I THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, I Princeton, N. J. -I LIBR A^R Y or THE Theological Seminary, PRINCETON, N. J. BX 5133 .B5 1804 v. 3 Blackburne, Francis, 1705- 1787 . The works, theological and miscellaneous-- of Francis t. m « i Digitized by tlie Internet Arcliive in 2015 _ https://arcliive.org/details/workstlieological03blac THE ■ WORKS, THEOLOGICAL and MISCELLANEOUS Including some pieces not before printed, / OF "BLACK FRANCIS l^LACKBURNE, M.A^ LATE RECTOR OF RICHMOND, AND ARCHDEACON OF CLEVELAND; ^ With some account OF THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF THE AUTHOR, BY HIMSELFi COMPLETED BY HIS SON FRANCIS BLACKBURNE, L.L.B. And illustrated by an Appendix of Original Papers. IN SEVEN VOLUMES. VOL. nr. LIBERABIT VERITAS. PRINTED BTB. FLOfVER, FOR THE EDITOR .- SOLD BY C A DELL AXD DA VIES, ST R AN D; COX D ER, BUCK- LEIISBURY; HURST, P A T E 11 NOST^ R-RO W ; AND ^ MAWMAN, POULTRY, LO N DON ; D EIG HTON , CAMBRIDGE; AND TODD, YORK. 1804. ■ AN HISTORICAL VIEW OF THE CONTROVERSY CONCEKNING AN INTERMEDIATE STATE AND THE SEPARATE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL BETWEEN DEATH AND THE GENERAL RESURRECTION, Deduced from the Beginning of the Protestant Reformation to the Present Times. Some Thoughts, in a Prefatory Discourse, ON THE Use and Importance of Theological Controversy. The SECOXD edition, corrected and greatly enlarged. Much of the SOUL they talk, but all awrij. Milton. [the second edition Printed, mdcclxxii.] CONTENTS. Advertisement - . ^ A Prefatory Discourse, &c. r CHAP. I. [1439.] 'p'HE Doctrine generallyreceivedin the christian church concerning the state of, departed souls, overthrown by a canon of the council of Florence. The Greeks at that council obliged to concur in it. The Florentine doC' trine calculated to favour Purgatory, Remarks on the ca- non. Was probably the occasion of the disputes at Rome on the immortality of the soul, in the pontificate of Paul ii. CHAP. /I. [1513.] A canon of the Lateran Council under Leo x. confirm- ing one of the Clementine constitutions which asserts the natural immortality of the soul. Luther's opinion of that council. The doctrine of the canon built upon the hy- pothesis of Substantial Forms. Some modern divines and philosophers not at all more intelligible, or better founded than the old schoolmen - - CHAP. HI. [1516.] Peter Pomponatius's book De animnj immortalitate. Attacks and exposes the followers of Aristotle. Ponipo- natius reviled as an infidel by Protestants as well as Pa- pists. His meaning mistaken both by Mr. Baylc and Bishop Warburton CONTENTS. PAGE CHAP IV. [1520.] Luther ranks the natural immortality of the soul amongst the monstrous opinions of Popery. The grounds of his censure doubtful. Were not what Cardinal PeiToa supposed them to be. The doctrine of the sleep of the soul espoused by Luther on scriptural authority. The Appendix refened to , , - 62 CHAP. V. [1530.] William Tyndall defends Luther against Sir Thomas Moie's objections to the doctrine of the sleep of the soul. This a proof that the doctrine was held by the first refor- mers. Deserted afterwards by many Protestants. The probable occasion of Tyndall's Protestation. Copy of the said Protestation. Extract of a Letter from Tyndall to Frith. Supposed to refer to the contents of the Pro- testation - - -> - 6i CHAP. VI. [1534.] Calvin's Psychopannichia, The time and place of its publication remarkable. On what account. An angry, abusive, weak performance. His arguments and proofs adopted, by modern Psychopannychists. Disingenuous with respect to the Anabaptists. And the heathen phi- losophers - - - 7? CHAP. VH. [1530—1536.] The doctrine of tlic immortality of the soul exhibited in the Protestant Confessions of Faith. Little or nothing of it in the earliest of them. Obscure and ambiguous on the article of saint-worship. The first Helvetic Confes- sion silent as to the doctrine of the soul's immortality; CONTENTS. PAGE The doctrine asserted in that of VVirtenbergh. In w hat terms. Inconsistency of the Saxrsn Confession of IjjI. Poorly qualified by the Gallic and Belgic harmoni;i!ers. The obnoxious clause left out by the editors of the Cor- pus Confessionum of l6l 2 - - - 77 CHAP. VIII. [1552.] The 4.0th of K. Edward the 6th's Articles, the first instance of the express condemnation of the doctrine of the sleep of the soul, in a Protestant Confession. A pas- sage from Bishop Burnet relative to those articles. A conjecture at whom that article was aimed. The article dismissed upon the review in 1562 - 53 CHAP. IX. [1566.] The second Helvetic Confession totally Calvinistical. Condemns the doctrine of the sleep of the Soul. Re- marks upon the seventh article of it. Adopts the Peri- patetic doctrine of Substantial Forms. Anathematises in the terms of a popish canon. Condemns inadvertently a doctrine of Calvin. Part of the 27th article of it« Espouses the Florentine doctrine of the imnvediate migra- tion of holy Soi^ls to Heaven. - - 8,> CHAP. X. [1568—1580.1 The Scottish Confessioh, art. 17th. declares agrlinst the Sltep of the Soul. Curious particulars relating to this Confession. Does not harmonize with the second Helve tic touching the immediate migration of holy souls to Christ, or the direct precipitation of the wicked and un- believers into Hell, - - - M CONTIiNTS.' PAG • CHAP. XI. [1612.] The Confession of {he Remonstrants censured by the Calviuists, for omitting to mention the immediate migra-i tion of good souls to Heaven. Ascribe this omission to' Socinianism. Episcopius's sensible answer. Extremely provoking" to the Calvinists, as recriminating upon theif Master. The great Co'nfusion of Protestant writers of those times on this subject. Accounted for by Lud. Cap- pellus ; who does not stand clear of conlusion himself. An instance of it. - - - CHAP. X[r. [1G22.] Antony de Dommis discusses the questions concerning ^he separate existence of the soul in his book De Rep. Ecclesiastica. Mis character in short by Fuller. Admits the point may be debated without danger to the faith, or scandal to the church. States the question with candor. Urges the O. T. scriptures for the cessation of thought and consciousness after death, with great strength. Has nothing to set against them but Apocryphal Esdras. The' passages quoted from that writer examined. Proceeds to authorities in the N. T. Makes concessions which ruin his cause, both with respect to the Scriptures ant! Philosophy. His conclusions in favour of separate exis- tence, futile and childish. Probably against hrs real sen- ~ jiments. Was to manage K. James I. a strenuous Da;- monologist - - ^ CHAP. XHI. [1G28.] Brevis Cisquisitio, a work of .Joachim Stegrrtan. The occasion and scope of it. In Bayle's opinion, did more harm than good. A passage from the eighth chapter of CONTENTS. PAGE it; Misrepresents Luther. But right in the general rea- - soning. An argument of Cardinal Perron for praying to saints. The premisses not controverted by all Protes- tants at these times. And strenuously contended for by the late Dr. Watts. Another passage from Stegman's eighth chapter censured by Bp. Warburton, without rea- son. Who misunderstands Grotius and Episcopius in his turn. And censures Le Clerc undeservedly - 111 CHAP. XIV. [1640.] The system of Des Cartes. Explodes the doctrine of Substantial Forms. Controverted by Gassendus. Des Cartes's hypothesis stigmatised in the Roman Index. Whilst Gassendus remains uncensured. Mr. Arnauld's complaints thereupon. Arnauld's and Bayle's supposition concerning Des Cartes's doctrine. Examined and refu- ted - - - - 117 CHAP. XV. [1644-1655.] A tract intituled, Man wholly Mortal, &cc. by R. O. Two editions of it. The author unknown. Probably a Dissenter, fiom the Establishment. Presumptive Proofs of it. Not free from controversial prejudice. Attacks the hypothesis of one Mr. Woolner and Ambrose Parey. Quotations from his book. Whether Adam was created immortal ? General Contents of R. O.'s book. Note on Mr, Bulkley's explication of Luke xvi. 19 — 31. Cri- tical Reviewer commended. R. O. met with an Adver- sary. Uncertain who he was. A bad and obscure rea- Soner. An instance of it. Avoids meddling with R. O.'s icripture testimonies. Depends wholly upon other sorts B CONTENTS. FACE of authorities. Postscript to R. O.'s book. A passage of Pliny, there cited. Remarks upon it - 124< CHAP. XVL [1653.] Thomas Whitens book De medio artimarum statu. A. Wood's account of the author. The occasion of this book. Opposes the common doctrine of Purgatory. Sub- stitutes a different account of it. Remarks. His notion of praying for things predestinated. Th6 opinion of an English Divine; on that subject. Difficulties upon White's system. White's solution. Remarks. Strikes at the number of Masses. Mis apology. Inconsistent with his doctrine. PostponefS real rewards aind real punishments- till theday of judgment, without intermediate purgation. Appeals to Fathers and Litu-rgies. Differs from Hardouin concerning the latter. Many nominal Protestants haver thought of an intermediate state as White did. Arch- bishop Wake quoted. And Archdeacon Chapman. Re- marks. White's opinion of the nature of the soul in a state of separation. Adtjpts that of Aquinas. Remarks. His second' treatise, intituled, Responsa ad exceptiones. Declares for the Phflosophia Digbaeana. More of a Protestant in it than in his first tract. Reasons for the length of this article. An account of White's broils with the college at Douay. And of the censure of his book in the English Parliament - - li& CHAP. XVII. [1663.] Nicholas Perrot, (Sieur d'Ablancoart) his opinion frow we gain the knowledge of the soul's immortality. His contempt of the current Philosophy. Yet allows it to be useful to confirm the doctrine of revelation on this point. CONTENTS. PAG K His supposition compared with that of Avnauld and Bayle. Remarks upon all three <• 179 CHAP. XVIU. [1669.] Bishop Bull's controversy with Truman. Four propo- sitions of the Bishop's, importing, No immortality for man but of Grace through Christ. Truman's allegation of the Law of Moses to the contrary. Bp. Bull, in at- tempting to answer, overthrows the doctrine of his own propositions. This occasioned by his fear of passing for heterodox. A reflection on such situations. Bishop Bull's two Sermons republished by Professor Chappe- ' lowe, 1765. Mr. Nelson's opinion of these two sermons* The propositions in these Sermons, subversive of the doc- trine of those in his Haftnonia, Is contradicted by his Editor [Ghappelowe] with respect to the fulness of scrip- ture testimonies in proof of his doctrine. And by Tillot- son. Neither Bull nor Tillotson sufficiently guard against the doctrine of Purgatory. Bishop Bull mistaken in the interpretation of his text, Acts i. 25. Not supported by the authorities he quotes. Remarks on the words roiro^ fim;. And on the death of Judas - - ISi CHAP. XIX. [1692.] The controversy between Messieurs Jurieu and Sail- nn. Jurieu's objection to the philosophical proof of the soul's immortality. Saurin's answer. Disliked and rec- tified by Mr. Bayle. The proof still imperfect. .\ con- jecture why Saurin left his answer short. Farther re- marks on that answer - - Jur CONTENTS. CHAr. XX. [1697.] Mr. Locke's controversy with Bp. Stillingfleet. The Bi- shop's objection to Locke's position. Mr. Locke's reply. The compilers of Biographia Britannica censured. Pre- tended demonstrations of the natural immortality subver- sive of the Christian doctrine. Mr. Locke's Reasonable- ness pf Christianity, commended - - 211 CHAP. XXr. [1702.] Dr. Coward's book, intituled, Second Thoughts, &:c. The Doctor's regard for the scriptures. Injuriously ranked among infidels. An account of his opponents. A conjecture why he was reputed an infidel. His argu- ment taken from the Hypostatic Union. Dr. Coward a man of learning. A. Wood's account of him. A citation from his Ophthalmiatria. His answers to Mr. Turner and Mr. Broughton. And to others in his Grand Essay 2l6 CHAP. XXH. [1706.] A short account of Henry Layton, Esq. author of a Search after Souls. His profession and studies. Not professedly Dr. Coward's advocate. His works little known. His answers to certain objections taken from the mischief arising from his writings. Of the same com- plexion with the objections of Papists against the wri- tings of Protestants . _ , 225 CHAP. xxni. [1729.] ^Ir. Hallet's discourse, shewing the impossibility of proving a future state by the light of nature. Remarks on some passages in it. Controverted by Mr. Grove. The Biogr. Britan. censured. A short account of Mr. CONTENTS. PAGE Grove's book. A passage from another of his pieces, un- favourable to his attempts to establish immortality by the light of nature. Remarks upon it. Mr. Mallet's De- fence. Incumbered with difficulties not to be got over 231 CHAP. XXIV. [1729.] A pamphlet intituled, The Materiality or Mortality of the Soul of Man. An account of it. The author's proofs all from scripture. 'Proper to qualify Mr. Hallet's con- cession. Mr. Grove claims all ihe clear and obvious texts as favouring the natural immortality of the soul. Dr. Law makes the like claim in favour of the sleep of the soul - - - - 2-11 r CHAP. XXV. [1755.] Bp. Law's Appendix to his Considerations on the The- ory of Religion, fatal to the cause of a conscious inter- mediate state. Produced a number of answers. Dr. Goddard. Mr. Stefie. Dr. Morton. The Examiner of Bishop Sherlock's Sermons. Bishop Warburton. Re- plies to these by Mr. Peckard, Dr. Bcnjanjin Dawson, and in some anonymous tracts - - 24.3 CHAP. XXVI. .[1765.] Examination of Bishop Warburton's Strictures on the doctrine of the Sleep of the Soul. Mis premisses more honourable to the Sadducees, than advantageous to him- self. Imputes a precarious Sadducean principle to Dr. Law and his partizans, without grounds. His reasoning liable to be retorted upon him. Forges a sophism for the Polytheists, in order to abuse his antagonist, under the pretence of a parallel case. Grossly misrepresents the CONTENTS. p Bishop of Carlis-lc. The futility of his Polytheistical sophism. The supposition, that the natural immortality of the soul is taken for granted in scripture, ridiculous and false. Gross abuse of his opponents. Handsomely reproved foi it by an ingenious writer. Insults Dr. Tay- lor of Norwich, with rudeness, and without reason. Pro- perly reproved for it. Proposes to prove the resurrec- tion philosophically, by an argument which ends in the good pleasure of God. Mistakes the meaning of St. Paul. Confutes nonsense of his own making. Puzzles himself with his speculations on the sameness of the human frame. Is at odds with his authorities. Banters his opponents. Writes with the zeal of a proselyte, apprehensive that the sincerity of his conversion may be suspected CHAP. XXVU. [1709.] Archbishop Seeker's xvith Lecture on the church ca- techism. Unfortunate in his apologists for his education and intolerant principles. Defends the doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul, by the common hack- neyed arguments of men of much inferior reputation. Places tiie soul in the head. Refers his Catechumens to their Sensibility for tlie proof of it. Not supported ii^ this by Cicero, to whom he appeals. Inconsistent with himself concerning the sameness of the soul. Argues weakly on the difference between soul and bodj'. His Grace's proof of a future state of rewards and punish- ments. From an earnest desire of immortality. From the capacities of ihe soul for higher attainments. Begs the question. Mistakes the meaning of the word Sheol. Argues weakly on a passage in Deuteronomy. At odd^ with Bp. AYarburton concerning the omission of future CONTENTS. PAGE rewards and punishments in the. Old Testament. Sus- pected of wilful misapplications. Differs from Abp. Wake, on the article of saint-worship. Cannot rid his hypothesis of the idea of a purgatory. Scaliger's satis- factory account of the doctrine of the early Christians concerning the departed soul. His grace seems to add a new ai-ticle to the Apostle's Creed - - 282 CHAP. XXVIII. Dr. Jortin's sermons, vol; 1. serm. 19. What weight and force in the philosophical arguments for the natural immortality of the soul. How far the early Christians espoused this doctrine. The Doctor acknowledges the scripture evidence for it rises no higher than probability. Some texts exammed. What was the doctrine of the Sadducees. More texts examined. The testimony of the Fathers of the church. Weakened by what the Dbc-t tor himself says of it elsewhere. The evidence of anci- ent liturgies considered. The Doctor not clear as to the intermediate punishment of the wicked. Propos'es a compromise. An intimation in favour of Transmigration. Dr. Jortin more ingenuous concerning the intermediate state, than other writers on that subject. The Doctor's argument grounded upon the history of Christ's transfi- guration, considered. The Psychopannychists not much beholden to Dr. Jortin. His elogiura - 30^ CHAP» XXIX. [1766—1768.] Mr. T. Brough ton's Defence of the commonly received doctrine of an immaterial, and naturally immortal prin- ciple in man. Levelled at the Bishop of Carlisle's Ap^ pendix, and the Historical View. On what provocation^ CONTENTS. PAGE' Combats the Bibhop's texts by appealing to Cicero. Re- marks. Whether Cicero believed a future state ? Mr. Broughton's idle distinction between the end of the pre- sent life^ and the beginning of the next. Surprised that Dodwell's controversy with Dr. Clarke is not noticed in the Historical View. Commends Mr. John Broughton's Psychologia. Extract from Dodweil. And from Dr. Coward's reply to Mr. .T. Broughton. Censure of Mr. Thomas Broughton's Defence in a monthly Pamphlet. Mr. B. charges Socinianism on his opponents. His book called, A Prospect of Futurity. Compared to the Spe- culations of Cyrano dc Bergerac. And Don Quevedo. Talks of the pointing in Greek Manuscripts. And of other things of which he knows still less - 334 CHAP. XXX. [1770.] An essay in the Theological Repository, intituled, An Attempt to prove that the Resurrection takes place im- mediately after death. The Witchcraft of words. The author makes thought the essence of the soul. Kjiows every thing relating to the soul. His sound philosophy contrary to that of Mr. Locke. Asserts that the soul always thinks. His proofs examined. Begs the thing in question. Appeals to experience. The author's conse- quences upon the supposition that the soul does not al- ways think. Consequences drawn by Mr. Locke from ' the contrary supposition. The author's interpretation of certain texts examined. Takes refuge in the quarters of the Psychopannychists. According to him, Abraham's whole unborn posterity, most have been in a state of sen- Mbility, at the time of Moses's adventure ar the bush. Gastellio's modesty. More texts examiucd. The au- CONTENTS. PAGE thor has a difficulty upon his hands which he did not foresee - - - - 34S CONCLUSION. Inferences from the foregoing Historical View. Ad- vantages given to the Papists, by the groundless conces- sions of Protestants. An instance from Cardinal Alan's works. Calvinists who treat those who deny the natural immortality as Atheists. Various instances of abuse thrown upon those who hold the doctrine of the sleep of the soul. Their adversaries not uniform. Churchmea and philosophers divided after a long alliance. The scrip- tures owned by the former to be the only criterion. Tillot- son's concession on this head unfavourable to his side of the question. Advantages given to unbelievers by the Psychologists. Metaphysical subtleties not to be regar- ded. The final appeal to the scripture only. An article of news from Copenhagen in the year 1762. A remark upon it - - 364 APPENDIX. . Cardinal Du Perron asserts, that Luther held that the soul died with the body. Mr. Bayle treats this as a ca- lumny. Writes to a Lutheran minister to know what pretext there was for this. The minister's answer. Shewn to be futile and evasive, A passage from Dr. Jortin's Life of Erasmus. Examined. Several passages from Luther's works, with remarks j - 379 C ADVERTISEMENT. It is not necessaiy to pretend, that this second edition of the Historical View, is occasioned by the rapid sale of the first, or called for by the author's friends, to supply the scarcity of the remaining copies. What reception the former edition met with from the public, the author hath not concerned himself to inquire. After an existence of seven years, it is natural to conclude, the book has submitted to the fate of many others that have not risen above the line of mediocrity, and is gone, i»?Tov TowovToy *J»o»; which may be better or worse according as the purchaser or the vender might be dis- posed to inter it with more or less ceremony. By one or other of these, complaints were made, that full justice had not been done to some writers of note, Avho were pointed out to the author, as equally worthy of the attention of the public, with those he had distinguished in his colledion. To this remonstrance he gave ear, and determined at length to review such of these as seemed to him more especially A ( 2 ) to deserve the pains; and he hath accordingly selefted, for the reader's farther contemplation, some sentiments of JVilliam Tyndall, Antliony de Dominis, and Thomas JVIiite, the last of whom hath travelled a road, in whicli, as far as appears to the author, none have gone be- fore him, or folloAved him. Perhaps the author might have taken in two or three more of the writers of the last century, had he not thought, that an especial respe6l was due to some great names, and a portion of compassion to some little ones, whose publica- tions have appeared since the first edition of his book, and the room taken up by these, is just as much as he thought it necessary to em- ploy in the present exhibition. The importance of the subje6i hath been so very differently estimated by different writers, that there is no saying under what denomina- tion they who take, what the orthodox call, the wrong side of the question, may now be classed. It is believed, they are yet ranked among heretics and enemies of the church ; for though they alledge, that the chiu'ch has thought proper to expunge an article of reli- gion which anathematised their do6lrine, they are stHl urged with some expressions in the liturgy, importing, that the soul exists in joy and felicity, after being delivered from the ( 3 1 burden of the flesh; and to this the soul-sleep- ers are reminded, they must have subscribed, (if clerks or graduates) as well as to the thirty- nine articles, and, if I mistake not, a zealous brother (a strenuous adversary to religious cu- Jiosity) hath lamented, that the revival of this heresy hath been greatly encouraged, if not wholly occasioned, by the dismission of the article: above mentioned : hence, for ought we know, an additional argument may be formed for inforcing subscription to the present set, as well as a complete justification of those who so vigorously opposed a late petition, praying relief from such subscription. For an answer to these important consider- ations, the author is contented to refer the ob- jectors to such of their more benevolent bre- thren, as are inclined to- represent subscription to the thirty-nine articles and the liturgy, as a mere mechanical manoeuvre, to which the church and the law may affix what internal charader they think fit. Perhaps it may not be impossible to point out subscribers, (stre- nuous opposers too, of the said petition) who have strayed as far upon paper, from the genu- ine sense of the articles and the liturgy in other doctrines, sufficiently authenticated by them, as the soul-sleepers, so called, have done in supporting their particular opinion. A2 ( 4 ) It ought, however, to be esteemed a great blessing to the literary republic, that liberal minded men of genius, with very different ideas of church-discipline and church-securi- ty, have, in their several controversies, entered freely into the merits of the cause in agitation, without too scrupulous a regard to established forms and systems, to which many of them, notwithstanding, profess a most devoted at- tachment. The late petitioners may possibly be of opi- nion, that a little sincerity or consistency in these matters Avould neither have enfeebled nor disgraced the performances of these learned authors, some of which, in other respefts are highly valuable. It is, however, an incident of no small advantage to the cause of truth and religious liberty, that so many consider- able writers, should, with their OAvn pens in their own hands, recoiled that they are Pro- testants, a circumstance that may be easily overlooked, when a gentleman, in a hurry, borrows the pen of my lord's chaplain or se- cretary. The author of these papers hath been long used to think, that the cause wliich the ensu- ing history will be found to favour, has very visible merits, both in illustrating the real ef- fects of oui^ lledeemer's mission, and in estab- ( ^ ) I lishing the authority of the written records of it, against the claims, interpretations, and de- crees of popery, which he is for attacking at the very root, without the fear of digging up any plant which our heavenly Father hath planted, under Avhatever specious complexion human traditions may pretend to be of the celestial family. It should be a maxim of the reformed churchy of ENGLAND, that the farther she removes from the doftrine and discipline of Rome, the stronger her foundations will be as an evan- gelical church, and the safer her temporalities, under the protection of her lawful prince. It were to be wished, that she had not one cir- cumstance in her constitution, either borrowed or copied from the creeds, rituals, or ordi- nances of the popish system. The new testa- ment would supply her with whatever she might want of those kinds, for the faith, the worship, or the government of a christian church. This indeed, as times go, is but a kind of iinclerical Avish; and, from the stri6l confor- mists to the present theological fashions, may perhaps derive upon the man who avows it, the appellation of an over zealous Protes- tant, a term however which comes with no great propriety, as a term of reproof, from 4 C 6 > writer who hath demonstrated upon the most unquestionable evidence, that every papist is bound by his principles to destroy every protest tant, and to break the most solemn covenants he may enter into icith people of that denomination, wherever and whenever he may do either Avjth impunity. * A PREFATORY DISCOURSE, CONTAINING Some Thoughts on the Use and Im-* PORTANCE of Theological CoN^ TROVERSY, If itM'creto be determined by a general bal- lot, Avhat particular classes of writers should be condemned to everlasting silence, jjolemic divines would infallibly be honoured with the first majority. They would, in the first place, be proscribed by the members of their o\fn faculty, among wiiom the sedate and orderly sons of discretion, are for ever declaring their aversion to all reli- gious disputation, as dangerous to ecclesiasti- cal foundations, blessing their stars that the repose and emoluments of an establishment, liave set them above the temptations of seek- their bread or their fame, out of the beaten track of authorised and orthodox confessions.