% V\jvvvt^i ci WW mmU(sUift ^^^^_^ PRINCETON, N. J. % Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadefphia, Pa. ^^ ,'^ y^ Division "^C— ^C-*' Section Number •9 9 jJ^/l: ' 77^ t..^/^i^^ what melancholy, yea what cruelty, has their doctrine been charged with } How often have they been repre- fented, as taking the thunderbolts out of the hand of the Almighty, malevolently throwing them againft the hu- man race, as if they had a plcafure in dealing about dam- nation upon their fellow-creatures ? How often have they been traduced as the difturbei-s of people's quiet and peace of mind ? and all this, for no other reafon, but becaufe they preach that word of God which he himfelf charailerifes, in oppofition to that of the falfe prophets, as a Jircy and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces j and which, he aifures us, is the only cffeftual in- b 3 ftrumenc xii PREFACE. ftrumcnt of turning men from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings, Jer. xxiii. 29. 22.; for no other reafon, but becaufe we ai-e fo vmcharitable, it feeiri«s, as to infift upon it, (N. B. not that fuch or fuch perlbns are infidels or profane, but) that thofe who are habitual- ly fo, without repentance, will certainly perifti for ever j becaufe we preach, with the apoftle, If ye live after the flfh, ye foall die j and with our Saviour, He that believeth notf Jhal/ be damned : in a woi'd, becaufe we labour to perfuade people, that God is in earneft in his threaten- ings, as well as in his promifes, whatever cruelty profane linners may be ready to think it ? The foundation of the doctrine now in vogue- (being all a kind of negative creed) is laid in the denial of tv.ro a- larming tiaiths, not at all agreeable to finners, as they are exprelTed in our catechifm : the tiift is, that " any want of conformity to the law of God, is Hn:" the other, that " every lin deferveth the wrath and curfe of God, both in this life, and that which is to come." Let me aik our author, or any that ai'e of his fentiments, Is he really perfuaded, that the holy law of God is, indeed, perfectly juft and good ? Does he extend this perfeil jn- fiice and goodnefs to the alarming fanction of a perfectly holy law ? Gal, iii. 10. " Curfed is every one that conti- *' nueth not in all things that are written in the book of ^* the law to do them." Is he fenfible that God would not be fo truly and perfeftly amiable a being as he is, if his hatred of fm, and dilplcafure againft it, was not infi-i nitely great ? of every fin, even the lead ? and confe- quenily that, in order to the pardon of fin, he has thought fit to do honour to fo juft and good a law, by providing an atonement for the breach of it, ihat is of no lefs than an infinite value ? Sin is thought too harlh and uncourtly a name for many a difconformity to the law of God. Nor is the demerit of any fin thought equal to that dreadful ivrath of God which is revealed from heaven againfi it. Sinners are lulled afleep by a cry of Peacey Peace, when there is no peace. So flight is the fenfe that fome faf]iionable teachers have of the evil of fin, that, according to them, the hurt which is thereby done may be very fightly healed The me- thod of falvation by the facrifice of the Son of God, is looked upqn as a remedy excefiively diiproportiouate tQ the PREFACE. xlil the difeafe *, fo little evil, and fo little danger, there feems to them to be in it. In words they would be thought to celebrate the mer- cy of God •, but it is only in words that they do fo. For what is the kind of mercy they afcribe to him ? Not that infinite and aftonilhing grace, and immerited love to a re- bellious world, fo much celebrated in the gofpel, which prompted him not to /pare his ovJn Sony but to deliver him 7ip for us all. Of this they have no idea j and indeed we own it to be incomprehenfible, to be pajfing knoivlcdge. According to them, the law of God is too ihidt for the human nature, as it came immediately from his owa forming hand ; and therefore he only makes fucli allow- ances for thofe infirmities that are his own workmanfliip, and no fault of ours, which if he did not, he would be an unreafonable being, and a cruel tyrant. Their God is defcribed by Dr Young, in his Univerfal Paflion : Will the great Author us poor worms deftroy. For now and then a ftp of tranfient joy ? No ; he's for ever in a fmiling mood. He's like themfelves ; or how could he be good ? And they blafpheme, who blacker fchemes fuppofe. — Devoutly thus Jehovah they depofe, The pure ! the juft ! and fet up in his ftead A Deity that's perfc£lly well bred. Thefe foporific dodlrines are, in the language of the fcripture, *' fewing pillows under all arni-holes, daubing *' with untempered mortar, ftx'engthening the hands of *' the wicked, that he Ihould not return from his wicked *' way, by promiling him life," Ezek. xiii. They contri- buted, we fee, long ago, to make the ancient Jews eafy under their fenfual indulgences. And I am convinced, that the fame licentioufnels could never have been carried half the length that it is amongft us at this day, if there were not fpiritual phyficians ready to adminifter the fame fort of anodynes. They are apt to lull people afleep into a fatal fecurity, to extingnilh all concei^n about recover- ing the favour of God, which they do not think can be loft by fenfual indulgences ; and fo to neglect, and even defpile the ufe of thofe means of grace v/hich God has exprefsly injoined, efpecially frequent and fei'vent praver, {IS if there was no occafion at all for fo much ado about fo fmall a matter as thcix- taking pleafure ia, and being de- lighted xir PREFACE. lighted with what God abhors and forbids. And is it ^Af wonder that he fliould be provoked, by fuch contempt of his laws, and of his inftitutions, Utterly to abandon them, till b£i!7g pcft feeling y they give themf elves over to la/ci- vioufncfsy to ivork all uncleannefs with grjeedinefs ? Thefe are the doctrines, for preaching and inculcating xvhich in the church of Scotland, liberty is now demand- ed with io high a hand. The demand has, in the name pf many in England, been oftener than once laid before the parliament. If the petitions had been granted, there is no doubt that we fhould foon have been affected by the consequence. Petitions from men of the fame ftamp a- mong us would have followed ; and probably would have iTiet witia the fame fuccefs. For which reafon, the ortho- dox Chriftians in Scotland think themfelves obliged to re- turn their moft hearty and unfeigned thanks to thofe who, by putting a negative upon fuch petitions, have delivered them from the apprehenlions they were under. And in- deed we could not be indifferent fpeclators of the iffue of a projedl for deftroying the fubftance of Chriftianity in our neighbour and lifter church. I can eafily figure to myfelf circumftances, wherein ap- plications to the legiflature for relief from any thing that ieems to bear, hard upon tender confciences, would have my hearty and even zealous concurrence. Indeed there is no man who knows what confcience is, but who muft fcel for others who have any hardfhip impofed uponi theirs. Had fuch application been made in a period of appa.^ rent fobricty, or even decency of manners, when the Chriftian religion was in no danger ; had it come from men who received all the mofl important articles of Chri- ftianity, and who only differeds from other Chriftians a- bout ambiguous words or phrafes j or, even in cafe of real difference, if it was only in points of fmaller confe- quence, or about the circumftantials of religion ; had it come from men who, upon account of a difference of o- pinion, were deprived of any natural right, or were ex- pofed to any degree of pofitive perfecution ; and had the real tendcrnefs of their confciences appeared by their ac- tual refulmg to do any thing in oppolition to the dictates thereof; in theie circumftances there is nobody whofe wifhes for relief to them would have been more ftncerc and fervent than mine. PREFACE. Xf But I muft own the cafe is greatly altered, when liber- ty is demanded for minifters of the gofpel to preach what they pleafe, at a time when Chriftianity is tottering from its foundation, by reafon of a raoft unexampled corrup- tion of manners ; when its greateft enemies are lurking in our bowels, and are known to conceal their difaffec- tion under a hypocritical pi'ofeilxon of a religion which they defpife ; at a time when the preaching of Chrifl cruci- jied is regarded by clergymen themfelves tls, foohjhnefs and a Jlinnbling-block, and their prejudice againft that religion of which they profefs to be minifters, is fcarcely hid under the thin dilguife of oppolition only to the particular doc- trines (not of the Bible, as they pretend, but) of this or that church ; when the perfons who make the demand for rehef to their confciences, have avowedly manifefted their want of confcience, by complying, through woi'ld- ly motives, with what they own to be againll: the dictates thereof, and who, if they were to liften to its di£latcs, would only be excluded from what they have no natural right to, the emoluments appropriated to the minifters of a religion which they abhor. Thefe circumftances make fuch an alteration on the very face of the affair, that what might be highly reafonable in one cafe, would prove ut- terly ruinous and defti'udlive of Chriftianity in another. How often have men been milled by the mere found of an ambiguous word ? Has not the mere found of the word libertyy fo juftly dear to Britons, and indeed the greateft good that a people can be blefled with, been of- ten abufed to promote the moft abandoned licentioufnefs, the greateft evil that a people can be plagued with ? And what greater impoiition can be imagined, than for men to alk relief to their confciences, who declare, at the fame time, that they have no confciences at all ? or at leaft that their confciences have fuch wide throats as to make nothing of fwallowing the whole decrees of the council of Trent, or the Tui'kilh Coran, or even 500 fuch tefts, if they ftood in their way to the fmalleft benefice ? Would to God, that the national apoftafy (I mean, the univerfal pi'ejudice againft thofe important and inter- cfting truths that he has been pleafed to reveal to us in his word, the natural effecl of that licentioufnefs of man- ners which now fo univerfally and fo unqueftionably pre- vails among us) had not provoked him to permit fo great xvi PREFACE. a fcandal as has been occafioned by bringing this affair before the parliament. Not only have clergymen, upon this occaiion, to Llie indelible blotting of that character, a- vowed before the Avorld tiieir own diihonefty, in ligning an aiTent to doctrines which, they confefs, had not their inward approbation, and that for worldly motives ; but members of parliament have ackno".vledged, upon the moft public theatre, (or they are mifreprei'ented by news- mongers), that they do not underftand nor believe the te- nets of our religion. This fcandal may, and, no doubt, will, prove a ftumbling-block to many unliable fouls. It is-Wifcly permitted by God, in juft pvmifhment of their want of love to the truth, that, by providen- tial events, he may fend them ftrong deliijions, judicially to harden them in infidelity. But as the fire, while it hardens clay, meketh wax ; fo the fame thing that to fome proveth a favcur of death unto death, to others proveth a favour of life unto Hfe. A believer fees it to be an exaft accomplUhment of tiie word of God, i Cor. ii. 14. j 2 Tiled', ii. 11. No petition, indeed, has yet gone from Scotland upon the fame errand. But the publication of fuch a book as that which I have made the following reply to, fliews that there is a party among us that are ready, on the leaft encouragement, to profecute the fame deiign. I wilh I could not add, that it affords fufficient evidence of the furprifing progrefs that infidelity has already made among lis. — I fay, injidelity ; nor do 1 think 1 have gone too far. — I will not fiiy, tiiat our author knows himfelf to be an in- fidel ; neither can i fay the contrary. This, however, I may venture to fay without any fear of contradiction, that the profeffion he makes of Chriftianity, and the re*- gard he profefles for the Bible as the flandai'd of religion, is no fufficient evidence of his being a real believer. All the profeffion that he makes, is what none of our modern infidels feem to have any fcruple about. Mr Collins, it is £iid, communicated with the church of Eqgiand more regularly than many who were not under the influence of his prejudices. And it is a notorious fa6l, that the moft virulent writers againft ^ihe Chriftian religion, call Chrift their Saviour, and fpeak of the Bible as if they really believed it to be the word of God.— So treacherous and imf.iir an attack, is what our author can be at no lofs to reconcile wit],i the moft candid lincerity. He whofe con- I fciencc PREFACE. jtviS fcience allows him to profefs hlmfelf a CalviniH:, In the moft ferious and folemn manner, while he is really a So- cinian, may, upon the fame principleis, profefs himfelf a Chriftian although he be an infidel. But in whatever light they may view fuch condudl, I own it appears to me fo unworthy of an honeft man, that I durfl not have made the leaft infinuation of this kind, had I not grounds for it, that, I think, are fiifficient to bear me out. The fymptoms upon which my fufpicion is founded, are the following. 1. His avowing his own want of flilth. Such a faith as the fcripture evidently infifts upon, a particular and ex- plicit, a firm and unalterable faith, is what he exprefsly owns he has not for any one doctrine of Chriftianity. A believer without faith, is a contradiction. 