writings have got to be read with great veneration, or 
 even in religious assemblies, by a successful imitation of some 
 writers already deemed in a manner sacred. 
 
 ® Grotius de veritate, lib. i. cap. 16. 
 
 ® Could any thing be formed out of 
 the ancients, Diodorus Siculus, &c., in 
 defence of the Old Testament and the 
 
 Mosaic dispensation, similar to Lardner’s 
 Heathen Testimonies to the Truth of the 
 Christian Religion ? 
 
 Book I. chap. xii. sect. 4, 5. 
 
670 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. vi. 10. 
 
 But, though any one should take this review of writings 1 1, 
 already described, and in some degree or by some persons held 
 sacred^ yet, in the first Book, we were attending solely to the 
 canon of the New Testament. Our view is now to be confined 
 to such as have pretended to be parts of the Old Testament, or 
 Jewish Scriptures, before the time of Christ ; and such as we 
 exclude from the canon, although we give them a recommenda- 
 tion as moral writings. 
 
 All the books enumerated in our apocryphal catalogue are 
 mentioned as canonical in the 4th session of the Council of 
 Trent, (though they never before were received by any formal 
 act into a church, on the same footing,) except the third and 
 fourth books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses, which are 
 not mentioned at all. I do not see that the Romanists have 479 
 any thing in the way of our Apocrypha ; though they publish 
 these two or three books after the Apocalypse, in the Latin 
 translation, which they authenticate ; alleging, that they would 
 not have them perish, as they have been quoted by some holy 
 fathers, and are found in some Latin Bibles, printed and manu- 
 script. 
 
 Jerom translated some of these books, Tobit and Judith; 
 but, as he says, at the desire of friends ^ : and he takes care 
 to prevent any one from concluding that he thought them 
 authentic. 
 
 Grotius has thought fit to write a comment upon them ; but 
 he^ calls some of them, the book of Wisdom in particular, I 
 think, interpolated by Christians. As his Socinian principles 
 led him to lay this charge, and he seems ^ to fail in the proof of 
 it, he incidentally proves that the books contain some things by 
 which orthodox Christians are supported in their opinions. 
 These I take to be descriptions of the A 0709 , and the Spirit of 
 God, which are used to shew that St. John spoke of the Word, 
 and others of the Spirit, personally, according to notions already 
 established amongst the Jews^. 
 
 As the Papists receive our apocryphal books, those who 
 have desired to separate the farthest from them have been most 
 averse to these books ; as Puritans, Presbyterians, &c. : accord- 
 
 * See Lard, vol. v. p. 21. Jerom ’s 
 Preface to Tobit. The friends were 
 Chromatius and Eliodorus. 
 
 ^ See Grotius’s opening on Wisdom. 
 
 ^ See Allix’s Judgment of the Jews, 
 chap. 5. 
 
 ^ For Son, see Wisd. x. 5. Ecclus. 
 xLviii. 10. For Spirit, see Jud. xvi. 14. 
 Wisd. i. 7; vii. 7 ; ix. 17 ; xii. 1. Ec- 
 clus. xxxix. 6; xLviii. 12. For Word. 
 see Wisd. xvi. 26. Bar. v. 5. 
 
IV. vi. 11.] 
 
 THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 671 
 
 1 1, ingly, they have been a subject of dispute^ amongst Protestants, 
 4S0 whenever any change in our English forms of worship has been 
 debated. 
 
 11. For the reason already given we say no more of his- 
 tory at present. Explanation will turn chiefly on the word 
 Apocryphal. It has had ® several meanings given it ; one 
 thus: Apocryphal writings are writings diro tjJs KpvTTT^s, re- 
 moved from the place., receptacle, chest, where the sacred books' 
 were commonly kept ; but apocryphal is generally considered 
 as coming from dTroKpuTrTO), to conceal, or hide. Yet this 
 derivation does not reduce the senses to one; for a book may 
 be hidden or secret in different respects. Perhaps the most 
 ancient idea of an apocryphal or secret book is, that it was con- 
 cealed from the people. According to this, books were apocry- 
 phal when they were thought such as ought not to be read: 
 which agrees with the ancient division ' of books, into canoni- 
 cal., and such as were to be read., and such as were apocryphal. 
 The foolish and hurtful writings would be amongst the apocry- 
 phal, in this sense ; and it has been thought that some books 
 were kept secret from the people., though received by the 
 Church. (See Lardner, vol iii. p. 529, bottom). Our Apoca- 
 lypse and Canticles are in England very little read to the people. 
 But a book may be hidden, or secret., in respect of the name 
 of its author; — though this is not so likely to occasion any 
 difficulty in the case of anonymous books, as when a name is 
 affixed to it which there is reason to think is not really the 
 name of its author. Consequently, secret or apocryphal, in 
 this way, will be nearly equivalent to spurious ; and will soon 
 come by custom to be fully equivalent to it. In this sense 
 481 apocryphal is sometimes used®. Lastly, a book may be secret 
 or hidden in respect of that authority to which it pretends. 
 This sense is associated with the preceding, as authority is with 
 author. In this sense, apocryphal is used by Augustin., who 
 thinks it worth while to reject one of the senses just now^ men- 
 tioned; vi%. that apocryphal books were such as were purposely 
 kept secret from the people. His idea of apocryphal books is, 
 whose origin was hidden to \\\e fathers — wanting testimonials ; 
 
 ® See Neal’s Hist. Puritans, Index ; 
 and Candid Disquisitions, Appendix, 
 sect. 6. 
 
 ® Broughton’s Diet. 
 
 7 See Notes on Cyril’s 4th Catechesis, 
 Edit. Mill. Oxon. 1703. 
 
 ® See Lard. vol. ii. p. 363. 
 
 ® Lard. vol. in. pp. 629, 630. 
 
672 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. vi. 12. 
 
 by authors unknown — of character suspected. This sense is II. 
 nearest ours \ already given 
 
 We may close this explanation by observing, that the words 
 in our present paragraph, “ the Church^'"'' do not seem to mean 
 our Church, the Church of England, but the Christian Church 
 at large. However, it may be proper to observe, that our 
 Church does not read the whole of the Apocrypha in religious 
 assemblies. We do not read either book of Esdras, nor either 
 book of Maccabees ; nor Hester^ nor the Song of the three 
 Children^ nor the Prayer of Manasses. Our Article, or Jerom 
 quoted in it, means, probably, that Christians do not object to 
 this body or collection of writings, so as not to read them pub- 
 licly — not that every Christian Church reads them all. Even 
 the Romanists seem to omit some. 
 
 12. We come next to our proof. 
 
 There seem to be but two propositions in the part of the 
 Article now before us which require proof. 
 
 The books, here opposed to those called canonical, ought 
 not to be applied to establish any doctrine.''"' 
 
 The Church doth read these as moral : and Jerom affirms 482 
 the same. 
 
 The first of these is the principal proposition. And I 
 should think no farther proof of this is absolutely needful, than 
 that the Jews did never receive the books in question as canon- 
 ical. What judgment can any one now form, which shall be 
 compared to that of the ancient Jews.^ Nothing can be more 
 definite than Josephus''s^ receiving the usual 22, and then re- 
 jecting all others. 
 
 These apocryphal books are probably not directly quoted 
 in the New Testament. Allix speaks of St. Paul’s quoting 
 them; but I do not see of what passage of St. Paul he affirms 
 this ; and I observe, that, in the Vulgate.^ though there is a 
 regular list of places of the Old Testament which are cited in 
 the New, there is not one citation from any of the apocryphal 
 books. The Romanists, who must have made this list, would 
 
 1 Book I. chap. xii. sect. 2. 
 
 2 Lardner, vol. vi. p. 8, end of sect. 3, 
 gives as good an account as I have seen 
 of canonical, ecclesiastical, and apocry- 
 phal. It is very short. 
 
 ^ Contra Apion, i. p. 1333, ed. Hud- 
 son. 
 
 ^ Wisd. iii. 8, has been borrowed by 
 
 St. Paul, 1 Cor. vi. 2. So says Allix, 
 p. 113: borrowing is not quoting. But 
 he says quoted, p. lA. I do not see why 
 1 Cor. vi. 2, may not come from Dan. vii. 
 22 ; Matt. xix. 28 ; Luke xxii. 30 ; and 
 Rev. passim. I should conceive rather 
 that Wisd. iii. 8, might come from 
 Daniel vii. 22. 
 
IV. vi. 12.] 
 
 THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 673 
 
 II. have rejoiced in any instance of Christ or his Apostles giving 
 credit to the disputed books. 
 
 Of the earlif Christians I think it may be fairly said, that 
 they prove no doctrine by them ; though they sometimes mtro- 
 duce passages on account of some moral sentiment. That this 
 is not giving authority to such books, appears from St. Paul's 
 doing the same at Athens with heathen poets. “ It was no 
 
 483 unusual thing,” says Lardner^, “for the ancient Christians to 
 quote Jewish as well as heathen books, without intending to 
 give them any authority.” 
 
 Those Christian writers, in early times, (suppose the first 
 four centuries), who give Catalogues of canonical books, may 
 be said to omit them ; though exceptions may sometimes be 
 found of a single book or so. Bishop Burnet mentions^ several 
 such catalogues; made by Melito', Origen, (quoted probably 
 by Eusebius® Hist. 6 . 25 ), Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, 
 Hilary, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Jerom. He might, I 
 think, have added Augustin^ though he, a Latin father, admits 
 some of our Apocrypha. Bishop Burnet closes with the Cata- 
 logue of the Council of Laodicea on which he dwells ; — and 
 indeed its decrees are of great weight, though the prophecy of 
 Baruch (with the Epistle of Jeremiah) is, in its canon, not 
 separated from the prophecy of Jeremiah, as it is in CyriVs 
 Catalogue. Any little exception of this kind will seem more 
 strange to us than it would do to the ancients ; as they had 
 not, even in the time of Augustin (who died 430 ), a regular 
 established catalogue of sacred books, but were searching after 
 them, amidst a crowd of false pretenders. 
 
 Ambrose seems to have had more relish and more respect 
 for apocryphal books than the generality of the Christian fa- 
 thers. Lardner mentions one passage, in which he quotes 
 
 484 Ecclesiasticus in the way of proof; but Ecclesiasticus ii. 5 , is 
 merely moral, and “testimoniis^^ scripturarum" may only mean, 
 the witness or weight of good moral writings. The word pro- 
 
 ® VoL II. p. 65, end of Hernias. 
 
 « Pp. 110, 111, 8vo. 
 
 ^ Melito, in some editions of Euseb. 
 (4. 26), calls Proverbs by the additional 
 name of the Wisdom of Solomofi. See 
 the note in Reading’s edit. Cant. 1720. 
 
 ** See Lard. ii. 509. 
 
 ^ Lard. vol. iv. p. 309. 
 
 Vol. IV. p. 448, from Ambr. on Psal. 
 118, (our 119), T. I. p. 1224 E. The 
 VoL. I. 
 
 passage quoted is Ecclus. ii. 5. Ps. cxviii. 
 153 ; vide humilitatem meam et erue me, 
 or something like that. Ambrose says, 
 one may use humilitatem meam in trials, 
 in martyrdom, &c., as appears from Ec- 
 clesiasticus ii. 5. 
 
 Good moral writings used to have 
 the name of Scriptures. Book I. chap, 
 xii. sect. 4. 
 
 43 
 
674 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGIO?^. 
 
 [IV. vi. 12. 
 
 phet he uses in a large sense, if he does not mean to make II. 
 some of these books sacred ; but he speaks with warmth^ and 
 unsteadily. 
 
 Ambrose was far removed from Judea, and, being converted 
 late in life, had probably not much Jewish learning — none at 
 all before he was bishop ; but Jerom was distinguished for 
 Jewish learning, and is called the most learned ^ of all the Fa- 
 thers. I should think his authority decisive in our present 
 question. In his Prefaces, which are published with the Vul- 
 gate, it is easy to see that he expressly sets aside every one of 
 our apocryphal books ; or, if he does not set aside those which 
 the Church of Rome gives up, it is only because he despised 
 them; for, in other" parts of his works, he speaks of them more 
 slightly than I could have imagined. 
 