* * A certain ingenious writer haih indeed infmuated that fome pious fathers would probably exert ihemreh ci in this province, " if " the drudgery of controverfy were not too officiou fly taken out of *' their hands." Moral and Political Dialogues, p. 75. Does tfiis gentleman mean that thefc officious drudges Iliould itay for the li- ( 8 ) With these would agree statesmen and politi- cians, whose plalis and enterprizes might be grie- vously embarrassed by theologicaldisquisition, of which history affords multitudes of exanv pies.* cenfe of tlieir pious fathers, as was the cafe in the reigns of ihe J^ames's and the Charles's ? One pious father I could name, who, ■when thefe dialogues were pubhfhcd, was ftlll hving, an honour and an ornament to the bencli he fat upon, not only entertained different fentici;ents, but nobly publifhed thein to the world, in a vigorous and affecting pica for the LibcrLy of the Prefs at a time when a plan of politics was in contemplation, which fomeperfons, as it is faid, have fince attempted, and are yet attempting to realize. May we not hope, that he hath left behind him fome pious fathers, animated with the fame generous fewtiraents ? * Politici qui fcrpe dogmata vera a jalfis,Jaluhria a noxiis non norunt diftinguere, omnia nova fuJpcEla habent Grot, in A61. xvii. 6. Les Princes n'aiment point les grancls changemcns dans le culte, de peur queleiir pcrfonnc n'en fouffre, on que cela ne foit prejudiciable au government. Voyages de jaques MalTe, ed. 1710, p. 154. A recent inffance has (licwn, that miniflers of princes are hable to thefe panics as well as their maftcrs, and the expedient they have fallen upon to compofe iheir anxieties, has bern a little remarkable, viz. an endeavour to ftiflc religious controverfies by cultivatmg and encouraging the root from which the greater part of them that are now in bloom, have fprung. With all deference to their fuperior wif- dom, the more hopeful way would have been, to have removed the root into an Italian or a Spanifh climate •, it has done aiifchief enough in this already ; and will probably do more for the care they have taken to preferve it. Surely a (latefman of this country muft be little better for his experience of the genius of Britons, or his know- ledge of ihcir hiffory, who is not aware that all the thunder^of ec- clefiaflu al confutes, feconded by all the terrors of the fecular arm, have never been able to check religious coniroverfy upon Englilh ground. Perhaps there never was more of it than at ihis prefent lime •, and the method lately taken to check it, will moll probably ijicreafe it very confiderably. The politicians of ihc laft gcuerarion wifely gave controvcrfy its free fcope, upon a well grounded maxim, that theological difputation feldom or never did any harm to the Hate, till the hate went out of its way to check it. Whenever it has been lrds of an author highly obnoxious to many of his 'ontemporarie'-, on account of his mdeceui acrimony, and cxtrava- ga:;t fcntimcntr on diflerent fubjecls. But the man v/as no fool, and the tendency of that rage for pelilhing which prevailed in fiiefe times, ai^d haih had effecl'. evsn :n oi,tr days, wliivh do not ir.Liifti dif- trcdil to' his b.grfcity . ( n ) sented in their colle61ions, as stale, insipid, meagre, and nauseous, and, in general, lit for nothing but to be returned upon the liands of those who bring it to market.* * " There is fcarce any fpecies of writing fo unprofitable to the ** public, as polemic divinity." Monthly Review J-or Septeini)er, i'764, p. 23 y. Be it known to the reader, that one of the two controverfies which drew this remark from thefe fentimental critics, vas that called the Bangorian, in the event of which, the death- ftrokc was given to the principles of civil and ecclefiafticar tyranny, fo that they have never fince been able to hold up their heads, not even in the fliape of an alliance, under which a craftfman of no or-, dinary (kill, hath more lately endeavoured to revive and reinllato them. An ingenious writer, in the St. James's Chronicle, Oft. 27, 1 764, who ftiles himfelf Hoadleianus, thus animadverts on this ob- noxious paffage. '* But," fay the Reviewers, "there is nothing *' more unprofitable than polemical divinity. According to fome men's *' notion of profit, this alfertion may be true. Vertu ct profit ne marchent pas fouvent oifcmble. A man is likely to get but very " little in thefe days, who trims his midnight lamp lor no other end than the inveftigation of religious truth, and is known only to the *■ world by an impartial concern to reprefcnt and enforce it. The " mode of profitable writing is, to compofe flattering dedications to proud favourites, or lying eulogiiims on prouder prelates ; to extol " the illegal proceedings of a corrupt court, and the blcffed wifdom *' of thofe who eafed old England of that vaft weight of glory and "opulence, which would have funk us in pride, luxury, and dillrefi. *' But after all, the fatisfafiion of that virtuous mind, which is open " only to truth, and employed with integrity and affeftion to promote f it, is a profit as infinitely fupenor to all that can be acquired by literary proflitution, as heaven is to hell. And it need not be ad- " ded, where any rational fcnfe of Cod, and duty is entertained, *' that nothing contributes more to knowledge and happmefs than " free inquiry, and the difcuffion of religious truths. It is to thefe " alone that protestantism owes all her glory, and to thefe alone (he appeals for her immutable triumph and defence." The political zeal of this wriier will be thought to have carried him be- yond the bounds of difcretion, perhaps of decency. His fentimeiKs however, bating the acrimony of his exprefiion, are juft and irrefra- gable ; and I am obliged to produce him, in order to fliew, that the author of the Hifiorical View is not abfolutely fingular in his opinion of the ufefulnelsof religious contrcvcriy to the caufe of religion, vir- ( 12 ) There have been times however when it bore a better character, and found a more equitable and even honourable reception ; for what par- ticular services may be understood by the fol- loM'ing account of the age of Thomas Beckett taken from Mr. David Hume, a witness in the present case, to whose competency there lies no obje6lion. " The spirit of superstition was so prevalent, " that it infallibly caught every careless rea- *' soner, much more every one whose interest, " honour, and ambition were engaged to sup- *' port it. All the wretched literature of the " times, was inlisted on that side. Some faint glimmerings of common sense might some- " times pierce through the thick cloud of ig- *' norance, or what was worse, the illusions of " perverted science, which had blotted out the *' sun, and envellopcd the face of nature. But '* those Avho preserved themselves untainted " from the general contagion, proceeded on no " principles which they could pretend tojusti- " ty. Tiicy M ere more beholden to their total me, and liberty. And I have tlie more fatlsfaflion in tliisperfuafion, in that when it came to the turn of the Hiftorical View, to be re- viewed, the critic (the fame probably who had exhibited to the pub- lic, his own idea of Iloadley's and Jackfon's writings) took his amende hmorable, in a few farcafms on the author, and fome other?. Without one fignificant word in vindication of bis remark on polemi- cal divinity. ■ Far am I I'rom derogating from the merit of foufefnl and laudable works as our periodical Reviews. The compilers of ihcm, /if wc may believe the preface to Junius's letters piibliflied in octavo) are arid have been ionic of tlie moll chararteriflic names in • the kingdom, aad iijdecd fome of them likely enough to gibbet fuch ccclefiallicat patriots as Iloadley and Jacklbn, to the bell of their (kill and abilities. The Reviewers are indeed a fluftuating corpif. Reviewer of i ^64. may not now be 111 exisiciicc. ( 13 ) " want of instru6lion, than to their knowledge, *' if they still retained some share of under- " standing. Folly was possessed of all the " schools, as well as all the churches, and her " votaries assumed the garb of philosophers, *' together with the ensigns of spiritual digni- " ties."* To disperse these clouds of folly and super- stition, was, I apprehend, from the very nature of the case, the proper work of theological con- troversy, and this work, history informs us, theological controversy performed, Roger Ba- con was one of the first who felt the incumbe- rance of superstition, and the influence it had in controuling all his endeavours to propagate learning and science in various branches. He was accordingly obliged to light his way through many established follies and absurdities, in order to introduce those amazing plans, which are still doing honour to his name and memo- ry.']" 'Tis true, he so far failed, that superstiti- on still kept its ground, and prevented, in a great measure, the raising any superstructures of consequence upon Bacon's foundations, for full two hundred years. At length arose Mar- tin Luther, who confining all his powers to theological controversy, laid bare the super- stition of the times to the very root and exi)use(l it in all its deformity, to the view of the whole woi ld. From this period true religion and use- ful learning sprung up together at a thousand openings, were cherished by the kindly heat of patronage and emulation, and plentifuly Ava- *' Hume's Hift. vol. I. p. 294. 410. ■f" See Boon's (Roger) article in the Biogr. Britan, Rem, (c.) I ( u ) tered by the free course of rational debate, to Avliich tlie uiicontroulecl examination of the scriptures gave the first occasion.* Mr. Hume indeed hath said elsewhere, that " the spirit of popish superstition was no hin- *• (Uance to the introduction of literature, or " even of liberty. "f But reconcile this who can, with what he says p. 286, of the volume aheady cited, viz; " that the prevailing opini- * Dr. Middlcton is no inconfiderable aiuhority, to our purpnfe, Spealiingoi Brutus' and Cicero's correfpondence he tells us, thai, As tke genuine letters fubfifted till the purity of the Latin was lofl, " fo thcfe remains which are now in our hands, were atnially in being " long before that purity revived,being cited by Petrarch, two centu- " ries before the reformation." Which he confequently confidersas the epoch whence tafte and fine writing began to flounlh in Europe. DifTeit. on thefe Epift. p. XIV. A book was put into the index expiirgatorius, anno 1677. wiih an Appendfx, De abominanda, burharie qua rem lit I.vt: HE RVf,i Jcedavarat, See the Roman Index of Benediti XIV. pubiifhed in the year 1758. p. 182. at the word MiTTi. h ; Petit's General Hiiiory of the Netherlands, and the paflagc I refer to, is thus tranlldied bv Gnnifton. '• Moreover we " niuft in dcfpight of oi'.rlcives, confeffe. that the greateft and beft " WHS, aid the molV learned men mainiain ihtir partie, [thiC Pro- " tenant party.] I will not aifgrace the othen. ' But if Ve will lay afide all favour and aftecnoi;, we fliali find that the tnoff excellent *• v, i!s have been, and are of their profe-hon : Yea the reflauratioti of arts and fciencies. 'the which were buried in darkneffe) is come " fiom ihetn* The knowledge 01 '.he tongues, efpecially the Greek " and Iltbrev.-. ba;h b^en b;aatified more by them, than by any " others." Grmifiori's Tranllation of Petit's Hift. p. 364. + See the inafieriy letter? on Mr. Hume's Hiftory, printed fbj Sands and Donaldibn a: Edinburgh. 17^8. Letters IV. and V, ( 15 ) *' ons and sentiments of the age [of Bccket] *' were niatterof principle and conscience." In that case surely, they must continue to keep the mind in the darkness and slavery above de- scribed, till they were refuted and exploded ; and that they never were to any purpose till the time of Luther's reformation. If Mr. Hume thinks fit to contradict himself, it is nothing to me. There are certain seasons when authors lose thesensation of their ou"nprejudices,and then it is you may follow them with the greatest safety. The passage I have cited from Mr. Ilume, con- cerns a period of time, when the protestant re- formation Avas out of sight, when Mr. Hume perhaps thought not of it ; when the force of truth extorted fromhimarepresentation, which liis aversion to our first reformers was not at hand to controul. A more recent critic, who is otherwise dis- posed todo our firstreformers full justice, seems to meto have blamed them in the M iong place, by not distinguishing sufficiently between the et}e6ts of ecclesiastical tyranny, and the eftefts of those controversies to which that gave oc- casion. "The Calvinistical principles of the Genevan discipline, he tells us, tended to inspire aper- " secutingspirit : polemical writingsconduced " to inflame religious dispositions.* And is not this equally true of the episcopal principles of english discipline, and of the in- flammatory polemic writings in our own coun- try an hundred years after Calvin was in his * See the Critical Reyiew for July i -64, art. i. p. 8, ( ) grJivc ? And were tliere no improvementg going fovv/ard during that whole century? The honest truth is, that these very controversies first struck out, and in due time, perfected those noble and generous principles of religious and civilliberty, which, too probably, withoutthese struggles, or something of the same sort, would hardly have been well understood to this very hour. It is to the controversies about the Ge- neva-discipline, that we owe the efforts of the excellent Castellio to disgrace the infernaldoc- trine of punishing heretics capitally. And though it maybe said of him, magnis tamcn ex'idit ausisy yet did not his documents starve with him,* but being bred up and gradually nourished by certain choice spirits, became strong enough, in the next century, to bring the great patron and pracliser of the vile doctrine in our own country, to the block. Our critic goes on. " The contest ran high " between the Papist and the Lutherans ; and *' the rage of co-ntroversy took place of calm " reasoning, candid enquiry, and cool disqui-^ *'sition." This is Avriting backwards. But no matter ; let us attend him. It would be very obliging if this o^entleman would inform us where all this calm reasoning, candid enquiry, and cool dis- quisition were to be found, before the contest between the Papists andthe Lutherans commen- ced. If they had not then existed, the rage of * Caflellio, after his difmifTion from Geneva, lived and died at Bafil in the irfmoft poverty. See Bayle's Dicuonary, ( ir ) controversy could not then take place of them. It' calmness and candor were then comnVon things ill men's disquisitions, in what instance, yvc request to know, were they superseded by the rage of controversy ? When Luther first attacked Indulgences, publickly, by posting up his theses, he declared, that calm reasoning and candid enquiry into the truth, Avas all he aimed at. To this Maimbourg bears witness, as well as Sleidan and Seckendorf.* And the truth of it is confirmed by the calm and even submissive letters he Avrote to the Pope, the Archbishop of Mentz, and the Bishop of Bran- denburgh. The rage of controversy, itisown- * Non pas, dit il [i. e. Luther] pour les [Thefes] affurer et les foutenircomme veritables, mais feulement pour les examiner (dans une difpute reglee) a fin qu'on put s'eclaircir de la verite. Maimb. Hift. Luth. liv. 1. p. 31. Sleidan, lib. 1. p. 1, 2. Seckendorf, lib, i. p. 24. How the cafe flood in Germany before I>utlicr's time, we may learn from the following account. Ante tempora Lutheri, ct ipfius quoque jEtate, rifus pafchales a Clcricis ita inveth fuerint, ut jocofa adagia, inlinguam quafi eorum fuerint converfa, UtI etiam conflat univerfam nationem Germanicam- in fummis, mediis, infimis, in compofiiionc veiborum fuiffe impohtam, crudem et agreftem ; rnultaqiie liberius loqui fohtain, qua; hodie in peiTi:-ne moralis baud ferrentur. De Luihero id exploratum elf, adagia iphus, qiis nobis farpius jocl fcurrllcs elTe videntur, non ex quadam vel levitate, vel fcurrilitate, vel negletta gravitate profeda elFc, fed ex vehementia ejus, et ftudio plane et perfpicue loqucndi : qus animi adiethones ori et fermoni ejus ea fuggelFerunt, qua; ipfi vifa funt, in legentium, prasfcrtim Germanorum lucrum animus maximc penetratura. Her 11- Jikviidius de vita Lutheri, p. iig. edit. 1742, a Georgia Knap- pio. Noi was the mild Melaiifthon uninfected with this common hu- mour of the times. Non vident i/(i Afini, fays he, in one place, apud Hieronymum contra Vigilantium, nuUamextare fylUibam de Invncatione. Apolog. Conf. Aug. cap. de Invoc, SanH. And yet thcfe AJfes were no other than the divines who, under the proteclioa of the Emperor Charles V. drew up a confutation of the Aulburgh Confelfioii, This indecency how -ver, was not peculiar to Germany B ( 18 ) ed, began on this occasion, by the fury of Ec- cius and Prierias : and whatever this learned critic may think, if these men, and their fel- lows had not been followed and exposed in their own way, in all human probability, every ad- vantage which the Avriter of this essay himself ascribes to the protestant reformation, had been disappointed. But though, "continues our critic, " the vi- " rulence of these disputants retarded, for a time, the progress of arts, sciences, and bel- " les lettres, yet some extraordinary geniuses " adorned the i5th century, whose enlightened "understandings surmounted , all obstacles." In M'hat one instance, can it be pretended, tluit the virulence of these disputants retarded the progress of arts &c. for a sin-gle moment ? Luther himself, at least is innocent of the charge, V. ho was a connoisseur in music ; not only a The controverfy between Laurevtius Valla and Poggius in Italy, abounds v/ith the moft fcandalous fcurrility. [|See the Preface to Re- vius's notes on Valla, Dc Collatione Novi Tejtamenti.'\ Poggius ftiles him, OJleiitator infane, perjide Jidei decoBor. Valla returns him. Homo tar tame, Satanoejrater, ignis ceternijempiteniumpa' bulum, Italia: dedecus.joiculi terpitudo, civitotisjlerquiliniuvi, &c, Varillas fays Valla led up this faOiion of writing, and Mr. Bayle only confronts him with two writers of nearly the fame age, Vergerius and Petrarch, and neither of them controvertifts in Divinity. [See Valla's article in Bayle's Diftionary.J But what is moft extraor- dinary, we find even the meek fpirited Erafmus, who could not away with Luther's acrimony, not only apologifmg for, but defending the practice in Valla. Plere follows part of what he fays on the fubjeft. — Laiirentianum nomen apud omnes qui bonas amant literas, pro invidiofo, gratumet vencraiidmn habereiur: quippe qui ftudio refti- tuendaz rei literariae, partes multo odlofiffimas Iciens ac prudens fibi fumpferit, Neque enim non videbat vir acutus, tam inveteratum inorbum non poffe fanari, nifi trijlibus pharmacis, u/luris et fetli- ombuSf idqui magno cuvi dolnre pluriinorum ^mc^ue vero nefciebat, ( 19 ) pei'former, but a skilful composer.* And one of his domestic concerts, where Lutherhimself presides, is the subject of a capital pifture by Titian now to be seen in Scotland. f He was also an ingenious designer, of which a remarka- ble instance is preserved by Sleidan.:]: And, as Dr. Jortin expresses it, sacrificed to the graces in some elegant latin verses ;11 and all this in the midst of the rage and virulence of controversy, of w^hich he bore the greatest bur- den every wa,y. How many thousand artists and philosophers were there in those days, to adeo delicatas efle mortalium aures, ut vix etiam inter bonos viros in- venias qui verum libeiiter audiat ; foreque, ut non ii tantum exclama- rent quorum ulcera tetigijfet, verum etiam illi, qui ex alienomalofibi metum fingerent. Tzmtnpio quodam calore percitus, nullum labo- rem, nullam recufavit invidium, modo paucis non ingratls (omnes au- tem gratos effe oportebat) beneficium fuum commendaret. — Jam vero quod quofdam in totum damnavit, \_Laurentius'\ quid, obfecro, tani erat necelTanum, quam indoctis autoritatem, hoc, eft, o'vm 7t' >>£ov7'i* detrahere, ne turbx imperitorum, peffima pro optimis fequeretur ? Quibusin rebus, fi quando vir ille videtur nimis exfcandefcere, non. hujus vitio, fed depravatoribus iftis erat imputandum. Denique ni- mio confultnis fuerat alieno abuti vitio, quam ob unam maculam a tot commoditatibus alienari. Sunt enim prorfum quaedam amynxua ^tiyia^ quibus tamen vel fua caufa fapientes, abuti confueverunt. Itaque v.r\M%,Laurentii mordacitas (fiquidem ita malant appellare) non paulo plus conduxitrei literarije quam plurimorum ineptus candor, omnia omnium fine delectu mirantium, fibique, invicem plaudentium, aC mutuum, quod aiunt, fcabentium.£r(i/w. Epift. Lib .iv. Epift. 7. Ed, Lond. 1642. where there is more to the fame purpofe. If Luther had given Erafmus a fee to plead for him on this accufaiioi) of viru* lence, this brief, with a little alteration, would have ferved the turn, * Seckendorf, lib. i.p. 21. + In the collection of the Right Hon. the Earl of Kinnoul at Duplin Caftle. X Sleidan. Com. lib. xvi, p, 344. fol, II Life of Erafmus, vol. L p. 1 26. and fee Seckendorf, lib, iii, p, 165, where there are fpecimens. ( 20 ) whose progress tlicse disputes did not, could not give tlie least interuptiou ? But Avlio, after all, M ere these extraordinary geniuses, who, in spite of polemic divinitv, adorned the L5th century ; will the reader be- lieve that the only instance produced is our Shakespeare? who was not born till half of the I6'th century Avas runout ? ^\'ith the like •\rant of precision are Bacon, Raphael, and Hol- bein referred by this writer to one and the same period ; and the pleasantry of it is, tliat such men as Shakespeare and Holbein should have ob- stacles thrown in their Avay by polemic divinity. ]Many others of the same cast Avith our cri' tic have retailed these random censures on the- ological controversy, against whom however we can ap])eal to writers of the lirst eminence, ■whohavehad the candour and the conscienceto acknowledge that science and literature are in- debted to it for some of their most valuable im- provements. " But then, say our contempo- raries, it Avasbut in the As ay of scatfblding ; Avhich, the building being so far advanced, '* may be spared, and the finishings executed " to better advantage Avithout it." All in uood time. Are you sure that science and literature, in their present state, may not still be beholden to theological disquisition, even in the inferior province of scatlblding? •There may be some insignificant sorts of liter- ature, the farther improvement of Avhich Avould not ([uit the cost: and it Avould be absurd to sav that theology, as a science, hath a necessary or immediate connexion Avith all other branches of learning of more importance. What I plead ( 21 ) is tills. While debate and examination arc al- lowed and countenanced in matters of religion, which is of the highest concern, there w ould be no danger that the door should be shut against disquisitions of another nature and tendency. But if the jjopular religion should once be settled into an uncontroulable form, consider the consequence. System, whether composed of popish or protestant materials, is system still; the child of pride and avarice, and the fondling of tyrants, hypocrites and bigots. By these science and literature of all kinds have ever been suspected, as unfavour- able to orthodox foundations. Who knows Avhat the sons of genius may strike out in our own, or in future times? Would you put it in the power of those who patronize the system in vogue, to check these efforts by the narrow bounds they are disposed to prescribe? Be provident therefore, if you Avill not be grate- ful. Encourage examination and rational de- bate for your own sakes. Keep open the door for others that it may not be shut against yourselves.