2. His pofitive reje(5lion of all the peculiar dodlrines of Chriftianity, all thatt diftinguifh it from Deifm. The Trinity of perfons in the Godhead, the prefent fallen ftate of mankind, our recovery by the facrifice and propitiation of Jefus Chrift, our regeneration by the Holy Ghoft, none of thefe are the articles of his faith. 3. His writing a whole book upon a point of the ut- moft importance to the Chriftian chiu'ch and religion, without ever having once recourfe to the holy fcripture, the ftandard of our religion, from the beginning to the end of his book (as far as I remember) for a decilion of the point. One who did really receive the Bible as the rule of his faith, and regarded it as decifivc of all the controverlies in religion, could not poffibly, I think, have fo totally overlooked it upon fuch an occafion. But when we fee, not only that he does not pretend to fetch a lingle argument from thence in fupport of his fide of the que- ftion, but that he does not take the leaft notice of any oi" thofe paflliges that are adduced on our fide, but always flips quietly by them, what credit is due to the profeflloh. of one who claims a privilege of profeffing to be what he is not ? Who would believe, that a man had a real re- gard for the laws of his country, who a6led in dire£l de- fiance of the plaineft and moft exprefs a(5ts of parliament ? efpecially if, in a defence of his condudt, he neither al- iedged afingle law in his own vindication, nor gave him- felf the trouble to reconcile his actions with the laws that were adduced againft him ? c 4* His Xvm PREFACE. 4. His afluming to the clergy of his way, as their dif- tinguifliing chara^er iu oppolition to the orthodox, their being preachers, not of Chriil, but only of morality. One mull: have very little acquaintance with the New Te- ftament, not to knOAv that the character by which the a- poilles chofe to be known as. preachers, was that of being preachers of Chri'i. See A- \ok read \o\'Z 351. I ijl, fir ]itt]e read t\t]ti 353. 10. /(<>• magifteral re(ir keeling ?e:jrf kneeling 380. ■ 26. fr \o\ir read ouv V I N D I C A T I O F The Difciplme and Conflitutions of the Church of Scotland, for preferving purity of Doctrine. AddrefTed to the author of a book, intitled, The Religious EJiabliJloment in Scotland exami- ned upon Proiejiant Principles. PARTI. The Dodlrine of the Church of Scotland vin- dicated from the charge of Error, which our Author has fupported only by pre- fumptions. SECT. I. The heavy accufation of error in d'o6irine brought againft the Church of Scot land ^ with our Au- thor's ttvo firjl p'efumptions in proof of it, which are conjidered, and rejuted. SIR, TH E dodrines of our religion which you re- gard with fo much prejudice, have hitherto, in the experience of good men, appeared to be the power of Cod, and the wifdom of God, to the falvation of their fouls ; while at the fame time A J they 4 Of the charge of error. Parti. they have, in all ages, been the objeft of hatred and difpleafure, not only to infidels, but alfo to the loofeft, the moft carelefs, and the leaft ftriO; among the pro- feflbrs of Chriflianity. Then have they always mofl prevailed, when the period was diftinguiflied by a face of fobriety, and when a profeflion of religion, and a regard for divine worfhip, have been moft in vogue. On the contrary, in proportion as the times degenerate into levity, diflipation, and hcentioufnefs, fo do thefe doftrines lofe their credit. This being the light in which they appear to me, (one inftance among many of the diverfity of mens minds), I take it to be an honour that I am called, in providence, to plead for the fecurities they have obtained in the laws of our country, both civil and ecclefiaftic. You have iingled me out as an antagonift, in the moft virulent attack that was ever made upon the religion eftablifti- cd in the church of Scotland, efpecially by a profeiT- ed member of it, if not one of its minifters, as I fup- pofe you to be. And I am heartily willing to reafon the matter with you in fober ferioufnefs. It is not long fmee an allegation of this fort, againft a, minifter, or a profefled member, of this church, would have been grievoufly and bitterly complained of. I remember, and you too may perhaps remem- ber, the time, when the leaft infmuation of this kind would have been reprefented as one of the moft un- charitable and ill-natured calumnies. Even after the manner of preaching that obtained among fome of our clergy, who feemed ftudioufly to avoid the moft peculiar and important doctrines of revelation, had given ground to fufped this, we durft not fo much as whifper fuch a fufpicion, for fear of being torn in pieces as monfters of uncharitablenefs. For my part, J confefs, I durft not allow myfeif to entertain it in my own mind ; fo irreconcilable it appeared to me with e- very idea of honour or honefty.— ^ — But how are the times altered 1 How entirely have you relieved me from all apprehenfions of fuch a return ? You even glory Scft. h t)f two prefumptlons of error, ♦ glory in the moft open and avowed oppofition, both to the doftrine and difcipline of the church whereof you ftill profefs yourfelf a member. You declare, that in your opinion the tenets of our church have not fo much as a " plaufible afpe£t of truth," p. 232. ; that they are " the invafions of fu- perdition and ignorance, from which the genuine do£trines of Chriftianity ought to be afferted," p. 66, How often, and how pathetically, do you infift for what you are pleafed to call a reformation ? You tell us, that the dodrines of this church " are really worthy of cenfure ; and as a dired confequence from this, that there appears to be a ftrong neceffity at this time, and in very many articles, for a farther refor- mation,** p. 258. ; that " your principal defign is, to demonflrate and enforce the neceffity of an imme- diate reformation,'* p. 54. ; that " we are ripe for a revolution," p. 328. ; and that " matters feem tend- ing to fome great crifis.'* p. 329. ; that a licence from the church of Scotland to a probationer is only a fo- lemn atteftation of his ignorance, p. 262. ; " that the tenets which we fubfcribe are many of them dubious, and others of them manifeftly erroneous," p. 269. ; that the doftrines of this church are fo far from being agreeable to the fcriptures, that to fupport them, is fupporting the caufe of Belial, p. 336. : with a great deal more to the fame purpofe, in almofl every page of your book. One would think that fo deep an accufation, efpe- cially when fo publicly made, iliould be well fupport- ed. And indeed you promife us no lefs than demon- ftration. Your principal defign it feems is to demon* Jirate the neceffity of an immediate reformation. You have in a manner acknowledged, that, without this, your book is to no. purpofe. " The precife point (you fay) to which this debate is arrived, and from which, to avoid repetition, I propofe to fet oUtj appears to me to be this : Whether all the articles to which the church of .Scotland requires fo pofitive a A 2 fubfcription 4 Of the charge of error. Parti. fubfcriptlon from her office-bearers are really agree- able to the word of God ?" p. 65. ; And again, " Arc thefe articles the truths of God or not ? This is the proper ftate of the quedion. It is alfo the only in- quiry from which any good can be expeded," p. 67. Here we have the queftion ftated by yourfelf, and your own opinion what Tort of difcuffion of it can ferve any good purpofe. But how do you handle it ? Where is the demonllration which, you have told us, was your principal defign ? Have you pointed out to us the falfehood of any one article of our religion ; not to fay demonjirated it ? Have you even attempt- ed to do fo ? So far from it, we have your own confeflion that you have not, nor did intend it. Your words are, " I propofe not^ in this place, to examine the articles feverally and particularly, of which our confeflion is compofed," p. 67. How, D. Sir, would you anfwer a libel that confifted only of this general accufation, " True it is, that you are a mofl: wicked malefadtor," without fpecifying a fmgle ac- tion in the whole courfe of your life, inconfiftent with the laws either of God or man ? Would you not demand of your accufjsr to come to particulars ? When you do fo, we are ready, as we do now, to meet you on your own ground. And what is the ground you have chofen ? AVhat is the kind of evidence which you bring in fupport of this heavy charge ? You decline coming to particu- lars, and reft the whole upon general prefumptions and probabilities. Allow me to alk, upon this occa- fion, what would you think or fay of another, that fhould treat any man, and efpecially one of his neareft friends, in the fame manner? When I fay fo, I fuppofe you to be a minifter or member of the church of Scotland. Put the cafe, that one Ihould exert himfelf to the utmoft of his ability, in reprefenting, perhaps, a brother, or even a father, as a perfon of a notorioufly bad character ; and when he is afked, up- on what grounds ? iliould only alledge fuch general prefumptions Se£l. I. Of two prefumptions of error. 5 prefumptions as you do here ; prefumptions that would be equally conclufive againft the very beft of men ; fuch as, " That the thing is poffible ; that he does not pretend to be impeccable ; that in his younger years he had been among bad company, and had li- ved in a corrupt and licentious age ; and that you know fome people who have fafpicions of him:'* Would fuch prefumptions as thefe, do you think, (and none of yours, amount to a higher degree of probability), be fufficient to fupport an accufation of the dcepeft nature againft an enemy, not to fay a friend ? You pretend indeed^ by way of excufe, that the only defign of your book is, not fo much to enter in- to the debate, as to direO: others who may fucceed you, what is the proper fubje^t of it. ^D. Sir, what a volumnious controverfy do you threaten us with, when you infmuate that a book of feveral hun- dred pages, and of four (hillings price, is only intend- ed by way of introduction, " to dired: the attention of the difputants (who in the heat of the debate may not perhaps fo foon obferve it) to that point where the ftrefs of the action muft at laft lie," p. 6y, Where M'ill the books to be written find buyers or readers in this dilTipated age, if we may guefs at the bulk and price of them by any rules of proportion ? You have entered fo far into the debate, as ta publilli a general accufation of the church of Scot- land, and to attempt fome proof of it, by general prefumptions and probaKlities ; and vv?e do not hear of your being feconded by any other writer upon this fubjed. When, or from whom, are we to have the particular articles of the libel, with their refpedive proofs? Our part, you know, is only defenfive, and muft needs be direded by the manner and place of the attack. In the mean time, let us confider what we have. All the proof you have yet been pleafed to adduce, in 6 Of the charge of error. Part L in fupport of your heavy charge, confifts of three general prefnmptions. You do not venture, I think, to call them any thing elfe. The jirji is taken from the number (I fuppofe you mean of our clergy) who, according to you, do not believe the truth of thofe doctrines which theythem- fdves have faid they do beUeve. You tell us, " It is not only fufj^eded by one party, but acknozoledged by the other, that there has been for a long time a tacit and very general defetlion from thefe articles. — • This being the cafe, it affords a very ftrong fufpicion, that the fource of this defedlion lies in the articles themielves ;" p. 68. 69. In this argument, there are two things that fall to be confidered ; the alle- oation upon which it is founded, and the inference you have drawn from it. As to your allegation, of a very general defeftion from the articles of that religion which we profefs, I hope it will be remembered, that it is you, not I, who fay fo. I am fure, I duril not have faid fo a few years ago, at leaft in fo public a manner, of thofe \vho had folemnly declared the contrary, and that be- fore God, in an affembly for divine worfhip, unlefs I bad chofen to be worried in pieces for uncharitablenefs. And indeed, it is not very long frnce I could entertain fuch a fufpicion of any of my brethren. It is furely but a late thing among us, contemporary, I fuppofe, to the formidable progrefs of infidelity, profanity, and contempt of moral laws, which has fo vifibly marked the current period. There does not feem to have been the leaft fufpicion of it, when Profeffor Dunlop wrote his preface to the Confellion, /. e. thirty years after the Revolution. For we find him, oftener than once or twice, boafting of the ditl^erence between the church of Scotland and fome of her neighbours in this very rcfpeCt. " It is with pleafure (fays he) we obferve that we have no ground to fu- fpect our ecclefiaflical officers of hypocrify, and that they do not fmcerely believe thofe articles which they fubfcribej" p. 129. And p. 16. "The members of our Se£V.I. Of two prcfumptions of error. 