 The reasons for rejecting some of the apocryphal books are 
 mentioned in the titles^ respectively. Jerom gives the same — 
 entirely or chiefly^. 
 
 We seem now to have shewn that the books in question 
 ought not to be admitted into the canon. But our conclusion 
 will scarce be satisfactory, unless we add, to what is here said 485 
 negatively^ something of a positive or affirmative sort. 
 
 Although Christians might sometimes write apocryphal 
 books belonging to the Old Testament, yet it seems agreed 
 that ours were all written by Jews : even Grotius"^ allows this, 
 who would have wished to have them prove the works of Chris- 
 tians. 
 
 They appear to me imitations of some part of Scripture, or 
 something in the way of supplement, or sequel. The third 
 and fourth books of Esdras profess themselves to be such. 
 They were probably written from a natural desire, in persons 
 attached to their country, of enlarging on any interesting part 
 of its history ; and the latter of these might be a supplement 
 to the first. The book of Tohit reminds one of Ruth ; and 
 Judith of Deborah, and of David and Goliath ; as also of the 
 
 * Hurd on Prophecy, p. 221. 
 
 2 See Lard. Works, vol. v. p. 17-- 20. 
 
 ^ Hesther is said, in the title, not to 
 be found in the Hebrew ; so are the Song 
 of the three Children, Susanna, and Bel 
 and the Dragon. Wisdom is called the 
 Wisdom of Solomon ; but does not that 
 mean an imitation of Solomon ? The Pro- 
 logue to Ecclesiasticus, by the Son of 
 
 Sirach, gives us the idea of the Law and 
 the Prophets being distinct things; and 
 Law and the Prophets sometimes meant 
 the whole Old Testament; and of others 
 writing in order to second their purposes. 
 It professes Ecclesiasticus, as we have it, 
 to have been published in Greek. 
 
 ^ Allix, p. C7. 
 
IV. vi. 12.] 
 
 THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 G75 
 
 II distresses of He%ehiah from the Assyrian armies. Of Hester 
 there can be no question. The books of Wisdom^ and Eccle^ 
 siasticus seem evidently imitations of the works of Solomon ; 
 and Baruclis prophecy has been owing to his having been a 
 secretary to Jeremiah. The three writings, cut off from the 
 Book of Daniel, shew plainly to what stock they belong ; and 
 what they were intended to imitate, or fill out. The Prayer 
 of Manasses, and we may add the Epistle^ of Jeremiah, may 
 have been attempts to succeed on the credit of the fine psalm, 
 “ By the waters of Babylon,” &c. The first Book of Macca- 
 bees has some appearance of an original narration, composed on 
 the principle just now noticed, of relating handsomely an inte- 
 4S6 resting piece of national history: the Second Book of Maccabees 
 is a supplement, as before. The latter Esdras seems to me 
 sometimes to imitate E^ekieVs manner. 
 
 What I have farther to mention may be introduced in the 
 way of remarks on two expressions of Bishop Burners, Pie 
 says, with regard to the Jevjs, it is not pretended that ever these 
 books “were so much as known to themk” And afterwards, 
 “ the Christian Church were for some ages an utter stranger” 
 to them. 
 
 As to early Christians, I have refreshed my memory in 
 Clemenfs first Epistle to the Corinthians, and in Polycarp'^s to 
 the Philippians, which are always reckoned genuine ; and I find 
 quotations from some books of our Apocrypha, made with the 
 same degree of exactness as those from the canonical books. In 
 the former. Wisdom xii. 12, is quoted, and afterwards the 
 heroism of Jitdith is described. In the latter, there is a quo- 
 tation from Tohit (xii. 9). And, though some interpolations 
 have been suspected, I should think, from the context, that 
 sentence about Judith unlikely to be one. Not that it proves 
 Clement to have thought the book of Judith on a footing with 
 the Scriptures ; because he first mentions heathens ® who have 
 run into danger in order to save their country, and then Judith. 
 But, supposing these passages genuine, which I see no reason 
 to doubt, the Christian Church could not for some ages be an 
 “ utter strangeP'^ to our Apocrypha. 
 
 ® The first prologue to Ecclesiasticus 
 says, that the author of that book “ did 
 imitate Solomon.” 
 
 In the 29th chap, of Jeremiah there 
 is an epistle from Jeremiah to the cap- 
 
 tives in Babylon. 
 
 7 On the Articles, p. 110, 8vo. 
 
 ^ The same thing has struck a com- 
 mentator in Russel’s Patres Apostolici. 
 
 43 2 
 
67u 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. Vi.l2. 
 
 Lardner says, in several^ places, that there are no quota- II. 
 tions of apocryphal books in the apostolic fathers ; but he 487 
 means apocryphal books written in the early times of Christi- 
 anity. That these writings should not be ‘^so much as known'’' 
 to the Jews, appears to me improbable. The writings of the 
 Jews have been more destroyed, in proportion at least, than 
 those of any^ other people : yet we still seem to have some 
 testimonies. Allix says that Philo quotes our apocryphal 
 books. Josephus, in the part where he mentions the 22 books 
 of Scripture, and adds, that other books had been written after 
 the time of Malachi, does not, to be sure, mention any names 
 of authors ; but he describes the kind of books according to 
 our idea of the more valuable parts of our Apocrypha. He 
 disowns their being so sacred as to be authentic ; but he seems 
 to treat them as next to divine ; nay, as if nothing hindered 
 them from being accounted divine, but a failure in the regular 
 succession of prophets. In his history of the Maccabees'^, he 
 is thought to have followed our First Book of Maccabees ; and 
 in his account of Zorobabel, to have adopted the ideas of the 
 author of the Third Book of Esdras. In Hudson’s Josephus 
 the texts are put in the margin of the history; so any one may 
 compare them, and judge /or himself. Both the Prologues to 
 Ecclesiasticus seem to speak the same language with Josephus 
 about other books.’'"’ And Jerom- says^ that some ancient 
 writers thought that Wisdom was written by Philo ; but pro- 
 bably it was written earlier; however, Jerom must think it was 
 known to the Jews. 
 
 Allix says that Ramban‘ speaks of Ecclesiasticus as being 488 
 in Chaldee, and quotes Jerom for Tobifs having been in the 
 same®. Now'-^, whatever books have been in Chaldee, origi- 
 nally, or by translation, must have been known to the Jews. 
 He^° accounts for their having been laid aside by the Jews from 
 those passages which Grotius affirms to be interpolated ; which 
 favour the Christian cause. The Jews are said to speak unfa- 
 
 ‘ Vol. VI. p. 662 ; vol. v. pp. 358, 412, 
 &c. 
 
 - See Chandler on Prophecy, Pref. 
 p. xiv. mentioned Book I. chap. v. sect. 
 8. of this. ^ Page 73. 
 
 * The genuineness of this work is sus- 
 pected. See Lard. Works, vol. vii. 
 p. 35. 
 
 ^ Pref. to Books of Solomon. . , 
 
 Pages 68, 68. 
 
 7 Ramban, R. Moses the son (Ben) 
 of Nachman. Gerendensis Hispanus.” 
 Claruit, 1212. See Buxtorf’s Abbrev. 
 (Gironne, near the Pyrenees and Medi- 
 terranean.) 
 
 “ See Jerom’s Preface to Tobit. 
 
 ^ From the Author’s Prologue to Ec- 
 clus. it appears, that his grandfather col- 
 lected tlie matter of that book in Hebrew. 
 Page 23. 
 
IV. vi. 12.] 
 
 THE HOLY SCRIPTUltES. 
 
 C77 
 
 II. vourably of Josephus ; probably because so many testimonies^^ 
 are accidentally to be deduced from him in favour of Christians, 
 though he was no Christian himself. This is no reason why 
 he should be generally undervalued. Then he was a kind of 
 Boman — actually with the Romans in camp during the siege 
 of Jerusalem ; and he is valued by heathens as well as Chris- 
 tians. This may account for the Jewish prejudice. 
 
 Allix, in his 5th chapter, goes through the whole catalogue, 
 and speaks more learnedly than I have done of each hook, 
 except perhaps the Prayer of Manasses ; but, after what has 
 been said, I will content myself with referring to him for parti- 
 culars, and will only take the result of his inquiries and my 
 own. 
 
 It seems probable, that, under the Ptolemies in Egypt, and 
 the SelucidcB in Syria, authors amongst the Jews were nume- 
 489 rous ; not only in Alexandria, but at Jerusalem and Babylon : 
 and that their chief purpose in writing was to promote good 
 morals ; but that they executed their purpose always with 
 some sort of view to their Scriptures and national history — 
 enlarging, imitating, supplying, as their judgment and imagi- 
 nation dictated. Some wrote in Chaldee (or possibly Hebrew) 
 but more in Greek ; and it seems conceivable, that some works 
 might be original in both Hebrew and Greek Some of these 
 authors had more solid understanding, others less ; but they 
 all delivered something of what was customary in the notions 
 of the Jews, which turned frequently on the expectation of a 
 Messiah, A great number of their writings have been de- 
 stroyed ; of the few remaining, some seem to us valuable ; but 
 the Jews do not value them as they ought, being determined 
 to reject Jesus as Messiah, and indulging themselves, especially 
 since the coming of our Messiah, in an immoderate regard for 
 traditions, and a boundless range of childless conceits and fan- 
 cies. The ancient Jewish writings in our Apocrypha are too 
 rational for them, as well as too moral : — I speak of the more 
 respectable part. 
 
 As to the manner in which apocryphal books got in some 
 places into the canon of Scripture, I agree with Bishop Burnet 
 They were first esteemed as pious, and as related, as it were, 
 to Scripture; then they v/ere read in Churches; and the cano- 
 nical Scriptures being read there also, these got associated in 
 
 See authorities collectet!, Lard. vol. I This is mentioned Book I. chap. vi. 
 VII. p. 34. 1 sect. 1. Page 111, 8vo. 
 
678 
 
 AETICLES OF EELIGION. 
 
 [IV. vi. 13. 
 
 men’s minds, till, at last, they came to be upon one and the II. 
 same footing. 
 
 It might greatly facilitate their reception amongst Chris- 
 tians, if they seemed in any way to favour the Christian 
 cause. 
 
 13. The second proposition remains : that is, the Church 490 
 reads the apocryphal books as moral; and Jerom affirms the 
 same. 
 
 It may be thought of little moment to prove this, unless it 
 were proved that the Church ought to read them for such pur- 
 pose. But the practice of those whom we are to respect is a 
 strong argument of itself for the continuance of such practice. 
 
 The passages already mentioned in Clemens and Polycarp may 
 answer our purpose. Athanasius says \ that these books 
 were appointed by the fathers to be read by those who first 
 come to be instructed in the way of ’pietyT What Jerom says, 
 in his Preface to the books of Solomon, is doubly to our pur- 
 pose, as it proves both parts of the proposition now before us. 
 
 SicLit ergo Judith, et Tobim^ et Macchabseorum Libros 
 legit quidem ecclesia, sed eos inter canonicas scripturas non 
 recipit, sic et hmc duo volumina (Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus) 
 legat ad aedificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem Ecclesiasti- 
 corum dogmatum confirmandam.” And lastly. Bishop Burnet 
 proves ^ the general custom of reading things not canonical in 
 the Church. Indeed, calling some writings ecclesiastiealy which 
 were not accounted canonical^ shews pretty plainly what we 
 mean to prove. 
 