* * " Learning owes its (lourifliing ftatc to the prefs, and as any " branch of learning may chance to be connected with fome fcheme " of policy, the reftraints of a licence or imprimatur, would cramp " and fetter ingenious minds to fuch a degree, that they would com- " pofe themfelves to reft, and have learned and curious difquifitions, *' for fuch puerilities in literature as cannot offend." E/fay on the liberty oj the prcfs, p. 40. Nothing can be more judicious than Mrs. Macaulay's reflection on the conduft of Charles ifl's parlia- ment of 1628, in taking cognifance of the religious difputes then on foot. Had they, inflead of vindicating the narrow fyftcm of the Englilh confelfion, fuppofed by them to be the eftabliflied doftrine of the church, employed their theological talents in the difcuffion of the principles of religious liberty, they would have fliewn themfelves ( 22 ) " But modern controversy is dull, trifling, " unimportant, and insipid ; and what is still " pofTefled of an eflential qualification necelTary to form able legif- *' lators." She obferves, however, that they entered upon this pro- vince, "to ferve the beft purpolcj," namely, to difcourage the en- croachments of fuperflitlon on the civil rights of mankind. " Modes *' of faith," lays this valuable hiftorian, "powerfuHy operateon every government ; and the ecclefiallical conuitution of a country has an " irrelillible influence on the political. We muft confider, there- " fore, thefe illuflrious patriots as combating errors, which, however " trivial they may appear on a flight view, yet carried with them *' alarming coniequences to liberty." Hift. of England, vol. ii. 4to. p. 5^. Senfible of all this, archbifhop Laud, by a declaration he procured to be prefixed to the thirty-nine articles, attempted to filence the theological difpiues between the calvinifls and arminians, fo far at leaft, that the former might draw no aid from their princi- ples of religion to contravene his niafter's attempts on the civil liber, ties of his people. I cansot indeed agree with Mrs. Macaulay, that " the efTential points of faith in arminianifm, had nothing in " them repugnant" [orthofe of puntaniim, nothing in ihem favoiir- ablej " to the freedom of ("he Englifh confliiution." This, how- ever, is not material to the point. I would illuftrate by her jufl re- flection on the general condutt of the parliament, and iheir patriotic intention. And to jufljfy thefe it was fufficient, that the arminians " were ffudioufly bent to exalt the power of churchmen, and were " wedded to thofe forms and ceremonies that degrade the pure fpirit of religion, into an idolatrous worfhip of the objeOsof fenfe, &c." But to combat thefe evils with fuccefs and effect, it was pethaps ne- cefTary for the patriots, occafionally " to metamoiphofe themielves " into mere gown-men and indeed would have been neceffary, in whatever way they had under; aken to beat down the ufurpaii- ons of church-power, and the pernicious influence of the fupei flition then encouraged. Would to God we had feen more of thele mere gown-men, in thefe latter times, capable and willing to examine, in the fame department, into the principles on which fuch laws as the lafl atf of uniformity are founded. It is for want of fuch mere gown-men in parliament, from (Ime to time, that Mrs. Macaulay has occafion to obferve, that the moff obnoxious of thofe ceremo- " nies which Laud fo childifhly mfifled on, were eflabiiflied at the *' reftoratioPj and have been ever fince regularly praflifed in the *' church." Vol, iv. p. 144. Another iort of gown-men indeed have arifen more lately, who have declared it criminal to revile [in plain Engliflij to find fault with] thofe inllitutions, with which the ( 23 ) worse, carried on Avith a rudeness and acri- *' niony highly oftensive to politeness and " sometimes to common decency; and parti- " cularly scandalising in the clerical order, " where the greatest number of polemic writers *' are to be found." But Avho are the greatest sufferers by dull, trifling, insipid performances? Surely either the authors, or the retailers of them ; but most commonly the former. And v.ould you envy such men the privilege of gratifying their va- nity, at a sort of expence which of all others hopeft and illuftrious patriots of 1628, made fo free ; and to clench the matter, have added to this decifion, the comfortable doftrine that fhey are irrevocably bound upon us to the end of time. Since this note was written, we have heard this doflrine ex- ploded in the honourable houfe of commons, both by the friends and opponents of a late petition for relief in the matter of fubfcription, &c. But the friends of chriftian liberty have heard more. They have heard their caufe fupported in that honourable alTenibly, with powers of reafoning, and a comprehenfion of the full merits of it, which would have done honour to the patriots of any period of our hiftory, and with a liberality of fentiment, which fets them far above the cbarafter of mere gown-men, whether we confider the narrow- nefs of the fyftematic tramels, or the precife fcholaftic mood and figure in which the gown-men of the laft generation were trained to their exercifes. Nor do I mean to detraft from the worth or abilities of thofe gentlemen by whom the petition had the misfortune to be op- pofed and rejefted. The cafe was new to them ; and it is hardly pof- * fible that the clamours, abufe, and mifreprefentation of violent and prejudiced men without doors, fliould leave even very ingenuous minds without fome degree of prepoffelTion againft a caufe and its abettors, which was every where fpoken againll. The caufe how- ever is now before the public, and it is to be fuppofed, in a different light from that in which it firft appeared. Farther difcudion will give it fliU more ftrength and credit ; and the petitioners have every thing to hope in a future trial, from the judgment, candour, and piety- of thofe to whom, under God, they commit their caufe, and from the evidence they have given of the fimplicity and godly fincerity of their own upright intentions. ( 2^ ) brings them the soonest to repentance ? Is there any fear that capable and judicious rea- ders should overrate such writers? And have not others as much right to indulge their taste as you or I? In the mean time there are wri- ters in the same province of real merit. Let all of them have a fair trial, and a candid hearing, and proscribe the blockheads as soon as you %vill.* The M'rath, acrimony, insolence, and dog- matic spirit of some controversial w ritings are, Ave own, indefensible. They are not pardon- able in those who have the best cause in the world, and are in other respefts, the ablest de- fenders of it. Nevertheless, these are, in some instances, necessary evils; in others they Avill admit of extenuation. In some men an eager spirit is the fault of constitution. From others, even good men, angry or satyrical expressions ma}' be forced by just provocation. " If any " wliere fsays one of our great grandfathers) I " have used more sharpness than is pleasing to " men who M ould have all polemical M ritings " managed -without passion, I shall only say, * The critics, however, would have but an indifferent time of it in attempting this profcription. The blockheads area powerful par- ty, and in nine inHances in ten, have the junEtas phalanges on their fide, efpecially in theological controverfy. Mr. Le Clerc has en- deavoured to furnifli the critics with a criterion in this difficult pro- vince. Parrhafiava, Toth. ii. article i. And tells us in another place, that, "he has there faid enough to diftinguifli controverfies " wiiich are ufefui from thofe which are not." Bibl. Choifie, Tom. iii. p. 195. The confequence was, that the blockheads profcribed Mr. Le Clerc in their turn, and by their prolocutor Cave, de- clared him an enemy to chriflian divines. Parrhas, Tom. i. art. 10. To which an old nonjuror in one of our univerfities, added his fuffrage, that the faid Le Cierc deibrved no mercy. ( 25 ) ** that the Dr's (Heylin's) hard grating, hath *' sharpened my style, and made it more keen " and piercing, than I coukl have allowed " myself to use towards a good-natured adver- " sary. It is almost morally impossible for *' him, who contends with a fiery and furious " antagonist, not to be sometimes a little over- " heated." If the hands of every waiter M^ere to be tied, who does not keep within the stridt bounds of christian moderation and lenity, I know some individuals of other classes, who would be as impatient under the restraint as any divine of them all. And why should di- vines be obliged to set an example, which wri- ters on other subjects are not obliged to follow? Mr. Bayle, in one of hisfits of candour, finds fault with Mr. Claude for saying, in excuse of Luther's intemperate style, that, " perhaps " there Avas some particular necessity, at the " time of the reformation, to employ the strong- est expressions to awaken men from that "profound slumber, in which they had lain "solong. Whereupon Mr. Bayle observes that, "because God is pleased sometimes to " make use of such instruments, it will notfol- " low that violence and passion are commend- able, upon pretence that the corruption of " the Avorld needs the harshest treatment." * I apprehend Mr. Claude did not think of com- mending Luther's passion and violence ; on the contrary, he wishes he had been more tem- perate in his writings. So do I, if his intern" perance, upon any occasion, led him into ca- lumny or falsehood ; which however in descend- * Bayle's D'lEi. Luther. [T] ( 26 ) ing to particular instances, would bear a dis- pute. * For the rest, if the times wanted Luther, they wanted him with all his appurtenances; nor could his zeal, or what is called his intem- perance, have been spared, Avithout wanting the reformation too. f * For inftance, where he fays Jerom Aleander was born a Jew. Others had f.iid fo before Luther ; and though Aleander, in refuting this imputation, infifted upon being defcended from the Marquiffes of Irtria, yet it was faid, that family knew nothing of him ; and Mr. Bayle himfelf is obliged to leave the matter in uncertainty. Dift. Aleander [Gj, + Mekliior Adam, having infinuated that Liithcr might have made greater proficiency in his youthful ftudies than he did, if he had met with proper mafters, adds, et f rtajfis ad leniendam vehemen- tiam natures, mitiora ftudia vera: philcfcphicz, et cura Jormandcs orationis profiiijfent, Vit. Luth. p. 102. Luther ftudied the fcrip- tures with the utmoft attention and affiduity, and wanted no helps to underfiand them, which the age afforded. If this ftudy could not correft any blameable vehemence in Luther's nature, what true phi- lofophy might thdt be, which would have done the bufinefs more ef- fectually ? With refpefi to the event, it was much better as it was. How fit a more temperate and polite fcholar would have been for the work Luther went through, ma}' be conjectured by confidering the conduct of Erafmus, who, with all Luther's convictions upon his mind, could never bring himfelf nearer a reformation than fome fa- tyrical ftrokes upon the ftupidity and impoftures of monkery, levere enough indeed in fome inftances, but of no great fignificance from the pen of fuch a writer, who idolized the pope and the great church- men of his time, the patrons and upholders of every religious abufe and corruption, with the moft abjeCt adulation. He would have had Luther to have followed his example in this. Admonui, [Luthe- rmn^ ut pa.rceret romano pontijci, cujus autoritatem expedit h-a- beri facrvJaiiRam, parceret pitrxipum celjitudmi, qui conviciis attatii, a,ut intempejlivius advioniti, non folum non redduntur mcliorts, f.d exactrbati perniciojas aliquoties excitant tempejlates, Jt que lit et monitori Jua percct autoritas, interdum ct vita, et monito fuas frufius. Siquidem ut veritati nunquam fas ejt ad- veijari, ita celare nonnunquam expedit in loco. Semper autem pluriir.uvi-refert quam in tempore, quam commode et attemperale cam projtras. Oiicedavi inter Je Jatentur t/ieologi, qua: vulgonon cxpediat ejfcrri, Et Jxpe fanat ^dmonitio tempejliva, blanda ac ( 27 ) But every intemperate writer is not a Luther, nor intituled to the same allo\\ances. Let us civilis, quos perderctfcEva (t intmpcfltva objurgatio, Epifi. Laiir, Campcgio. an, 1520. Erafmus, no doubt, thought thele very wife maxims, and we muft fuppofe he piaflifed accordingly, Bi;t unfor- tunately he had none of thofe fruits to fliew, which Ihould have been brought forth by his civil blandilhments of the pope and other po- tentates of his lime. And as Luther had the cool and barren endea- vours of Eralmus before him to profit by, he wilely went to work an- other way, and fucceeded. Melantthon, in his funeral oration for Luther, [ apud Seckeiidorf, Lib. iii. p. 649,] mentions, that Eraf- mus often faid, Deus dcdit huic poflnmcz trlali, propter morborum magnitudinem, acreiii medicum, meaning Luther. The orator did not wrong Erafmus. He had the fame lentiment under Erafmus's own hand. Plane, ne dicam dolo, fic undiaue corrupti mores chrijlianoruvi, Jlagitabant immiti'm aliqueyn cajtigatorem, Epift. 3. Lib. xix. Edit. Lond. 1642, col. 817. Heie we fee Erafmus does not qualify his fentiment even with Mr. ChrAt's perhaps. We fee likewife, that the corruption of the world, in thofe days, was more than a pretence, and though palTion and violence are not com- mendable in themfelves, yet being ufed as inftruments of reformation in the hand of Providence, with good efFett, they defervc at Icalt a more commendable name. Our countryman, John Milton, was full as good a judge of thefe matters as Mr. Eayle. Here follows his apology for Luther's acrimony. Having mentioned fome inftances ofprophetical feverity from the fcriptures, he gots on thus: — "But <' ye will fay, thefe had immediate warrant f;om God to be thus bit- ter, and 1 fay, fo much the plainlier it is proved, that there may " be a fanftified bitternefs againft the enemies of ruth. Yet that " ye may not think infpiratioii only the warrant hereof, but ihat it " is, as any other virtue, of moral and general obiervation, the ex- ample of Luther may ftand for all ; whom God made choice of " before others, to be of higheft eminence and power in reforming the church; who, not of revelation, but of juda;ment, writ fo ve- " hemently againft the chief defenders of old untruths in the Romifh " church, that his own friends and favourers were many times of- " fended with thefiercenefs of hisfpirit. Yet he being cited before " Charles V. to anfwer for his books, and having divided them into " three forts, whereof one was of thofe which he had fharply written, " refufed, ihough upon deliberation given him, to retract or unfay " any word therem, as we may read in Sleidan. Yea, lie defends *• his eagernefs, as being of an ardent fpirit, and one who could not write in a dull ftile j and aftiimed, he thought it God's will to have ( 28 ) therefore freely consign all passionate polemics to those officers of justice in the republic of *' the inventions of men thus laid open, feeing that matters quietly handled, were quickly forgot. And herewithal, how ufcful and *' available God had made this tart rhetoric in the churches caufe, he of- *' ten found by his own experience. For when he bet(X)k.himfelf tole- *' nity, and moderation, as they call it, he reaped nothing but con- *' tempt, both from Cajetan and Erafmus, from Cochlczus,{mm Eccius *' and others ; Infomuch, that blaming his friends who had fo coun- *' lelled him, he refolved never to run into the like error. If at other times he feem to excufe his own vehemence, as more than *' what was meet, I have not examined through his work, to know *''how far he gave way to his own fervent mind. It (hall fuffice me to look lo mine own." [Vid. Milton's Profe Works, Folio, Edit. 1697. P* 34°0 And mdeed Milton here only bnngs the ex- ample of Luther to julhfy the liberty he had taken with the prelati- cal advocates of that tmie, whom he reprefents as " notorious enemies ** to truth, and their countries peace," (in the very fame colours in which Luther had painted his Romifh advcrfaries) and confequently, to be handled with a rougher accent, &c. Without looking for minute refemblances, and Hating the precife differences between ths prefent and preceding men and limes, we dally hear complaints, on the one hand, of errors, corruptions, and glaring incongruities in our ccclefiaiiical cftablidiment ; and on the other, of the acrimony with which thefe things are expofed, and the bitter reproofs given to thofe men who defend, palliate, and fupport them. In the mean while, the haughty churchmen make repriials, neither with more decency, nor with equal reafon. The molt rude abufe of a difTenter from tlic dlablilhed fyllem, is, in a Divinity Prot'efTor, official; in a digni- tary fattened with the fops of the church, juftice and honour. At all this, thole good fouls, who " woutd allziicre zueU. Jo 'tzvere not long of them," are grievoufly fcandalized, but take care, however, to balance to- wards the furer fide ; praifing the mild and moderate fpirit of church governors for — not exercifing the powers (which, thanks to the civil part of our conftitution, they have not) againft intrepid and pre- cipitant champions for the dilTenters : one of whom, I trow, did not conclude with precipitation, that a difcourfe which came forth with rhe enligns of auihonty in its front, was expreifive of the genuine fcnfe and fpirit of our church eftablifliment ; efpecially unapprifed, as he feems to have been, that the difcourfe Itfelf mit;ht not be ex- preflive either of the fenfe or fpirit of that refpetlable individual from whom the tyrant, fornulity, wrefied thole enfigns. When fuch dii- ( 29 ) letters, who, to give them their due, are not slack in bringing offenders of this kind to condign punishment. After all, may there not be a little affedation in this general clamour against warm and sa- tyrical disputants? Is human nature so totally mortified in all those Avho pretend to be scan- dalized at this way of managing controversy, that they immediately throw by every book which has any sj)rinklings of attic salt, or even of Roman wormwood? I once knew a A^ery great and good man who was ingenuous enough to acknowledge, he had greatly profited by some books in which he should hardly have read three pages, if the}^ had not been enliv- ened by a sort of spirit by no means allied to christian meekness. But the most provoking circumstance in this case is, that numbers of writers complain of this offensive acrimony in others, who are courfes as that of Dr. Balgiiy, which afcrlbes fo much to mere human infiitutions, at the expence of the inftrufiion afforded us by the fcrip- tures, are piiblifhed in a country where the proteflant rehgion is openly profeffed, — when a writer, who is acknowledged to he a re- folute niaintainer of the grand principle which gave birth to the refor- mation, and to which our church Ihll profeffes to adhere, i';, upon that very account, moR bitterly reproached, as her declared adver- fary, what would the nigenious Tyro-Philekutherus have a man who is defirous of preferving the proteflant religion in its native hmpli- city, fay to the rcproachers ? He himfelf may, if he chufes it, pay them the compliment of a mild and moderate fpirit, and try to ■worm himfelf, and his own pacific pleas for reformation, out of the reach of their petulant cenfures ; but let him not be forward to blame thofe as too peremptory and acrimonious, who cannot fee any thing in thofe cenfures, but a Phariiaical obftinacy in precluding all inquiry into the abufes, corruptions, and abfurdities of the reign- ing fyftem, and who, in confequence of fo feeing, exhibit the cen- lurers witJi their proper infignia. ( 30 ) itiucli less faulty than tliemselves.* TliesS should never be looked upon in any other light, than as seeking apologies for indulging their own licentious genius, at the expence of much better men than themselves, who never gave them the least pretence for retaliations of this kind : of which some very striking exam- pies might be produced. Perhaps, if one were to inquire stri6lly into the causes why certain rescripts, of no small intrinsic merit, and on no trifling subjects, have met with so cool a reception in the world, it would be found that the gentle, modest, and pacific manner, in Avhich the authors of them have delivered their sentiments, has contri- buted more than anv thine; else to their beinor so little regarded. I And this I take to have * " He (Voltaire) is always talking of reafon, humanity, for- *' bcarance, and mildnefs: he is alwa)'slamenting the indecent quar- " relsand animofities that prevail too much among men of learning; " and perhaps no man living afts more in oppofiiionio thefe pompous " profeflions. He has compofed an agreeable and witty chapter " concerning printed lies : and no author certainly hath printed more " than he himfelf." Annual Regifter, 1762, p. 50. Think not reader, 1 have gone 10 France for want of examples at home. They were bold britons who gave occafion to the poet to remark. That, Candours maxims jlow from Rancour's throat. Nor has any tnan been louder in his complaints of this fort, than the mofl abufive writer of our own times and country. + A pregnant inftance of this, is the book called Free and candid Difquijitions relating to the church of England, &c, to which the greateft objeflion with fome perfons was, the humble and fubmifTive tenns in which the authors of that work delivered their fentiments and propofals. called by fome people, cant and whining. Thus it was of old, and thus it is ftill. There are fubjects of the uimoll importance to the credit and advancement of true religion, to which, whether they who handle them pipe or mourn, the men of this generation will pay »o attention. Wheremito Jliall ihey bi likened? ( 51 ) been the case with that particular question, on •which the ensuing papers are employed. The learned bishop of Carlisle's appendix to his Considerations, Sec. is so draAvn up, as not to give the least affront either to those who hold the contrary do6lrine upon the credit of tlic church, or to any particular Avriter who hath explained his own sense of the matter to the public. Mr. Peckard's first and second obser- vations, as well as his ansA7er to Mr. Fleming*, are patterns of politeness and moderation, as well as of solid reasoning and good sense. Yet have both these writers been treated by their opponents with some rudeness, attended with invidious and groundless insinuations. And though their adversaries are, upon this subject at least, the weakest of all weak writers, yet have they, to all outward appearance, car- ried their point ; the generality of popular speakers or writers, who have occasion to touch upon the future condition of the human soul, adhering still to the system of a conscious in- termediate state, resting, as they would , have it believed, upon the complicated evidence of scripture and philosophy. I remember a remark somewhere, that the generality of readers, when they meet with a writer of controversy who keeps Avithin the bounds of moderation and civility, and more particularly if he expresses the least diffidence with rcspe6l to any part of his argument, pre- sently conclude, that such a man does not in- terest himself greatly for the truth of his cause, and that consequently the matter in debate is of no especial importance. Whether for this, or for some other reason. ( .32 > tliere is room to believe that this is the judg- ment that is most commonly formed of the dispute concerning the intermediate state of man between death and the resurrection. It is supposed to be a matter of indifference to christians who believe a resurrection of the dead, and a final judgment, in Avhat condition the man, or the soul, after the death of the body, remains, during the interval. In order therefore to shew the slender foun- dation there is for a prejudice of this sort, it will be necessary once more to state the case, and to examine what pretensions this question may have to the attention of the serious, dis- passionate, and reasonable part of mankind ? The question is, whether the scriptures af- ford any just and solid grounds for the popular doclrine of the immortality of the soul of man, and particularly, any evidence of its existence, when disunited from the body, in a state of conscious perception ; and whether, inconse- quence of this notion, there is not a certain intermediate state of happiness and misery for good and wicked men respectively, between death and the general resurrection ? They who hold the negative in these points, aledge, that according to the scriptures, life and immortality were brought to light by the gospel of Christ, in a sense exclusive of all other teachers, and all other revelation, at least from the birth of Aloses downwards ; exclusive like- wise of all information from the lightofnature, or the result of ])hilosophical disquistion on the substance or qualities of the human soul. They insist that Christ is the xcay, the truth, and the life, so that no man comcth to the father [so ( 33 ) as to be like him, and to see him as- he is in a fu- ture state] but by the mediatorial power of Christ. That the way of comiyig to God, in the sense, and by the means abo\'ementioiied, is the resurrection of the dead of which, assii- ranceis given unto all men, by the resurrection of Jesus. They hokl moreover, that the sen- tence pronounced upon our first parents, im- ported a total deprivation of life, without any reserve or saving to the life of the soul ;* and consequently that eternal life, or a restoration and redemption from the consequences ot" this sentence, was effected for, revealed, consigned, and insure^ to man, in and through Christ, and will be accomplished in no other way than that spoken of by Christ and his apostles, who have left no room to conclude that there is a separate or intermediate life for the soul, when disunited from the body. * The diftinflion between the hfe of Adam's foul and the life of his body, leems to have lilenfrom, or at leaft to have beeiigieatly cncoui^ged by, a blunder of Plulo ^iidaus, in a p.ilFage quoted, and praifedby Grotius on Lukeiii. 