7 our church have hitherto been unacquainted with the method praftifcd clfewhere, of fubfcribing articles, the primitive and obvious fenfe whereof is contrary to the inward thoughts of the fubfcriber : nor have they learned the art of diftinguifhing away the defign and fignificancY of fuch tefts of dodrine, and fubtilizing the foiernnefl declarations into fo thin and airy a form, that they can fubiift without any reality, and be com- plied with, while principles of an entirely different complexion may be both believed and propagated : for, fo far as we know, there is not one churchman in Scotland (and we are pretty fure that none will ad- venture to own the contrary) who does not mean, by fubfcribing her Confeflion, to acknowledge his fmcere belief of all the doctrines contained in it." See likewife p. 3 1 • I confefs, had it pleafed God to prolong the life of that valuable man till now, he would have found that there are fome who adventure to own the con- trary. Of Jome, therefore, it cannot be denied, or concealed. But upon what grounds you take upon you to alledge that the defeftion is very general, is more than I am able to account for. As to the ge- nerality of our brethren, whether do you or they beft know their minds ? They have folemnly decla- red, that they fmcerely believe the dodrine of the ConfeiTion of Faith to be the truths of God, and the confeffion of their faith. I cannot think that the tenth part of them have had acccfs to tell you, either that they have fince changed their mind, or that the profelTion they made was falfe and infmcere. Indeed you are fo far from pretending any fuch thing, that, on the contrary, the defedion you impute to them is by yourfelf exprefsly called a tacit one. If they do not chufe to reveal any hypocritical falfehood they may have been guilty of, with what charity can you accufe them of it ? Whether fhall we believe you, or themfelves ? If their more folemn afleveration is not to be depended upon, what credit can be due to their B Of the charge of error. Part I. their more private contradidion of themfelves ? and how much lefs flill to one, who has no fcruple to ca- lumniate them, without even fuch an authority ? But now, let us fuppofe your allegation to be bet- ter founded than it really is, that we may be fenfible of the force of your argument. Is it a juft inference, that therefore " the fource of this defedion lies in the articles themfelves ?"— -And are you the man who plead that religious truth is to be determined by the majority of votes ? and by a majority too who have given their votes (v.^hen called to do fo in the mod formal manner)] on the oppofite fide ? and only whi- fpered, or are extrajudicially fufpefted to have whi- fpered, that they did not vote according to their con- fcience? The quellion between us, according to your own Hating, is, " Are thefe articles the truths of God, or not ?" Your argument to prove that they are not, is this : " There is a very general defection from them.'* Now> granting your antecedent, (weak as the proof of it is), will your confequence rightly follow? Was there never a very general defection from true reli- gion ? In the darkeft ages of Antichriftian ignorance and error, when all the toorld wondered after the heafi^ when it was given to him to make war with the faints^ and to overcome them^ and all that dwelt 7Apon the earth did worfbip him, was this a fufficient argument, that the true religion was falfe, and that truth was on the fide of thofe who had fo univerfally deferted it ? Suppofe you had lived in thole- days, and had attempted to revive primitive Chriftianity, what reply could you have made to your own argument, had it been urged againft you, as undoubtedly it would? Could they not have faid then, with much clearer evidence than you can now, " There is a very general defection from thefe doc- trines ; and therefore the fource of this defedion muft Ue in the articles themfelves?*' By your own ^luiowledgement, p. 163. all the different Reformed 2 churches Seft. I. Of two prefumptlons of error. 9 churches did agree in the fame fyftem of doctrine* Did this general defedion from the fyflem of the Pelagians infer the falfehood of their tenets ? When the Ifraelites (as they often did) forfook the Lord God of their fathers^ and followed other gods ; when, in Elijah's time, they halted between two opinions ; nay, h-ddforfaken the commandtnents of the Lord^ and follozoed Baalim ; did this indeed afford a very flrong fufpicion, that the fource of this defection lay in the articles themfelves which they had abandoned ? In this lall cafe, the defection was fo very general, and the orthodox in fo low and 6b-> fcure a condition, that Elijah verily thought that he^ even he^ only was left. The king, the princes, the priefts, and all the men of higheft rank and note a- mong them, were on the wrong fide. The poor feven thoufand " orthodox (to ufe your own words) could not, without incurring the charge of an excef- five vanity and felf-fufficiency, deny that many, very many, whom they fufpetted of wrong principles, were equal to themfelves in years, in experience, in genius, and in learning." But however " forry you fhould be," they furely" would not alfo allow that they were equal to them in virtue and honefty." The firfl had an evidence of their honefly, which the others could not pretend to ; I mean, their refufmg to zualk after the com- mandment, and their being driven, upon that ac- count, to fKulk in corners : A fituation from which your principles. Sir, muft be a conftant prefervative. When the prophet Jeremiah, chap, xxiii. cried out, " Mine heart within me is broken, becaufe of " the prophets. — For the land is full of adulterers ; " becaufe of fwearing the land mourneth. — For both o " prophet and pried are profane ; yea, in my houfe " have I found their v.'ickednefs, faith the Lord. — " They walk in lies, they ftrengthen alfo the hands " of evil doers. — ^They fay ftiil unto them that defpife " me. The Lord hath faid. Ye fhall have peace ; and " they fay unto every one that walketh after the imagi- " nation of his own heartjNo evil (hall come upon vou/' B When 16 Of the charge of error. Parti. When the Jewifh church taught for doCir'mes the commandments of men ; when the rulers of it ex- communicated our Saviour, and prohibited his apo- ftles to preach the dotlrines of Chriftianity ; did all this " afford a very ftrong fufpicion, that the fourcc of thefe defeftions lay in the articles themfelves'* that were rejected ? Inftead of profecuting this argument any farther, I fliall onjy refer you to the pleadings of your own party, when they are fenfible of their being upon any occaiion the minority. Now that you are full of the perfua- fion (though I hope without ground) of your having numbers on your fide, you fee no harm in putting truth again to the vote : for this is all you can mean by the review which you fo earneflly call for, p. 69. ; the refult of which, it feems, is, to let us knozu who is in the right. However, if you will but impartially review the pleadings I have mentioned, and recom- mended to your confideration, I am confident, you "will no longer infill on this your firfl argument. It is founded on a faft which is inadmilTible, at leait without better evidence than you can produce : and though the fa6t were as clear as the fun, it will by no means infer your conclufion. The fecond prefumption you are pleafed to favour us with is, by your own confeiTion, weaker than the firll ; though your ir.anner of introducing it (" To come more particularly to the prefent point") raifed our expeflation of fomething more decifive. It is neither more nor lefs than " a pofiibility that thefe articles are erroneous,'* and that " the compilers themfelves exprefsly difclaim infallibility." — ^You have faved me the trouble of making any reply to this, by your introduction to the third argument. Your own words are, " But mere pollibilities are nothing." — ■ D. Sir, can nothing, be another prefumption, that " the fource of the defeftion lies in the articles them- felves ?" I cannot cxped to find readers of an anfwer to Se6l. L Of two prefumptions of error. it to nothing. And therefore, allowing you the whole weight of this formidable logic, [It is poiTible j there- fore it is], I proceed to the next. SECT. II. Our ^uthor^s third prefiimption of erroneous doc- trine in the churcl: of Scotland^ taken from the prefent flour ijinng fiate of knozv ledge and learn" ing, confide red J and turned againji him, YOur third prefumption is taken from the extra- ordinary happinefs of the prefent times, in the mighty advances of knowledge and learning, beyond any thing attained to, not only in the i6th, but in the lafl century too, when the fynod of Dort and the Weftminfter aifembly were convened, and when our church put the yoke of fubfcription upon our necks. In comparifon with thefe dark and ignorant periods, you feem to think we have an unfpeakable advantage over our fathers in the progrefs that fcience has made fmce their time. The year 1 769, you fay, was in the funfliine of the fciences, p. 48. And you think the religious fentiments of the prefent age have fuch an advantage over thofe of our fathers, that they may be prefumed jufter and more corre£t than theirs, p. 75. This argument appears to you abfolutely de- monftrative. " It is founded (you fay) upon the fu- reft principles of reafoning.'* Only you feem to doubt, " if reafoning has any principles,** But you are willing " to fubmit this dedudion to any fcruti- ny," p. 71. And indeed the triumph of our happi- nefs, in the comparative fuperiority of the knowledge and learning of the prefent times, is celebrated fo frequently through your book, and you lay fo great a ftrefs upon this (as you think) unanfwerable argu- ment, that it demands a more particular confidera- tion than the laft. The laft, you confels, " is no- B 2 thing." 12' Of the charge of error. PartL thing." But what if this be worfe than nothing, and, in fo far as there is any weight in it, may be turned againfl yourfelf ? And are you, Sir, really fo unacquainted with the prefent flate of learning, as not to know that it is now in its wane ? and that it was in a far more flou- riihing condition above half a century ago ? You put me in mind of a pafiage in Quintilian's Inflitutions, w^here, by a like partiality, he prefers the (late of learning in his own time, to that of any preceding age ; and yet there was certainly by that time a con- fiderable degeneracy from the purity, the noble fim- plicity, and the plain but folid fenfe that diilinguiflied the Ciceronian and Auguftan age. How far your book exhibits the prefent tafte, as preferring a cer- tain petulance of ftyle to found argument in writing, let others judge. Of the firft I fay nothing ; I only undertake to fliev/ how little there is in it of the laft. It is impoifible, however, that you can be altoge- ther ignorant of the difadvantages under which know- ledge and learning are now, from, the manners of our time. We have your own character of the age, in a note at the bottom of p. 327. where you cali it (as ail who know any thing of it muft do) " a dilTipated •age." and p. 217. "a degenerate age," and p. 286. *' a venal age." ^Pray, Sir, is dillipation, degene- racy, or venality, fo very friendly to knowledge and learning ? Is an age, diftinguiftied by the multitude, the frequency, and the univerfality, of the mofl intoxi- cating, pompous, and expenfive diverfions ; diilin- guiflied by the unreftrained pradice of adultery, for- nication, and all manner of fenfuality, in a degree hitherto quite unknown ; diilinguiflied by the mofl boundlefs and ardent purfuit after the gratification of irrational appetites ; remarkably difl:inguilhed beyond any that ever went before it in this part of the world, by the opennefs, the impudence, the fliameleflfnefs of vice ; an age which cannot bear the mentioning of God, or Chrift, or a future flate, in polite company, (unlefs Se£t.II. A third prefumption. i^ (unlefs it be in a profane way), where every thing fe- rious is laughed at, and treated only as an object of ridicule ; is this the age whofe " religious fentiments may be prefumed jufter and more correct than thofe of our fathers?" We have indeed an invaluable advantage in the labours of thofe who have gone be- fore us. But what can this fignify to thofe who have not accefs to them, or who have no difpofition to ufe them ? Being yet but in the firfl ftage of declina- tion, it is fo far from being furprifing to fmd fome remnant of what we have been, that it is a wonder to me to fee it already fo fmall, and the declenlion fo rapid. But the quicknefs of our declenfion is eafily ac- counted for : Can the rufJ? grow up without mire f Can the flag grow without tvater f No etfeft can be produced, or continue, without an adequate caufe. Remove the caufe, and the effedl ceafes. The extra- ordinary exertion of genius that has done fo much honour to the reign of Auguflus, is univerfally attri- buted to the encouragement it met with from the great, the rich, and powerful, of that age. There was then a Maecenas, and others, Vv^ho employed their great power and immenfe riches for that pur- pofe: Otia da nobis, fed qualia fecerat oUm Mcccenas Flacco, Virgilioque fuo. So faid an ancient poet, by way of excufe that his verfes were not equal to thofe of his predeceflbrs. But where fhall men of learning now feek for pa- trons ? at the races, or the gaming-tables ? There we may fee more thrown away by one man, nay by one woman, in one night, than what could make a fcholar eafy for life. ■ Shall we apply to the mer- rier, at lead lefs ferious, meetings of the nobility and gentry, of endlefs variety, and numberlefs denomina- tions ? From them an Italian fmger carries off his thoufandsj 1^ Of the charge of error. Part I. thoufands, and is enabled to vie with lords in fplen- dor and magnificence, while perhaps a fuccefsful flu- dent is ftarving in a garret. Shall we expe6l to find them in the palaces of their whores, where the daughter of a peafant is bedecked with coftly jewels, and outfhines a duchefs ? But one of thefe expen- five ladies will confume in drefs, furniture, equipage, and annuity, more than would be a comfortable competency to twenty Scots clergymen. And all this in an age when the moderate demands of the lafl had a negative put upon them. The fentiments of an age, efpecially with refpeft to rehgion, cannot but take a tin£lure from its man- ners. It is not poffible, that amidfl fuch exceffivc diffipation, fuch abandoned licentioufnefs, there can be any relilli for the pure precepts, and the alarming do6lrines, of our holy religion : A religion which is gofpel indeed, the bed news that ever reached the cars of believing penitents ; but of a mofl hideous complexion to all obflinate and habitual fmners. And accordingly, was there ever an age fince Chriflianity obtained amongll us, fo remarkable for an inundation of infidelity ? How many, efpecially in the higher ranks ot life, (from whence the charac- ter of the times is mofl apt to be taken), have cafl off the very profeflion, I may fay, of all religion ? And of others, who are not able to refifl the flrong evi- dences of Chriflianity, or who have worldly motives for admitting them, how many are there who can- not conceal the prejudices they have imbibed againfl all the peculiar doftrines of revelation ? Receiving, or profefTmg to receive, the Chriflian revelation in the general, they, at the fame time, refufe their affent to every thing in it that was worth the revealing, and that diftinguiflies it from Deifm. Was there ever a period fince the Reformation, wherein the worfhip of God, public and private, was fo univerfally abandoned, I might fay defpifed, as it is amongfl us at this day j and was in the year 1 769, when the fciences, accor- ding Se£l. n. A third prefumption. 