 With regard to present times^ though there may be some 
 doubts about reading in Church the spurious additions to the 
 Book of Daniel^ yet I think it would not tend to edification to 
 banish Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom ^ The more Grotius insists 
 on some passages being interpolated by Christians, the more 491 
 plainly do we see the propriety of reading those books, which 
 contain those passages, in Christian Congregations, And the 
 recommendations which we find of them, in the Christian fathers, 
 must at least make us judge candidly and cautiously of any of 
 our Christian brethren who are inclined to pay them great 
 
 ^ See Burnet, p. 110, 8vo. 
 
 2 Jerom, Pref. to his Translation of the 
 Books of Solomon from the Hebrew. In 
 English, Lard. Works, vol. v. p. 18. 
 
 ^ Articles, p. Ill, 8vo. See also of 
 
 this. Book I. chap. xii. sect. 4. 
 
 At the Reformation, when men had 
 been brought up to revere them, it would 
 have been both imj)rudent and cruel to 
 set them aside. 
 
IV. vi. 14, 15.] 
 
 THE HOLY SCItIPTURES. 
 
 679 
 
 II. attention, as books of morality : though the truth probably is, 
 that the Christian fathers were much better judges of the 
 Scriptures, than of ethics. 
 
 14. 4. We are now come to our fourth and last station; 
 where we are to consider what our Article affirms with regard 
 to the Books of the New Testament — whether our Church 
 rightly receives them, and accounts them canonical. 
 
 As in this our Church agrees with other churches, we might 
 have discussed this subject in our first Book; but as mention 
 was to be made of these books in an Article^ it seemed as well 
 not to anticipate every thing that should be said upon it. No 
 church can well compose a set of doctrines without settling a 
 canon of Scripture. 
 
 But, though something has been deferred, yet we have 
 employed eight chapters of the first Book in proving the autho- 
 rity of the New Testament. The only question is now, of 
 what writings does the New Testament consist ? Besides those 
 which have been universally acknowledged as divine, there are 
 some now found in our volume whose authority has been con- 
 troverted ,* a thing so well known, as to divide the writings of 
 the New Testament into two classes — the oixoXoyovixeva^ and 
 the avTikeyoiieva. Are we safe in admitting these last into our 
 canon ? Some examination of this point may be proper, in 
 492 order to dispel doubts and suspicions : it may also be useful as a 
 specimen of the manner of inquiring into the authority of parti- 
 cular books. What writings we mean was mentioned formerly®. 
 
 15. Here, our first reflections must be historical. We 
 Iiave not any exact and minute accounts of the publication and 
 reception of the controverted books or writings ; we are only 
 told, after a considerable time, that doubts had been enter- 
 tained about them at some times and in some places, though 
 they had been received by many k These doubts do not seem 
 to have been quite cleared up, in all places^ even in the fourth 
 century; nor, with regard to the Apocalypse, till later®. But this 
 is exaggerated and misrepresented by Mr. Toland, when he 
 says®, of the books in question, that ^‘they were rejected a long 
 time by all Christians, almost with universal consent.” I do 
 
 ® Richardson calls them the first Canon 
 and the second Canon. 
 
 6 Book I. chap. xii. sect. 4. Hebrews, 
 James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, 
 Revelation. ^ Euseb. 3. 25. 
 
 " ^ Bishop Hallifax on Prophecy, p. 209. 
 
 ® Amyntor. See Leland’s Deist, Let- 
 ter 3 ; or rather Richardson’s Canon, &c. 
 p. 3, and 39 : mentioned Book I. ch. xii. 
 sect. 4. 
 
680 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. vi. 15. 
 
 not understand that any of them was ever rejected^ properly II. 
 speaking; because rejection implies previous examination; and, 
 
 I think, we have no account of any of them being first examined, 
 and then set aside. They seem to have continued without suf- 
 ficient notice — too little distinguished from the crowd of writ- 
 ings with which they had got mixed ; but that only in some 
 places: they were always received by many^ (as was just now 
 observed from Eusebius ^). At length however they attracted 
 notice ; they were all examined, by different persons success- 493 
 ively, till they were all found to merit what they claimed ; and 
 then they were separated from the crowd, and received due 
 honour from the Universal Church. The delay in each place 
 was pYo\)iih\y proportioned to the difficulty of getting due infor- 
 mation there; whether that difficulty depended upon distance 
 or prejudice.) or indifference^ as to the subject of the writing 
 neglected. 
 
 This sounds well ; but still you will say, why were these 
 writings ever controverted at all ? I would answer briefly, 
 because they were Catholic Epistles^: and on this will a more 
 particular answer turn. But, in opposition to this account, 
 it must immediately occur, that the Apocalypse is not an 
 Epistle at all; and that the second and third Epistles of John 
 are each of them addressed to a private person. One word, 
 to obviate this difficulty, will leave us free to pursue our 
 intended reply. Suppose the Apocalypse authentic, yet can 
 you wonder at its not being generally received all at once ? if 
 you had seen it amongst eighty^ or an hundred books, all claim- 
 ing to be received, would you have dared to take it out of the 494 
 
 ^ Of the Apocalypse Eusebius says, 
 aGeroDo-t, Euseb.3. 25; which is trans- 
 lated, ex albo scripturarum expnngunt ! 
 Some, says Eusebius, ddeTouai the Apo- 
 calypse, and some reckon it among the 
 hfjLoXoyovixeva : ddeTcIv seems opposed to 
 oixoXoyelv: translated twice in Lard. 
 Works, vol. IV. p. 229, and vol. vi. 
 p. 391. Lardner uses the word reject; I 
 mean in the passage about the Ep. to 
 IlehrewS) Euseb. 3. 3. The above pas- 
 sage, Euseb. 3. 25, about ihe Ajiocalypse, 
 is translated. Lard. vol. iv. p. 227, and 
 the word reject is used. On reflection, it 
 seems as if the controverted pieces, or 
 some of them, might sometimes be re- 
 jected after being noticed; though they 
 
 might be more frequently neglected, or 
 considered slightly. 
 
 ^ It occurred to me here, that 1 Peter 
 and 1 John are also Catholic Epistles, 
 yet were never controverted. Thatw??^/i^ 
 happen, and yet the others might be ob- 
 structed by being Catholic. The first 
 writing of Peter, and the first of John, 
 might come out under circumstances 
 which might occasion immediate success; 
 and yet the worth of the subsequent ones 
 might be less striking : and more spurious 
 writings might rival them. 
 
 2 Leland, p. 44. Of this Book I. 
 ch. xii. as before : forty Gospels, thirty-six 
 Acts, known; and many must have been 
 lost. 
 
IV. vL 16 .] 
 
 THE HOLV SCnTPTUUES. 
 
 681 
 
 II. crowd, except you had received particularly good information 
 
 concerning its author? With the progress of the Apocalypse 
 there was some regress. Its claim to be treated as Scripture 
 was sacrificed to a controversy about the Millennium ; as was 
 that of the Epistle to the Hebrews to a dispute about the 
 efficacy of repentance. And certainly the Apocalypse was 
 catholic^ though not an epistle ; no particular Church had the 
 charge of it, or the care of circulating it. And, if the second 
 and third Epistles of John are not properly catholic, (tliough 
 the ancients call them so^), they must be letters : would 
 
 not that have been sufficient to have prevented your making 
 them canonical? Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and Jude, are 
 Catholic Epistles undoubtedly. It has been generally under- 
 stood, that they were addressed to Jews wheresoever dispersed; 
 but, though we take Lardner''s opinion, that the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews was addressed to Christians in Judea., who had been 
 Jews ; James, to all descendants oi Jacob, whether converted to 
 Christianity or not ; 2 Peter to all converts, but particularly to 
 those who had been Gentiles ; and Jude to all converts ; — still 
 the principal idea remains unaffected, that the persons addressed 
 
 ^ were not collected in any one city, but were dispersed without 
 regularity through a number of places. So that it was no 
 one’s particular business to accomplish or promote their uni- 
 versal reception. 
 
 III. 16. Let us then endeavour to put ourselves in the place 
 
 1 of early Christians, and see how writings, circumstanced as 
 these Catholic Epistles were, might be authentic, and yet not 
 at once universally received. 
 
 1. First, take a geographical view of the countries in 
 which Christianity was professed in the fourth Century. Ex- 
 amine the extent of the Eastern and Western^ Church, and 
 
 2 you will readily admit, that a writing which was to be sepa- 
 rated by careful examination from a number of other writings, 
 might reach some places a long time before it reached others. 
 There might, indeed, accidentally be a communication between 
 one place and another very distant from it, not affecting inter- 
 mediate places ; while there was no intercourse between two 
 
 ^ See Lard. vol. vi. p. 592. 
 
 ® In Bingham’s Antiquities, book IX, 
 we have ecclesiastical maps ; particularly 
 of the three patriarchates, of Antioch, 
 Alexandria, and Jerusalem; nor can it 
 be difficult, in any hook of geography, to 
 
 trace out the extent of the See of Rome, 
 by the directions of ecclesiastical his- 
 tory, at any period : or that of any of 
 the European churches. Indeed Bing- 
 ham might suffice for the present pur- 
 pose. 
 
682 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. vi. 16. 
 
 places very near ; but, in calculating the effect of distance, some III. 
 kind of average might be taken of communication or inter- 
 course. And then we might say, if a bishop of Sardis is 
 obliged to travel into the East, in order to inform himself of 
 the several claims of various writings, how is an epistle ad- 
 dressed to inhabitants of Judea to arrive, in its proper form 
 and character, on the coasts of Spain or Italy ? 
 
 2. We should consider what great obstructions and delays 
 must arise from a want of a legal provision for conveyance, 
 such as our posts, apparitors, &c., and we may add, from a 
 want of the art of printing. Some writings used to be called 
 indeed eyKVKXioi, because they were to be sent round^; that 
 is, after being copied by one church, they were to be forwarded 
 to another : but this would be slow work ; and the copy would 
 sometimes miss its way, or stop short, or be lost^. Then 
 suppose it made a considerable progress, nay a great one ; that 
 would be nothing to the present question, which is only, why 
 were not all our sacred writings at once universal? that they 
 were always received in many places, cannot well be questioned. 
 
 3. Gospels must spread more than epistles. No one could 
 well go to teach Christianity any where without having a gospel 3 
 with him. Epistles of any sort would have a more confined 
 and local reference; so that the carrying of them to every 
 place would not be wholly indispensable : still less needful 
 would it be to carry round the Apocalypse. 
 
 4. Epistles to particular churches would sooner be ac- 
 knowledged by any individuals, and so afterwards universally, 
 than epistles to any converts that were dispersed. Suppose, 
 for instance, any one to ask himself whether the First Epistle to 
 the Corinthians was to be received, and, at the same time, 
 whether he was to receive the Epistle of James; — he might be 
 sure to find the former at a known place, and many witnesses 
 ready to vouch for its genuineness. And this certainty would 
 have weight even at a distance, nay, at any distance from 
 Corinth ; whereas the evidence of the latter would be more 
 scattered and feeble. 
 
 5. Supposing the progress of a writing once delayed, or its 
 reception disputed, then, if Christianity kept spreading, the 
 longer any doubts continued, the greater difficulty would there 
 
 ‘ See Du Cange, eyKvicXia, and eyKVK- that no Scriptures have been finally lost. 
 
 Xia ypayiLUTa, circular letters. See vol. vi, last chapter. 
 
 2 Lardner gives good reasons to think 
 
lY. vi. 17-I9J 
 
 THE HOLY SCllIPTUEES. 
 
 683 
 
 lll.be found in accomplishing the end we are speaking of. Not 
 but the writing might go on continually gaining ground: but 
 it would be longer in becoming universal. 
 
 6. The longer the reception of any writing was delayed, the 
 more spurious works would it have to fight its way through. 
 Every one of our sacred pieces must have its claims set in 
 opposition to the claims of a great many others : the more of 
 these it has to contend with, the lono^er it must be in makino; 
 its claims universally allowed; and such competitors would, for 
 some time, increase and multiply. At any time, the Prote- 
 
 4 vangelium^ of James might retard the Epistle of James; but 
 the more of such obstacles stood in the way, the greater would 
 be the retardation. 
 