38. The Synac and Arabic tranf- latorsof the new tcftament having had foinc fcruplcs, as Grotius (up- poffd, left; Adam fiiould be undcrftood to be ex divind Jiti/lanlid genitus, did not call him the fon of God in the terras they had iifed to denominate the other defcendants of Adam refpectively, bat had only faid of him, gui ex Deo ejt. Grotius feem^ to think this a needlcfs delicacy ; but inftead of obferving, as he might have done in two words, that no fuch difference is marked in the original, he proceeds to fliew how Adam might be called the Son of God, by an argument which very probably the evangelift never thought of. And lo fupporthis hypothefis, he appeals to apalTage of Philo, where we find the following acccount. 'Or [Adam] 'nv/M'i-jymia.'r 'a-jhnSitH^ c-jyxfilo^, yj^Ti /j.;v9:M.g- 'fir 'av^fiavlnlov o-u-iurelosiii^ty^TiSiir ay -Mi Tfxv'ir TAa- l-ir 9fi«r ^-v«f/.Exr oVcv >ie-^v«1o i;|(i^ai S.ji'Jm 9-j<7i;. Which Grotius thus tratiflates. Qui quod adnobilitatem allinet, ncmincm hab;t qui ft-* ( 34 ) On the other side it is insisted, that the hu- man soul is immortal in its own nature, and capable of an a6live and conscious existence in a state of disunion and separation from the body. That this natural capacity of the soul ■\vas not impaired, or at all affetted by any thing that happened upon the transgression of our first parents ; and that the death to which they were condemned, was only the death of the body. The consequence of all which is, that there is, and would have been a future im- mortal state of being beyond the present life, and (themoral attributes of God pre-supposed) a just retribution therein, indepenctent of the doctrine of a resurreftion of the dead. Now so far as this is the creed of believers in Christ, it requires some explanation, lest it shoun seem to make void, or at least render insig ificant or unnecessary some of the capi- tal truths of the Gospel. Accordingly, divers methods of accommodating this philosophical theory to the dotlrine of the scripture, have been invented, that these privileges of nature may not appear to transcend the riches of Gospel-grace. The principal of which is, pla- cing redemption, salvation ^c. in and through Jesus Christ, in circumstances which either' keep the ideas of life and death out of sight, or reduce them to mere figurative terms; either, cum comparetiir, manibus divinis in fimulacrum corporeum Jorma- ius Junvina arte figulari ; anima autem donatus -non ab ullo qni genitus eji, fed Deo mjpiranti ei tantum divinxjacultatis quan- tum Jerre poterat natura mortalis. But the misfortune of tliis doftrine is, that when Adam fiift received the breath of life, his nature was not mortal. His mortality commenced not but with his tranfgrenion, and was the declared penalty of it. When Adam ( 35 ) for example, in modes of purification from the stains of original sin, or in certain secret efFefts and influences of grace and faith upon the soul, or in communications of the holy spirit, to which man, in his unregenerate state, could have no title. And then again, lest the end of a resurrec- tion of the dead should seem to be defeated by the hypothesis of a permanent life and consci- ousness in the soul, and its capability of hap- piness and misery in a separate state, an in- termediate condition \i contrived, in which the departed souls of good men are supposed to have an imperfe6l reward, and the souls of the Avicked an imperfect punishment, during the interval between death and the general re- surrection, when every one will receive a full and complete recompence for the deeds done in the body. It is well known how easily these things are taken upon trust, and how little disposed the generality are to examine how far they agree with the scriptures : and there is one argument, much insisted on, which seems to make exa- came out of the hands of his crearor, his nature was immortal ; and upon that, if we believe our chriftian fcriptures, the divine fonfliip depends. Chrift himfelf is faid by St. Paul to have been declared [^rather determined, ofi^fir] to be the Son of God by his refurredion Jrom the dead, Rom. i. 4. And accordingly the fonfliip, heirfliip of chriftian believers is uniformly referred to their leftoration to im- mortality, — to their future inheritance in heaven, through Chrift the Jirjl fruits, the firjl-born among many brethren, all through the new teftament. That the nature of Adam was at his creation immortal, St. Lukeknew ; zni Grotius {hould have known it, at leaft bettey than Philo Judceus, eg ( o6 ) nilnation upon this head unnecessary. If a "future state, say these reasoners, "is but " ascertained, it can be no great matter upon " M-hich of these hypotheses it is founded^ ^^■hicll "vvay soever the point is decided, the " sanctions of the gospel stand sure. They *' A\ ho deny an intermediate state, acknowledge " the resurrection of the dead, and a future "judgement ; and they who hold a separate ** existence of the soul in an intermediate state, " mean not to preclude or supercede a final " retribution, or the rcsurreflion of the dead. *' So that the motives to virtue and righteous- " ness, and the discouragements of vice and *' iniquity, taken from the certainty of a future *' recompense, being secured either way, it is of litile or no consequence which of these opinions we espouse." 13ut might not one reason thus upon many other controverted points, some of which per- haps may bethought to be of much greater im- portance ? It is readily allowed that, Avhere good christians bring forth the fruits of the fi^ospel spirit in their manners and dispositions^ it may not always be necessary or expedient to disquiet them a\ itli objections to their peculiar tenets, though manifestly wrong and absurd ; especially where there is reason to believe, that Avhat you would substitute in the place of such tenets, would have no better effect upon their moral sentiments and practices, than their pre- sent opinions. ]\ly charity inclines me to hope and believe there may be somebigotted papists, Avho hold all the errors of their church to the very extremes of idolatjy uud superstition, who ( 37 ) nevertheless exhibit the true christian charader in their general practice. And 1 am likewise persuaded that some such there may be amonTj the folloM^ers of IVIahomet. What then? Becausethere are here and there instances of individuals, Avho are not pra6li- cally corrupted by the influence of the errors they hold, is there no utility or edification in exposing the corruptionsof Popery, or the fables pf Mahometism ? Pitch upon any church or religious society Mdiere you Avill, and how small a proportion do they who stick to the purely preceptive part of their institute, without devi- ating into the licentiousness for which their re- spective systems of doctrine and discipline leave room, bear to those, who, provided they are orthodox in their professions of faith, and con- formable to ecclesiastical forms, scruple not to follow their own appetites and devices, in sure and certain confidence, of escaping at the last, by the means of those dispensations, atone- ments, absolutions, &c. Avitli Avhich all religi- gious societies are, in some degree, provided? If the doctrines and precepts of Christ are in truth the standards of piety and virtue, and the rules and directories to the highest perfection frail man can arrive at in the present life, and to the consummation of his best hopes inano- ther,it must be of the utmost importance, that these doctrines and precepts should be under- stood in the very sense, as near as may be, in. which they were delivered by our blessed Lord, and those commissioned by him to dispense ihem to the world. To preach and to {propa- gate erroneous interpretations of gospel doctrine, ( 38 ) though by accident no evil impressions may be made by it upon some few well-diposed minds, must infallibly have a worse elfeft upon a large majority. And there are examples in the new testament, shewing evidently enough, that this ■was the opinion of the apostles and their as- sistants.* It has been the opinion of some eminent men ■who studied the scriptures with great judg- ment, application and success, that if our fore- fathers, who had the management of the pro- testant reformation, had enjoyed the lights and aids with which succeeding times have been fa- voured, and could have divested themselves of their scholastic manner of reasoning, the dif- ferences on -which the several churches Avhere they presided, separated from each other, might have been, in a great measure, prevented. If this is true, or even probable, much edification may still arise from clearing up the genuine sense of scripture, and freeing it from those mistaken interpretations, which unskilful men first adopted, and others, interested in the cre- dit of particular churches, have since thought fit to maintain, in some cases, perhaps, contrary to their own inward conviftion. Private chris- tians at least will be led by this information, to distinguish between truth, and the mere ap- parition of it; between the genuine word of God, and the traditions of men ; and may thence be instruded, ^\hat few seem to be aware of, how much depends upon their studying the scriptures for themselves, and how liable they arc to be imposed upon by those who think of * See Afls xvlil. 24, 25, and compare chap. xix. 'i — 7. ( 39 ) little in their observations on the sacred wri • ters, but how they may best serve the system of the society to Avhich they belong, or some hypothesis of their own, still more precarious than that. They who after the most diligent search, cannot find in the scriptures, any foundation for the dodrine of a separate existence of the soul, or any trace of an iniermediate state of life and consciousness between death and the resurredion, think themselves sufficiently jus- tified by the foregoing considerations, not only in disowning this do6lrine themselves, but in their endeavours to have it disowned by all good christians, as produftive of nothing bet- ter, than superstition, idolatry, and enthusiasm on the one hand, and infidelity on the other : and they apprehend, that by admitting life and immortality to have been brought to light by the gospel of Christ, in the strict and proper meaning of the words, and exclusive of all other means and sources of immortality, (as St. Paul and his contemporaries appear to have under- stood the doctrine) a total lapse must ensue of the chief supports of deism and popery, not to mention other idle notions of more recent ori- ginal. These, we own, are high sounding pretensi- ons, but they are at the same time pretensions of real importance to the cause of Christianity in general, and that of the protestant religion in particular; and, on that account, demand from every one who is well affected to either, a candid and serious attention to those argu- ments which are brought to make them good. There are, it is true, other arguments against ( 40 ) popery and infidelity, which have been urged against tliem with success: hut it is equally true, that the arguments on the other side have received a great degree of plausibility, and even ot" real weight, from the concession of a separate existence of the soul in a state of con- sciousness and activity. For example, if it be denied, and cannot be proved, that man Avill inherit eternal life, other- wise than in consequence of his rising from the dead, as that is insured by the promises of the gospel, and the previous resurredion of Jesus, the faith and hope of that species of infidelity called deism, are at an end. But while chris- tian Avriters are persuaded that they ought to maintain the natural, indefeasible immortality of the soul, and its conscious existence in a separate state, as if this dodrine were some -way conne6ted with the principles of the christian religion, they leave the deists in possession of a stronghold, from whence it seems impossible to dislodge them. For thus they reason : "you *' allow that a future state of reward and pu- " nishment may be proved from the nature of " the human soul, from the unequal distribu- " tion of good and evil in the present life, " from the free agency of man, and the docu- " ments of reason and nature, importing, that *' upon the final event of things, thcjudge of all " tlie earth Avill certainlv do rio-ht. What ne- ' cessity then for a particular revelation, or a *' particular mediator, to inforjn us of, or to *' secure to us certain privileges of which we " were in possession v/ithout them." I am not the only one who hath observed H-nd ])itied the embarrassment of the most emi- ( 41 ) nent advocates of Christianity, when, this oh- jedion Avas urged home upon them. In vain had they proved the truth and authenticity of the christian revehition, by what is called the external evidence, even to demonstration; in vain liad tliey shewn, from tlie moral do ho ha\ e seemingly agreed in as- serting the general doctrine, ha\'e llatly con- traditted each otlier in setting forth the grounds of it, and consequently in the constru6tion of their arguments brought tosuppoit it, may we ( 49 ) not humbly hope, that the offence that has been taken at those who have dissented from them all, and have refused to adopt any accounts of futurity except those in the new testament, will now cease, and that our impartial readers will not think it strange or unreasonable, that we Avho think a state of separate existence of the soul derogatory to the word of God, should not re- ceive it with a blind submission to the ipse dixit of men, who however considerable in other re- spects, could never satisfy each other in their re- spective accounts of a doCtrine, which all of them pretended to believe ? I have only farther to add, that as the church of England herself hath declined, in tlie most solemn declaration of her tenets, to inter- pose her judgment of this controversy for more than two hundred years, and gives coun- tenance to the notion of a conscious interme- diate state, no otherwise than by some ambigu- ous expressions in one of her offices, which of all others, and by the confession of all parties, wants most to be corrected ; it is not only un- fair but inhuman for one set of her members to brand another with heresy, merely for hold- ing the negative side of this question. It is indeed to exceed in bitterness even the gall of popery itself ; the most sensible and rea- sonable men of that communion, speaking with great contempt and indignation of those who impute heresy to their adversaries in points, which are not decided by the Church.* * Mr. Bayle fpeaking of the impertinence of the Jefuit, Maim- bourgj in fneering at the number of honourable teftimonials prefixed to tlie works of tlje Janfeuift writers of Port Royal^ makes the fol- ( 50 ) And were they who arc dignified with the name of Soul-sleepers, disposed to seek repri- sals upon the Orthodox, what depredations might they not make, by comparing some of tbeir avowed opinions with the corresponding articles of the church, which they have so- lemnly subscribed more than once, and which aj:e still standing in full authority to confront them. lowing remark. " Cette ralllerle etoit fort deraifonnable ; car *' c'etoit lui et fes confreres qui a force d'appeller Heretiques la *' ecrivans de Port Royal, les avoient contraints de fe munir, d'un grand nombre d'approbations. Au refie, je ne trouve pas etrange, *' qu'elles depluffent aux Pere Maimbourg, car elles fafoient, voir la *' temeritc infupportable, qu"il avoit eue d'accufer d'kerefiedes gens " qui pafloient pourorthodoxes dans I'efprlt des plus favans prelats du " royaume, aufquels, et non pas aux Jefuites, il appartient de juger *' decifivemept de la qualitle d'une opinion." Critique Generals del' Hijloire Calvanifme, vol. I. p. 89, go. It is no reafonabls prejudice againft the truth and juftice of this remark, that it comes from a prot'.-llant writer. There v/as not a janfenift among the ca- tholics of France, who did not loudly complain of this calumnious imputation of Aerf/y, even fuch of them asdealt it about with the great- cft freedom to the proteftants. There was not a mo>«^blgotted ca- iholic on the face of the earth than the famous Arnauld, or a more virulent writer af;ainft the proteftants ; at the fame time, that n» man was ever more impatient when the reproach of herefy was ihrown upon hlmfelf or his party. See his Preface XothzitconA \0' lume ofhii Nouvelle Defenfe de la TraduEiion du Nouv. Te/l.im' friineea .mons. And the Advertifement prefixed to vol. i. of LiS: Imagincdres, &c. under the name of the Sieur Da7r,villurs, The End of the Preface. AN HISTORICAL VIEW OF THE CONTROVERSY, &c. CHAP. 1. The doctrine generally received in the christi- an church concerning the state of departed souls, overthrown by a canon of the council of Florence. The Greeks at that council obliged to concur in it. The Florentine doc- trine calculated to favour purgatory. Re- marks on the canon. Was probably the oc- casion of the disputes at Rome on the immor- tality of the soul, in the pontificate of Paul li. Before tlie council of Florence, which was 143^ held in the year 1439, under pope Eugenius IV, the current doctrine, both of the Greek and Latin churches, was, that "the souls of *' the saints were in abditis receptacuUs, or as *• some of them expressed it, in exterioribus *' atriis, where they expeded the resurrection of their bodies, and the glorification of their *' souls; and though the fathers believed all *' of them to be happy, yet they did not think *' they would enjoy the beatific i^ision before " the resurrection."* But the pope above-mentioned having by an infamous stratagem, and in opposition to the council of Basil, inveigled the patriarch See bifhop Taylor's Liberty of Prophefying, p. 152, D2! ( ) of Constantinople and some of his clergy, to attend him in a council indided at Fefrara, and adjourned to Florence, * had the address to obtain their consent to the following canon. " If the truly penitent shall depart this life "m the love of God, before they have made " suthcient satisfa6lion for their sins of com- " mission and omission, by fruits worthy of " repentance, their souls are purged by the *' pains of purgatory ; and the suftrages of the living are profitable for the relieving them " from the pains of purgatory, namely, by sa- " crifices of the mass, prayers, and alms, which " according to the ordinances of the church, " are Avont to be performed by the faithful, on *' the behalf of the faithful; but the souls of *' those, who, after baptism, have incurred no " stain of sin, as also those souls, which hav- " ing contra6ted the stain of sin, whether in " their bodies or divested of their bodies, have " been purged as above-mentioned, are re- " ceived into heaven hnmediatelij, and clearly " behold the triune God as he is ; but some of them more perfectly than others, according " to the dilFerence of their merits." f The compilers of this canon saw, no doubt,' the absurdity of supposing, that those souls * Geddes IiitroiluOory Difcourfe, prefixed to Vargas's Letters. And the Greek hiftoiy of this Council pubHfhed by Creyghton, 1660. The eaftern bifliops pleaded poverty, and that they could not afford the expence of attending the council in Italy. But Eu- gc-nius, determined to have them at any rate, undertook to bear their charges, and even to defray the expences of the Emperor who ac- companied them : for which purpofe he fold all his plate, and pawneif the pontifical tiara to the florentines for forty thoufand crown* of gold. See Journal des Scavans. An. 1675. p. 94. f Caranzu Sum. Cyiicil, 45^, f, v. lamo. ( 53 ) "which had undergone the purgatorial purifica- tion, should still remain in ubditis receptaculis, perhaps in a state of insensibility, as some of the fathers held, or in exterioribus atviis, in a state of mere expectation. But purgatory Avas to 1)6 supported at all events, and the poor greeks, on this occasion, were obliged to de- sert the most eminent lights of their own church, for which, however, some of them were suffici- ently mortified when they got home.