15 ding to you, were in their utmoft fplendor ? Does this afford a ftrong prefumption, that our religious fentiments mufl: be jufler and more corredt than thofc of our fathers ? I think it is the Spectator who fomewhere mentions a whimfical conceit, that darknefs is not owing to the abfence of the fun, but to certain tenebrificous ftars (if I rightly remember the term) which ray out dark- nefs as the fun does light. We have {bus enough, indeed, that have rifen abeve our horizon of litera- ture ; but are they not ftars of the nature juft men- tioned ? We have a Voltaire, a Rouffeau, &c. who have made a remarkable appearance among the learn- ed of our age. No fooner do they ray out their darknefs upon our hemifphere, than (as if it was light, refrefliing and pleafant to the eyes) it meets with almoft univerfal acceptance and applaufe. And from whom ? If it was only from the fons of diffi- pation, there would be nothing extraordinary in it. But I afk you, Sir, (for you can tell), are there none profeffing to be Chriftians, who join in the enco- miums wherewith they are honoured ? This I know, and the world too well knows : their books are gree- dily bought up, immediately tranflated, and read with pleafure, one edition after another. The authors are celebrated as firft-rate geniufes, even by fuch clergy- men as you, Sir, chufe to rank with ; and that we may not be behind our neighbours in fuch a rapid progrefs of the fciences, Scotland has produced a Da^ vid Hume, with others of the fame name, and like principles, whofe reception among us, as authors, is very different from what it is probable it would have been half a century ago. You know who they were whofe influence in our judicatories prevented the exer- cife of Chrift's ordinance of difcipline, when it was propofed fome years ago, either for reclaiming them, or cafting them out of a church into which they had been received by baptifm. Tell me now. Sir, you who fo frequently infift up- on i6 Of the charge of error. Parti. on that Bible which they defpife, and recommend it as the ftandard of truth, is it really light, is it true knowledge, or error and ignorance, that has been fo widely and fo fuccefsfuUy dilfeminated by writers that have been fo much applauded and encouraged among us ? Their doftrine is very different indeed from what we were taught by our parents, and in our ca- techifms ; and for this only reafon it is thought a far- ther improvement, an advanced flep in learning. Where-ever it is admitted, (as it will readily be, with- out any farther inquiry, by all who. find their lufts emancipated thereby), nothing can be more natural than for men to miftake this for a higher degree of knowledge than ever they had before. If they really believe the tenets of infidelity to be true, they who have had a Chriftian education, muil likewife be con- fcious that there was a time when they did not know fo much ; and therefore cannot but confider them- felves as having made a new acquifition of knowledge. The deduction is fo obvious, that it cannot well efcape them. Being thus naturally led to view things in this light, for their ov/n honour, the cry is raifed, that a fpirit of inquiry diftinguifhes the prefent generation, who will no longer be fettered with the prejudice of education. The prejudice of education, however, is the only prejudice that is difmiffed, or perhaps thought worth the difmiiiing. 'In fuch a dillipated age, it would be too much to expeft a diligent and laborious fearch after truth. The new tenets are fo pleafmg, fo flattering to their vanity, and fo foothing to their lulls, they are loth to find them falfe. Not a book is opened on one fide of the queftion by thofe partial inquirers. Infidelity happens to be the fafhion of the times, and flothfulnefs alone will account for being borne away in the croud. Let any one judge, whether indolence appears in flemming an impetuous torrent, or in being carried along with the Itream ? But the cry being once raifed by the enemies of Chri- 2 flianity. Sed. II. A third prefumption. 17 flianity, you have the fimplicity (I may fay, if you be a Chrlftian) to join them in it, and to celebrate that, as a fpirit of inquiry, which, in reality, is fo deep a prejudice, as turns their eye from every book where- in religion is defended. It is extremely eafy to account for the encomiums given to the prefent time, notwithflanding all the er- ror and ignorance that is daily gaining ground among us. In a corrupt age, people are apt to call evil goody and good evil ; to put darknejs for light, and light for darkuefs ; to put bitter for Jzveet, and fioeet for bitter ; to be zoife in their ozvn eyes, and prudent in their oxun fight. This was what Ifaiah found in his time ; and though he denounced wo up- on them that did fo, it mull needs happen in every degenerate age, which you own this to be. Every man cannot but look upon thofe opinions to be truths which he himfelf embraces, whether in religion, or upon any other fubjed:. The very terms are fynony- mous. To embrace an opinion is nothing tlit but to regard it as a truth. It is a neceiTary confequence • from this, that when a fet of opinions, though really erroneous, and the effed of grofs ignorance and ma- nifeil prejudice, do, however, prevail among the molt eminent perfons either for riches and rank, or pretended literature, he who believes them to be truths, will naturally look upon this as a fign that true knowledge is making a happy progrefs in the v.orld. I Should the Copernican fyflcm be exploded in the next generation, and that of Ptolemy be revived, or the abfurd ^iiefc^es of Cartes, (and no body can be Vi^fteX^S more fenfibie of the fluduation of opinions than you feem to be) ; would not all who embraced thefe dodrines prefer their own aftronomers to their pre- deceffors ? Would they not be ready to celebrate the ignorant revivers of thefe errors, as having made wonderful advances in knowledge and learning, be- yond the philofophers of the former age, and to look C upon 1% Of the charge of error. Parti. upon Sir Ifaac Newton as a dunce ? Would they not ■ confequently maintain, that the philofophical fenti- ments of their age were far jufter and more correct, than they could be when men were fo filly as to be- lieve, that the earth could fly above a million of miles, while it turned once round upon its axis ? You, indeed, profefs to admit the Chrillian reve- lation, (how confidently with the high approbation you give to the fentiments of the age, I fhall not fay) : but allow me to obferve, that infidelity and he- refy differ only in degree. The one is a total, the other a partial rejeftion of the dodrines of the go- fpel. Even Deiftical writers themfelves do fo far fyra- bolize with heretics, that they are fometimes very lavifh in hypocritical cxpreffions of regard for Chri- ftianity, which, they can tell us, is as old as the cre- ation ; and it is of no great moment how far the au- thority of that religion in general is admitted, if at the fame time all the peculiar doctrines that diilinguidi it from Deifm are explained away. Had I the fame efteem that you have of the know- ledge and learning that do honour to our times, I could not help thinking it a jutl reproach upon the Chriftian religion, that it is lofmg ground fo quickly, and fo vifibly, at a time when religious fentiments are become fo juil and fo correal. But in the view toat I have of the declining fliate of learning, efpe- cially in the higher ranks, I am not at all furprifed at the contempt in which Chridianity is held among them. On the contrary, v/hen I relleft upon the ac- knowledged diffipation of the prefent times, and hov/ much all religion of every kind, every degree of di- vine worfliip, is fallen into difrepute, in my opinion it is rather an honour to our holy religion, and nq fmall tcftimony to its purity, that it is fuffering in common with fobriety, and fandity of manners. I pwn it is Icfing ground. This is what can no longer be denied or diffembled. But, leaving you to ac-= ^oimt for this phaznomenon upon your ov/n hypothe? fis, Seft. It. A third prefumptioni ig fis, it is, in my apprehenfion, a necefTary confequence of its very excellency. If the do£lrines of revelation had been gaining ground, and growing into fafliion, during fuch an inundation of profanity, diffipation, and immorality, as never did before, to the fame de- gree, overwhelm this land, it would certainly have afforded no inconfiderable prejudice againft them, as if they had been friendly to vice and licentioufnefs. It is but an unhappy recommendation of the Soci- nian tenets, (which were fo fuccefsfully attacked, and put to flight, by the able and learned divines of the la(t century), if they are now, in company with infideli- ty, gaining ground, when all religion, and even the very profeiiion thereof, is fo vifibly iofmg it. But as you feem not only to have a comparative contempt of the knowledge and learning of the two lafl: centuries, but to think it an unanfwerable argument in favour of the tenets which, you fay, are now prevailing j allow me, in order to undeceive you, and others up- on whom this may be apt to make an imprefTion, (as you are fo extremely confident of it), to recall your attention a little to the hiftory of learning in thefe latter times, efpecially during the lalt century, and the beginning of this, when our religion obtained fo firm a fettlement. SECT. III. ^ n7ore particular reprejentation of the ftate of learninp- durins: the two precedino; and the pre-* fent centuries^ for ilhtftration of the argu- ment^ the firtngth of which the author is fo confident of. TR-ue knowledge and ufeful learning began to dawn upon Europe a little before the Refor- mation, to which it gave rife, and by which it was promoted. It made a rapid progrefs during the 1 6th C 2 century, zo Of the charge of error. Part L century, and efpecially in the 17th, when it arrived at its meridian fplendor, and continued to fliine with no fmall luftre in the beginning of this ; but has now been vifibly declining for ahnoft half -a century. Thefe, indeed, are but affertions : the credit of them muff depend upon the proofs. Before I produce them, I muft obferve, that, by the flourifliing of learning, I do not mean the mere groaning of the prefs with numerous, or rather innume- rable, publications of ufelefs books, calculated for the amufement of the idle and thoughtlefs part of man- kind. Genius is a term frequently in the mouths of people that are in your way of thinking. The fenfe in which they feem to ufe it, I take to be, the extraordinary ability of an author to entertain his rea- ders with trifles, and, either in verfe or profe, to clothe falfehood in a pleafmg and plaufible drefs, and by intoxicating narrations oi what never was, fome- times by the moft lufcious defcriptions of luftful fcenes, to feize upon the imagination of a reader, and divert him, in thofe leifure hours that might other- wife hang upon his hand, from the confideration of ferious and important truths. This, I confefs, is a river that has, of late, overflowed all its banks. The prefent age has made abundant provifion for pre- venting the clofet from undoing what the brothels, the taverns, and gaming-tables, may have accomplifh- ed. The glory of this fort of literature will not be dif- puted with tills age by the two preceding ones. I frankly allow the year 1769 tlie honour of beholding thefe fciences in their funfhine. But with refpe£t to real knowledge, and the acquifition of ufeful and im- portant truths, whether relative to our temporal or our ipiritual interefts, whether by the light of nature or of revelation, let us confider the feveral branches of ufe- ful knowledge that are worth the cultivating, and when they flourilhed in the higheft degree. And bc- caufe the quellion here is, not concerning the truth of Seft. III. Of the ftate of learning. 