 7. One principal thing to help forwards a disputed book 
 or writing would be internal evidence ; but, though nothing 
 works more surely, yet nothing works more slowly : common 
 people will for a while swallow, or rather devour, great ab- 
 surdities, though after a time they will be convinced by better 
 judges: indeed internal evidence is only evidence to the best 
 judges, at first. The internal evidence of the Apocalypse 
 must work very slowly indeed. Before the completion of some 
 of the prophecies which it contains, it must be received merely 
 on the probability of its being written by St. John. 
 
 17. I look upon these observations to be historical ; 
 though their tendency is, to shew how the controverted pieces 
 of the New Testament might be obstructed, even if really 
 authentic. And I should hope that such remarks might 
 moreover tend to fix our thoughts on the growth of Chris- 
 tianity, and make it an interesting subject. They therefore 
 open the subject to us, and explain its nature; and they may 
 be called explanatory, as well as historical. As the Article has 
 no words about controverted books, I shall offer no other 
 explanation. 
 
 18 . We come then to our proof: which is only concerned 
 with one proposition. 
 
 ‘ The seven controverted books of the New Testament 
 ought to be deemed canonical.'' 
 
 We will prove this of these books, first collectively, then 
 separately. 
 
 19. Collectively. This has been already done in some 
 
 3 See Jeremiah Jones, or Fabricius’s Codex Apocryphus, mentioned before, Book I. 
 chap. xii. sect. 4. 
 
684 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGTOK. 
 
 [IV. vi. 20. 
 
 measure. Their being acknowledged upon examination, afterlll. 
 being confounded with a number of other books, implies a good 5 
 deal : a more severe trial than if they had met with a welcome 
 reception on their first appearance. We might also conceive, 
 that, had the time of their probation been shorter, this argu- 
 ment in their favour might have been less powerful. The 
 want of credulity of the Fathers, in the matter now before us, 
 like the want of belief in St. Thomas, is a very powerful con- 
 firmation of our faith. And it must be a pleasing reflection to 
 any one under doubt about any of these books, to think, that 
 its title had been examined carefully, by better judges than 
 himself, when the materials for judging were much more attain- 
 able than at present. Pursuing this thought, we ask, how it 
 happens that all Christians are agreed on the subject of their 
 authenticity ? This is no ordinary phenomenon. When a 
 point has once been disputed, it generally continues to be dis- 
 puted ; but, in this, there is no dissenting church ; nay, 
 scarcely an hesitating individual. To offer as a reason, that 
 the authenticity of the books in question has been settled pub- 
 licly in a council, is to say little. Those who composed that 
 council must have received conviction as private men. 
 
 I will now read to you some catalogues of ancient times, 
 from which it appears when the controverted books of our New 
 Testament had been received amongst those always acknowledged 
 as canonical. And the Letter of Melito^ Bishop of Sardis, to 
 Onesimus, though only on the Old Testament, might give us a 
 right feeling of the situation of Christians before the canon was 
 settled. Cyril's Catalogue, and that of the Council of Laodicea^ 
 may be sufficient for the present. Those who choose to consult 
 more catalogues, may find them in Lardner’s Works, by his 
 Indexes^; or in that chapter of the Supplement to his Credi- 6 
 bility which treats of the Order of the Books of the New Tes- 
 tament ^ Athanasius and Rujffinus not only give their own 
 opinion, but the evidence of writings now lost^. 
 
 20. Separately. We begin with the Epistle to the He- 
 brews. There are two parts in each proof ; we would both see, 
 that the work in question is written by an apostle^ and that 
 there are sufficient witnesses of its being sacred. That is, we 
 would prove its being genuine^.) and its being authentic. These 
 
 ^ Particularly Index V. under Testa- 
 ment. - Chap, xxiii. 
 
 3 Richardson’s Canon, pp. 39, 40 ; or 
 
 Lardner, as above. 
 
 ^ Genuine.) distinguished from authen- 
 tic., Book I. chap. xii. sect. 2. 
 
IV. vi. 21.] 
 
 THE HOLY SCKtPTUKES. 
 
 685 
 
 III .two proofs may unite their force, but they are strictly inde- 
 pendent of each other^. If a writing is proved authentic, it 
 is to be received, whoever wrote it ; if an Apostle wrote it, 
 it is to be received on his account*^; and the evidence that 
 a writing is either genuine or authentic, may either be inter- 
 nal^ or external. During our separate proofs, the state of 
 early Christians now described, as to their having a number of 
 books claiming to be received as sacred, should be constantly 
 kept in mind. 
 
 21. The Epistle to the Hebrews may be proved authentic 
 by a number of credible witnesses. Barnabas', Clemens Ro- 
 7 manus, and Polycarp, may be reckoned, as they shew that the 
 matter of it was familiar to them, though it is not their custom 
 to quote formally. The force of this argument is best seen by 
 looking into Lardner’s Credibility, &c. There, in the account of 
 each father, it is easily found what Scriptures he quotes, or 
 alludes to. And in his Supplement^ the opinions of the fathers 
 with regard to each Epistle may be found collected. The 
 Epistle to the Hebrews is quoted by Irenaeus, Clemens Alex- 
 andrinus, Athanasius, and Cyril of Jerusalem, and with par- 
 ticular attention by Origen. We may add the authority of the 
 Councils of Laodicea (in 364, or about that time,) and Carthage 
 (in 397, the third). These authorities do not go lower than 
 the fourth century ; but such as are later are useful in shewing 
 that all disputes were at an end. Plowever, I will only mention 
 Theodoret; who told the Arians that they ought to respect this 
 Epistle, as one which had been read“ as early as the apostolic 
 writings. These witnesses seem sufficient. A student who 
 chose to attend particularly to this subject, might read that 
 part of Lardner’s Supplement to his Credibility which is about 
 this Epistle in particular^ 
 
 ^ Grotius and Le Clerc think the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews authentic, but 
 not the work of St. Paul. Dionysius of 
 Alexandria thought the Apocalypse sa- 
 cred, and written by a John, but not the 
 Evangelist. 
 
 ® See Bishop Hallifax’s quotation, 
 p. 211, from Erasmus; though it belongs 
 properly to the Apocalypse. 
 
 7 Lardner does not allow that Barna- 
 bas does refer to Hebrews, though he 
 calls Moses a servant (Heb. iii. 5), and 
 in the capacity of a servant opposes him 
 to Christ. Barnabas does not indeed at 
 
 the same time call Christ a Son^ but still 
 the opposition strikes me : nor does any 
 thing come near obviating it but the sup- 
 position, that Barnabas might originally 
 have the same ideas with St. Paul. See 
 Lard. Works, vol. ii. p. 20. 
 
 ^ Theodoret begins his Preface to 
 Hebrews with saying, that the Arians 
 endeavoured to lessen its authority ; but 
 1 have omitted making an exact reference 
 to the passage from which this was taken. 
 I may find it hereafter. 
 
 ^ Lardner’s Works, vol. vi. pp. 381 — 
 415. 
 
686 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. vi. 22. 
 
 22. As the Epistle to the Hebrews is anonymous, we can- III. 
 not perhaps be properly said to prove its genuineness ; but we 
 may prove that it is written by an Apostle; which is all we 
 have in view in proving any epistle to be genuine. We will 8 
 now therefore offer some reasons for concluding that it is written 
 by St. Paul, Grotius and Le Clerc are of a different opinion: 
 but, though they are learned men, we find ourselves obliged to 
 differ from them sometimes. 
 
 Compare Heb. v. 12, with 1 Cor. iii. 2; — Heb. xii. 3, with 
 Gal. vi. 9 ; — Heb. xiii. l6, with Phil. iv. 18. And compare con- 
 clusions^. Christ is called Mediator in the Epistle to the He- 
 brews three times, and twice in the Epistles always ascribed to 
 St. Paul, and no where else in Scripture. St. Paul makes use 
 of allusions to the public games ; and such allusions are found 
 in the Epistle to the Hebrews ^ 
 
 2 Pet. iii. 15, l6, is often used to prove that Paul wrote the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews. The argument takes for granted the 
 authority of the second Epistle of Peter, but that is proved 
 independently. The reasoning I take to be this : Peter writes 
 to the same persons that Paul had addressed in some Epistle of 
 a singular nature — so strictly singular, that it might be contra- 
 distinguished to the rest of St. Paul’s Epistles ; or, what seems 
 still stronger, to ^‘all his Epistles” (ver. l6.). Now, how can this 
 be solved so well as by making the Epistle to the Hebrews to be 
 one class, and the rest of his Epistles another Gardner^ will 
 not use this passage, because he supposes Paul to write to Jewish 
 converts in Judea, and Peter to converts in general. But, on 
 this supposition, Peter and Paul would address some of the 
 same converts : and it seems quite clear, from ver.* 15, that they 
 did write to some of the same persons, whoever they were. 
 
 The ‘‘things hard to he under stood seem to be in the Epistles 9 
 to the Romans and Ephesians particularly; and the 
 does seem to me to make one class of what went before, and an- 
 other of what follows ; and I cannot divide the writings of Paul 
 so well into two classes, as by supposing the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews singly to make one of them. 
 
 In Heb. xiii. 23, Timothy is spoken of in a manner like that 
 of St. Paul; and one can scarce conceive any person besides 
 St. Paul to speak of him in such a manner. Such is the inter- 
 
 ’ Gibson gives more instances, — 3d 24, and Phil. iii. 1, 4. 
 
 Past. Letter: see Contents. ^ Lardner’s Works, vol. VI. p. 404. 
 
 2 Compare Xleb. xii. 1, with 1 Cor. ix. 
 
THE HOLY SCIIIPTURES. 
 
 IV. vi. 23.] 
 
 687 
 
 HI. evidence that the Epistle to the Hebrews is St. Paul’s. 
 We may add as much eccternal almost as we please. 
 
 This Epistle is ascribed to St. Paul by many of the ancients, 
 whose names may be seen in Lardner^ and in Bishop Gibson’s 
 third Pastoral Letter. All those, who reckon fourteen Epistles 
 of Paul, ascribe that to the Hebrews to him. Origen intended^ 
 a proof that Paul wrote it ; whether he executed his intention 
 or not, it shews his opinion; but Lardner thinks'^ he did 
 execute it, in his Homilies. 
 
 23. Here we may rest our direct proof, though other 
 arguments’^ are to be found. The indirect proof, in the present 
 question, is very considerable ; that is to say, answering objec- 
 tions opens the subject farther, and confirms our reasoning. 
 
 Obj. 1. If this Epistle had such good evidence for it as is 
 here said, why was it not at first better received in the Christian 
 world ? In answer, we might first apply what has been said 
 about the controverted pieces in general. And we may add, it 
 10 was the les5 readily received on account of its being anonymous. 
 If you ask, why then ivas it anonymous ? you swerve from the 
 present business. It seems to have been received wherever it 
 was known, till writings grew too numerous. In the Eastern 
 Church, that is, in its own country, or near it, there does not 
 seem to have been any doubt about it. At one time it had not 
 reached the Western Church, or not all parts of it ; but after- 
 wards it did reach them all. The high things it contains 
 concerning the Son of God have made many depreciate it. 
 The Latins would probably think it too Rabbinical for them. 
 And certain severe passages relating to apostasy would deter 
 some men, and make them wish to avoid it and keep clear of it, 
 whether the Novatians had any concern in the affair or not. 
 
 Obj. 2. If Paul was the author why did he not put his 
 name ? Pie might have good reasons unknown to us ; and it 
 would have been absurd for him to assign reasons why he did 
 not own himself to be the author : that would have been owning 
 himself to be so, in other words. Then he was the Apostle of 
 the Gentiles^; and the Jews were much prejudiced® against 
 him — perhaps as an apostate. He wrote indeed to converts; 
 but Christian converts could retain Jewish prejudices: his 
 
 ^ Lard. vol. vi. p. 391, &c. 
 