* But that the protectants should be complai- sant enough to make this plain recession from ajitiquity, as bishop Taylor terms it, upon no better authority than that of this canon, is a little surprizing. This, however, is the fact, as will evidently appear by and by, with this difference, that these protestants sent the souls of the saints directly to heaven, without call- ing at purgatory. It is probable that this alteration in the church's doftrine, might give occasion to the philosophical inquiries and disputes we read of * Jofeph the patriarch died at Florence fuddenly in the night, having juft time to leave a refcript behind him, importing his full agreement with the church of Rome, particularly in the articles of the roman pontiff's fupremacy, and the doctrine of purgatory. This was well contrived, and was no doubt inftrumental to the procuring the fubfcription of his alTociates. Who however were not only dif- owned by the church of Conftantinople when they returned, but, if we may believe Gafpar Peucerus, [Chronic, fub anno 1439] communicated, and denied chriftian burial. Platina fays, grcecorum natio, hand ita nulla pofi, ad antiquos mores recidit. Eugen. IV. p. 267. Edit. 1562. But indeed they did not think themfelves bound for a fingle moment by this aft of their florentine delegates. There was however fome ftruggle to have the union of the greek and latin churches, as patched up at Florence, received by the fynod at Conftantinople, but without fuccefs. Vid. Sguropol. Hift. Con, Florent, at the end. ( 5\ ) no long time after, in the city of Rome itself, concerning the immortahty of the soul. These disputes afforded one pretence at least to pope Paul II, to abolish the college of Abbreviators, and to persecute the members of it, of whom Platina Avas one, and the celebrated Pomponius Lcetus another. The pope objefted to them that they dispvited upon the immortality of the soul, and held Plato's opinion upon that sub- je6t, Avhich Platina did not deny, but justifies himself and his fellows by the authority of St. Austin, Avho thought Plato's dodrine resembled that of the christian religion. Says the pope, *' you give occasion by your disputations, to call in question the being of God." — Platina answers, that this might be equally objected to all the dixmies and philosophers of those timeSy •who for disputations sake, and j or the purpose of finding out the truth, called in question the being and nature of souls, of god, and of all separate intelligences. * This happened in the pontificate of Paul 11. which began in the year 1464, and ended, 1471, and I cite it only to she\v that such dis- putes were on foot in those days, and that they were supposed to do harm to religion. * Plailna in Paulo 2do, ( ^5 ) CHAP. 11. ./I canon of the Lateran council under Leo. x. confirming one of the Clementine constituti- ons which asserts the natural immoraliti/ of the soul. Luther's opinion of that council. The doctrine of the canon built upon the hy- pothesis of substantial forms. Some modern divines and philosophers not at all more i)i- telligible, or better founded than the old schoolmen. The spirit of philosophizing however, seemsl513. to have gone on without much controul, from this period to the year 1513, when the immor- tality of the soul being openly called in ques- tion,* it became necessary for the pope and the church to give some check to it ; Avhich was done in a canon enaded in what may be called the rump of the Lateran council, held under Leo X. in the year above-mentionesL f It Avill be necessary to put down this canon at length, as it is published by Caranza. % * Sleidan. lib. 2. p. 37. + Luther fays of this council, that it was of fo little authority as , to be laughed at by the Romanifts themfelves. Sleidan. u. 5. p. 35. J Cum diebus noflris nonnulli aiifi fint dicere de natura anims rationalis, quod mortalis fit aut unica in cunftis hominibus, et aliqui temcre philofophantes, fecundum faltem philofophiam, verum effc affeverant, facro approbante conclliodamnamus et reprobamus, omnes %fferentes animam intelleftivam mortalem efle aut unicam in cunflis hominibus, et h^c in dubium vertentes ; cum ilia non folum vere et per fe effentialiter humani corporis forma exiftat (ficut In Can. C!e- mentispapse 5, in generali Viennenfi concilio ediio continetur) veruin immortalis, et pro corporum quibus infunditur multitudine, fingula- ritcr multiplicabilis, et multiplicataj et multipUcanda fit, Quod in«' ( 56 ) " Whereas in these our days, some have dared to assert concerning the nature of the *' reasonable soul, that it is mortal, or one and *■ the same in all men ; and some, rashly phi- losophizing, declare this to be true, at least *' according to philosophy, Ave, with the ap- probation of the sacred council, do condemn and reprobate all those who assert that the "intellectual soul is mortal, or one and the *' same in all men, and those who call these "things in question; seeing that the soul is " not only truly, and of itself, and essentially " the form of the human body, as is expressed " in the canon of pope Clement Vth, published " in the general council of Vienne ; but like- " wise immortal, and, according to the num- " ber of bodies into which it is infused, is sin- " gularly multipliable, multiplied, and to be " multiplied. Which manifestly appears from ** the gospel, seeing that our Lord saith, thei/ cannot kill the soul : and elsewhere, he u ho hateth his soul in this xcorld, kc. and also *' becausefhe promises eternal pain ( rather " rewards') and eternal torments to those who " are to be judged according to their merit iu riifefleconftat ex evangelio, cum dominus ait, animam autem occidrre non pojfunt. Et alibi, qui edit animam fuam in hoc mundo, &c, Etetiam cumiternam psnam (1. sterna preemiajet setema fupplicia pro memo vitsjudicandis repromittit : aliis incarnatio, et alia chrilU myfleria nobis minime profuifient. nec refuneftio expectanda foret, ac fanfti et jufli miferabihores effent. juxta paulum, omnibus homini- bus. Cumque v;rum viro miniine contradicat, omnem aflertioneni veritaii illuminate fidei contrariam, omnino falfam efie definimus, et ut aliier dogmatizare non hceat diftriclius inhibemus, omnefque hu- jiifmodi erroncis affertionibus inhcerentes, tanquara haereiicos vitan- «Jos et puniendos fore decemimus. Caranza. Sum, Concilior. Lova- »ii. i6£i. pag. 412. b. 413. a. ( 57 ) **tliis life. Otherwise the incarnation, and ** other mysteries of Christ, would not profit " us, nor w ere a resurrection to be ex])c6ted; " and the saints and righteous would, accord- *' ing to Paul, be most miserable of all men. *' And seeing that truth neve?' contradicts truth, *' we determine every assertion, which is con- '* trary to revealed faith, to be false; and we *' strictly inhibit all from dogmatizing other- wise, and we decree that all who adhere to " the like erroneous assertions, shall be shuned " and punished as heretics." This venerable council, it appears, were of opinion, that if the human soul was proved or allowed to be naturally mortal, there could be no resurre6Hon of the dead, no rewards or pu- nishments in a future state, no benefits from the incarnation, and other mysteries of Christ, (one of which other mysteries by the way, was 2i purgatory. And the axiom, verumvero own contradicit ; applied as it is in this canon, imports, that the scholastic argument for the immortality of the soul, and the scripture-re- velation of a resurre^lion of the dead, must either be both true, or both false. It is true, the substantial forms of the Tho- mists are no longer in repute, and the argument drawn from thence for the immortality of the soul, is, in these more enlightened days, ex- ploded. But that is only to make way for an- other scholastic argument, equally obscure and precarious, devised by Des Cartes, and adopted * Aquinas infers the foul's capability of purgatorial pains, from its being the fubftantial form of the body. Aquin, Summ. qii, J^XXV. art. 1. refp.ad ^tam i partis. ( 58 > by many good christians and true protestants to tliis hour, who are just as positive as Leo and his doctors, that the philosophical and evangelical arguments for immortality, stand upon the same foundation. In support of which notion, a doctor of our own of no in- considerable figure, hath introduced our blessed Saviour, deducing his argument for a resurrec- tion of the dead, against the Sadducees, ]\Iatt. xxii. 29- through the medium of the separate EXISTENCE of the soul.* What a million of pities that such a discovery should escape the sagacity of Leo and his Lateran councilors 1 CHAP. IIL Peter Ponoponatius's book De animiE immorta- litate. Attacks and exposes the folloxvers of Aristotle. Pomponatius reviled as an injidel by Protestants as icell as Papists. His mean- ing mistaken both by Mr. Bayle and Bishop "NVarburton. to go on withfa^ts. Peter Pomponatius a philosopher of ]\LT.ntua, not at all intimidated by this Lateran thunder, published a book in the year \5\6, on the iimnortality of the soul, in which he exposed the futilfty of that argu- mentation by which the followers of Aristotle had endeavoured to prove the immortality of the soul, on the principles of their master ; by shewing that they either mistook the sense of Aristotle's principles, or drew wrong conclusi» * Div. Lrg.of Myfer. W\. iv. p. 3_}3. ed. 1758. ( ^9 ) ons from them. He then examines the hypo- thesis of Aristotle himself, and shews, that the mortality of the soul maybe as easily proved by it, as the contrary. After which he states the moral arguments for the immortality, or rather against the mortality of the soul, under eight heads, and having shewn that they are Aveak and inconclusive, he infers upon the whole, in his last chapter, that, " the immortality of the *' soul, being a problematical question, we can " have no assurance of the thing, but from re- velation, and that they who would build im- *' mortality upon any other foundation, only *' verify the charader given to certain self- ** sufficient reasoners by the apostle namely, ^' professi)ig themselves wise they became fools* It is no wonder that these mootings should expose Pomponatius to the rage and abuse of the popish clergy of all denominations. In vain did he pretend to submit his lucubrations * The R. R. author of the Divine Legation of Mofes. &c, cen- fares Mr. Bayle for niifreprefenting Pomponatius, by placing him ia the clafs ofthofe who havethought religion ufclefs to Ibciety, which he calls an impiety. Whereas according to the R. R. author, the impiety of which Pomponatius was guilty, was, the pretence that re« ligion was the creature of the magiflrate. D. L. B. i. I will venture to fay, the R. R. author mifreprefents Pomponatius as much to the full as Mr. Bayle.In this philofopher's XI V chapter we meet with the following pafTage. " Nam quod communiter diciter, C ani- *' ma eft mortalis, homo deberet fe totum tradere voluptatibus corpO' *' rahbus, omnia mala comn ittere, ad fui utilitatem, vanumque effet *' Deum colere,divina honorare, preces ad Deum funderc, facrificia *' facerc, citeraque hujus generis ; fatis refponfio patet per ea quas difta funt; nam cum naturalitcrfelicitas appetatur, et miferia fugia- *' tur, ct per ditla, felicitas confiftat in attu virtuofo, cum ex tota *' mente Deum colere, divina honorare, fundere at Deum preces, fa- *' crificare, fint a£lus maxime viituofij ideo debemus lotis viribus ( ^0 ) to the contioul of the apostolic see. He had classed Aristotle, and the whole tribe of school- men, among the 'UHse men who became fools in their own self-sufficiency ; and upon these did the most lucrative doctrines of Rome almost entirely depend. But the strange part of the story would be, that this writer should incur the displeasure of protestants, for opposing the do6trine of a popish canon, if later experi- ence had not convinced us how complaisant *' innitl ad acquifitionem iftorum, p. 138." Now this being the re- ligion of the nrft clafs of men he had mentioned before, p. 123. qui ad virtutem, inducuntur ex sola virtutis nobilitate, without any inducement from the magiflrate ; with what truth could the R. R. author afErm, that Pomponatlus, pretended religion to be the $reature oj politics ? Unlefs he will fay that to worfliip God with the whole heart, to pray to him &c, are not religion. Ay ! but by religion the R.R. author meant only future rewards and punifhments. ][Div. Leg, Edit. 4. 1 '755. p. 89.] So it fecms. But if the whole of religion confifls in thefc fanflions, will it not follow upon this au- thor's own principles, that Mofes taught the Jews no religion at all ? Well then, we allow that Pomponatius held future rewards and pu- rifliments to be the creature ofpolitics. But where isthe impiety of this ? For if as Pomponatius alferts, we can have no certainty of im- mortality but from revelation, or the cannonical fcriptures, I would defireto know of the R. R. author, whole creatures thofe future re- wards and punifliments muft be, which were propoled to the Pagans by the ruling powers among them, and which had no connection with revelation ? And it is of fuch future rewards and punifhments only that Pomponatius fpeaks, and of which he lay% in the palfage re- ferred to by the R. R. author, that they were the invention of politi- cians. Henceforward then, Pomponatius is acquitted of all Impiety, except it it be impiety againll human eflablifhinents of religion, with Vvhich indeed he plainly enough declares neither the religion of the gofpel, nor the religion of philofophers can polhbly incorporate. How farheisinthe right is another queftion. But without doubt the R. R, author had his reafons for being difplcafed with the confe- Cjuences that might be drawn from the dottriiie of our Mantuan phi- k>fopher, as totally fubvcrfive of the ingmious principles ol hxi AlUancf, G c. ( CI ) we have been to the catholics in these points,' since those days. Heretic, Impious, Epicu rean. Atheist, Avere liberally bestowed upon Pomponatius on this ocacasion, Avithhow little justice has been shcAvn by Mr. Bayle. And Ave shall see, as we go along, that several eminent men have adopted Pomponatius's general prin- ciple, in contradiftion to a certain sort of phi- losophy, in much higher reputation for the sup- posed perspicuity of its grounds, than that of Aristotle and Aquinas. One of Pomponatius's s3/llogisms is this : " If " Christ is raised from the dead, we shall like- *' Avise rise ; and if Ave rise, the soul is immor- tal : But Christ is raised : Therefore the *' soul is immortal." Considerins: Avhat Avas meant in those davs by immortality of the soul, the consequence is Aveak, and the reasoning pitiful. This howe- verought to have satisfied the philosopher's ad- versaries that he Avas neither atheist nor he- retic. But the objection laid here ; this syl- logism did not account for the intermediate immortality in a state of separate existence. Nothing is mentioned of the substantial form, on Avhich, as we have observed, the soul's ca- pability of purgatorial pains Avas made to de- pend.* I have often Avondered that the modern con- tenders for the separate existence of the soul, should ever be prevailed Avith to giA'e up this * Qiiantutncunque immaterlale in materiale agat, non videtur la- men atlionein converti. Quare et etiam apud Theo logos dubitatio orta eft, quomodo animae cruciari polUnt ab igne corporeo. Pompon, cap. 8. p. 42. ( 62 ) ^ commociious substantial form • or that none of the numerous followers of Des Cartes, Clarke, and Baxter, should think of substituting some- thing in the room of it. When they speak of the happiness of separate souls, they make a tolerable case, and flourish on the spiritual joys of a thinking substance, with great edifi- cation to those wlio are in love with mystic rapture and extacy. But when they come to dispose of the souls of the wicked, they are to- tally at a loss. Some of them are obliged to leave them asleep, [Steffc, &c.] Others talk of punishments by parity of reason, and of their suffering — no bodyknows what or how, [God- dard, &c.] It is very extraordinary they should not recolle6l tliat their catholic predecessors, having substantial forms always at hand, were never under any such embarrassment. C H A P. IV. Luther raiihs the natural immnrtality of the soul among the monstrous opinions of Popery. The grounds of his censure doubtful. IVere not zchat Cardinal Perron supposed them to he. The doctrine of the sleep of the soul es- poused bg Luther on scriptural authority. The Appendix referred to. 1520. In the year 1520, Luther published a defence- s'^ of his propositions condemned by a bull of Leo X. which were in number 41. The 27th runs thus. ( 63 > It is certain that it is not in the power of *' the church or the pope to etsablish articles of faith, or laws for morals or good works." And the reason he gives for this is, that these articles and laws, are already established in the word of God ; which he proves from 1. Cor. iii. 11.* After which he goes on, " but I permit *' the pope to make articles of faith for himself *' and his faithful, such as, the bread and wine «re transiihstayitiated in the sacrament. The *' esse7ice of God neither generates nor is gene- rated. The soul is the substantial form of *' tlie human body. The pope is the emperor of " the xvorld, and the king of heaven, and God upon earth. The soul is immortal, Avith *' all tliose monstrous opinions to be found in *' the Roman dunghill of decretals, that such *' as his faith is, such may be his gospel, such *' his disciples, and such his church, that the mouth may have meat suitable for it, and *' the dish a cover worthy of it." . This ironical permission of Lutheris evident- ly aimed at those decrees of the popes, which * Certumeft in manu Ecclefix aut Papaenon efle flatuere articu- los fidei, imo nec leges morum, nec bonorum operum. Permitto tamen quod Papa condat articulos fidei fibi et fuis fidelibus, quale funt, Paneni et vinum tranfubfiantiari in facramento, Effaitiam Dei nec gencrare, nec generari. Animam ejfe formam fubjlantiakm humani corporis. Se eJfe impcratoremmundi et rcgem cccli, et Dc um terrenum. Animam esse immortalem ; et omnia ilia in- finita portenta in Romano flerquilinio decretorum, ut qualis eft ejus fides, tale fir evangelium, tales et fideles, talis et ecclefia, et [1. ut."| habeant fimilem labra laftucam, et dignum patella fit operculum. — AJfertio articulorum imnium Martini Lutheri, />er bulLam'L^oms X, damiiatirum,^ Oper, Tom. ii. fol, 107, Wittembergac, 1563, { 64 ) were fo uncled upon scholastic determinations.* But more particularly at that Lateran canon ahove-mentioncd, Avhich established the immor- tality of the soul after Aquinas, in consequence of its being the substantial form of the body. Sylvester Pricrias, in his dispute with Luthei", relied almost wholly on the authority, of St. Thomas, whom Luther in his replication, treat- ed M'ith the utmost contempt. f Hence may arise a doubt Avhether Luther in this passage, intended only to reprobate the school doctrine of the immortality of the soul, or to deny the thing itself Cardinal du Perron, supposes Luther denied the immortality of the soul, for the sake of the eftecl the contrary do6trine, would have upon the practice ofinvocating saints.:}; But it is certain that Luther himself had not quite laid aside the practice of invocation, at the time he Avrote this defence of his articles. || Afterwards indeed Luther espoused the doc- trine of the sleep of the soul, upon a scrip- ture foundation, an d then he made use of it as a confutation of purgatory and saint-worship, and continued in that belief to the last mo- ment of his life. I know this hath been controverted even by * The axiom, that the ejfencc of God neither generates nor is ge- nerated, is a fentence of Lombard, which being controverted by the Abbot Joachim, as heretical and abfurd, was patronized and decreed in the Lateran council held under Innoce.it, III, in the year 1215, where Joachim was formaly condemned. Lombard's propolitioa was afierwaids efpoufed and vindicated by Aquinas. f Sleidan. lib. 1 , J Perroniana, motte LuTHE R. II SeckendoiHj in Indice tertio ad annuni Tj21. ( 65 ) some of his own followers. The question upoa many accounts, is worth debating ; and as the' discussion of it would break the thread of our present disquisition, I shall reserve what I have to say upon the subje<5l, for an Appendix ; ob- serving that Luther in his commentary upon Ecclesiastes, which Avas published in the year 1532, Avas clearly and indisputably, on the side of those who maintain the sleep of the soul. CHAP. V. William Tyndall defends Luther against Sir Thomas More's objections to the doctrine of the sleep of tlie soul. This a proof that the doctrine was held bi/ the first reformers. Z)e- serted afterwards by many Protestants. The probable occasion of Tyndall's Protestation. Copy of the said Protestation. Extract of a Letter from Tyndall to Frith, supposed to refer to the contents of the Protestation. In the year 1530, William Tyndall answered j^gQ; Sir Thomas IMore's Dialogue. More objefted^^^ to Luther, that he held, " that all soules lye " and sleep till domes day." It is to be sup- posed, that, if this was not Luther's do6lrIne, Tyndall would have denied it ; or at least / have said, that it was not held by the protes- tants in general. Instead of that he acknows ledges it for the do6^trine of the protestant-, grounded on scripture, as appears by his an- swer. Viz, £ ( (^s ) " And ye in putting them [departed souls] " in lieauen, hell, and purgatory, destroy the " argumentcs t herewith Christ and Paulproue " the rcsurreftion. AA'hat God doth with them, " that shall we know Avhen we come to them. *' The true faith putteth the resurreftion, *' which re be Marned tolooke for euery houre. *' The heathen philosophers denying that, did **' put, that the soules did euer lyue. And the pope ioyneth thespirituall do6trineof Christ, *' and the fleshly doctrine of philosophers to- " gether, things so contrary that they cannot agree, no more than the sperite and the fleshe do in a christen man. And because *' the fleshly minded pope consenteth untohea- then doctrine, therefore he corrupteth the "scripture to stablish it. Moses saith in Deut. *' the secrete thinges pertaine unto the Lord, " and thethynges that be opened pertaine unto 'a us, that we [may] do all that is written in " the booke. Wherefore, Sir, if we loued the " Lawes of God, and would occupy ourselues "to fullill them, and woulde, on the other " side be meeke, and let God alone wyth hys " secretes, and sufter him to be wiser than we, " we should make none article of the faith of " this or that." And aoain : " If the soules " be in heaven, tell me why they be not in as " arood case as the angels be? And then what " cause is there of the resurrection.* Again. 3Iore objeds thus. "What shall " he care, how long heliue in sinne that bele- " ueth Luther, that he shall after this life feele * Tynda!!'s Works publiflieJ by Fox, i573> p« 324. ( ) neyther good noreuill in bodyc nor soule/' untylltlieday ofdome." Tyndall answers, *' Christ and liys apostles taught no other, but " warned to look for Chri«tc\s comming agayne *' euery houre : wliich comming agayne, be- " cause ye beleue will neuerbe, therefore haue " ye fayned that other marchaundise. *" These extracts plainly shew, what was the doftrine espoused by the first reformers upon, this subje6l ; that is to say, they shew what they were charged with by their adversaries, and what they themselves avowed. Tyndall, may observe, ascribes the contrary dodrine (as Luther had done before him) to the pope; an'd in saying, tlmt the pope Joined the spiritual doctri)ie of Christ, and the fleshly doctrine ofl the philosophers together, he plainly alluded to the proofs from scripture alledged in the Late- ran canon, to support the dogma of the Peri- patetics, that the soul is the substantial form of the body ; which the Cartesians afterwards con- sidered as inconsistent with its immateriality, and consequently, destructive of the do6lrine of its immortality. When Tyndall wrote this answer, to Sir Tho- mas More's Dialogue, he did not suspe6l hehad any adversaries upon this point except the pa- pists. But it should seem, that in no longtime after, the protestants had put him to his purga- tion on this article. The canon of the Lateran council determines, that upon the supposition that the soul is mortal, a resurre6lion of the dead is not to be expeded. How they grounded * Tyndall, p. 327, E % ( ^8 ) this conclusion on these premises, does not appear, nor is at all comprehensible. Tlie same notion however had got into tlie heads of some protestants. The contents of the next section will prove the faft, but M ithout enabling us to account for it. It was reserved for a genius of the present age to prove the resurrection of the dead, through the medium of the separate existence of the soul. What we know is, that Tyndall was obliged to publish a solemn protes- tation asserting his orthodoxy on the article of the resurrection of the dead, and the state of departed souls, Mhich he would hardly have done to exculpate himself to the papists. It was more probably occasioned by the oc^^jecli- onsof some protestants to so much of his an- swer to Sir Thomas More, as hath been cited above. Let the reader judge from the terms of the protestation itself. Here it is. xi protestation made by William Tyndall, touching the resun^ection of bodijes, and the state oj' the souks after this life ; adstracted ^abstracted] out of a Preface of his that he made to the nezc testament, zchich he set J'oxth in the yeare 1534. *• Concernyng the resurre6lion, I proteste " before God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, and " before the universall congregation that bc- *' leeueth in him, that I beleeve according to *' the open and manifest scriptures and catho- *' licke faith, that Christ is risen agayne in the " flesh which he receaued of his mother the " blessed virgine Mary, and body wherein he *' died. And that we shall all, both good and " bad, rise both flesh and body, and appear to- " (jither before the judgement seat of Christy ( 69 ) *' to receeue eueiy man according to his " deedes. And that the bodies of all that be- *' lieue, and continue in the true faith of Christ, **shal be indewed with hke immortaUtie and glory, as is the body of Christ. " And I protest before God and our Saviour " Christ and all that beleeue in him, that I *' hold of the soules that are departed, as much *' as may bee proued by manifest and open *' scripture, and thinke the soules departed in " the faith of Christ, and loue of the lawe of *' God, to be in no worse case than the soule of Christ M'as, from the tyme that he deli- ' ' uered his spirite into the handes of his father, *' untill the resurrection of his body in glory *' and immortalitie. Neuertheless, I confesse " openly, that I am not persAvaded, that they *' be already in the full glory that Christ is in, " or the elett angels of God are in. Neither *' is it any article of my faith: for if so it were, I see not but then the preaching of the re- " surreClion of the flesh, Av^ere athyngin vayne. Notwithstanding yet I am ready to beleeue "it, if it may be prooued Avith open scrip- ture."