21 of this or that religion, but only about the profperity of literature in general, I fhall, in reciting the evi- dence I am to produce, have regard to no other cir- cumftance, but that of the times refpectively concern- ed. The foundation of all folid learning is what we com- monly call Philology ^ the knowledge of the learned languages, from whence the treafures of ufeful luiow- ledge are to be drawn. And can we now pretend to compete with the ages that are part, upon this branch of learning ? Even the firft of them could boall of our Buchanan, of Erafmus, Budasus, the Manuciufes, the Stephen fes, &c. ; and yet all thefe were far outdone by the great fcholars of the following cen- tury. Who has not heard the names at lead of the Scaligers, the VofTmfes, of Lipfms, Gruterus, Cafau- bon, Salmafms, Grotius, Gronovius, Grsevius, &c. &c. ? in comparifon with whom the moll learned men of this age muil own themfelves to be but pigmies. As to Oriental learning, fo neceffary to the under- ftanding of the fcriptures, where is the man in our day to be compared with the Buxtorfs, with Dru- fms, Golius, Capellus, Hottinger, Selden, Bochart, Lightfoot, &c. ? and if we fliould proceed farther, who among us can pretend to equal Pocock in Ara- bic, Ludolph in Ethicpic, or Hyde in Perhan learn- ing ? When the doors of fcience were thus thrown open, did they not in the courfe of that century penetrate into the inmcft recefies of nature, as far as mortal eyes are permitted to view her ? Not to mention Mr Locke, who appeared toward the end of it. Lord Ba- con, in the beginning of the century, pointed out the way to the real knowledge of things. And how ama- zing was the progrefs of true philofophy before the conclufion of it ? Des Cartes, however unhappy in fbme of his hypothefes, contributed not a little there- to by his cultivation of the mathematics. This branch of fcience was afterwards carried to the higheft de- gree 2 2 Of the charge of error. Part L gree of perfection, by many eminent authors, efpe- cially by Sir Ifaac Newton, Leibnitz, &c. What fur- prifrng difcover'-es were made in aftronomy ; in the former part of the century, by Kepler, Galileo, Gaf- fendus, Sec. ; afterwards by Huygens, CaiTmi, New- ton, the Greg.ories, Halley, Flamftead, &c. ? How manifeftly were the wonders of creation expofed to their view, hy the help of telefcopes, (an invention of that age), whereby a new v^^orld was difcovered, not only of the more diftant fixed ftars, but of fe- condary planets in our folar fyftem, with their mo- tions, and the laws by which they are governed ? An- other new world, or rather millions of worlds in mi- niature, was then likewife brought to light by the af- liftance of microfcopes. What delightful, what de- votional entertainment, was afforded in the difcove- ries made by Levvenhoeck, Dr Hooke, Sec. ? Who could help joining with the Pfalmifl : " O Lord, how " manifold are thy works ! in wifdom haft thou made " them all : the earth is full of thy riches ! '* How clearly was the nature and properties of almoft all the bodies around us explained and demonftrated, particularly the gravity, elafticity, and prelTure of the air, by the experiments of Toricellius, Boyle, Hawkf- bee, &c. by whom that curious inftrument, the air- pump, was, if not invented, at leaft greatly impro- ved ? I might likewife mention the true knowledge of light and colours, by the experiments and wonder- ful fagacity of Sir Ifaac Newton, (fach a genius as cannot be expedled to make its appearance in a long revolution of ages). Hov/ great were the improve- ments then made in the natural hiftory of vegetables, by Ray, Tournefort, &c. ; of birds, fiihes, and in- fers, by Willoughby, Borelii, Swammerdam, Ron- delet, &c. ; not to detra£t from the praifes of a very diftant foreigner, who, it muft be owned, has, in our times, bellowed a great deal of induftry upon this branch of fcience ? How great were the difcoveries made in anatomy during the currency of the laft hap- py Se£t. III. Of the ftate of learning. 23 py century ? Every one knows that capital difcovery, of the circulation of the blood, made in the former part of the century, whether by Dr Harvey or Fa- ther Paul ; I might add that of the ladeals by Afel- lius ; the receptaculum chyli, by Pequet ; not to mention a great many others. At the fame time, the Materia Mcdica was enriched by the acquifition of the famous bark of the quinquina, ipecacuanha, laudanum, &c. Are a few experiments in elec- tricity (which, however they make us flare a little, our preient philofophers can fcarcely pretend to ac- count for ; are they) to be compared with fo many, and fuch important difcoveries, and advances in the real knowledge of things ? In this furvey of a period which you reprefent, at leall comparatively, as an age of darknefs and igno- rance, I have had chiefly a regard to the knowledge of ufeful truth. Eut as many of you feem to think, that the happiefi: exertion of genius is in works of the imagination, I Ihall add, that in the beginning of the laft century fiourifhed Shakefpeare, in the middle of it Milton, author of the belt epic poem that ever was written, though fraught with orthodox fentiments. For this we have the teflimony of a rival poet : *' Three poets, in three diftant ages born, " Greece, Italy, and England, did adorn : " The firfl in loftinefs of thought furpafs'd ; " The next in majefly ; in both the laft. " The force of Nature could no farther go : " To make a third, ilie join'd the former two. Dvyden.'* Then alfo fiourifhed Cowley, Waller, &c, ; and in the fame century were born and educated thole who made their appearance together, like a conflellation of bright ftars, in the beginning of the current cen- tury, I mean Addifon, Steel, Swift, Prior, Pope, Young, &c. to whom I mufl beg leave to add that fweet fmger of Ifrael,.the devout JJr Watts, not ex- cluding 24 Of the charge of error. Part I. eluding Sir "Richard Blackmore, whofe poem, inti- lled, Creation, was admired and recommended by Mr Addifon, though the author was fneered at by Mr " Pope. Nor did France fall fl^ort in this branch of literature. Corneille, Racine, Moliere, Boileau, Fene- ion, he, did no fmall honour to the age of Lewis XIV. Nor hath any age or country produced more able critics than Boffu, F. Rapin, &c. When all the other fciences enjoyed fo bright a fumliine, it would have been ftrange had theology been the only one that lay uncultivated. This, how- ever, was far from being the cafe. How many dif- quifitions were made by men of the prcfoundeft learning, and the moft: extenfive knowledge, that threw light upon the fcriptures, both of the Old and New Teilament ? Vv^hat exquifite knowledge of the Original languages, and of others allied to them, which produced many of the juilefl and moft ufeful criticifms ? How induftriouily were the Jewifh, the Chriftian, the Greek, and Roman, in a word the an- tiquities of all nations, fearched into, and fet forth ? With thefe advantages, together with the whole com- pafs of human learning applied to the fame purpofe, how many learned and ufeful comnientaries did illu- ftrate the facred text ; not only general, but particu- lar ones -on the feveral books, of which the Bible is compofed ? not to mention numberlefs learned and ingenious differtations on detached pafiages of more than ordinary difficulty. Errors and herelies did make their appearance in- deed during that period, and were fupported by a- bilities, equal at leaft, if not fuperior, to any that have been employed of late in the revival of them. But the divines of the laft century, fenfible of the neceiTity and importance of preferving purity of doc- trine, maintained it v/ith fo vifible a fuperiority, that the groffeft errors were manifeftly put to flight, and obliged to hide their heads. Particularly, the Socinian herefy was effeduahy confuted by Koornbeck, Placeus, 2 Marefius, Sed. III. Of the ftate of learning. ^^ Marefius, Dr Owen, &c. ; as were the Pdplfli errors, not only by the above, but by the great Chamier, Du Moulin, Daille, Claude, &c. in France ; and by many in England, from the learned Biihop Jewel, in Queen Elifabcth*s time, down to that honoured band who fought the battle againft Popery in King James's time, the 7th of Scotland, and ^d of England, wno had an indifputable victory over their antagonifts, Thefe are fo numerous, and fo well known, that I fliall only mention three of them, who were, after the happy Revolution, advanced to the higheft eccle- fiaflical dignity* And you will be endued with a greater degree of alfurance than I can impute to you, ii you dare venture, even in this funlhine of Htera- ture, to betray a contempt either of their genius or learning • I mean Tillotfon, Tennifon, and, above all, Dr Wake, who fo fuccefsfully repelled one of the mod artful attacks that ever the Proteflant caufe fuf- tained, by the Biihop of Meaux, in his expofition of the Catholic faith, and effedualiy filenced his Englilll partifans* Whatever prejudices you may have imbibed againft the dottrines of Chriflianity, revived or reftored only by our firft Reformers, Luther, Calvin, Zanchius, Melanclhon, Beza, &c. you v/ill not furely betray fo grofs an ignorance of them, as to fay they were men of no learning, or of weak abilities. If it were not tedious to mention their fucceifors durinc^ the courfe of the lail century, their very names v,-ould be fuffi- cient to expofe, at lead tO fuch as have any acquaint- ance with their writings, any one who durft venture to accufe them of ignorance, or mean abilities : I mean the profeffors of divinity in the univerfities of Geneva and Switzerland, of Heidelberg, Herborn, Leyden, Utrecht:, &c. But they are fo numerous, and fo well known, that I muft content myfelf with this general reference, without entering any farther into fo wide a field. D How a 6 Of the charge of error. Part I. How fruitful was the Protefliant church of France in emhient and orthodox divines ! Need I mention Bochart, Blondel, Du Bofe, &c. ? with whom may be affociated the famous Du Pleffis Mornay. Never, I beUeve, was a church happier than that of Paris, in the minifters who officiated in Charflnton through the laft century, as long as it was fuifered to ftand. Du T-Ioulin, whom we find there at the beginning of the century, and who fo remarkably exerted his exten- five learning and fmgular abilities againft the cor- rupters of Chriftianity, both Popifli and Proteftant, had a teftimony to the uncommon greatnefs of them, which will be allowed by you, I find, to be of no fmall weight. His door, while he was permitted to continue at Paris, was often befet with the coaches of ambaffadors of Proteftant princes, and others of high rank in the world, whether Frenchmen or foreigners. And his correfpondence was earneflly folicited, and highly valued, by kings themfelves, which at laft: coil him his place. His fucceflbrs were many, there being no lefs than four ferving that important cure at the fame time. How celebrated are the names of Daille, Drelincourt, Meftrezat, &c. ! Suffer me only to mention another of them, who had the mortifica- tion to fee the infamous revocation of the edift of Nantz, and the demolition of that and all their other churches ; I mean the great M, Claude, efleemed 'and refpe£led for his extraordinary abilities by the "very priefts whofe tenets he had fo fuccefsfully en- countered and confuted. Nor were their univerfities lefs happy in profelfors of divinity. Need I mention Chamier, Garrifoles, &c. at Montauban ; Jac. Ca- peilus, and le Blanc, at Sedan ; and in Saumur, our •countryman Camero, that prodigy of learning and •fagacity, with his difciples, three of whom taught di- vinity there at the fame time, viz. Amyrald, Lud. Capellus, and Placeus, all of them eminent in the re- pubhc of letters. I fliall take my leave of the French church, by obferving, that fince their difperfion, they have Sed. III. Of the ftate of learning. 27 have furniflied very able and learned writers, Jurieu, Bafnage, Placette, Abbadie, Saurin, &c. To come nearer home : The divines of the church of England, you know, continued orthodox in doc- trine, till the Laudean fadion, enemies to ferious practical godlinefs, began firft to fpread, among men of their own (lamp, the infeftion of Pelagian doc- trine, and, I may add, likewife the fuperftition and tyranny of the church of Rome. Before that period, (fo fatal to true religion), commiffioners, you know, were fent to reprefent the Enghfh clergy in tlie fynod of Dort, who bore no fmall part in the proceedings of that aflembly. The Bifliops Davenant and Hall were two of them. Their chara«5lers are too well known in the learned world for any man to hazard his own by impeaching theirs, either in refpedl of parts or of learning. I am confident. Sir, that you will not chufe to compare them, and others of their way of thinking in religion, with thofe intemperate zea- lots who drove both England and Scotland into di- ftrefs and confufion, for Popilh ceremonies, and ty- ranny exercifed in the mod cruel and barbarous manner ; while they had abundance of indulgence to bellow upon fuch as were openly profane and immo- ral ; and even enforced (among their other arbitrary proceedings) the profanation of the Lord's day. This character of them can be but too well vouched from the hiltory of the times. Indeed it is abundantly ob- vious from an inconfiderate (Ihall I call it ?) over fight of their own, namely, their diflinguifhing by the nickname of Puritans all who appeared to have a more than ordinary (O how little is that !) concern for the fpiritual interefl of their precious and immor- tal fouls. This nickname included many who had no fcruple about either the pompous hierarchical form of government, or the uninftituted rites added to the fimple worlliip of the gofpel, the tolcrabiles ineptiie, which were .both retained from the worldly and ido- D 2 latrous ^8 Of tjie charge of error. Part I, latrous church of Rome, by a Queen fonder of pomp and ceremony than (1 am afraid) of the life and power pf godlinefs. I would not have fliid fo. far, if I could reconcile with the kill, her unrelenting feverity in oppreihng tender confciences, and infilling with fuch tyrannical rigour upon people's doing what ap- peared to them to be a fin ; not to mention the in- stances of deceit which fill up fo much of the hiflory of her reign.