 ® See Lardner’s Works, vol. li. p. 
 472. 
 
 ® Lard. Works, vol. ii. p. 478. 
 
 7 Richardson’s Canon, p. 40, and p. 41, 
 note. 
 
 ^ See Gibson, 3d Past. Letter. 
 
 ^ Acts xxi. 21, 28. Gibson, as before. 
 
688 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. vi. 23. 
 
 reasoning with them shews that he was obliged to turn their III. 
 own arms against them, which is a sort of hostile treatment. 
 
 In this Epistle he lowers the value of Judaism, making it only 
 introductory and temporary; whereas many, even Christians, 
 wanted to make it perpetual. 
 
 Ohj. 3. If this Epistle was so well attested, how could 
 some early fathers be ignorant of St. Paul’s being the author ? 
 
 We reply: — Irenaeus might not know the author, but he knew 11 
 of the Epistle, and has quoted it. He was Bishop of Lyons ; 
 perhaps the Epistle might be less perfectly known in France 
 than in Judea, so soon as the time of Irenaeus. Tertullian 
 ascribed it to Barnabas ; but he also was a Latin Father. 
 
 It was no bad compliment, however, to the composition to 
 ascribe an Epistle of Paul to his companion and fellow-preacher 
 — to give it to one, who, if he was not an apostle in the highest 
 sense, was as near to one as possible. 
 
 But any one, who happened to look at the end of this 
 Epistle, might say, no one must conclude that Irenseus, &c. did 
 not know it because they were Latin Fathers; for the Epistle 
 was written from^ Italy: — ’Eypdcprj diro ’IraXms &d 
 hlixoOeov. Suppose it was^ when it once got into Judea it 
 might be as if at had been written in Judea. But this sub- 
 scription is of very doubtful authority^ It might be occasioned 
 by “they of Italy salute you,” just before; but o\ airo riys 
 ’IraXm? might mean persons in Judea, or elsewhere, come 
 hither from Italy^ Then, it is not likely that this Epistle was 
 sent by Timothy; for the author says he would come with 
 Timothy, (Heb. xiii. 23,) if he came soon. Sending implies 
 separation ; and, if Timothy delayed his journey, it is probable 12 
 the Epistle would be sent by some other hand. In the authori- 
 ties, Clemens of Rome is mentioned as having known the 
 Epistle ; but he might know it on the return of travellers who 
 had visited their brethren in the East, or as a bishop of a 
 
 ^ In the Alex. MS. it is, from Home. 
 
 2 Notwithstanding the little credit of 
 this subscription, Lardner is of opinion 
 that the Epistle was written from Rome ; 
 and there is a great weight of learning on 
 the side of its coming from Italy. See 
 Lard. vol. vi. p. 413. I am not clear 
 enough in the order of the incidents at 
 present, to contend about the matter. I 
 may however adhere to what I sa,y Jirst, 
 tliat it might be unk7iotvn at Rome, 
 
 though written from a prison there. 
 Eusebius says it was controverted be- 
 cause not received by the Church at 
 Rome. 
 
 2 In Viger, 9. 1. 13. we have not only 
 OL ccTTo t?7s (TToas, for Stoics, but ol aVo 
 Tijs ReX-rt/cji?, for Gauls, Galli. The word 
 ddeXcjiol, added in MS. Veles., is not well 
 supported, else it would take off the force 
 of this phrase. 
 
IV. vi. 24.] 
 
 THE HOLY SCRTPTUllES. 
 
 689 
 
 1 1 1, great city. Those in high authority have intelligence which 
 
 does not reach common people. 
 
 Ohj. 4. Some have thought that this Epistle could not be 
 written by St. Paul, because the style and manner appeared 
 unlike St. Paubs — less vehement, less digressive — in better 
 Greek than could be expected from St. Paul ; and more politely 
 expressed^ Yet we may say, in reply, the Epistle to the He- 
 brews is by no means deficient in spirit and energy ; nor are St. 
 Paul’s other Epistles without instances of fine writing. Then, 
 whatever made St. Paul conceal his name^ would make him 
 write with reserve and caution ; if not attempt to make some 
 alteration in his style and manner of writing. This would 
 naturally give a polish and softness; and, by abating vehemence, 
 would prevent digressions. As to the Greeks I shall content 
 myself with giving you the hypothesis of Lardner^. “My 
 conjecture,” says he “is, that St. Paul dictated the Epistle in 
 Hebrew, and another, who was a great master of the Greek 
 language, immediately wrote down the Apostle’s sentiments in 
 his own elegant Greek. But who this assistant of the Apostle 
 13 was, is altogether unknown®.”— Any person, who did not think 
 himself a judge of the elegance of Greek, might perceive, that 
 the language of the Epistle was more pure, clear, and free from 
 embarrassment, than St. Paul’s usually is. It is above Barna- 
 bas, or Clement. What primitive Christian do we know of, 
 except Paul, that it is not above With regard to the matter 
 of the Epistle, good judges esteem that to be truly worthy of 
 the pupil of GamalieV. 
 
 24. We come next to the Epistle of James. It is entitled 
 'laKwf^ov TOO 'ATToaroXov, and addressed, according to Gardner’s 
 opinion, to the twelve tribes^ that is, to all descendants^^ of Jacob 
 
 This was the opinion of Origen. 
 See Lard. vol. ii. p. 477- 
 5 Lard. Works, vol. vi. p. 410. 
 
 ® On review, I cannot feel contented 
 with this conjecture of Lardner’s. If it 
 were well grounded, the Epistle in Greek 
 would have the air of a translation., con- 
 trary to what is quoted by him, vol. ii. 
 p. 477, and vol. iv. p. 269. St. Paul 
 wrote many Epistles in Greek ; would he 
 have employed any one to write this for 
 him ? and, if he dictated at all, why in 
 Hebrew, to one well skilled in Greek ? 
 As he did not write in his own name, 
 1 can conceive him to have thought more 
 
 Vol. I. 
 
 about his expressions than in his other 
 writings, and to have consulted some 
 friends upon them : this would suffici- 
 ently alter his style. 
 
 See Wotton’s Misna from Simon, 
 Postscript to Preface. 
 
 ® Gardner is of this opinion : see Al^orks, 
 vol. VI. p. 507. In a Sermon 1 have said, 
 it seemed to me that St. James meant to 
 correct the mistakes and faults of pious 
 Christians^ who had abused Christian 
 doctrines, so as to evade the moral pur- 
 poses of Christianity. I feel a reluctance 
 to give up this opinion, though I wrote 
 my Sermon in 1794, unmindful of this 
 
 44 
 
690 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. vi. 25. 
 
 probably, whether converted to Christianity or not. It is a III. 
 Catholic Epistle, as being addressed to no particular city or 14 
 settled church. We are not to conclude, from its being called 
 Catholic, that it was industriously and immediately circulated 
 all over the Christian world : probably it could only be circu- 
 lated within a moderate compass. 
 
 We will first give some reasons for believing it to be written 
 by an apostle of 'the name of James, and then produce some 
 witnesses of its authenticity. In treating on the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, we took the opposite method ; spoke of the authority 
 before the author ; because, that Epistle being anonymous, it 
 seemed best to give it a credit from testimony, before we proved 
 it to be the composition of an apostle. 
 
 25. 1. James, the author of this Epistle, was an apostle 
 
 in the strictest sensek It may seem more easy to prove this 
 than it really is. The name of James occurs several times in 
 Scripture, without any mention of parents, or any other mark to 
 distinguish one James from another. In primitive times there 
 was no need of any such mark ; the context was sufficient. But 
 we have James son Zebedee, James son of Alpheus, James the 
 Less (jut/f jod?) James the Lord’s brother, &c. ; and some of the 
 ancients^ and the Greeks in modern times, have conceived that 
 James the son of Alpheus and James the Less might be different 
 persons. It will not suit our plan to enter very minutely into 
 this matter. We may give some data on which it may be 15 
 solved. Any one who washes to examine it, must collect all 
 the texts in which James is mentioned, and compare them ; 
 also all those in which the brethren of our Lord are mentioned ; 
 
 Lecture, written in 1790. It seems to me 
 a less difficulty to leave some expressions 
 unaccounted for ( such as that about wars), 
 than to suppose James to address persons 
 so very dissimilar as Jews (supposed 
 fixed and determined in Judaism) and 
 Christians; or to suppose him to say 
 things so uninteresting as some parts of 
 his Epistle would be to Jews. I can 
 conceive James to have had enlarged 
 notions, and to have seen amongst Jews 
 persons who had all imaginable degrees 
 of inclination to Christianity ; and some, 
 moreover, who wanted to be both Jews 
 and Christians at the same time. Nay, 
 I can conceive him to consider all Jews 
 in the light of future converts, probable 
 or possible; or as those whose true in- 
 terest it was to become converts ; but I 
 
 cannot conceive him to address .Jews, as 
 Jews. He might, according to this, be 
 unwilling to limit the number of those 
 he addressed ; but I think he addressed 
 no one whom he did not consider as 
 standing in some relation to Christianity. 
 He might bear in mind that the Jews, 
 who were imperfectly converted, might 
 be offended by any perversion of Christian 
 doctrines to immoral purposes; and he 
 might have such Jews in view, sensible 
 that his Epistle would be read by many 
 of them. 
 
 * Some account has been given of the 
 four Evangelists, Book I. chap. xiii. 
 sect. 9. 
 
 2 Mark xv. 40. 
 
 ^ See Jjardner’s Works, vol. vi. pp. 
 474, 475. 
 
IV. vi. 25.] 
 
 THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 691 
 
 III. either altogether (Matt. xiii. 55 ,) or separately. If 'we divide 
 the twelve Apostles into three quaternions, the order in which 
 they occur is always the same : the first four are always, Peter 
 (or Simon,) Andrew, James son of Zebedee, and John. The 
 second four are always, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, and 
 Matthew (or Levi). The third four are always, James son of 
 Alpheus (or of Cleophas,) Simon the Canaanite (or Zelotes,) 
 Jude or Judas (or Lebbeus surnamed Thaddeus,) and Judas 
 Iscariot. The same person has different names^ we see; but 
 the Hebrew names might take sometimes a Latin turn, from 
 the connection of the Jews with the Romans; or sometimes a 
 Greek turn, Greek being the general language. The inscrip- 
 tion on the cross was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. 
 
 To the above maybe added, that James, the Lord’s brother, 
 is called an apostle by St. Paul, Gal. i. 19. But after all, we 
 must content ourselves with taking the result of inquiries made 
 at other times. There were, then, but two, probably, of the 
 name of James ; both reckoned in all the four^ enumerations of 
 the twelve Apostles. First, James the son of Zebedee and 
 Salome^, called sometimes, though not in Scripture, majoi\ or 
 the elder, brother of John the Evangelist, who, with his brother 
 John, and Peter, was present at the transfiguration, and during 
 the agony of Christ in the garden ; who was one of those sur- 
 16 named Boanerges, and a martyr under Herod Second, James 
 the son of Alpheus, or the less, in opposition to the other 
 James, who is always mentioned first, and was most eminent 
 and most employed, brother of Jude, and of Simon Zelotes, or 
 the Canaanite ; called, for some reason, or in some respect, the 
 brother of our Lord^; and by early Christians, though not in 
 Scripture, James the just ; brother also of Joses, who was not 
 an apostle. If our Epistle was written by either of these, it 
 was written by an apostle. No one amongst the ancients, who 
 had thought about it, denied that it was written by one James, 
 a man of very great eminence amongst the first Christians. 
 Now, James the son of Zebedee suffered martyrdom too soon^ 
 to write it ; it was therefore (if our conclusion concerning the 
 number of Jameses is right) written by James the son of 
 Alpheus^. Indeed, the things which are said of James, when no 
 
 Matt. X. 2—4. Mark iii. 18. Luke 
 vi. 15. Acts i. 13. 
 
 5 Salome seems to have been the name 
 of the mother of James major, and of the 
 sister of James minor. 
 
 ^ Acts xii. 2. 
 