* This protestation being not to be found in any preface or prologue to the former editions of Tyndall's new testament, Avas doubtless cal- culated to obviate some objections Avhich the friends of the reformation had made in the in- terval, to Tyndall's doctrine in his controversy with Sir T. More. If John Fox kncAv any par- ticulars concerning the oifence given by Tyn- * See Tyndall's works publilhed by Fox, 1573, at the begiiininc; ef the book. ( 70 ) dall to the protestants on this head, he hath left us in the dark, making no mention of any such offence, either in his ads and monuments, or in the abridgement of Tyndalfs Life prefixed to his edition of his works. There is a letter of Tyndall to Frith, pre- served by Fox, * wherein is a caution Avhich seems to allude to this controversy, — " You Avill," says Tyndall, " crepe alow by the ground, " and walk in those things that the conscience may feel, and not in the imaginations of the *' brain; in fear, and not in boldness; in open " and necessary things, and not to pronounce " or define of hid secrets, or things that neither " help or hinder, whether they be so or no; in unitie, and not in seditious opinions; inso- " much, that if you be sure you know, yet in " things that may abide leisure, you will deferr, or say (t\\\ other agree with you) methink the text requireth this sense or understand- *' ing: yea and that if you be sure that your " part be good, and another hold»the contrary, yet if it be a thing that maketh no matter, " you will laugh and let it pass, and referr the " thing to other mxcn, and stick you stijjiy and " stubbornly in earnest and necessary things.'' This admonition v/as written in the year 1533, and certainly alludes to differences of opinion among the protestants themselves, and particularly to this concerning tb.e state of de- parted souls, which as we have seen, Tyndall, in his answer to Sir T. More, put among the .secrets of God. These Avere intimations which, in his disputes with the papists, Frith did uot * A£ts and Mod, Part ii. p. 087. and Tyndall's works, p. 455, ( 71 ) want; anti I liave cited them only to shew the probability that Tyndall's protestation had re- spect chiefly to protestant obje6tors. For that such there were will be seen in the next chap- ter.* * Tyndall indeed gives teftlmony in this letter to Frith, and alfo in his proteftation, to another original and important maxim of the firfl; reformers, namely, to Jiick flijjly and Jiubbornly to necejfary things, that is, to things that may be openly and manifejtly proved by the fcriptures ; and to make no article of faith of this or that, ztihick may not be Jo proved, and confequently is not necejfary. This indeed is not a doftrine likely to be adopted by councils and convocations. Churchmen in high ftations prcfuite to hold their authority by a different tenure ; but it is neverthclefs the true ori- ginal doQrine of the reformation, and they who chufe Jliffiy and jiub'' bornly to flick to another rule, fliould find a denomination more pro- perly defcriptive of their principles, than that of proteftant. What Tyndall thought of the neceffity of believing the intermediate hap- pinefs of fouls departed in the faith of Chrift, may be underftood by his declaration, that, in his opinion, if this were an article of faith, the preaching of the refurre£tion of the flefli were a thing in vain. There is great reafon to believe that the arguments of the early pro- teftants againft purgatory and faint-worfliip, implied their belief of the fleep of the fou!. The eighteenth of the articles exhibited ia Scotland in 1546, againft George Wifliart wk in thefe words. Thoujaljt heretic hajl preached openly, faying, that the foul of man fliall flecp to the latter day of judgment, and fliallnot obtain life immortal until that day. To which Wifliart anfwered, " God " full of mercy and goodnefs forgive them that fay fuch things of *' me. I wot and know furely by the word of God, that he which *' hath begun to have the faith of Jefus Chrifts, and believeth firmly " in him, I know furely the foul of that man fliall never fleep, hue " ever fliall live an immortal life. The life which is renewed from *' day to day in grace and augmented; nor yet fliall ever perifli or " have an end, but ever immortal fliall live with Chrift. To ^vhich *' life all that believe in him lhall come, and refl in eternal glory." Fox. Afls and Mon. p. 1157. There is an obfcurity, and proba- bly an intesded ambiguity in this good man's anfwer. Perhaps a paflage in Luther's Table-talk, may give fome light into his moan- ing. He fays of the godly who are afflitied on earth, " true it is, " they have peace in faith, but the fame peace is invifible, and fur- " pafleth all human conceit ; infomuch that being even in death, <' feeling no life at all, we muH neverthelefs believe we live." p. 402, A '^2 ) CHAP. VL CALVIN'S Psychopannychia. The time and place of its publication remarkable. On 'what account. An angry, abusive, xceak perform onance. His arguments and proofs adopted, by modern Psychopannychists. Disingenu- ous with respect to the anabaptists. And the heathen philosophers, 1534. About this time, 1534, Calvin had begun to figure, and two years after Luther liad pub- lished the commentary just mentioned, Calvin put out a small tract at Orleans, which he iji- tituled, Psypchopannychia, by which word is signified that the soul wakes throughout the •whole night of death, with all the conscious- ness and sensibility necessary to the enjoyment of happiness. There is something remarkable in tlie time and place of this publication. In this very year 1534, and in this very city of Orleans, a ghost was conjured up by the Franciscans, which played a number of pranks, ' much in the style of the late Cock-lane spirit, and with much the same views of spite and re- Both Luther and Wifliait evidently refer to the text. He that livcth and beluveth in me JJiall never die. Wifliart indeed adds afterwards, / know Jurely that my faith is Juch. that my foul jhall Jup with Chrijl ere it be fix hours. Alluding to our Saviour's pro- mife to the penitent thief. Be it hovi^ever obferved. that this life of the foul depends entirely upon faith. What became of the fouls of unbelievers (to which probably the accufation more immedia.tely related) wishart fayeih not, ( 73 ) venge.* Sleidan, y/ho tells tlie story, having related how much the impostures were pitied and relieved, under their corrc6tion, by the populace, and particularly by the good m omen, proceeds to observe what excellent purposes of the ecclesiastical kind, were answered by these same spedrcs, particularly iu supporting the doctrine of purgatory, encouraging private masses, and bringing in large prolits to the priests. " But, continues he, after Luther's doftrine came to be understood, and had *' gained a little strength, this kind of spe6lres " by degrees vanished away. For Luther *' teaches from the scriptures, that the souls of *' the dead are at rest, waiting for the final day *' of judgment; and that those disturbances, ** frightful noises and phantoms are raised by " satan, who loses no opportunity of confirm- " ing men in the pra6lice of impious rites, and *' the belief of false opinions, that he may ren- *' der inefFe6lual the blessings conferred upon us by our Saviour Christ, "f Now Calvin had composed his book seven years before its publication at Orleans ; and why he should chuse this critical season to disclose these sentiments, would be hard to say. Some part of this year he spent at Paris, and most probably he came not to Orleans, till the latter end of it. The juggle of the Franciscans, and the process against them, run out into a great * Rogatus quid vellet [novicius] et quis eflTet? fignificat ron fibl licere loqul, Jiibeiur ergo per ligna refpondere ad interrogala, roramcn erat factum, per quod admotis auribus, exorcifts vocem haurire peterat ct intelligere. Deinde tabulam habebat ad manum, ^uam interrogatus, feriebat, + Sleidan comment, L, IX. p. 239-^242, ( 74 ) length of time, and as this- incident M'as consi- derable enough to find a place in Sleidan's hi- story, it could be no secret to Calvin. But ad- mit tliat Calvin's book made its appearance before the Franciscan speftre ; it is certain that Luther's doctrine, mentioned by Sleidan, was still earlier by some years ; and it is equally certain, that in proportion as Luther's princi- ple bore down the trade of apparitions, that of Calvin, would encourage and promote it. Luther, by consigning all the dead to a state of rest and sleep, left no pretence for the appearance of human souls after death. But Calvin managed his matters so, that though he "vvas willing to suppose the souls of the eleft, were in such a state of felicity, as would not admit of their being interrupted by worldly considerations; yet he left the sons of per- dition to their liberty. For he says, ''it is ** nothing to him what becomes of their ?,on\s, ; *' he would only be responsible for the faitli- ful: * which Lsuppose, has given tlie hint to all succeeding Psychopannichists, to be so ex- feeding shy of mentioning the condition of wicked souls in a separate state : fearing, as it should seem, to burn their fingers in purga- tory. In the mean time, as all the spectres of the monks were manufaciurcd out of these Avicked souls, it -w as iio contem])tible favour to leave tlicni access to this rej)robate group; one of * Quod fi quis ipforitm adhuc obfirepit, qjiid pcrditionis Jiliis Juturuii, Jit? Nihil ad iios. Ego pro hdelibus reipondec— ( 75 ) these, has occasionally tjeen worth more to a church or a conveiit, than a dozen saints. As to the hook itself, it is hot, furious, and abusive. The Hj/pnologists, as lie calls them, are bablers, madmen, dreamers, drunkards ; in one word, anabaptists and catabaptists, under which name he says, are comprehended all sorts and kinds of wickednesses.* Happily for them, his arguments are as feeble and sophistical as they themselves could wish. Such as they are hoM-ever, they have furnished all the orators and disputants for the consciousness of the separate soul, from that day to this, with scrip- tural authorities. For Calvin had so much Avit in his anger, as not to meddle with tlie philo- sophical arguments for immortality. f But though he charges the anabaptists with first broaching the dodrine of the sleep of the soul, in these latter days, he is nevertheless obliged to own, that some thousands were in that Avay of thinking, and some of these good men ; that is to say, not anabaptists. Whence it appears, that he very well knew this do6trine was no Avay connected with the pernicious ex- travagancies of those enthusiasts; though this * And yet he has the modefly to fay in his fecond preface, quan- quam nec contra eos j^aRabaptiftas] nili modicc bilem effudi ; ut qui ab omni procacilate et loquendi petulantia perpetuo abftinuerim. + " Valeant philofophi, fays he, quibus, cum in omnibus pene rebus folerane fit, nec finem, nec modum facere dilfenfionibus'; *' Hic ita inter fe rixantur, ut vix duos tefies habiturus fi?, in qua- " cunque tandem opmione acquiefcas." He acknowledges however that Plato and Arillotle have difcourfed excellently on the faculties of the foul, but that you would in vain confult them for any juft ac- count of its fubftance or origin. However, he thinks them upon the whole wifer and more orthodox than the HypnehgiJlSf who boaft that they are difciples of Cluiftj fol, 1, v. ( 76 ) he is disingenuous enough to insinuate in di- vers passages. * He says likewise In one of his prefaces, "that *' they M'ho hold the opinion he endeavours to "confute, pay no regard to the scriptures ;" even Avhilc he is labouring and sw eating to set aside the force of a great number of texts they bring from thence. Among other things, he takes notice of an objetlion to his system, drawn from the silence of the scriptures, touching any rewards and punishments but those of a final judgment. lie acknowledges the fa6t, but will not allow of the consequence. " I answer, says he, that ** Christ is our head, whose kingdom and glory *' have not yet appeared. If the members ** were to go before the head, the order of things *' would be perverted and preposterous. But *' we shall then foUo^v our prince, when he *' shall come in the glory of his Father, and " sit upon the thione of his majesty. Iji the *' ineun lime, that livctli, ^hich is in us, of, *' or from God, namely our spirit, because *' Christ /ivethwho is our l//'e ; for it would be *' absurd that we should perish, while our lif e * Calvin wrote two prefaces to his Pfychopannychia, the one at Orleans 1534) the other at Bafil 1536, accommodated to the two ciliiions of his book. Both thefe prefices are in the Strafburgh tdition of 1545. It is only in the latter of them that he allows fome of ihofe who held the (Isep of the ioui, to be good men. Pofhbly he might have heard of Tyndall, and fome others of the fame fenti- jnents as good as hirafelf, whom he coulJ, with no decency, rank Vi ith fuch wretches as he had made the anabaptifts in his firft pre- face. Ilis words however fufliciently fiiew, that there were more than Luther and Tyndall who differed from him on this article, whom he had no right to fuppofe, as he does, to be raore credu!ou?j or fiiorc igrioran; of the fcriptures, than himft-'if, ( 77 ) 'Uiveth. And because our life is in God, it is therefore iviili God and happy.* It would be doing too mucli honour to his contemptible .string of quibbles to offer a re- plication. We therefore bid John Calvin good night, observing only that one might bring his own commentaries, composed in his riper years, to confront the foolish interpretations of many scriptures cited in the Psychopcumy- chia. CHAP. VII. The doctrine of the immortality of the soul ex- hibited in the protestant confessions of faiths Little or nothing of it in the earliest of them. Obscure and ambiguous on the article of saint worship. The first Helvetic confession si-^ lent as to the doctrine of the souTs immor- tality. The doctrine asserted in that of W'w- tenbergh. In what terms. Inconsistency of the Saxon confession of 1551. Poorly qualifed by the Gallic and Belgic harnioni- zers. The obnoxious clause left out by tJie editors of the Corpus Confessionum of \Q\Q. In no long time, the doftrine of the separate 1530- existence of the soul began to creep into the gg, public confessions of divers protestant church- es, and consequently to be equally sacred among the reformed, as the canons of Clement and Leo had made it among the papists. Hitherto indeed no formal confession of the * Pfychopan, fol. 35« ( 78 ) protestant faith had publicly appeared, except those presented to the Emperor, Charles V. at the diet of Aiigsburgh, 1530, one by the Elec- tor of Saxony and the princes his adherents, knoMHi by the name of the confession of Augs- burgh; and another by the free cities of Stras- burgh, Constance, jMemmingen, and Lindau., The latter has nothing concerning the im- mortality of the soul, nor any thing tending to discover the sentiments of the subscribers, on that subject.. The other which was drawn upbyMelanclhon, touches upon it very lightly, in the article concerning the invocation of saints, upon the pretence, that the writers among the Lutherans had been very full on the subjecl. This want of precision begat conferences between the papists and protestants, M'herein the latter are said to have allowed, " that saints and an- gels intercede for us, and were therefore to *' be honoured but not invoked."* This and other concessions mentioned during this diet, are put to the account ofMelandhon's timidity. Whether he ever made such a concession is yet a problem, t nor does such allowance seem to be very consistent with the argument m the confession, viz. " that invocation of saints at- tributes omnipotence to the dead, and implies *' that the saints know the motions of men's " hearts. '":{: Be that as it might, this doctrine of intercession, under certain limitations, Avas * Maimbonrg Hift. Luth, apud Seckendorf. 1. ii. pag. 178. + Vid. Seckendorf. l.iii. p. 548. i Corpus ConfeG, p. 28. partis 2iz, ( 79 ) afterwards admitted by some of the Lutherans, as we shall presently see. The first Helvetic confession, exhii)ited by Bucer a.nd C(ipitoa.t the convention of divines at Wittembergh, in the year 1536, and after- wards by Bucer alone at Siualcald L537, makes no mention of the separate soul, or caring for the dead. This confession, and that of the fourfree cities above-mentioned, were probably both drawn up by Bucer.* * I take thefe accounts from the liarmony of confefTions publiHted at Geneva 1581. Perhaps it may be thought Ilrange that fofew of the reformed churches as were then in being, fliould have had any- formal confeflion for fo long a time, particularly that there fltould be anmterval of fourteen years, viz. from 1537 ^55'' wherein we have no account of any new formulary of that kind. There were probably particular churches who had their objeftions tothefe explicit confeflions, on account of the difference of opinion among them, upon particular articles, and for want of a leader of fuflicient anthoriiy to enforce an aflent to them. Calvin, as we are informed by Mr. Bayle, [Dift. Art. Calvin.] made all the people of Geneva folemnly abjure popery, and fwear to a prefcribed form of faith, in 1537. But his Itiffnefs in fome points of difciphne, occafioned his dilmiifion, or ra- ther banifliment from Geneva the year following. He was recalled in 1541, and recovered his authority and influence, not only at Ge- neva, but in the reformed churches at a dillance, viz. in France. Ger- many, England, Poland, &c. [Bayle, u. s.] However the deference paid to his judgment, was not without its limits, particularly in the article of publilhing confeflions of faith. This appears from two letters of his, the one to Luther, the other to Malancthon, complaining of the backwardnefs of the French on this head. Cum Gallos nojiros viderem, [fays he to Luther,] quotquot a icncbris Papatus ad fani' tatem Jidci rcduEli erant, nihil tamen de confejfione viutare, ac pe- rinde fe polluere facrilegiis papijlarum, ac Ji nullum vcrce doElrina gujlum haberent, temperare vahi non potui quin tantam hanc focor- diam, Jicuti meojudicio merebant, acriter reprchcndercm. Qiialis cnim ha:c Jides, quce inlus in animo Jepulta, nullimin Jdei confcffio- nem erumpit ?Q^ualis religio qua: fub idololatria: fmulationc dcmerfa jacct ? This Letter is fubjoined to Alexander More's oration inti- tuled CALVi.NUS. pubhfiied by Gamonct. 1648. He tells Luther ( 80 ) In the year JJ.51, confessions were prepared to be exhibited to the council ofTrent by divers protestant states and churches, among others, by tlie Duke of ^V'irtenburgh, and by the churches of Saxony. ' ' We acknowledge, say the Wirtenburghers, " that the saints in heaven pray for us before *' God, siio quodam nwdo.''' In the next chapter they say, " faith requires that we should think " that tlie dead are not nothing, but that they " trulylive before God ; the pious liappily in *' Christ ; the wicked in an horrible expefta- " tion of the revelation of divine judgment."* Wresting thus what the Apostle Heb. x. 27, says of apostates in this world, to the interme- diatestate ofthe impious dead ; as indeed Calvin had done before them, f afterwards, that lie had written two books npon the fubjeft, which had in part awakened fomc ofihcm toafenfe of their duty, and had occa- lioned a q ;cflion among them, what they ihould do ? They objected, it feems, that to publifli a confeffion, would expofe them to perfecuti- on. liut Calvin was obliged to own, that they had other fpecious reafons, which he could not anfwer to their fatisfaftion, and there- fore, at their requell, applied to Luther, for a final determination. This Letter is dated Feb. i8, 154,5. Calvin's letter to Melantt- hon is of the fame date, and was fent bv the fame melTenger. Luther never anfwered this letter that 1 can find. Melantthon fent his judgment to Calvin, which the latter afterwards publiflied. The main difputc feems to have been whether it was lawful for a proteftant to be prefetit at popifli worlhip, and to join ;n their ceremonies or not ? Calvin, who held the negative, thought the publication of their ccnfeihon would effectually prevent the practice. The French churches however, had no formal confeflion till the year 1559. * Harmon. Conf. p. 14 i mze partis. + Ubi ocLili mentis noftrae, qui nunc fepulii in came, hebetes funt, abfterlerint banc velui lippitudinem, vidcbimusqus expectabamus, et ea lequie delei'iabimur. Nequc cnim veremiir id poft apoftolum di- cere, qui e converfo dicit 4,3%av7w sy.?;>iT. manere reprobas. Si hsc terribilis, ilia fane et leta, et beatamerito vocabitur, Pfvcho* pan,. 35. f. v. ( 81 ) The Saxons say, In tliis faith [viz. of the *' three creeds] we invocate the true God, Avho *' manifested himself to his church by sending " his son, and adding other illustrious testimo- " nies, joyjiing our prayers with all saints in " heaven and earth.'' in another place how- ever they affirm, " that the saints are dead, and " cannot hear the prayers of their votaries,"* and how in that case they can "Joyn with them " in prayer," is a little incomprehensible. However, when the harmonizers of the protes- tant confessions, under the auspices of th6 Belgic and Gallican churches, undertook in the year 1581, to make all things smooth and con- sistent, they found themselves under a neces- sity of applying a corre6live to these doctrines of the Saxons and Wirtenberghers, as follows. " Joyning our Prayer.^ We learn in many *' places of the holy scripture, that the angels, *' according to the nature of the ministry which " they are sent to perform, do further the salva- *' tion of the godly, and it is evident from that ** saying, love doth not fall axcay, and by Apoc. *' vi. 10, that the spirits of the saints taken " up unto Christ, do with their holy desires, IN" " SOME SORT, help forward thegraceand good- "nessofOod, touching the full deliverance ** of the church. And we judge that as Avell ia " this as other places of the same confession, and also that place in the 23d chap, of the *' confession of Wirtenbergh, which foUoweth after the second se6tion, p. 45 [p. 48 of the *' latin] are so to be interpreted. And we ac- ** knowledge no other intercession or intieat* * Corpus Conf.p, 72. & 125, zdsepartis. ( 82 ) ing, either of the blessed angels, or of the "spirits of holy men, that are now departed " from us."* Prohhfecistis, incertiorsum multo quam dudum. When people say the saints pray for them, intercede for them, and that they are better for such intercession, though I know they are mis- taken, I know at least what they mean. But when I am told, " that (not the prayers, but) " the desires of the saints, do, in some sort help forward the grace and goodness of God, " in the full deliverance of the church," I am bewildered in a mist of words, to which I can fix no ideas. The editors of the Corpus Conf essionum, made shorter work with the Saxons still, by exhibit- ing their confession without the clause, cow;2<«c- td precatione nostra. I was going to say, y<2/r/y,/ till I cast my eye by chance on the first Avords of the preface to this colleftion, viz. Ei hiben- ter in hoc mlumine, celeberrimce confessiones Jidei, e.r optimis (juibusque editionibus, ex omni PARTE INTEGRA. For my part, I cannot help commiserating the distress of these poor men, who having once allowed the saints a conscious existence in heaven, were so hard put to it to keep clear of the consequences. ♦ See the obfervations at the end of the Harmony of Confe^m ms, Obf. I. upon the Saxon confefHon: ( 83 ) CHAP. VIIL The 40th of K. Edward the 6fh"s Articles, the jirst instance of the express condeinnation of the doctrine of the sleep of the soul, in a pro- testant confession. A passage from Bishop Burnet relative to those Articles. A conjec- ture at whom that article was aimed. The article dismissed upon the review in 1562. There was however as yet, nothing in any 1553. of these confessions, which formally condemned the doftrine of the sleep of the soul, as an he- resy. The Lutherans, as appears by the parti- culars above recited^ halted between two opini- ons. Whatever Luther's private sentiments were, he had no where decided dogmatically on the subjedl ; and the difference between his followers, and those of Zuinglius concerning the sacrament, so wholly engrossed the attenti- on of both parties, that other matters were much overlooked. The honour of first condemning this tenet was reserved for our English reformers, who in the 40th of King Edward's articles composed in the year 1552, and published the year following, expressed themselves thus. " They who say that the souls of such as de- "part hence do sleep, being without all sense, *' feeling, and perceiving, until the day of judgment, or affirm that the souls die Avith the bodies, and at the last day shall be raised " upAviththe same, do utterly dissent from the ( 84 ) right belief declared unto us in the holy " scripture." Bishop Burnet, speaking of these articles, says, " Thus was the do6trine of the church cast into a short and plain form, in which they took care both to establish the positive *' articles of religion, and to cut off the errors ''formerly introduced in the time of popery, " or of late broached by the anabaptists and *' enthusiasts of Germany ; avoiding the nice- " ties of schoolmen, and the peremptoriness of *' the writers of controversy."