- — Upon this occafion, 1 cannot help obfer- ving how unhappy for their own charafters the Engliih Pelagians are, in the nicknames ufually given by thera to ferious orthodox Chrillians. I thank God, that a ferious concern about our eternal ftate has not hither-, to been fo uncommon in the church of Scotland, as, to expofe thoi'e in whom it appears, to the difgrace, or honour, (fliali I call it?), of a nickname, as it ufually docs in Eneland. But there feems to be a hand of O Providence in it, that thefe very nicknames happen always to be fuch as mark the difference to confift on the part of the fuppofed objefts of ridicule, only in greater fobriety, and a more orderly behaviour. Once it was Puritan ; nov,- it is ethodi/i ; as if purity of manners, and regularity of life, were not preferable to diffipation and licenticufnefs. The divines who fiourifiied in England about the r:e fit nccelfe." And that there are fuch in the Chri Han religion, he ex-, prefsly owns, and gives us a Xi:^ of feveral of them. The whole of your book feeins to be founded on a different apprehenfion. Ycu feem to think, it is no. matter what our opinions in religion are ; and that we may change any of them every day, upon the moll important fubjeds, without either the leaff fault on our part, or the leail hazard of our falvation ; and therefore I mur give you better authority for the e- ifablifiiment of this principle than Limborch or Schlintingius. Nothing can be more clear than it is in the fcrip-- ture, that faith is indifpenfably required on our part in order to falvation. This is the very fub'+ance of that gofpel which our Saviour gave his apoflles a commiflion to preach to all the world : " He that be^ «' lieveth, fliall be faved ■'' and, N, B. " He that be- ^' lieveth not, (hall be damned," Markxvi. 16. The apoille tells us exprefsly, that " v.^ithout faith it is <' impolTible to pleafe God," Heb. xi. 6. See alfo John iii. 16. — -ii. ; Ads xvi. 31. ; and viii. 37. &c. Were it not that every article of Chrillianity is now called in queiiion, even by many who pretend to be Chri:'ian3, it might feem very idle and fuperfuious tp adduce any proofs, to one who profeffes that reli- Se6t.I. NecelTity of faith. ' 45 gion, for a thing that is fo indifputable among real Chritrians. Are not believers and itnbelievtrs the very terms whereby the fcriptures , diilinguifli thofe that are to be faved, and thofe that are to periih ? Are we not there aifured, that " the unbelieving,— " and all liars," (who fay they believe what they do not), " (hall have their part in the lake which burn- " eth with fire and brimilone ?' Rev. xxi. 8. Are not fmners threatened with having " their portion *' appointed with the unbelievers ? " Luke xii. 46. ; and when Chrifl comes again, is it not exprefsly de- clared, that it will be " in flaming fire, taking ven- ^' geance on them that know not God, and that obey <' not the gofpel of our Lord Jefus Chrilt ?" 2 TheiT. i. 8. Now it is certain, that whatever more may be im- plied in faith, a perfuafion of the truth of all the ef- iential doftrines of Chriiiianity is not only included, but mud be the foundation of ail the relx. Not on- ly is the neceffity of faith in general aflerted in the mod exprefs terms, but feveral particular doclrines are fpecified in different places of the fcripture as in- difpenfably neceffary to be believed. See i John iv. 2. 3. and chap. V. 1. 5. 10. 11.; 2 John 7.; Heb. xi. 6. ; Rom. x. 9. ; i Cor. ii. 2. and xv. 3. 4. 15. If holinefs be neceffary to, falvation, (as it is ex- prefsly affirmed to be, Heb. xii. 14.), fo mud faith. For the fcripture affures us, that faith is the only true fource of holinefs. There we are taught, that " the " vidory which overcometh the world, is our faith/* I John v. 4. ; that our " hearts are purified by faith,'* Acts XV. 9. ; that we are " fanctified by faith," A6ls xxvi. 18.; that we are " fanctified through the " truth,'* John xvii. 17.; that "knowing the truth " makes us free indeed," John viii. 32. And furely this is a method of procedure, worthy of God, and fuitable to the conditution of the human nature. To begin with the leading faculty, and to clear the way for reformation, by fird letting in light into the mi;^.4 that 46 Do£lrinal propofitions. Part II. that was dark, or, in the emphatic language of the apoftle, darknejs^ and bewildered in the paths of fin, is laying a folid foundation for repentance and amendment. Any alteration upon the lower appe- tites and affections, without any change in the fupe- rior faculty, the underttanding, is doing the work but by halves. It is like lopping only fome branches from a tree, while the flump is left in full vigour, deeply rooted in the eardi. Indeed, nothing can properly be faid to be new, unlefs, as the apoftle tells us, yiLL things are become new, fo that we are wholly New Creatures. I am fenfible how unfuitable all this is to the pre- fent fafliionable fyilem of religion. A fufficient evi- dence how little that fyfcem is founded upon the word of God ! There are abundance of modern Chriflians, who, though perhaps majiers of Ifrael, know of no neceflity for regeneration, or a renexval of our mind. They feem to have no idea of a fanc- tification founded upon faith, or that is an effect of the knowledge and behcf of the truth. A prevalence of the virtues, in any charafter, above the vices fup- pofed to reign in the fame chars.cter, is all the fandti- iication they require as neceffary to falvation. As for damnation, it feems to be quite difcarded out of their fyflem, according to the agreeable divinity of the old ferpent, Te jhall not Jure ly die. And indeed how can a juff judge punifli one for what was not in his power in any fenfe to avoid ? for, in their appre- henfion, a phyfical and a moral inability are the fame. As love, and the other inferior pafTions, are not, ac- cording to them, under the controul of the intelleft; fo likewife, in the operations of the intelleft itfelf, men, they tell us, are entirely paffive. It is no won- der, therefore, that they will not admit an affent to the truth as a condition of falvation, it not being, in their opinion, a human act. Nor will they allow truth and error to have any different influence on the conduct of hfe. One of your friends tells us, in a pamphlet, Se£t. I. Neceffity of faith. 47 pamphlet, intltled, Ohfarvations on the Analyfis^ that " errors in religion may perplex the underftand- ings, but never can impair the morals of men.*' How different is this from the fcripture-plan ? There we are told, that God, who made man in his own image, when man is in a fallen ftate, and that image is defaced, rentivs him in knowledge after the image of him that created him^ and by that means in right eoufnefs and true hoinefs. This is brought about by the knowledge and belief of the truth : " Of his own will begat he us by the word of " truth," James i. 18. As in the original conllitu- tion of the hum.an nature, the fuperior faculty of the underitanding had the government over the inferior appetites and pafTions ; fo in the cafe of a rebellion, wherein the underilanding has loft her feat, and a duft is raifed which intercepts the light of truth from the mind, there is no -reducing things to order again, without fcattering the clouds of prejudice, and re- lloring the leading faculty to fome degree of its for- mer dignity and influence, by the light of truth. You feem to think there is no harm in the enter- tainment of any opinions, be what they will. You a(k, as if it was an indifputable point, " Is there any thing criminal in a man's altering his opinion ? I may change my fentiments on any fubje£l to-morrow, if I do it from conviftion, and who will fay it is wrong V* p. 227. As to what you mention of doing it from convic- tion, it is true, that without conviction, one may be induced by unjuftifiable motives to fpeak, as you know many do fubfcribe, contrary to their real opi- nion : but a real alteration of opinion, which is what you here fuppofe, I take to be the very fame thing, to be identical with a convitlion, that your former opi- nion was an error, and your prefent one the truth, whatever might be the inducements or prejudices that brought about the alteration. And now to your queflion, " Who will fay it is wrong ?" 4-8 Bodirinal propofitions. Part II. wrong ?" I anfwer. If your change of opinion be owing to a more diligent and more impartial inquiryj and you have really changed from error to truth, far be it from me to fay it is wrong. But as you do by no means confine what you fay to this cafe, if in the alteration you have loft the truth, and have ad- mitted error in its place, is not this making a bad ufe of your reafon ? and is not that v/rong ? If it is an error of importance in rehgion ; if it is deferting the true rehgion, and embracing a falfe one, (which is never done without an indulgence of criminal preju- dices) ; I fhall tell you. Sir, v/ho will fay, who has faid, it is wrong. The infallible Spirit of God infpi- red the Apoftle Paul to fay. oftener than once, it is wrong, very wrong. " If any man," fays he, " con- " fcnt not to wholefome words, even the words of *' our Lord Jefus Chriil, and to the doftrine which " is according to godiinefs, he is proud, knoAving " nothing, but doting about queftions and flrifes of *' words, whereof cometh envy, ftrifc, railings, evil "^ furmihngs, perverfe difputings of men of corrupt '^ minds, and deiiitute of the truth," i Tim. vi. 3. 4. c;. Not to multiply quotations, (as there will be very foon occauon to give you more of them), I fliall here quote only one paiiage more to the fame purpofe : Rom. xvi. 17. 18. "Now I befeech you, brethren, *"■ mark them who caufe divifions and offences, con- *' trary to the doctrine which ye have learned, ard " avoid them. For they that are fuch, ferve not our " Lord Jefus Chrift, but their own belly ; and by " good words and fair fpeeches deceive the hearts of " the hmple." What a grievous complaint do you m.ake of a word unanimoully adopted by the fynod of Glaf- gow and Air, in their condemnation of falfe doc- trine ? They happened, it feems, to cxprefs their dttejiation of it, \7hich has drawn from you the fol- lowing doleful iamentatiou bi) the condu^ of your I . own Se£l. 1. Air lynod defended. 40 6wn party on that occafion, p. 48. " What pity it is, that men of hberal fentimcnts fhould be laid under the cruel neceffity of affording the Ihelter of their fi- lence to fuch a fentiment ! Was there not one in this numerous allembly convocated in the year 1769, in the funlhine of the fciences, bold enough to propofe an amendment, and to fubftitute fome Chriftian term in the room of dctejiation f Admitting that every member of this fynod believed every doctrine efta- blifhed in this church, was it incumbent on them to dettfi every opinion which was contrary ?'* Sir, you yourfelf do not deny, as I fhall fhew yoU afterwards, that the doftrine condemned by the fy- nod, and that which is eftablifhed in this church, are quite different rehgions ; the one or the other of which mud not only be a falfe one, but mufl lead to idolatry. Now, admitting that the fynod received the lail as the true one, was it not highly becoming' them to exprefs their deteftation of every thing tha,t tended to the deftruftion of it, and, in their appre- henfion, to the ruin of our people ? But however erroneous the doftrine condemned is fuppofed to be, you cannot digeft the unchriftian term dettjiation. If the very word detefi be an unchri- ftian term, allow me, D. Sir, to afk. How you durft venture to ufe it yourfelf, and to beftow it upon the principles of this church, and that in the fuperlative degree, and with an extraordinary afleveration, " Mod detcfiable principles verily ?" Thefe are your own words, p. 16^. After all, pray where can we go for a Chrijiian term but to the Bible, which you profefs to receive as an indifputable ftandard ? If you have no objec- tion to the terms there ufed on the occafion of erro- neous doctrine, you cannot furely find any fault in the language of the fynod. Hate is a word, I think, much ot the fame im.port v/ith date ft ; and yet the meek and mild Jefus has made choice of it in the re- buke he gives to the church of Pergamos, for fuf- G fering jy© Do£tnnal propofitioni?. Part II. fering erroneous teachers to continue in communion vyith them, " So (fays he) haft thou alfo them that ** hold the doftrine of the Nicolaitdns ; which thing *' I hate ;" Rev. ii. i c;. What if our tranilators had rendered the original word yM/o-w, dett/i, can you fay it would have been very much miftranilated ? I am fure the fame verb is ufed paflively by the fame writer. Rev. xviii. 2. where dettJiabU would have exprefied the fenfe in Englifh every whit as happily as hate- The fame obfervation will hold with refped to o- ther terms ufed in the fcripture. The Jews did many a time alter their opinions in religion, forfaking the inftitutions of Mofes, and adopting the erroneous fentiments of their Heathen neighbours. But does God never fay it was wrong ? or intimate his detefta- tion thereof? In Pfal. Ixxviii. 58. 59. we are told, " They provoked him to anger with their high pla- " ces, and moved him to jealoufy with their graven " images. When God heard this, he was wroth, " and greatly abhorred Ifraei." Dtteft^ I ihould think, cannot be a more unchriliian term than abhor ^ gtrctiy abhor ; and yet this is a term frequently ufed by God himfelf, the beft example for us to imitate. Thus, in Deut. xxxii. 16. 17. 