 ^ As being cousin. See Bp. Pearson 
 
 on the Creed, concerning the perpetual 
 virginity of Mary, p. 175, fol.' 
 
 ** A.D. 44. 
 
 ® Our Church takes part of the Epistle 
 of James for the proper Lesson for St. 
 Philip and St. James, May 1st. The 
 festival of .lames major is July 25th. 
 
 44 2 
 
692 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. vi.25. 
 
 explanatory title is added, and after the death ^ of James the III. 
 son of Zebedee, are sufficient to shew that he acted in an 
 apostolic character ; nay, in a character higher than the gene- 
 rality even of apostles, after Christ’s ascension. When Peter 
 was released out of prison by the angel, as soon as he got into 
 an house, he gave this order^, “Go, shew these things unto 
 James, and unto the brethren — as one would send to let a 
 ruling magistrate know any thing, and add, ‘and tell it also to 
 the other persons concerned.’ James'^ seems to preside in 17 
 making a speech on a difficult question, and what he dictates 
 is put in execution. James'^ presides at Jerusalem — the ancients 
 have called him Bishop of Jerusalem. James is one of those 
 who reconcile^ Paul and Barnabas. And his weight appears in 
 the obedience of Peter to a commission deputed and sent® by 
 him. The word ’AttocttoXov in the title is in most manuscripts. 
 And though the word Apostle, like other titles of honour, has 
 got extended, yet the twelve seem to have been upon a different 
 footing from the seventy, or any other disciples’’'. It need 
 scarce be mentioned, that the writer of the Epistle calls himself 
 the servaiit^ of Christ ; whereas he whom we suppose to have 
 written it is called by St. Paul® and the Evangelists his brother. 
 After the ascension of Christ, James became his minister or 
 servant : he was never a strict or proper brother, nor perhaps 
 would he ever have called himself so — except, it might be, in 
 boyhood. To the Messias, to the Lord, he was servant; though 
 he might be brother to the carpenter’s Son. 
 
 What has now been said, with regard to St. James, will 
 make us ready to accept the evidence of antiquity concerning 
 the genuineness and authenticity of his Epistle. Internal 
 evidence we can expect none, except the reasonableness and 
 morality of the composition, considered with the discretion and 
 amiable goodness of St. James’s conduct. His character is is 
 drawn by Gardner, vol. vi. p. 473. Some Latin fathers, who 
 lived at a distance from Judea, do not speak as if they had 
 been acquainted with this Epistle — as Tertullian and Cyprian. 
 Irenaeus is thought by some to have known of it, at least in 
 
 * He suffered a. n. 44. Acts xv. is 
 dated 51. 
 
 2 Acts xii. 17. ^ Acts xv. !.*>. 
 
 Acts xxi. 18. ® Gal. ii. 9. 
 
 ^ (ral. ii. 12. Gardner, vol. ii. p. 357, 
 thinks, with Grotius and Beza, that .Jews 
 coming from James^ means only coming 
 from Jerumlem : but 1 hesitate. Peter 
 might he too familiar with Gentiles; the 
 
 Jews from James might intimate this; 
 Peter might grow more reserved to Gen- 
 tiles than seemed to himself needful or 
 right ; and in that sense he might dis- 
 semhle. 
 
 7 Luke vi. 13. Christ called his disci- 
 ;)/g5,and distinguished the twelve, “whom 
 also he named apostles." 
 
 ” .James i. 1 . ^ Gal. i. 19. 
 
IV. vi. 26 .] 
 
 TH1<: HOLY SCIIII’TUIIES. 
 
 693 
 
 III. some degree Origen says, in the part of his works which we 
 have in Greek, that this Epistle is ascribed to James; but, in 
 that part of his works which were translated into Latin by 
 Ruffinus (if there has been no interpolation made by Ruffinus), 
 he speaks of it as the Epistle of “James apostle and brother of 
 the Lord, and divine Scripture If we found a MS. so in- 
 scribed as our Epistle is, in any other case, we should not think 
 of making much doubt about the author, except some particular 
 difficulty occurred. But I will not dwell more upon the ge- 
 numeness of St. James’s Epistle, as it is attested by most of the 
 witnesses who come next to be considered. 
 
 26. Now we may call our witnesses to the authenticity of 
 our Epistle. They are so numerous^^, that I can only make a 
 selection. The witnesses of authenticity will generally be wit- 
 nesses of genuineness ; conversely not so often. The earliest 
 19 fathers seem to have known and acknowledged what we call the 
 Epistle of James as authentic. Clement of Rome and Hennas 
 are to be consulted particularly. The Apostolic fathers were 
 more moral than some who came after them. Origen has been 
 already mentioned. Eusebius and Jerom should be added; the 
 former of whom says, that the Epistle was known to most ,* 
 and the latter, that gradually, in process of time, it obtained 
 authority : which accounts agree with what we have said about 
 the manner of the circulation of the sacred writings. We are 
 moreover told, that the Epistle of James was translated into 
 Syriac with the first of Peter and the first of John. 
 
 The particular obstacle, by which this Epistle might be im- 
 peded on its first outset, seems well assigned by Bishop Gib- 
 son. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans was universally received, 
 and this seemed to contradict it with respect to justification by 
 faith. We may add, its being moral more than doctrinal: it 
 seems frequently of use to observe, that the fathers were more 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus occasions some 
 difficulty. See Lardner’s Works, vol. ii. 
 p. 226. Lardner is very candid in not 
 reckoning any of his passages to refer to 
 James. I do not see how to account for 
 James’s Epistle not having made its way 
 to Alexandria before 194 : but that might 
 not be the case; Clem. Alex, might only 
 omit James, or have no occasion to quote 
 any passage from a writing rather moral 
 than doctrinal; nay, one seemingly avoid- 
 ing the mention of doctrines, except 
 when endeavouring to prevent their being 
 abused. " See Lard. vol. ii. p. 479. 
 
 See Index to Lardner’s Works, un- 
 
 der St. James, his Epistle. And the same 
 might be done also with regard to He- 
 brews^ &c. — Consult also Gibson’s third 
 Past. Let. Richardson’s Canon, p. 42. 
 
 By the way, this is not said about 
 the Epistle of James as distinguished 
 from the other dvTiXeyofxeua ; it is said of 
 them all, though James is specified first. 
 
 Whitby. And in Gibson, p. 199, 
 there is a second passage about Jerom 
 stronger than the first. Bp. Gibson is 
 not strong enough about Eusebius ; yvw- 
 p'lgLMV bjULOt)^ toTs ttoWois. L. 3. S. 25. 
 See also Lardner, iv. 227. 
 
 Third Past. Letter, p. 199. 
 
694 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. vi. 27. 
 
 divines than moralists. Lardner also mentions as an obstacle, III. 
 its being thought by some that there were more than two 
 Jameses (Lard. vol. iv. p. 253) : this is also mentioned by 
 Bishop Gibson. Martin Luther went farther when he rejected 
 this Epistle on account of what it contains with regard to faith, 
 after it had been many centuries established in the canon h 
 
 Notwithstanding this exception of some Antinomians, I shall 20 
 venture to read you a passage, which Whitby quotes from Es- 
 tius, a celebrated Divine of Holland or Flanders, who lived 
 till the year l6l3^ With this Bishop Gibson concludes his 
 account ; and I will conclude mine with Dr. Lardner’s final 
 opinion 
 
 27 . Our next object is the Second Epistle of Peter; which 
 Grotius thinks may have made two Epistles ; the former con- 
 taining the two first chapters, the latter, the third chapter. 
 But, as this supposition has no support, and is formed only in 
 order to support the notion that this Epistle was written by 
 Simeon^ Bishop of Jerusalem, we may pass it over, and proceed 
 to our proofs. Here we will first take internal evidence, then 
 eoDternal^ having, in the present case, something with which we 
 can compare the composition in question. 
 
 Peter mentioned in the Gospels, was unquestionably an 
 apostle in the highest sense. If this Epistle was written by 
 him, that is enough. We must be allowed to go upon the 
 supposition that he wrote the first Epistle of Peter, as upon an 
 axiom ; and then we may produce reasons why this second 
 Epistle was written by the author of the first. The names 
 Simon"^ Peter do not belong jointly to any other person. No 
 other Peter could with propriety be called “ an apostle of 
 Christ,’'"' in any sense. The author of this Epistle was present 
 at our Lord’s transfiguration, as appears by chap. i. 18. He 
 writes this second Epistle” to the same persons with the first: 
 (though this argument will not have weight with those who 
 suppose Peter to begin a new Epistle with what we commonly 21 
 call the third chapter.) In the second verse of the third chap- 
 ter is a second claim to apostleship : “ the commandment of us 
 the apostles of the Lord and Saviour.” If we take for granted 
 the authority of the Epistle of Jude, we may prove that of the 
 second of Peter from it; for Jude refers to the second of Peter; 
 
 — I think I may say no less than fourteen times. And, in the 
 17 th verse, Jude puts Paul on the same footing with the writer 
 
 ' See Bp. Hallifax, Serm. vii. p. 212. 
 
 Jer. Jones, 1. 10. 
 
 ® Bishop Gibson seems to refer to 
 
 Jerom for this passage, p. 199 ; but there 
 must be a false print. 
 
 ® Lard. Works, VI. 505. ^2Pet. i. 1. 
 
IV. vi. 27.] 
 
 THE HOLY SCllIPTUllES. 
 
 695 
 
 III. of what we call the second Epistle of Peter; for they are the 
 two who speak of mockers or scoffers to come in the last time^. 
 In John xxi. 18, Ip, our Saviour foretels St. Peter’s death; in 
 2 Pet. i. 14. the writer says, ‘‘ I must shortly put off this my 
 tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.” 
 St. Peter is said to have been crucified at Rome in Nero’s per- 
 secution®, a little while before the destruction of Jerusalem: 
 he says, "in his first Epistle, “ the end of all things is at hand.” 
 John xxi. 18, Ip, seems to imply a violent death. 
 
 Some reasoning has taken place about a supposed difference 
 in regard to style between the first and second Epistle of Peter. 
 But Blackwall thinks there is scarce any difference. It is not 
 easy to prove any thing upon this point to others ; each person 
 must judge, or feel, for himself®. 
 
 ■22 The general scope of this Epistle seems to me such as might 
 have been expected in a second Epistle. Converts had used 
 the privileges of Christianity (as some have done in all ages) as 
 an exemption from moral obedience : St. Paul’s obscurity had 
 forwarded this error. James was obliged to set himself about 
 rectifying it ; and so was St. Peter, in a supplementary address. 
 With this view compare “ 1 Pet. i. 2, with 2 Pet. i. 10 ; 
 
 and read 2 Pet. i. 1,3, 5 — 11 , or even to 15; ii. 10, &c., to the 
 end; (all about persons who presume upon their holiness to be 
 vicious ;) chap. iii. 11; to the end; particularly ver. 15 and l6 
 about St. Paul: comparing that with James ii. 14, &c. There 
 are indeed some things about false teachers, which might be 
 occasioned by other circumstances; as also a presumption ob- 
 viated, that, because the second coming of Christ had not hap- 
 pened already, as expected by some, it need not be feared at all. 
 
 On the whole, we must either own that St. Peter wrote the 
 Epistle before us, or say that some person /orged it, intending 
 to impose upon the Christian Church. The latter supposition 
 is scarcely admissible, because the author must be a good and 
 pious Christian ; and such an one would not take pains to de- 
 ceive. We have indeed spoken ® of some who were well-mean- 
 ing, and yet did endeavour to recommend their writings and 
 
 ® Compare 1 Tim. iv. 1, and 2 Tim. iii. 
 1, with 2 Pet. iii. 3. Yet I doubt whe- 
 ther Paul comes up quite to the idea of 
 scoffers or mockers : — despisers of those 
 that are good,” 2 Tim. iii. 3, comes the 
 nearest. 
 