* One may be pretty sure that this article was not aimed at any error of popery ; and what business had our reformers to condemn the en- thusiasts of Germany, in a point of do6lrine which had not been censured publicly by the orthodox of their own country ? It is probable the doftrine here condemned had been held and propagated by some of our own people at home. *' There were," says Strype, " a looser sort of *' professors of religion, a sort of anabaptists, "who, a little before that time, had private *' meetings, wherein they proposed odd questi- *' ons, and vented dangerous do6lrines and " opinions. Of these the council having no- *' tice, they thought it veiy fit to discounte- nance and restrain them."f • The truth is, whoever in those days enter- tained any opinion out of the common road, was called an anabaptist, though perhaps he did not know what Avere the distinguishing dodlrines * Burnet's Hlft.Ref.vol.il. p. i6,8, t Life of Crannier,p. 233, ' .av-^-J ( 85 ) of that se6l. Just as in these latter times they who have been troublesome to the professors of the orthodox system, have been classed Avith arians, socinians, methodists, &c. But whatever was the motive with King Ed-1562. ^ ward's reformers to declare against the sleep ofwv, the soul in this preremptory manner, when the articles came to be reviewed in 1562, by Parker and his associates, this40tharticle was dropped; in consideration, as it should seem, that by al- lowing separate souls to have sense, feeling, and perception, the doctrines of purgatory, and invocation Avould very naturally follow. It is for their honour too, to suppose they had looked into the scriptures with a little more care and sagacity than their predecessors, and could not find the right belief mentioned in the article. CHAP. IX. The ^ecow^/ Helvetic confession totally Calvinls- tical. Condemns the doctrine of the Sleep of the Soul. Remarks upon the seventh article of it. Adopts the peripatetic doctrine of sub- stantial forms. Anathematises in the terms of a popish canon. Condemns inadvertentlif a doctrine of Calvin. Part of the 9.7th ar- ticle of it. Espouses the Florentine doctrine of the immediate migration of holy Souls to Heaven. In the year \5G6, was published the secondl56^, Helvetic confession, fabricated entirely uponwy, ( 85 ) the Calvlnistical plan. Luther had now been long out of the way, and the reign of Calvin at Geneva had determined by his death, but two years before. Beza succeeded him, and most probably drcAv up this confession, of which the following- is part of the seventh article, in- tituled, of the creation of all things, of angels^ the devil, and man. " We hold that man consists of two, and " those different substances in one person ; of ** an immortal soul, seeing that, being separ- ated from the body, it neither sleeps nor "dies; and of a mortal body, which yet, at *' the last judgment, shall be raised from the " dead, that the whole man from thencefor- *' ward may remain to eternity, either in life *' or death. We condemn all who scoff at the immortality of the soul, or bring it into doubt by subtle disputations, or who say that the soul sleeps, or that it is a part of God."* Who sees not in this protestant canon, the features of that of the Lateran council? 1. Mr. Bayle, apologizing for Pomponatius, has the following remark. ' ' In Pomponatius's time they knew of no philosophical system but that of Aristotle, so that to assert that " the immortality of the soul could not be " proved by the principles of that philosopher, " and to assert that it could not be proved by " philosophical reasons, was one and the same * 'thing, "t What Bayle says of the time of Pomponati- us, is equally true of the time of Calvin and * Corp, Confefs. p. 25. imx partis. V i Bayle, POMPOXACE rem, [F.J ( 87 ) Beza. The do6lrine of the two substances iu man, is founded upon the philosophy of Aris- totle, in the Helvetic, as well as in the Roman. Bull. Calvin was as deep in substantial forms, as Clement or Leo : and as it might be made appear by his account of election, reprobation, grace, &c. had as much occasion for them. 2. The Helvetic heroes as Avell as the ponti- fician, are for prohibiting all disputes upon the question concerning the immortality of the soul, and both under the same anathema. Dam- namus et reprohamus, Sec. 3. The Helvetians say, *''we condemn all ** Avho assert that the soul is a part of God." Calvin, if I mistake not, asserted something very like it, in a passage cited above out of Psychopannychia. He calls the soul, id quod in nobis ex Deo est. If by ex Deo, he meant on\y from God, the same may be said of every ingredient in our composition. But his ex- pression shews that he meant to distinguish the soul from something else which was not e.v Deo, in the same sense at least. How this dis- tinction can be explained without considering the soul, as discerptum quiddam ex Deo, I see not. In the twenty-sixth article of the same con- fession, we meet with the following passage. "We believe that the faithful migrate di- *' reftly from their corporeal death to Christ, " and therefore do not want the pra3^ers, litur- gies, or liturgic offices of the living for the " dead. Also we believe that the Avicked are dire6lly precipitated into hell, from whence " there is no outlet for impious persons, to be " procured by any offices of the living." ( 88 ) If this is really the case, not only liturgic offices, but even a resurreftion, and a future judgment are needless things. Be it remarked that this is the first time we meet Avith the Flo- rentine do6trinc, of immediate niigratioti to Christ (noted as a deviation from the primitive creed by Bp. Taylor, as above; publicly avowed by a protestant church. However, so little careful were these Helvetians of expressing themselves accurately and consistently, that in another place of this very confession, the souls or spirits of the saints get no higher than the stars. Postquam astrapetiisset spirit us. Art. V, The Scottish confession, art. 17 th, declores against the sleep of the soul. Curious par- ticulars relating to this cojifession. Does owt harmonize with the second Helvetic touch- ing the immediate tnigration of holy souls to Christ, or the direct precipitation of the •wicked and imbelievers into hell. 1568. 1 HESE last particulars remind me of our 15 80. neighbours the Scots, whom 1 was in some confession was offered in, and ratified by the parliament at Edinburgh, August 17, * of which here followeth the seventeenth article. CHAP. X. In the year 1560, their * See Spotfwood's Hift. of the church of Scotland, B.iii.p. 15O. Ed. 1677. where are fome circumftances much to the honotirof our reforming neighbours ( 89 ) The ele6t departed are in peace, and rest " from their labours : not that they slepe and *' come to a certain oblivion, as some tantas- *' ticks do affirme: but that they are delivered " from all fear and torment, and all temptati- ons to which we and all God's ele6tare sub- *'je6l in this life, and therefore do bear the name of the church militant: as contrari^ *' wise, the reprobate and unfaithful departed " have anguish and paine that cannot be ex- *' pressed. So that neither are the one nor the other in such slepe that they fele not their " torment" [1. joy or torment,] * for which they quote, Luke xvi. 22, 23. xxiii. 43, Jpoc. vi. 9, I am afraid this article will by no means harmonize with the Helvetic migration of holy souls to Christ, nor with direi't precipitation of the Avicked and unbelievers into hell. The happiness of the saints here mentioned, is all of the negative sort, and though positive tor- ments and anguish are, in this Scottish confes- sion, made the portion of the wicked, yet \yq * I tranfcribe this from a copy of the Scottifli confefTion, printed at London, by Rouland Hall, 1561, faid to be fet forth and autho- rized according to the Quenes Majcflies injunRions, [^Elizabeth.] It is exafHy the fame which is at the end of the Englifh tranflatioa of the Hnrmo)iy oj Conjcfjions^ of which 1 have two editions, and all three agree in faying that, "neither the one nor the other feel their " torment." But the latin in the Corpus Conjeffionum, has it, ut neque hi neque illi,adco dormiunt, quin fentmnt in qua condiiione verfcntur. In the hiflory of the reformation in Scotland afcribed to John Knox, the words arc, " fo that neither are the one nor ilie " other in fuch flepe, that they feel not joy or torment." The latin tranflation of this confefFion was made by a Scotch nobleman (then probably an exile in Switzerland) who, in a fhort preface, (peaks of u as "firlt pubhflied in the year 1568, and being only in the Scot- ( 90 ) find it all ends in this, that neither the one nor the other are so fast asleep, but that they are sensible of their condition. The hypothesis of the Scots seems to admit of an increase of hap- piness and- misery after the resurrection j that of the Helvetians Avill admit of none. CHAP. XI, The confession of the 'RemonstYo.nts censured di/ ^/(eCalvinists Jor omitting to mention the im- inediate migration of good souls to Heaven. Ascribe this omission to Socinianism. Epis- copius's sensible anszver, Exiremeli/ pro~ mking to the Calvinists, as recriminating upon their master. The great confusion of protestant writers of those times on this sub^ ject. Accounted for by Lud. Capellus; who does not stand clear of confusion himself. An instance of it, 1^12. Accordingly when, in the year leif}, Vv^^the confession of the remonstrants appeared, the calvinists censured it, among other things, *' tifli dialefl, had not been, thr;! he knew of, communicated to other churchrs." It is unaccountable that this nobleman fliould rot know, that this very confefTion was In print fevsral years before. That it had not been communicated to foreign proteftant churches is probable enough from t'le following circumllances. " In the year 1567. the churches of Geneva, Berne, and Bafil, with other re- " formed churches of Germany and France, fent to the whole church " of Scotland the fum of the confeffion of their faith, defiring to *' know, if they, the Scots agreed in uniformity of doftrine, alledg- <' ing, liiat the church of Scotland was dilfonantin feme articles from «• them." To this the church, of Scotland with Knox at their head, aniwrrcd, " that they agreed in all points with thofe churches, and «' riifFered in nothing from ihem, albeit in the keeping of fome fefli- ( 91 ) for omitting to mention, the happy immortal- ity of souls in heaven, after this life, which, they say, is expressly delivered in their cate- chism ; and for this omission, the remonstrants are accused of socinianism.* Episcopius defends himself and his brethren by observing, "that the judgments of the *' greatest divines had formerly, and still did *' vary, concerning the state of departed souls ; " that the fathers seemed to be pretty well *' agreed, that no souls were admitted into par- adise, till our Saviour by his death, opened " the door and went in, with the penitent thief in his company r that though all the fathers ** doAvn to the end of the fourth century, judged " that the souls of the faithful were received *' into paradise after our Lord had opened it, yet they were far from agreeing what or where *' this paradise was. Some understood that it meant Heaven, others Hades, not the place *' of torment but a common receptacle where *' the souls of the good and liad were reserved *'till the last judgment, for which he cites " val days, their church affented not, for only the fabbath was kept "in Scotland." p. 436. The ready way to convince thefe foreign churches of this agreement, had been, to fend them an authentic copy of the Scottifh confefiion, that they might judge for themfelves. The confefhon fent to Scotland on this occafion, was undoubtedly the fecond helvetic, which, as is obferved above, differed from the Scottifh one in the article of migration ; -though pofllbly the Scots were not aware of it. Thefe feflival days, and fome ceremonies had been abolifhed at Geneva, and that model Knox adopted in Scot- land. Afterwards, in 1538 ihe feflivals, &c. were reftored at Ge- neva, by an aft of a fynod held at Laufanne. Calvin and Farel refufed to fubmit to this reftoration, and on account of that and fome other fcruples, were obliged to leave the city. See Bayle's Difl, CALVIN. Rem, [K.] * Apologia pro confelTione remonftrantium, cap. xix. ( 52 ) La6laiitius, lib. vii. cap. 21. The greek " fathers, he says, were unanimous in their " opinion, that the souls of the saints did not *' enjoy the vision of God, nor were admitted *' into the fruition of glory, till the resurrec- *' tion ; and that Cah in himself seems to have " favoured this notion, both in his Psychopan- " nychia and in his institutions : * and lastly, " that the socinians themselves acknowledge ** as much concerning the reception of souls " into heaven, immediately after their depar- *' ture from the body, as is expressed in the " general M'ords of their catechism, &c."t The calvinists, I believe, must have been grievously provoked and mortified by this re- ply of Episcopius, the truth of which they could not deny. To shew that they Avent against the stream of the most orthodox fathers in their catechism, v. as bad enough. But that was a small matter in comparison of his putting it out of their power to fix socinianism on the * LuJcvicus Capellus publiilied a tract intituled, de hmninumpoji mcrtan fiatu ufque ad ultimum judicii diem, wherein he attempts to prove, againft the received opinion, "that the feparaie foul doth not go immediately to heaven or hell upon the death of the bodr, but remains in a ftate of expectation, w hich is a ftate of happinefs " or mifery, according as the loal is confcioiis of the good or evil of *' its by-fpent hfe, during its union with the body." See a collec- tion of his pieces in folio printed at Amfterdam, 1 689. In this traft, Capellus cites thefe paflages of Calvin, mentioned by Epifcopius, as agreeing with his opinion, but is obliged to add fuch comments and explanations to Calvin's words as plainly fliew the fentiments of that reformer to have been bv no means clear and precife upon the fub- jecL Calvin indeed was far from being mafter of the queftion ; and one may difcover in his exprefTions a kind of perple.Kity, which was plainly fuggefted by the fear of giving advantages to his adverfaries ef diSerent denominations. t /jpol. pro Confr.f. Remonft, 11. s, ( 93 ) remonstrants, without stigmatizing their ve- nerable master with the same brand-mark. The reader will not expe6l that I, who pro- fess to consult his ease as well as my own, should take notice of a thousandth part of the various scribblings on the immortality of the soul, with which every subdivision of the pe- riod we have gone through was pestered, by papists, and protestants, by men of all sects and heresies, and even by Jews and Mahome- tans. It is but good manners to suppose, that they who presided in christian churches, and to whom the formation of public systems of do6trinewas left, would select the quintessence of all the learning that had ever been employed in elucidating any particular subject. It is our misfortune that they seem to have suc- ceeded worse on the question before us than upon any other. I mean this of our protestant ancestors. For to what do all their determin- ations amount, but to a confused jumble of in- consistent notions concerning an intermediate state, which while one set are labouring to prop by scripture hints and innuendos, in conse- quence of the old system of natural immortal- ity, another are endeavouring to pull down, in order to keep out purgatory, by proving* that the scriptures speak of two states ow/y, heaven and hell. It may probably be neither unentertaining nor unedifying to subjoin the account that Capellus gives of the original of this distress. "Some," says he, "perhaps may wonder, " how it has happened, if our opinion is the " more probabl^, that both protestant and po- pish divines have agreed in that opinion ( 9^ ) which we oppose ; (viz, that the souls of good men go immediately to heaven:) I answer, that both the one and the other have departed from the primitive opinion of the ancient fathers of the christian church, and espoused tl)is other, but with very different and con- trary views. The papists, in order to sup- port their erroneous practice of invocating the saints, thought it convenient, that the saints should be stationed, before the resur- reftion, in the third heaven, where the blessed enjoy the beatiiic vision of God, and where, in their fictitious mirreur of the divine es- sence, they might behold all things which are transacted upon earth : and that being by tliis means nearer, and consequently more like unto God, they might seem to be pro- perer obie61s of our prayers, vows and religi- ous worship. It was therefore the spirit of superstition and idolatry, wliich drove the papists into 'this opinion. But the protes- tants, having another popish error to oppose, namely purgatory, and the proper satisfaftioii for sin there to Ije made, Mhich would have authorised the pope's indulgencies, were afraid that, if they should grant that there was a t 'ii?^d place appointed for the souls of the pious and holy after this mortal life, they might likewise be obliged to admit this fic- titious purgatory. And therefore thouglit it safer absolutely to deny any middle state, than to expose themselves to the tricks and subtilties of the papists in supporting their purgatory, by granting such third or middle state," * ' * From the traft above-mentioned at the enJ» ( 95 ) What Capellus proposed by this dissertation^, was to help his brethren the protestants, out of this diiBculty, which he thought might be doneby shewing, "that a purgatory Avould not ** follow from the concession of a middle state, " such as the primitive fathers had represented "it." In this he succeeds well enough. But he had done much better service to the protes- tant cause, and gained more honour to himself, had he shewn, as he might have done by the help of those very texts he employs, that there were no grounds for the notion of an interme- diate consciousness of separate souls, either of the righteous or the wicked, between death and the resurrection. But by incumbering himself Avith this intermediate consciousness, without determining where or how the separate soul subsists, he has left the dispute just where he found it; and to confess the truth, has made strange work with some of those texts, which, in their plain, obvious meaning, neither fa- voured him nor his adversaries. For example. Speaking to that text of St. Paul, 1 Cor. XV, 18. where the apostle says, If Christ is not risen, then they who are fallen asleep in Christ areperished, he comments upon it thus, Peretmt, nan quidetn, quoad^oesse, sed quoad to bene esse ; hoc est, quantum ad felicita- tem [positam in Icetd beatte resurrectionis futU' Tce expectatione, as he describes this felicity above] qua sicprorsasevertitur, sublatd resur^ rectione. What idea can any one form of these half-perished souls ? But what will not an ea- gerness to serve an hypothesis tempt a man to say ? ( 96 ) CHAP. XII. Antony de Dominis discusses the questions con-^ ccrning the separate existence of the soul in his book De Rep. Ecclesiastica. His charac- ter in short by Fuller. Admits the point viaij be debated zvithout danger to the faith or scandal to the church. States the question tcith candor. Urges the O. T. scriptures for the cessation of thought and consciousness after death, rrith great strength. Has no- thing to set aginstthem but apocryphal Escl- ras. The passage quoted from that writer examined. Proceeds to authorities in the N. T. Jllakes concessions which ruin his cause, both with respect to the Scriptures and Fhi- losophii. His co7iclusions in favour of sepa- rate existence, futile and childish. Probably against his real sentiments. JFas to manage K. James I. a strenuous Dcemonologist, w E have led the reader a little out of the ^-»^-^chronological line, by introducing Ludovicus Capellus beforehis time ; which however was in some sort necessary, to shew, what the motive was, that induced so many protestant writers to desert the scriptural road pointed out to them by Luther and Tvndall ; and likewise the dif- ficulties into which they M ere drawn by espous- ing Calvin's refinements, v. ho, ^vhatever he uiight pretend, was beholden to Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, &c. for the most plausible parts of his system, which abounds even in his comments upon several texts of scripture, with ( 97 ) tliat very philosophy he woiikl he thought to disclaim, and which is the corner stone of the purgatorial fahrick. We now return into the former track, and are sorry we cannot introduce the reader to a more respeftable fellow traveller than Marc ■Antonii de Dominis, sometime Archbishop of Spalalo or Spalatro, who, according to one of our historians, " had too much wit and learn- " ing to be a cordial papist, and too little ho- " nesty and religion to be a sincere protes- " tant. "* HoAvever as he professes, that the discussion of this point would not interfere with any established article of faith, and consequent- ly, that nothing would be lost by speculating upon it (a consideration, to -svhich he, as well as some wits and scholars of more modern times, Avas more especially attentive) we may for the present avail ourselves of \\\?>wit and learning, and give him credit for as much honesfi/ and religion, as he can fairly lay claim to."!" This writer's particular business with this question seems to have been, to make Avay for the arguments he afterwards advances against a popish purgatory ; which purpose, the texts * Fuller, Church Hiftory. B. X. p. loo. + He feems however to have borrowed a little honefty of fomebody ■who had it to fpare, in the following jiift and liberal refleflion, which is humbly recommended to the contemplation of fome of our modern curators of orthodoxy. — " Et quia quoad fecundam et tertiam opini- onem, nullus eft fidei articulus plane definitus, liberior relinquitur " ingeniis iheologorum difputandi locus, citra fchifmatum et divifi- " onum omne periculum. Res enim inter orthodoxos theologos p;rniciofiirma eft, fi charitate abrapta, divifionis inter ipfos fiant, " ubi alii in diverfam ab aliis abiunt fententiam. Si enim falva cha- •' ritate, hoc non liccret, theologica fcicntia elfet pcnilus dcftrueudaj G ( 98 ) of scripture he brings, and the sense he is in- clined to put upon them, answer very eflPe6lually, But having a royal dcemonologist upon his liands, it became his prudence to manage so, as to have separate souls in readiness for the se veral errands on which, conjurers, witches, and second-sighted discerners of ghosts and apparitions, chose to employ them. " He informs us that there are three opinions " concerning the state of souls after death ; two, which carry matters to extremity, and " a third, Mdiich he calls the middle one. The " first of these extremes is, that souls are in a " profound sleep, from the death of the body " to the resune6tion ; and in that state, have " neither joy nor sorrow, enjoyment nor suf- " et theologlcis cortemplatlonibus effet ultlmus finis imponendus, ob- " ftruendiimqre a omnibus ut ne hifcere quidem auderent, prjeter *' ea qu« theologus aliquis non nifi ex probabilibus aflferuit, et nun- " quam fuerunttanquam de fide a quoquam recepta, aut ab eccleha " fujficienter dejinita." De Rcpub. Ecclefiaftica. Vol. ii. Lib. v. Cap. 8. P. 75. The words non fufficientcr definita, might carry an inquifitive man a good deal farther than Marc Anthony intended. He could not but know, that the Florentine Canon contained a defmitioiL fufficient to muzzle the popifli divines, of which indeed he did not acknowledge hlmfelf to be one. He confidered his liberty, on this occafion, as arifing from the expunclion of the fortieth of King Edward 6th's articles, in 1562. Some of our modern divines will needs have it, that the church of England hath fufficiently de- fined her belief of the afiivity of the fepapate foul in fome other parts of her eftabliflied forms. But if the church is inconfiftent witli herfelf, that is her own fault. If the church efpoufes an article of faith in one place, which (he hath expunged in another, I amat liber- tv to fav, that fliehath not fufficiently defined that article, but hath left me free to form my own judgment upon it. Things, about the lime in queftion, were done in a hurry. Had there been time for it, no doubt but they who corrected the articles would have conformed the liturgy and homilies to tliofe corrections. ( 99 ) " f*ering, no understanding', no affe6lion, nor any exercise of mental operation ; eonse- *' quently no consciousness." He distinguishes this opinion, however, from the arabian heresy, importing, " that the soul " died, perished, and was corrupted with the *' body, which it seems was confuted by Origen, " and was then lately revived by certain crazy anabaptists."