19. " They provoked " him to jealoufy with ftrange gods, with abomina- *' TioNS provoked they him to anger. They facri- " ficed unto devils, not to God ; to gods whom they " knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom " your fathers feared not. — And when the Lord faw " it, he ABHORRED them.'* See alfo chap. xxix. 2,6. 27. 28.; Lev. xxvi. 30. &c. What pity it is, Sir, that you, who profefs fo great a regard for the Bible, (at leaft when it ferves no o- thcr purpofe but an oppofition to thofe doctrines which, uninfpired indeed, but pious and learned men,, have coUefted out of it), had not cultivated a more thorough acquaintance with it, before you ventured to pronounce the terms there ufed to be unchriftian ? You Sedi I. Air fynod defended. 5 1 You feeni to prefer the fafhionable terms and phrafes that of late have in a great meafure fupplanted the fcripture-llyle, fuch as " Uberal fentiments,'* &c. I wifh the funfhine of 1769 may not have dazzled the eyes of fome modern divines, and eclipfed the lis[ht of the glorious gofptl of Uirtji. Is it a Chriftian term, think you, which the Apofde Paul was not a- fraid to ufe, Gal. i. 8. " Though we, or an angel .*' from heaven, preach any other gofpel unto you, " than that which we have preached unto you, let " him be accursed." The Apollle John, notwith- ftanding the natural fweetnefs of his difpofition, feems to have been as unchriftian, in your view of things, as the Apoftle Paul was. " If there come (fays he) any " unto you, and bring not this doftrine, receive him " not into your houfe, neither bid him God fpeed. " For he that biddeth him God fpeed, is partaker of *' his evil deeds." 2 John 10. 11. If, by " men of liberal fentiments," you mean thofe who think it as innocent a thing to embrace er- ror as to receive truth, I am afraid the infpired wri- ters muft fall under the reproach of very illiberal fen- timents. They make always a very great difference between the fpirit of truth and the fpirit of error. The lad is imputed to the devil;, who is a liar^ avd the father of it, " If our gofpel be hid, (fays the " Apoftle Paul), it is hid to them that are loft. In *' whom the god of this world hath blinded the ** minds of them who believe not, left the light of " the glorious gofpel of Chrilt, who is the image of " God, ftiould fliine unto them ; " 2 Cor. iv. 3. 4. Another Apoftle tells us, " There fliall be falfe teach- ** ers among you, who privily fliall bring in dAmn- *' ABLE herefies, even denying the Lord that bought *' them, and bring upon themfelves fwift deftruc- *' tion;" 2 Pet. ii. i. Nor will Chrift himfelf efcape the cenfure of illiberal fentiments, who commands us to preach, that he ivho believeth not^ jjjallbe clcumT ed -f and who threatens to take vengeance on them G 2 ivha t-a Doctrinal propofitions. PartIL ijuho know not God^ and that obey not his go/pel. ** For (fays the fplrit of Chrift by the Evangelical " Prophet) it is a people of no understanding: " therefore he that made thern will not have mercy " on them, and he that formed them will fhew them " no favom*;'* If. xxvii. ii. Would fo righteous a judge punifh men for any thing that is perfectly inno- cent, and which none dare fay is wrong ? That which I apprehend mifleads you men of li- beral fentiments, is this : You conclude, and juftly too, that God, in palTing judgement on the erro- neous, will have a regard to thcfe criminal prejudices, the indulgence of which involved them in ignorance and error. I make no queftion but he will, and that his judgement will be founded upon their unreafon- able hatred of the truth, or, in the cafe of invincible ignorance, upon that wickednefs and mifimprove- ment of the light they had, which provoked him to with-hold any farther light from them, to give them up, and to /end them ftrong dehifions. But you feem rarely to attend to any other prejudice but that of education alone. He who forfakes the religion he was brought up in, having apparently got over that one, looks fomething hke an unprejudiced inquirer, and, upon that nngle prefumption, is readily admit- ted by you to be fo. If the tenets you embrace be not the fame that were held by your fathers, you feem to think yourfelves fufficiently intitled to crow over thofe who have not altered their creed, as if this circumftance was an indifputable evidence of their prejudice, and oi your impartiality. But there cannot be a more equivocal fign of im- partiality than this. How many depart from the re- ligion of their fathers through prejudice ? and how many continue in the fame faith without prejudice ? I really cannot help fmiling fometimes (for which I beg your forgivenefs) at the fmiplicity of that confi- dence with which you take it for granted, that you are, without (^uellion, the impartial inquirers, for no other Se£l.T. Air fynod defended. ^3 other reafon, but becaufe you appear not to be fet- tered with the prejudice of education ; as if there was not another prejudice that we had to overcome. I fee the train of your ideas, and am apt to ima- gine the logic by which you impofe upon yourfelves to be fomething like what follows. " God cannot punifli where there is no fault ; nor ought men to detefl what is perfectly innocent. There is no fault in believing any propofition, unlefs that belief arifes from prejudice. The prejudice of education is the only one we have any idea of. This we have evi- dently cafl oft": and therefore, be our fentiments right or wrong, we cannot be liable to any blame for embracing them. Neither can God be fuppofed to be difpleafed, nor ought men to be offended with us on that account.'* According to this way of reafoning, whatever re- ligion one has been educated in, true or falfe, there can be no harm in forfaking it. Is this the judge- ment that God pafies upon it ? See how he exprelfes himfelf upon fuch an occafion : Jer. ii. 1 1 . 1 2. " Hath *' a nation changed their gods, which are yet no " gods ? but my people have changed their glory, *' for that which doth not profit. Be aftoniflied, O " ye heavens, at this, and be horribly afraid." When the Ifraelites forfook the God of their fathers, they muft have had the prejudice of education to flruggle with. This, it feems, they did upon thefe occafions overcome : and will you thence infer, that they were certainly fair and unprejudiced fearchers after truth, and that their change of fentiments was what no body could pretend to fay was wrong, or that it could reafonably give offence to God or man ? In like manner, thofe among ourfelves who have been baptized and initiated in the Chriflian religion, when they fall away to Deifm or infidelity, the very change itfelf is proof fufficient, that the prejudice of education has no influence over them. But does this entirely exculpate them from all prejudice of every kin(i, 54 Dodrinal propofitions. Part 11. kind, and render them perfedly innocent in the change of their fentiments ? The truth is, this is one of the leaft criminal of thofe prejudices which an honefii and impartial fearch- er for truth has to fubdue. It is none of thofe we find fo frequently infilled upon in the fcripture, as the true fources of error and unbelief. When the gofpel was firft preached, both Jews and Gentiles lay all under the prejudice of education againft it : yet this was not what our Saviour and his apoftles do chiefly complain of, as obflru^ting the progrefs thereof. No : it was the carnality, the fenfuality, the worldlinefs, and the lulls of men, that they complain moll of as blinding their minds, and lliutting their eyes againll the light of truth. " The natural man receiveth not the things " of the Spirit of God : for they are foolillinefs unto " him ; neither can he know them, becaufe they are " fpiritually difcerned ;** i Cor. ii. 14. " The car- " nal mind is enmity againll God : for it is not fub- *' je6: to the law of God, neither indeed can be ; '* Rom. viii. 7. As the truths of religion are dire«5lly oppolite to the fmful lulls we are but too apt to in- dulge, fo- are thefe to thofe. " This (fays our Sa- " viour) is the condemnation, that light is come into " the world, and men love darknefs rather than " light, becaufe their deeds are evil. For every *' one that doth evil, hateth the light, neither cometh " to the light, left his deeds fliould be reproved. " But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that *' his deeds may be made manifeft, that they are " wrought in God;'* John iii. 19. — 21. See Rom. i. 28. ; 2 Their, ii. 10. — 12. ; Job. xxi. 14. ; Prov. i. 22. 29. &c. Before I difmifs your complaint of the fynod at Air, there is one thing that I fhall frankly acknow- ledge. If your friends in that meeting had the fame views of the matter which you have, it was, I own, a meannefs in them to afford the fhelter of their fi- lence to a fentiment which they inwardly condemned. Much Sed. L Air fynod defended. ^^ Much more was it fo, to give countenance to it fo pofitively as they did, and to fay they condemned a pubhcation which they really approved. But then why do you excufe them for it ? Muft you and they be always exculpated ? And are others to bear the whole blame, not only of their own adVions, but of your behaviour likewife, even when it is felf-con- demned ? So you plainly infmuate in thefe words, wherein you include yourfelf : " Ye impofers of con- fefTions ! we owe this to you. Tou have disjoined our fentiments from our words, and fet our prudence and fmcerity at variance." Likewife when you af- firm that they were under a cruel (as you call it) nn- cejjity to behave as they did. Here is indeed a plain confeffion of hypocrify on your part. We have not only an avowal, but a vin- dication of it. You cannot deny that your fentiments are disjoined from your words ; but you allcdge that it is prudent^ that it is necejj'ary^ to be infincere. O ! the artifice of felf-love, that can difguife our worft aftions, and throw the whole blame of them upon o- thers ! Never did this appear in a more ftriking light than in your being able, after the acknowledgements of infmcerity that are fometimes extorted from you, ftill to exult, as it were, and triumph, in your frequent boafling of honefty as the diftinguifhing badge of your party. But be not (I befeech you. Sir, for your own fake) impofed on by any flattering ideas of fup- pofed neceffity, you who profefs to be the difciple of him who faid. Be 7iot afraid of them that kill the body. There is a neceffity more cruel than any that ever you were expofed to. Allow me to put you in mind, that in thofe hearts where the grace of God reigns, no neceffity is ever admitted of unworthy be- haviour. Our orthodox fathers had an opportunity during the lafl century, efpecially between the Refto-> ration and the Revolution, to fhew us, that no neceffity, however cruel, was able to disjoin their fentiments from ^6 Doftrinal propofitlons. Part II. from their words, or to fet their prudence and fin* cerity at variance. I have dwelt the longer on the difcuflion of this point, becaufe I take it to be lying at the bottom of the whole difference between us. But I now pro- ceed to SECT. II. The fecond propo/ition. That our faith of the chief articles of revealed religion miift be particular and explicit. IVhat is advanced by our author ^ and Phileleutherus, againji the neceffity of be- lieving the fatisf action of Chriji, conjidered. Prop. II. A general or implicit faith, or a fufpen- fion of our judgement, is not fufficient. But with refpeQ: to the chief articles of revealed religion, the aflent given to them muft be particular and explicit, in order to either acceptance with God, or profit to ourfelves. The chief difference between the orthodox fyflem of divinity and that of heretics, at leaft of fuch as are in the Pelagian and Socinian way, is, that the one is pofitive, the other moflly negative. The creed of the laft, with refped to revealed religion, does in a great meafure confift in negative articles, in the denial or rejection of very important dodrines, without fubfti- tuting any in their room, being in reality next to a total infidelity. Accordingly, you plead for what you call a general fubfcription, without the mention . of any one article of faith, or for a fubfcription of the Bible only, while at the fame time you contend for a liberty at any time to renounce every particular truth contained in it. This fcepticiim, fo much the fafhion of the prefent age, flands in the directed oppofition to the diftinguifhing charaderiftic of the Chrillian re- ligion, where it is obvious to every one who reads 2 the Sed. II. AfTent to articles, explicit. §f the New Teftament, how great a ftrefs is laid upon faith. And (which is certainly fomewhat ftrange) this very want of faith is by you afcribed to a love of truth ; as if a father (liould boaft of an impartial re- gard for his children, becaufe he has driven them all equally out of his houfe. There may indeed be cafes fuppofed where a fuf- penfion of aflent would be the part of a wife man* But this can only be where it is of little or no im- portance whether the thing be true or falfe, or whe- ther we believe it or not, and where fufficient evi- dence cannot be had. • If I were told of a fire at Mofcow, by a perfon of little credit, who, I fufpedt- ed, was impofing upon me, there would be no harm, in fufpendhig my aifent to a piece of news wherein I was fo little interelled, till I had better evidence for it. But fhould I be told, that my own houfe was on fire, about which I could eafily fatisfy myfelf, would it be equally wife to fufpend my aflent to that infor- mation likewife, without any farther inquiry into the matter ? Now furely it cannot be pretended that there is the leaft room for any of thefe excufes in the cafe before us. Can it be faid to be a matter of indifference whether we believe or no, when our iaith is declared by God himfelf to be the condition of our falvation, and our eternal happinefs or mifery depends upon it ? and to complain for want of evidence, is accufing God of unreaionable rigour. Would he infift upon our be- lieving what was deftitute of fufficient evidence ? I mean fufficient for the conviction, not of one who in-^ dulged criminal prejudices, or who would not take tlie trouble of a diligent inquiry, but fufficient to fa- tisfy any ferious, diligent, honed, and impartial in- quirer. Nor will a general and implicit fort of aifent, at all anfwer the purpofe. The truths revealed by God have a direft and immediate influence upon the prac- tice, infomuch that it is impoffible to difcharge the H indifpenfable ^8 Doctrinal propofitions. Part II. indifpenfable duties they impofe upon us, without an explicit alient to them. For example, the Chridian religion obliges us to worlhip our bleffed Saviour. This is admitted by the Socinians themfelves ; at leaft by fome of them ; for they are divided upon this point. But how can this duty be rightly difcharged, without knowing whether Chrift be God, or a mere creature ? If he be a mere creature, it is downright idolatry, according to Chrift's own exprefs decifion : Matth. iv. lo. "Thou (halt " worfhip the Lord thy God, and him ONLY llialt " thou ferve.