 ® See Lardner, vol. vi. chap, xviii. 
 
 7 1 Pet. iv. 7. 
 
 ® The second chapter is lofty, by con- 
 taining insinuations against false teachers, 
 
 and others, perhaps, pretending to take 
 the lead in sanctity without being the 
 best moral men. These insinuations must 
 be the most decorous when made in allu- 
 sions to writings deemed sacred : but such 
 must raise the style. St. Paul uses the 
 same kind of style about the fornicator at 
 Corinth. 
 
 ® Salvian, &c. Book I. ch. xii. sect. 
 4. 
 
696 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [ly. vi. 28, 29 . 
 
 make them useful, by affixing a great name to them ; but, in III. 
 the present case, the writer must not only intend to recommend 
 his Epistle, but actually to be believed to be Peter y by all 
 Christians. Those who think the marks sufficient can receive 
 the Epistle only as PetePs ; if it is not that, it is not what it 23 
 pretends to be. 
 
 28. Nevertheless, we may add any external testimony, for 
 the authenticity of our Epistle. Or, if external testimony at 
 the same time proves its genuineness^ no confusion will ensue. 
 Grotius was desirous " to have it pass for the work of Simeon^ 
 Bishop of Jerusalem, and successor to St. James; though 
 without any warrant from antiquity. 
 
 Clemens Romanus makes repeated allusions to the second 
 Epistle of Peter: Hermas seems to have known it: Justin 
 Martyr may be produced as a witness : Irenaeus has one pas- 
 sage, at least, to our purpose ; and one is as good as more, 
 when sufficiently clear. Origen may be worth citing ; and 
 Firmilian, though his expression is ambiguous ; it is, “ Paul 
 and Peter in their Epistles.’’ (Lard. vol. ii. p. 548). I will 
 only add, that though these passages afford arguments for the 
 authority of the Epistle, silence of authors does not prove 
 equally against it. There is no doubt about the Epistles to 
 the Thessalonians ; yet I remember observing, in a pretty long- 
 course of reading, that I never met with any reference to 
 either of them. 
 
 After the fourth century, no more doubt remained. 
 
 29 . We proceed, in the next place, to the second and third 
 Epistles of St> John, That these should be at first neglected 
 as minute, does not seem wonderful. Even Eusebius seems to 
 speak of them with indifference 'k yet afterwards, in the Council 
 of Laodicea, *\wavvov rpel? are necessary to make up the eTrra 
 KaOoXiKai And so long as they were considered as private let- 24 
 ters to two individuals, they would be little attended to: what- 
 ever made them regarded as catholic^, and called by that name, 
 did probably occasion their being universally respected. Some 
 have understood the word Kvp'ia (2 John l) to mean a church^; 
 but that does not appear consistent with what follows. If we 
 understand the letters, or epistles, as intended to remedy two 
 
 * Compare 1 Pet. iv. 7, with 2 Pet. 
 iii. 4 ; and 1 Pet. i. 9, with 2 Pet. i. 5; 
 and 1 Pet. i. 2, with 2 Pet. i. 10. 1 could 
 wish more of these comparisons to be 
 made. 
 
 ® ( xrotius in 2 Pet. Lardner, v i , Sfi,*). 
 
 * Euseb. Eccl. Hist. m. 2r). Also 
 
 Origen; see Lardner’s Works, vol. ii. 
 p. 467. 
 
 ^ The second and third of John were 
 always called Catholic Epistles. See 
 before, sect. 15. 
 
 ® See the opinions collected in Lard, 
 vol. VI. chap. XX. p. 503, &c. 
 
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 697 
 
 IV. vi. 29 .] 
 
 Wl. evils very common amongst Christians, though they were 
 written with a view to two particular instances of those evils, 
 they might soon be perceived to be generally applicable^ and so 
 come to be universally read, in private and public, and, in time, 
 to be received as the injunctions of an apostle. 
 
 In order to make the first of these two small Epistles seem 
 natural and generally useful, we need only suppose that some 
 of the Docetce ® had attempted to instil their notions into the 
 mind of a devout and respectable mistress of a family ; and 
 that she had given them rather too much encouragement. In 
 such a case, reproof was to be applied before the disorder had 
 got to too great an height; it was also to be sweetened by pure 
 and unaffected benevolence. Right reproof always allows the 
 real good qualities of the person reproved. 
 
 In order to make the second Epistle seem easy and intel- 
 ligible, we need only suppose an opulent and hospitable con- 
 vert, of the name of Gains, to have been somewhat too atten- 
 tive to a preacher, or minister, called Diotrephes, who, being 
 25 of an ambitious and turbulent disposition, wished to assume 
 some authority of his own, or to abuse such as was committed 
 to him ; and, as a means of succeeding, depreciated St. John, 
 or, possibly, his first Epistle. The attention shewn to this 
 aspiring minister may be supposed to have had the particular 
 inconvenience of causing Dew,etrius to be neglected — a plain, 
 modest, orderly preacher '. 
 
 In such a case, Gaius, or Caius, was to have the praise due 
 to his hospitality ; and beneficence was to be encouraged in 
 general. ’ The evil was to be complained of, and the offender 
 reproved ; but it needs but be briefly stated — it needs not be 
 pressed, or exaggerated. Indeed the fault was properly in 
 Diotrephes, not in Gaius ; but Gaius was to be cautioned 
 against giving it any encouragement. 
 
 The situations which I have imagined (for I speak not as 
 determining any thing) were probably not unfrequent about 
 the end of the first century ; and therefore the best means of 
 obviating their inconveniences might be made public, and be of 
 general concern. This they would naturally be by degrees: and 
 these letters would be oi general use, not only to those who ran 
 into the same faults, but to those ministers who had occasion 
 to check and reprove them. They both seem, at bottom, to 
 
 ® Art. ii. sect. 4, 28. 
 
 7 Lardner, I see, thinks Demetrius 
 may h&ve carried the letter. He struck 
 me as some way opposed to Diotrephes ; 
 
 and still does. But, as a fact., at least, I 
 may be allowed to mention what occurred 
 to me on reading the Epistles. 
 
698 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. vi. 80. 
 
 intend reproof some different sorts of unsteadiness; and III. 
 probably the one for yielding to heresy, and the other for 
 yielding to ambition. But, as I have marked out the path 
 by which the student may investigate the genuineness and 
 authority of such writings, I will content myself with referring 
 to authors before mentioned — Lardner, Richardson, Bishop 
 Gibson, &c. 
 
 As a thing peculiar to these two small Epistles, I may just 26 
 mention, that John, by calling himself the Elder, made some 
 imagine that they were written by John the elder, or Presbyter, 
 mentioned by' Eusebius, and not by the Evangelist ; but there 
 is every reason to think that St. John only gave himself this 
 title on account of his old age, and in order to avoid assuming 
 too much consequence. He vdshed to appear to the devout 
 matron, and the hospitable Gains, rather in the light of an 
 elderly friend, than in that of a person who had authority to 
 dictate and enjoin. 
 
 30. Nor, after the specimens already given, do I mean to 
 be long upon the Epistle of Jude. The writer, by calling 
 himself “ servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James,” must 
 mean to be thought that person who is always reckoned in the 
 third quaternion of the twelve Apostles; and is called Jude, 
 Judas, Lehheus, and Thaddeus ; and not Iscai'iot^^ An 
 Epistle so inscribed must be taken as the composition of him 
 who inscribes it, if we find no particular reason to the contrary. 
 
 And there is a presumption against the idea that a pious Chris- 
 tian would endeavour to deceive. This was before observed, 
 with regard to the author of the latter Epistle of Peter, which 
 Epistle Jude means to second. We might here produce evi- 
 dence. Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and Origen are full 
 in our favour ; nay, even Hermas might be adduced, if not 
 Polycarp and Irenoeus But, as what difficulty there has 
 been has arisen from the credit seemingly given in our Epistle 27 
 to some fabulous stories, we may confine ourselves to that point. 
 
 ] . Supposing the stories not true, but only believed to be true, 
 there seems no reason why Jude might not allude or refer to 
 them, in the way of an argumentum ad hominem. For so 
 doing he would have had the highest authority. 2. Supposing 
 them true, but conveyed down only by tradition, Jude had cer- ^ 
 tainly as good a right to introduce them as Paul to introduce 
 
 * John xiv. 22. 
 
 ^ 1796. It appears, from Mr. Marsh’s 
 Translation of Michaelis’s Introduction, 
 that the latter gave up the authority of 
 
 the Epistle of Jude. But I do not ap- 
 prehend that more will follow from this, 
 than from Martin Luther’s giving up the 
 authority of the Epistle of James. 
 
IV. vi. 31.] 
 
 THE HOLY SCRIPTUllES. 
 
 699 
 
 lll.Jannes and Jamhres^. But, 3 . We are told it is possible that 
 Jude might refer only to the canonical hooks of the Old Testa- 
 ment ; and that what he says, which seems not to be contained 
 in the Old Testament, might be collected from it, and expressed 
 in his own manner, according to some allowed modes of speak- 
 ing, interpreting, and applying. The Hebrews used feigned 
 speeches ; so that one of them might give that which he, from 
 circumstances, supposed Enoch might probably foretell, as if 
 Enoch had foretold it*. The rabbins, says Grotius^ use to 
 ascribe to angels and great men that which might probably be 
 said by them. Thus 2 Pet. ii. 7, 8, about Lot, is all supposed 
 to be collected from the Book of Genesis. However, it does 
 not seem to be denied that St. Jude may have made use of a 
 traditional prophecy of Enoch — or of an Hebrew hook now 
 lost ; though Jude 8, and 9, is fully thought by Lardner to 
 be taken from the three first verses of the third chapter of 
 Zechariah. 
 
 If, however, we can defend the writer on the least favour- 
 able supposition, we shall have no need to apologize for him on 
 any other. If Jude’s mode of using Scripture, by putting 
 speeches into the mouths of great personages, was known and 
 28 used, it would not deceive the Jews, though it might disgust 
 and perplex others : yet did not Livy do much the same ? 
 
 Lardner (vol. vi.) thinks this Epistle was written to all con- 
 verts, Gentiles as well as Jews : to me the allusions to Jewish 
 writings seem too frequent for this opinion. 
 
 31. The last book, of which we are to speak, is the Apo- 
 calypse — which was probably written by St. John the Evange- 
 list, in the island of Patmos, about the last year of Domitiaris^ 
 reign, a. d. 96 ; though not published till St. John went from 
 his banishment there to Ephesus, some little time afterwards, 
 where he presided. 
 
 The proof of the authority of this book will be wholly a 
 proof of its genuineness ; or that it was written by St. John 
 the Evangelist. Such is the nature of the book, as to make 
 it unlikely that it should be received on any other account. 
 Indeed Dionysius® of Alexandria did hold that it was written 
 by another John; and, in later times, Erasmus and Luther^ 
 have allowed the authority, and denied the author ; but Dio- 
 
 3 2 Tim. iii. 8. 
 
 ^ See Lard. Works, vol. vi. p. 619, &c. 
 
 ® This is not unquestioned: some have 
 thought the Apocalypse was written be- 
 fore the year 70. Some, at different 
 times; and collected. Sir I. Newton, 
 
 Michaelis, and Wetstein, are all for the 
 earlier date ; but they go a good deal on 
 the style: the arguments for the later 
 date seem to me much the more forcible. 
 
 ® See Lardner’s account of him. 
 
 See Bp. Hallifax’s 7th Serm. p. 211. 
 
700 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION, 
 
 [IV. VI. in. 
 
 nysius having had a particular end in view, and the two others III. 
 being comparatively moderns, they need not be considered par- 
 ticularly by us. 
 
 The genuineness of the Apocalypse seems capable of a most 
 full and complete proof — as may easily be seen by looking 
 into Lardner’s chapter on this book, in his Supplement ' to his 
 Credibility. I will only select a few arguments; ?>ome internal^ 29 
 others eocternal. 
 