* By the way, as our author hath acknowled- ged, that the second and third of these opinions were not established in any definitive article of faith, and that the first might, on that account, be freely discussed, it must be deemed an in- nocent, though an erroneous opinion. This, according to his judgement, was not the case * The patrons of a feparate exiftence have made a wonderful fjgure wiih this Arabian herejy, and I fuppofe the reprobation of it by Origen, Auftin and others, may have intimidated moft of thofe who have held the fleep ot the foul, from acknowledging any concern with it. There is however one exception of an honeft man, who had no fcruple toexprefs himfelf thus. "He mentions alfo the Arabian *' herefy in the third century. And I grant that the account, " given by Eufebius of that Arabian tenet, agreqs very well writht " my opinion before exprelFed. The region of Arabia, lies com- " palled by Chaldaea, ^gypt and Judsa ; and in that and future *' times, produced men of as much wit and knowledge as any other " place we read of. Thofe who then oppofed this their opinion, " confcious perhaps that they could not maintain the contrary, callei " Origen out of /Egypt to their affiftance, as a man moft famed for *' learning in that time, but a full and refolved Platonist ; and he fo " managed thatcouncil,as therein the opinion of the foul's dying with " the body, was judged to be an enour, and branded with the ternj " of herciy, which feems not fufficientto convince my underftanding, " that it was fo much as erroneous ; becaufe I read, divers other ge- *' neral councils (as well as that) have been miftaken in their judg- " ment and canons, on the like occafionc. The reafons and fcriptnre5 which moved lbs Arabians of that time fo to think, have never bee between the &ouls of the fathciSj and ( 103 ) the souls of other men. Tlie giving up, is ge- neral in both passages ; particularly in the latter, where the earth and the dust are repre- sented, as well as these proijiptuaria, as deliver- ing A\'hat was committed to them. Without this immaginary restriction of these promptii- aria, to the use assigned by the fathers, Esdras is as unfavourable to our author's hypothesis, as David, and Solomon.* * As thefe promptuaria are mentioned more than once and on different accounts, and as this fiftuious Efdras is by fome honoured with the title of prophet, it may be expefled we fliould give thefe paffa- ges a particular confideration. Chap. IV. v. 35. is thus exhibited in the old Latin. Nonne de his interrogavcrunt animce jujicrum in promptuariis fuis dicentes ufque quo &c, Cajtdlio, whopolifhed this bock with his critical ftyle, gives [t,animcE jujiorum in penetrali~ bus fuis. But ^2i?u«j who came after him, turns it, ipfi in fuis cellis, and adds in the margin the following note. Hunc locumita redidimus, quia Hebraijmus ilajuit reddcndus, anims juflorum, ^ro juftis iplis. Nam depiorum cum viverent expojlulatione hie 0g7, eviiicit ipfa expojiulationis forma. Cellas autem eorum Jic dicit,ut conclavia dixerat Jefchaiah. xxvl. 20 : quern locum hie non dvbitamus refpici ; fic infra V. 9. And thus likewife the edi- tors of the Paris bible of 1564 appear to have underftood it, referring to Jeremiah xii. 1. where we find the Prophet expoilulating in much the fame ftraln. The learned Daubuz and others, refer to this paf— fage as paralelto Apocal. iv. 10, where we have the expoflulatioa of the fouls under the altar. But to whatever this paffage is an al- lufion, we learn no more from it, than we do from the paffages al- luded to in our canonical fcriptures. At verfe 41. of the fam« chapter the vulgate runs thus. In inferno promptuaria animarim^ malrici ajfimulata funt ; qucmadmodum 6nim illafedinat quce pant tffugere neceffitatem partus, fic et hcec fefinat [_fefinantj reddere ea quce commendata funt. Here Junius inllead of promptuaria. aniviarim, gives it, cellce mortuorum ; upon what grounds we (hall fee prefently, Chap. V. 9. we have in the old latin, Et abfcondetur tunc fenfus, et intelleBus feparabiter \n promptuarium fuum,^; quce^ retur a multis, et non invenietur. For promptuarium, Callellio has, penetrale, and the reft as the old latin. But Junius gives it, Et tujic latebit prudens, et intdligens feparatus mmtbit, tanqHam in ( 104 ) Oar author having thus settled matters to his satisfaction with respect to the writers of the old testament, proceeds to consider what may be learned from those of the new. teUa Jua conditus. The fenfe is much the fame either way, and the writer only meant that when vvickednefs and impiety arc exahed, wife and imdevflanding men, or wifdom and undcrftanding are in obfcurity. [fee Dan. xii. lo. Prov. xxviii. 12, 28.] nor does promp- iuarium fignlfy anv thing here, but a place of retirement, — Chap, vii. 32, we find in the vulgate, £t terra reddet qitccinea dormiunt, et pulvis qui in eo fikvitio habitant, ct promptuaria reddent quce cis commendatc flint aninux. For wliich CafteHio has, cdlce dcpo- Jitas apud fe reddent animas. But Junius more roundly, Et cellis, rcdentibus cadavara quce fibi fuerint commendata j in which he was undoubtedly in the right. In the englifh tranflaiion of this book from, the arabic, ccnimunicated to the public by the learned Pro- ieffor Ockley, this laft cited verfe is thus rendered. And the earth {hall cajljorth thofe zchich jlcpt in it, zohich I ccvimitled to it to keep, and the fccrct repofitcries /IiaHreJiore the fouls that are in them. The other texts are not in the arabic. Upon thefe paffages Mr. Arnold hath the following obiervaiion, Chap. iv. verfe 35,41. " mention is made of fouls departed in a flate of grace, being kept in *' chambers, or fecret ftore-houfes till the day of judgment, agrcea- *' bly enough to Apoc. iv. g, 10. which has been objected to, as " feemingly countenancing the dotinne of purgatory, and it muft be " confeffed the catholics have fo applied it ; but without reafon, as " nothing therein is faid, or intim.ated of their being detained there by way of piinifliment. or to be purified by it," How fliould there, jf this 35th verle is parulel to Apoc. iv, g, where the expoftulation is afcribed to the louis of mnnyrs, with which above all others, purgatory is never underflood to have any tiling to do ? nor do I know that any catholics hive fo applied the pafTage, the whole book being uncanonical even among them. On the other hand, verfe 41 has nothing in it 10 lead us to fuppofe, that thefe chambers or repofitones are allotted to fouls in a Rate of grace, exclufive of others. The very fimilitude taken from child, 'birth, fliews that thefe chair.bers comprehend the fouls of all, goodand bad, which fliall be given up as neceffarily as the human Jcctus is brought into the world from its promptuc.i iuvi, the womb. What feemstohave mifled Mr. Arnold and others in this matter is the ex- ^jieflion, rtddire ea qurr c.rnncndata Jur.t, But where is there any ( 105 ) And here lie allows that when our Lord brought the expression, I am the God of Abra- ham, Sec. to prove the resurreftion of the dead, he did not consider God, as the God of Abra- intimation in the book, that thefe fuppofed fouls are more efpecially committed or commended to thefe repofitories, than the bodies of all men are committed or commended to the earth? On the contrary,- the variety of exprefTion, Chap, vli, 32, which denotes the future re- floralionof the dead, fliews that the word coramendata relates equally to thofe who fleeo in the earth, and who dwell in the dud in fdence, as 10 ihe. animce in promptuarus. So the arabian tranflator un- derftood the matter, and accordingly gives it, as we have fees, the earth Jiiall cajl forth thofe which flept in it, which I committed to it to keep, &c. And Junius, perceiving that the whole verfe was only defcviptive of death and the grave, oref the general flate of the dead,and their univerfal re{loration,very fenfibly and properly renders the laR part, et cellis reddentibus cadavera qua: Jtbi fiierint commen- data, knowing that the laft claufe is equally applicable to ilie fevefal periphrafes by which the general flate of the dead is fignified. I have faid nothing of the authority of tliis book. They who think it makes for the doctrine of a conkious intermediate flate may find the argu- ments for its authenticity at full length in Whiflotrs Effay on the Apoflolical ConflitiuioKs. p. p. 38. and i^j. Edit. 1712. Sir John Floyer's preface to, the prophecies of the fccond book of esdras, explained and vindicated. Edit. i'72i. But more particularly in Dr. Francis Lee's AnoAEinoMENA, where there is a long and curi- ous diflijrtation on this book and its contents. The book, though al- lowed to be interpolated and otherwife corrupted, has had great refpeft paid to it by many learned men. Dr. Hickcs feems not to have been pleafed with blfliop Bull for not making ufe of its teftimonies in his fcrmon on the middle flate. [See his letter in Mr. Nelfon's Life of that prelate, p. 535.] I have in my poffclfion a manufcript of a very learned man who is of opinion, that the Apoftle Paul bor- rowed what he fays of the introduftion of fin into the world by Adam, and the labes lefttheveby upon his pofterity, from this book of Efdras. Scaliger faid, he had an admirable and divine compendium of this book in the Syriac tongue : [fee Sir John Flover's Epiflle to the reader, p. iv.j " From a juinibcr of paralel padages to thofe in the " new teftamcnt," fays Mr. Arnold, " it feems necelfary to conclude, either that Jcfiis Chrift and his apoftles copied from hence, or that " this writer copied largely from the other." But why might not all copy from one and the fame original ? Esdr/K quartus, fays Scaliger, ef coacervatus cx viultis vetcrum fcripcis. And why ( 10(5 ) ham's soul, but as the God of Abraham the compound man : and acknowledges, that if our Saviour had rested his proof on the sepa- rate existence of Abraham's soul, his argument would have fallen short of the point to be proved, viz. the resuj^rection of the dead, or, as he there hath it, of the body. And the rea- son he gives is, that "God would not be called " the God of a naked soul, because the soul *' without the body is but in an imperfe6l state, " and not capable of that happiness which is ** intended for the human individuiim after the reunion of soul and body." This happiness he calls the fruition of God : and he supposes that the naked soul, being incapable of that fruition, must lie wherever it is, without any operation, that is indeed, without any consci- ousness or sensibility. He goes on next to St. Paul, who, he says, seems plainly to suppose that the souls of dead men sleep till the resurrection; and to shew this, he gives a comment upon 1. Cor. xv. 19. which makes it utterly incredible to any one who agrees to his interpretation, that the apos- tle should ever have supposed any thing else. He likewise urges other passages to the same purpose, and lastly observes, that none of the pci sons who are said in the gospel history to have been raised from the dead, ever made might not Jcfus and Paw/have accefs to thefe, as well as the Pfuedo^ £fdras ? 1 call him To after Junius, who has proved hina to he fuch, by hii blundering account of the genealog)- of the true Efdras, and wbojufll)' obi'erves. that hi', credit is but Iraall, till fupported by feme belter authority than his own. B\u there is no occafion to enter deeply ir.io this difqui fit ion. It appeai?. that what he fays of the promptuO' na of departed foul?, lelate^ onlv to :.he comnion repofitories of the Bf^d^ifail cljaricier!. C ) mention of what happened to themselves or others, or Avhat was the state of souls after death; from whence he says, some people may be apt to conclude, that whilst they were out of tlie body, they neither observed nor understood any thing. " By these and the like proofs," he tells us, *' some of the holy fathers were induced to be- " lieve, that the souls of men were shut up in " certain receptacles or store-houses [promp- tuariis] expe6ting the resurre6lion, neither " doing nor suffering any thing in the mean " time. Some of them supposing that the *' souls of good men, patriarchs, prophets, &c, *' were somewhere under the earth expecting "the advent of Christ: others holding that *' the souls of all men, good and bad, were in " the same state, without either punishment or " glory," For which opinions he cites Ireiiasus and Chrysostom respectively. Having thus done with the scriptures, he betakes himself to philosophy, and speaks of the necessity of bodily organs to thought and memory, and says, that as the soul of an in- fant is a mere rasa tabula wherein nothing is written or engraved, so is the same soul, when it is departed out of the body, reduced to the same state of a mere blank : that is to say, without consciousness, thought, or intelledual furniture of any kind. Now when it is understood that all this while this writer is only stating obje<5tions which he proposed to answer, the reader who interests himself in disquisitions of this sort, must be curious to know, how he gets rid of so strong a state of the case as he hath here given us qu ( 108 ) the side of his opponents. Having then ac- knowledged, that it is veiy difficult to destroy the foundations of this opinion (^the sleep of the soiil,) tamcn, says he, solvenda sunt, quia ^Veritas i?} cofifray^ium omiii objectd dubitationCy penitus comincit hom'uwmfidelem et catJioIkum. Scriptural porro, rcritatem hanc apericntes, plures sunt. These scriptures he goes on to pro- duce; and to those texts Avliich appear to coun- tenance the sleep of the soul, he opposes Phil, i. 23. containing St. Paul's desire to he M ith Christ as far better than to abide in the fiesh, and some others, supposed by him to ])rove a separate and active existence of the soul, at the same time that he a\lirms, the scriptures never speak of the soul and body as separate from each other, but as in union, making up the person. sSon corpus humanum, says he, pro- prie resurgit, sea Jiomo, sed indixiduum, scd persona, et aliud est a corruptione separari, aliud resurgere, — cui resurrect ioni est per ac- cideiis quod partes reunienda' manerent, rel non manerent. Quod igitur ait David, et Ezekias, et Sapiens r/e jnortuis, eosnon /audare doniinu)n, sed vivos, t'sr. iutelligenda sunt de ho^ninibus in torum personis. Veruni enim est, hominem nwrtuum ante resurrectioncm, omnino in sua, persona non esse, et consequenter, jieque posse, in sua persona, post uwrteni laudare Deuni ante resurrectioncm, aut quicquam facere. The savinor distinction here is, aliud est a corruptione separari, aliud resurgere. But how comes it that the sacred writers do not mark this distinction? AVhence is it that they take no notice of any thing separated from corruption at the death of the body? Is it ( 109 ) sufficient for tlie solution of the difficulty to say, as this author does, sed anima seorsim in- tcrhn viva est VRO suo modulo, upon no other proof hut a metaphysical hypothesis, supported by the arbitrary notions of Justin Alartyr, Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustin, concern- ing the several limbos where these uuemhodi- ed, unemployed, shapeless beings, these blank ingredients of the human composition are de- posited, till the period of their reunion. Upon . this view of the intermediate state, the modulus of the separate soul of man, is not at all more considerahle than the modulus of the soul of a plant, which, for ought we know, may have its modulus of life to serve the purposes, if not of reunion to its identical body, yet possibly, of transmigration into some other.* * " The Creator, in the opinion of thefe \_hermdic] philofopherSj " has fixed in eveiy thing a feed for its miiltipfication, not excepting " metals thenifelvcs ; and that in this feed, lies concealed a fmall I'park " which animates and directs the feed to form only the particular " kind of being peculiar to its ov/n fpecies. This little fpark of " life or animation, affigned by nature, is the more firm or perma- *' nent, as the life of the being is required to be more conflant ; and *' therefore every thing which is produced out of the feed is to be " affigned chiefly to the aura, or animating fpark thereof." Her- mippus Redivivus. p. 220. Nor will this appear to be fb very extravagant an hypothefis, when we confider the iurprizing exhibi- tions of nature in vegetables, " Wherever," fays the learned pro- felTor Watfon, "there is a vafcular fyflem, containing a moving nutritive fuccus, there is life; and wherever there is life there may " be, for ought we can prove to the contrary, a more or lefs acute *•' perception, a greater or lefs capacity for tlie reception of happi- *' nefs ; the quantity indeed of which, after we have dcfcended below *' a certain degree of fenfibility, will, (according to our method of cflimating things, which is ever partial and relative to ourfclves) be fmall in each individual. It fhould be well weighed by the metaphyficians, whether they can exclude vegetables from the pof- " fclfion of the faculty of perception, by any other than comparative ^ arguments j and whether the fame kind of comparative reafoning ( 110 ) Sucli were tlien, and such ever will be the efforts of those, who must solve all dilFiculties merely to accommodate the faithful and the catholic with an orthodox creed. It is easy enough to see M'hat were the real sentiments of this ex-bishop of Spalato. But something was to be granted on the part of the Psychopan- nychists to serve the purposes of the wizards and conjurers of those days, otherwise the sa- gacious monarch, by whose bounty he profited so much, might have taken it into his head to have burnt De Dominis for an heretic at one stake, v/hile the witches and their imps were frying at another. *' will not equally exclude from animality, tliofe animals wliich arB provided with the feweft and the obtufelt fenfcs, when compared " with fuch as are furniflied with the moft and the acuteft." EfFay on the fubjefU of Chemiftry, p. 18, ig. And fee what follows in this malicrly tract. (' 111 ) CHAP. XIII Brevis Disqulsitio, a 'work of Joachim Stegman. The occasion and scope of it. In Bayle's opi- nion, did more harm than good. A passage from the eighth chapter of it. Misrepresents Luther. But right in the general reasonmg. An argument of Cardinal Perron for praying to saints. The premises not controverted by all protestants of these times. And strenu- ously contended for by the late Dr. "Watts, Another passage from Stegman's eighth chap- ter. Censured by Bp. Warburton, without reason. IVho misunderstands Grotiiis and Episcopius in his turn. And censures Le Clerc undeservedly. ]BuT as the papists were steady to their in- 1528. terest, and, for the most part, uniform in tlie support of a point upon which so mucli of it depended, they had a great advantage against the protestants who were divided, not only upon this, but upon other subjects. Among others who attacked them upon the score of their divisions, was a capuchin friar, called Valerian Magni, who in the year 1628, published a book at Prague, intituled, De Aca- tholicorum regula credendi.* This book was answered by Joachim Steg- man, a socinian divine, in a tra6l intituled^ Brevis Disquisitio, an ef quomodo vulgo dicti evangelici pontifcios, ac nominatiin Valerian! * Bayle's DIft. vol. 5th, p. 741, edit. 1738. and Defmaizeaux Life of Hales, p. 4. 5, ( 112 ) ]\Iagni (le yicat/iolknnnn cre.dcvd't rcgiila jiati' c/um solidc at<]7ie cvidenter rejutarc qucant* Thescoi)e of Stcgmau's \\ ork is to shew, that the protcstants, by adheiina; to the peculiar system of Lutlicr, Brcntius, Calvin, Beza, &c. &'c. had, in many instances, offered weak and improi)er argnments ao-ain<^t popery, Avhich had laid them under needless difticulties. His ad- vice is therefore to discard all human authority, and stick to the scripture only, as explained and understood by right reason, without hav- ing any regard to tradition, or the authority of fathers, councils, &c. Mr. Eayle says this book did more hurt than good, not becanse it Avas not well Avrittcn, but because it tended to disparage the reputation of the first reformers, broke in upon their se- veral systems, and what was worse than all the rest, was manifestly the work of somebody tainted with the heresies of Socinus and Ar- minius.t * There is an Englilli tranflation of this book in the Phoenix, ▼ol. 2. T For a fair.ple of the opinions of the orthodox concerning this book, take the following account of it in a letter from Dr. Samuel Ward to Arclibllliop Uflier. " There is a little book intituled Bre^ " -els Di/quifttio.whkh I fuppofe your Lordfliip hath feen. It con- taineth in it fijindry, both focinian and pelagian points ; as alfo that the bodv which dial! be raifcd in the refurrection, is not idem nw " tnero ; alfo fouls do not live till the refurrefciion. befides fundry " other points. It h ^nnicA £l:utheropoli. It is faid it comet h '• out of Eton-College, and that Alejms [John Hales J fliould be the author, who was at Dort u uh us. I am forry fuch a book fliould come thence." Parr's life of Uflier, p. 473.-— Such is the illibe- ral voice ofeflabliflied f\ flein. Could more feafonable or wholefome advice be given to proteflants ? Was not •tins the very method after- wards adopied bv our incomparable Chillmgworth? Did not the papift feel the etTecis of it from his able hand with the ntmoft regret. " It is a 7UW f'tjt. fays the abfurd Crefy, which, hcv; far other ( 113 ) In the eighth chapter of this trad the author observes, " that Luther and Calvin teach such " things, as are injuriously defended, not only " against the papists, but also against the very life of the christian religion, true piety. Of *' the former sort is that opinion wherein they *' hold that the dead live. For they suppose, that the souls of men, in that very moment " wherein they are parted from their bodies by death, are carried either to heaven, and " do there feel heavenly joy, and possess all kinds of happiness ^^^hich God hath promised " to his people; or to hell, and are there tor- *' mentedand excruciated with unquenchable " fire. And this they attribute to the mere "souls separated from the bodies, even before " the resurre6tion of the men themselves, that *' is to say, while they are yet dead. — Now this " is the foundation, not only of purgator}'', *' but also of that horrible idolatry practised " among the papists, while they invocate the saints that are dead.*" " Proteftants out of England will approve I know not." Whether they approved it or not, is very immaterial. Whatever may becoms of their methods, Chillingworth's method will remain an impregnable bulwark, not only againft that wicked and fordid fupetftiiion, but againft all attempts to overthrow chriftian liberty, from any other quarter, as long as his book {hall laft. * Phoenix, vol. ii p. 334. Not having the original latin, I am obliged to make ufe of the bad tranflaiion in this coUeftion. The Dif- quijitio is here afcrlbed'o Hales of Eton : concerning which miftake, lee Defmaizeaux, Hift. & Crit. Account of his life, p. 4. &c. Steg- man fays, " Norneed we gofar for an example" (viz that the Icripture teaches contrary to the current doftrine) " fince we have a pregnant one in the argument of Chrift wherein he proveth the future re— " furrettion of the dead from thence, that God is the God of Abra- *' ham,Ifaac, and Jacob,but is not the God of the dead, but of the liv- " ing ; whence he concludeth, that they live to God, that is, Avail b© H ( 114 ) Stegman, whatever inferences he might draw from Calvin's principles^ certainly misrepre- sents Luther, as "vvill be seen in the Appendix. He is however quite right in saying, that if the system above recited is admitted, you cannot easily overthrow the invocation of saints. recalled to life by God, that he may manifeft himfelf to be their "God or benefactor. This argument would be altogether fallacious, " if before the refurrection they felt heavenly joy ; for then he " would be their God or benefactor, namely according to their fouls, " although their bodies fliould never rife again," The right reverend author of the Divine Legation of Moses, &c, fays, " this is a mere *' complication of miftakes," that is to fay, it contradi6lshis interpre- tation of this argument of our Saviour, by which, he fuppofes, our Lord intended to prove the refurrection of the dead, through the me- dium of a feparate exiftence of the foul; no fuch medium however is to be found in the argument. But leaft it {hould appear to be a mere gratis di£lum, the R, R. interpreter appeals to the wife and ex- cellent Hugo Grothjs, who fays, our Saviour confuted the Sadducees on this occafion, wore verbis dirctiis, fed ratiocinando j whence the R. R. author infers, that Grotius agrees with him, that our Lord here made ufe of an indirect argument. Whereas Grotius only meant (as appears by the context) that our Lord did not alledge any plain and exprels words out of the Law of Mofes, containing a promife or alTurance of eternal life, but only reafoned with the Sad- ducees upon a paffage which implied it. Shall we fay that the R, R. author did not underlland the wife and excellent Hugo Grotius? or rather that he did not chule his readers fhould be made acquainted with the whole of Grotius's wifdom and excellence ? For Grotius immediately adds, quanquam ea ratiocinatio mihi videter ejfe aper- tior quam multis putator. Nara refurredionis quccfio.nem ab immortalitate, Sacrce Litercc non divellunt. Imo idem valeiit a-m^a^t