 Internal marks may be, the author’s calling Christ the 
 Word ^ — and also the Lamb; his using the word Amen^ four 
 times ; and the phrase peculiar to St. John, of overcoming the 
 world, or the wicked one; for being unmoved under trials k 
 Lardner is most struck with this last mark. 
 
 A few external proofs, or a few witnesses may be adduced. 
 Papias, Justin Martyr, Melito, and Irenseus, may be sufficient. 
 And what they say cannot be collected more easily than by 
 means of Lardner’s Credibility : either in the body of that 
 work, or in the Supplement. Lardner ^ thinks Irenceus's tes- 
 timony alone sufficient to establish the genuineness, and conse- 
 quently the authority, of the Apocalypse. 
 
 Yet it must not be dissembled that the witnesses cannot be 
 traced down to the present times in an uninterrupted succes- 
 sion. The Apocalypse is not in the canon of the Council of 
 Laodicea, nor in the catalogues of Cyril and others. Chrysos- 
 tom takes no notice of it in his voluminous works. What may 
 this mean ? The case seems to be, that Cains a presbyter, pro- 
 bably a Roman, and Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, were de- 
 termined, at all hazards, to overthrow the errors and expose 
 the follies of those who believed in a voluptuous millennium ; 
 and, when that state seemed to be promised in the Apocalypse, 
 they proceeded to lessen the authority*^ of that book. Their 
 arguments, together with the difficulties contained in the book, 30 
 seem to have been the real reasons why Christians began to 
 doubt about it, even after its credit had been in a manner esta- 
 blished. Its credit would be the more easily overthrown, at any 
 time, as but few copies, comparatively, would be taken of it ; 
 and therefore few would be able to defend it. Nay, some 
 doubts existed after it had been again established, in a very 
 great measure, and these continued for a length of time : and 
 
 ' Chap. ?ixii. 
 
 ^ Compare Rev. xix. 13, with John i. 
 1 ; 1 .John i. 1 ; also Rev. v. 1>, 12, with 
 .John i. 36. 
 
 •'* IMichaelis. See end of John, and of 
 1 John and 2 .John. 
 
 ■* Compare Rev. ii. 7, ; iii. 21, &c.; 
 
 xxi. 7, with John xvi. 33. 1 John ii. 13^ 
 14 ; iv. 4 ; v. 4, 5. 
 
 ■’ Works, vol. II. p. 170. 
 
 ** Before, sect. 1.5. 
 
THE HOLY SCKIPTUllES. 
 
 IV. vi. 32.] 
 
 701 
 
 II I. before the Reformation^ disputes being dropped, the book had 
 become neglected and almost ' forgotten. 
 
 The times immediately preceding the Reformation were 
 times of ignorance ; but, with regard to the more enlightened 
 times of the fourth and fifth centuries, it has been said that the 
 Apocalypse was received in the Western Church before it was 
 received in the Eastern^ contrary to what we have said of things 
 published in the East. This seems a misrepresentation. Pa- 
 pias, Justin, Melito, were all of the Eastern Church ; and Me- 
 lito. Bishop of Sardis, a church which was one of the seven that 
 were addressed in the book, also went farther into the East 
 than Sardis in search of canonical books. Go lower, we have 
 little to say. But, on the whole, the truth seems to be, that 
 at first the proofs that St. John wrote the Apocalypse were too 
 strong to be resisted ; that it made its way all over the Chris- 
 tian world (though Christians in general would always be at- 
 tached to other sacred books in a greater degree) ; but that, 
 ere long, it not only occasioned perplexity, but gave rise to er- 
 ror, folly, dispute. It occasioned disgust ; it was opposed, 
 laid aside : this more in some places than in others, according 
 to particular circumstances: but, in fact, it was laid aside more 
 31 in the East than in the West. Nevertheless, this probably was 
 accidental ; that is, it had nothing to do with any difference 
 between the Eastern and Western Churches. 
 
 What is said^ about the Council of Laodicea^ seems rea- 
 sonable — that they were selecting books for public reading to 
 the people ; the Apocalypse was not adapted to that use ; and 
 such is the judgment of the Church of England. 
 
 32. Though we are speaking immediately of the authority 
 of the Apocalypse, yet its great obscurity makes one naturally 
 say a word or two of its meaning. Many learned men have 
 professed not to understand it : Lardner does this with the 
 greatest plainness and simplicity. Calvin seems to have done 
 the same, and the learned Scaliger commends him for it " : 
 “ Sapuit Calvinus,’" says he, “ qui non scripsit in Apocalypsin.'" 
 Yet Joseph Mede, fellow of Christ’s College, who died about 
 the middle of the 17th century’^, has made wonderful efforts to 
 
 7 See Bp. Hallifax, 7th Sermon. 
 
 ® Richardson’s Canon, p. 15. Gibson, 
 Lardner as before : the words are, oaa 
 del ^L^Xia dvayivuiaKeadai. 
 
 ® Laodicea was one of the seven 
 Churches addressed. 
 
 10 Vol. VI, p. 635. 
 
 “ Whitby was learned ; but he declined 
 commenting- (.n the Revelation ; he has 
 
 left a Dissertation on the Millennium. 
 He appears to have been a candid, con- 
 scientious, and industrious man; but 1 
 am not clear that he was a man of very 
 great penetration or critical sagacity. He 
 died in 1726, aged 88. 
 
 Joseph Mede is said to have refused 
 the provostship of Dublin, &c. : he died 
 in 1658, aged only 5’2. 
 
702 
 
 ARTICLES OF RELIGION. 
 
 [IV. vi. 33 . 
 
 explain it; and, I suppose, has been the means of our now HI. 
 having so easy and pleasing a way laid open to some view of its 
 contents, in the Sermons of Bishop Hurd and Bishop Hallifax, 
 preached at the Lecture founded by Bishop Warburtonh The 
 general idea of the contents is, that it contains prophecies relat- 
 ing to the fortunes of the Christian Church, which history is 32 
 continually interpreting and unfolding. A short account may 
 be found in Bishop Percy^s Key to the New Testament. 
 
 33. Having now gone through the four parts of our Ar- 
 ticle, it seems proper to take some notice of one expression in 
 it — “of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church;” 
 especially as we have been just now speaking of controverted 
 books. 
 
 Probably, when these words were used, nothing more was 
 thought of than the Old Testament. For the last sentence, or 
 paragraph, about the New.^ begins as if nothing had been said 
 about it before. And one’s idea, in reading the Article, is, ^We 
 receive all the Books of the Old Testament, which have been 
 always, in a manner, received ; but as to those which the Ro- 
 manists receive, though the ancients speak doubtfully of them, 
 we wish them to be read publicly, as having a good moral ten- 
 dency, but we cannot allow them to have authority in settling 
 doctrines. So far, we think of nothing but the Old Testament: 
 after this, of nothing but the New. The New Testament we 
 receive as the Romanists do.’ The words, “ and Newf have 
 the air of an insertion % by way of correction. Indeed they 
 had better be omitted. The whole phrase, “of whose authority 
 
 was never any doubt in the Church,” is only incidental a 
 
 kind of epithet.) meaning uncontroverted. And, if it was not 
 strictly proper, it need not occasion scruple, so long as it did 
 not affect the declarations, strictly so called, of our Article. It 
 does not imply that we receive one book more or less. 
 
 If any one did not find this sufficient to make him easy, 
 when he used the expression in question, recollecting the dvri- 33 
 Xeyo/jLCva, he might consider farther : — 
 
 1. That an Article is to be interpreted by the occasion^ 
 on which it was made. Ours was made with a view to the 
 Church of Rome ; and they have never doubted the authority 
 of those books of the New Testament which were once contro- 
 verted. 
 
 2. It cannot perhaps be said properly that the Church ever 
 doubted of the authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews, &c. 
 
 * Book I. chap, xvii, sect, 19. 
 
 * I find nothing in Bennet’s Collations to favour this. Book III. chap. ix. 
 
IV. vi. 34.] 
 
 THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 703 
 
 III* Individuals have doubted, but no act of the Church ever pro- 
 claimed them doubtful. The Council of Laodicea omitted 
 the Apocalypse ; but that has been accounted for : and that 
 Council was formed only by deputies from the provinces of 
 Asia Minor. 
 
 3 . Those persons may properly be said never to have 
 doubted who never had opportunity of getting good information. 
 Whatever time elapsed, in any case, before Christians got suf- 
 ficient evidence of the authority of any book, during that time 
 they are not to be considered as doubting ; and, if they never 
 doubted after they got such evidence, they never properly 
 doubted at all. If a man believed the genuineness of Rowley's 
 Poems, as soon as the proofs of it were digested in his mind, 
 he might be said never to have doubted of it ; and, if that were 
 the case with all men, it might properly be said, that their 
 genuineness had never been questioned. What time should be 
 allowed for sufficient evidence to pervade the whole Christian 
 world, so that we might say, if the controverted books were 
 received in that time, they were never properly doubted, it may 
 be difficult to settle precisely, at this distance of time ; — but, 
 34 in settling it as well as we are able, we must take into our minds 
 all those obstacles which have before been described^. 
 
 34. We may come now to what we have called the appli- 
 cation of our Article. We may keep up the idea of its consist- 
 ing of the same parts as before ; though little need be said on 
 any of them. 
 
 As to assenting., a person, who mentioned what passed in 
 his mind when he gave his assent, might perhaps say something 
 of the following; sort : 
 
 O 
 
 ‘It is in vain to dispute, except we settle some common 
 principles with our adversaries. As therefore the Romanists 
 exalt the authority of their Churchy and of traditions in gene- 
 ral, we must declare that we only allow the authority of Scrip- 
 ture ; though we grant, that whatever is fairly deduced from 
 Scripture has scriptural authority. But, as different ideas have 
 been annexed to the word Scripture, it seems best to specify 
 what writings we comprise under that term. We receive no 
 books which the Romanists reject ; but some, which they hold 
 to be canonical, we consider only as improving ; and these we 
 agree to read publicly, in imitation of early Christians, and in 
 compliance with the wishes of those who may have been brought 
 up to revere and esteem them. 
 
 ^ Sect. 16. 
 
 ® Art. i. .sect. 9. 
 
704 ’ ARTICLES OF RELIGION. [IV. vi. 34. 
 
 ‘We hold the same books of the New Testament to belli, 
 authentic which the Romanists do.’ 
 
 As to mutual concessions^ it does not appear how a dispute 
 concerning first or fundamental principles admits of any com- 
 promise. 
 
 And lastly, with regard to improvements^ those belonging 
 to this Article are improvements in studying Scripture, and in 
 settling the provinces of written and unwritten authority. New 
 proofs, of the genViineness and authority of any sacred books, 
 would also come under the present class of improvements ; as .85 
 would any new lights with regard to the ancient Jewish books 
 which we commonly call the Apocrypha. 
 
 The short rule for improving our knowledge of Scripture 
 is, to get, as nearly as possible, into the place of those whom it 
 was most immediately intended to suit — to give ourselves their 
 ideas and feelings. It is these which must enable us to limit 
 and apply expressions, such as, from the imperfection of human 
 language, are too general and extensive to be taken literally. 
 
 In order to get into the situation of others, and learn their ideas 
 and feelings, we must acquaint ourselves with the history of 
 their customs and opinions, and with all the objects, natural^ 
 and artificial, which most usually engaged their attention. 
 Fresh travels, undertaken by good antiquaries, naturalists, 
 artists, with due encouragement, might continually promote 
 this purpose. 
 
 And, when we could not investigate immediately the ideas 
 and feelings of those for whom Scripture was first intended, we 
 might find them out, in some degree, by their effects; which 
 are to be understood by means of ecclesiastical history. 
 
 ' See Book I. chap. x. and xi. 
 
 END OF THE FIRST VOLUME. 
 

 
 ■ 0 } 
 
 r 
 
 ( 
 
 •s 
 
 
 ■f 
 
 '-M