** If this be no. ^.^dmitted as fufficient authority, (for no decifion in the fcripture can itand before the critical talents of a Sociniai!, or is allowed to fignify any thing but what he pleafes), it has been demonftrated by fome Socinians themfeives, particu- larly by Francken, who had a difpute with Socinus up- on this fubjeG. Yet the llacovian catechifm affirms, that the worfhip of Chriil was a precept tacked to the firft commandment of the Decalogue. A very ex- traordinary addition indeed ! To fet up another ob- ject of wordilp, by way of appendix to that command which prohibits us to have any other* The fame thing may be, obferved concerning the doftrine of Chrift's fatisf[iction. It has a dired and immediate influence upon our compliance or non- compliance with the very condition of falvation ; fo that we who receive it, cannot connder it in any cfther light than in the words of Schlightingius, "Tale dog- ." ma, quo ignorato, vel non adrniilo, id quod ex -" noftra parte ad falutem requiritur ruere abfolute fit " necefle.*" If our fins are pardoned only upon the account of his fatisfadion imputed to us, if it is not imputed to any that do not embrace it by a lively faith, if it cannot be embraced by thofe w^ho do not believe it ; how can they obtain the pardon of their fins, who either rejeft this doctrine, or fulpend their judgement about it ? Upon this occafion, I cannot but take notice of a paifage Sed. II. AflTent to articles, explicit. 59 paiTage in your preface, p. 52. wherein you plainly enough infinuate, that the doctrine of our Confeflion upon this fubjecl does not appear to you to be the fame with that of the fcripture, /. e. with the opi- nion you have formed, or with the fenfe you have put upon the fcripture. And, p. ^6. you exprefsly declare, that you think it of no importance whether one be a Socinian or a Calvinift. Of the fame opi- nion is one of your fellow-labourers in the Scots Ma- gazine, under the fignature of PkikkutheruSy who exprefsly maintains, that it is not neceiTary to falva- tion to believe that Chriit's death is a propitiation for our fins. It is, I confefs, impoffible to fay precifely what is the number of fundamental or effential doctrines of Chriftianity, becaufe this would be to fix a thing that is neceiTarily variable, and depends upon ditferent cir- cumflances and fituations. Befides, the importance of dodlrines, and the clearnefs of their revelation, are fufceptible of fuch diiferent degrees, as renders it difficult to judge whether fome tenets are only fim- ple errors, or merit the denomination of herefics. But how ridiculous would it be to infer from this, that there is not one doctrine in the ChrilHan religion that can be faid to be effential, or neceffary to be believed ? This would be an abfurdity of the fame kind, as if one lliouid maintain, that even at m,id-day, it could not be decided whether the fun be rifen or not, mere- ly becaufe in a certain fi:ate of the atmofphere, and at a different time of the day, it is fometimes not eafy to determine whether the fun be above or below the horizon. Though one may be at a lofs to decide by his fenfes what is the precife minute and fecond when the darknefs is at an end, and day-light begins ; yet furely, when the fun-beams are blazing in his eyes, he would be extremely fi:upid if he could hefitate a mo- ment in pronouncing it to be then clear day-light. In like manner, whatever difficulties may occur in re- lation to fomc religious tenets, yet there are truths in li 2 Chriftianity ^6 Doctrinal propofitions. Part II. Chriftianity that may be regarded as fundamental, and the denial of them as the groffeft herefy. Of which the doctrine of Chrift's fatisfadion, or that his death was a propitiatory facrifice for our fms, is a ma^ nifeft example. Three characters, chiefly, ferve to diftinguifli thofe truths, the belief of which is neceffary to falvation. The firfl is, that they be of fuch a nature, and of fuch an immediate influence upon the praftice, that without the belief of them it is impoffible to comply with the terms of falvation. That this dodrine of the death of Chrift being a propitiation for our fins, is of that nature, is evident from what has juft now been obferved. Another criterion that ferves to point out the truths which are neceffary to be explicitly believed is, the fcriptures laying a peculiar flrefs upon them, and re-^ pr^fenting them as the main or effential principles of Chriftianity. To fiiow you that this doftrine is fo re^ prefented to us in the fcripture, (omitting many other paffages), I need not go beyond one epiftle, viz. the iirfl epiftle to the Corinthians. To this purpofe the apoflle fays, " Other f o u n d a t i o n can no ^' man lay than that is laid, which is Jefus Chrift," I Cor. iii. ii. And what it is in Chrift that is of chief confideration, we are told, in words that are equally fignificant, and evidently lead us to regard it as a principal and fundamental doctrine of Chriftia- nity : chap. ii. 2. " For I determined not to know *' any thing among you, fave Jefus Chrift, and him " c R u c I F I E D." Can the apoftle mean only the bare hiftorical faft, abftrafted from the end and defign of it ? But he is more particular as to the concern we have in that important event, chap. xv. 3. where he ft ill mentions it as one of the firft and moft pffential or fundamental principles of Chriftianity : .^' Fori delivered to you, FIRST of all, that which *' I alfo received, how that Chrift died for our ^' SINS according to the fcriptures," And therefore he Sed. II. " Aflent to articles, explicit. 6x he declares, chap. i. 23. 24. that though " Clirift " crucified be to the Jews a ftumbling-block, and to *« the Greeks foolifhnefs, to them that are called he " is the power of God, and the wifdom of God." This doftrine of Chrift crucified for our fins, as from the beginning it proved a ftumbling-block to many, and particularly appeared to be foolilhnefs to the wife, the difputer of this world, it is no wonder that it (hould ftill continue to be fo. But, fays he, chap, iii. 18. " Let no man deceive himfelf : if any man a- " mong you feemetli to be wife in this world, let *' him become a 'fool, that he may be wife." But whatever appearance it may have in the eyes of the worldly-wife, the apoftle, you fee, always fpeaks of it as the firft, the chief, the fundamental doftrine of Chriftianity. A third circumftance that diftinguifhes a doctrine which is indifpenfably neceffary to be believed, is the clearncfs and certainty of its revelation : for he that beheveth not God, hath made him a llat\ becaiifc he believcth not the record that Cod p;ave of his Son. But fuch is the multitude and variety of dif- ferent expreffions whereby this doctrine, of the death of Chrift being a propitiation for our fms, is afterted in the fcripture, that one would think particular care had been taken to guard againft all poiiible cavils in a matter of fuch eftential importance. The infpired writers knowing v^'hat a ftumbling-blork this dodlrine then was, and afterwards would be, to the worldly- wife, who would not fubmit to the wifdom of God, to the fcribe, to the difputer of this world, fcem, on purpofe, to have revealed it fo very exprefsly, and in fo many different words and phrafes, that if one might be eluded, another might not, fo that unbe- lievers might be left without all excufe. Let us take a view of fome of them. How often is it declared, (in the very words ufed by Phileleutherus, in his denial, that this dodrine is necelTary to be believed), that Chrift is the propitia- tion ^2 Doctrinal propofitions. Part II. tion for our fins f i John ii. i. and chap. iv. i o. ; Rom. iii. 25. If propitiation will not do, he is like- wife called the atonement. The blood of Chrifi^ ivho through the eternal Spirit^ offered hinifelf zoithoiit fpot to God^ is faid to purge our confcience from dead zoorks. He is faid to put atvay (in by the facrifice of himfelf We are told, that Chrifi was once offered to bear the fins of many ; that we are fandified through the offering of the body of Jejus Chrifi once for all ; that by one offering he hath perfeded for ever them that are fandified ; that he made his foul an offering for fin ; that he bare crur iniquities ; that he bare the fin of many ; that lie died for us^ or (as the original word imports) in our fiead. The reafon given for our freedom from condemnation, is, becaufe it is Chrifi that died. We are faid to be jnfiified by his blood ; to be re- conciled to God by the death of his Son^ by zvhoin zoe have received the atonejnent. He is faid to have once fuffered for our fins, the jnfi for the unjufi. We are faid to be zuafjjed from our fins in his blood ; to be redeemed by the precious blond of Chrifi^ as of a lamb zuithout blemifh. He is faid to give his life a ranfom for many ; to have bought us with a price ; to be facrified for us ; to have given himfelf for its an offerings and a facrifice to God ; to be the Lamb of God that taketh azvay the fin of the zuorld ; to have borne our fins on his own body on the tree ; to have been made fin for us^ zvho himfelf liad no fin ; to have redeemed us from the curfe of the lazo^ by being made a curfe for us. He is faid to be wounded for our trarfgrefions^ and bruifedfor our iniquities ; to have the chafiife- ment of our peace upon him ; and to heal us by his ftripes. TJie Lord is faid to have laid upon him the iniquities of us all, &c. Is it poiTible to ima- gine any truth to be more clearly revealed ? The profufion of critical learning, whereby all this, and much Scd. II. Aflent to articles, explicit. 6 v> much more, has been attempted to be eluded, only fhews what violent prejudices this dodlrine has to ftruggle with. Nothing could have been more grate- ful, more delightful indeed, to a truly humbled fm- ner, or more worthy of all acceptation. But as for the felf-righteous, in whom the fpirit of conviftioii has not been cajiing down imaginations-^ and every high thing that exalteth it/elf againft the knoiv- ledge oj Cod^ and bringing into cJptiviiy everv thought to the obedience of Chrijf ; if the above ex- preflions go for nothing, it is plain that no words whatever could have prevented oppofition from that quarter* To all this Phileleutherus oppofes only the tefti- mony of himfelf and his friends, that " they know fome who difcover a pious and holy temper, while they do not receive the do6lrine of our Saviour's fa- tisfaftion, or that Jefus was a propitiation for the fms of men."- 1 am very fenfible what an advantage the faihionably charitable gentlemen of liberal fenti- ments have, when, inftead of reafoning, they make the decifion of a queflion to depend upon characters given by themfelves, which it would be odious to call, in queflion. Yet I mufl fay, that experience has at length taught me, how little weight is to be laid on characters given by friends, efpecially in fupport of any fide of a controverfy. Such encomiums, how fin cere foever they may be, I have often found, ferve only to (liow how low an idea the pan egy rills have of v.^hat they call piety. We find by the frequent complaints of the infpired writers, that it has been the old charader of falfe teachers, to " fpeak fmooth things, and prophefy de- " ceits ; to heal the hurt of God's people flightly, *' faying, Peace, peace, when there is no peace. *' They fay Hill unto them that defpife me, (fays God " by Jeremiah), The Lord hath faid. Ye lliall have *' peace j and they fay unto every one that walketh " after 04 Do£trinal propofitions. PartIL *' after the Imagination of liis own heart, No evil fliall " come upon you. They flrengthen alfo the " hands of evil doers, that none doth return from *' his wickednefs," Jer. xxiii. But how partially fo ever charaders may be, and certainly are given, efpecial'.y when an argument re- quires it, this I am not now to infift on. I fhall al- low thole Socinians of Phileleutherus's acquaintance to be as good as he can pretend to know, or to be a judge of. Let them be really as good as the amiable gentleman whom Jffus loved, while yet ha lacked one thing, Mark x. 2 1 . ; as good as the feemingly pious, and truly difcreet perfon, who yet was from^ though not far from the kingdom of Cod, chap. xii..34. ; as good as the ftony-ground hearers, who received the %uord zuith joy, in whom it fprung up^ fo that they enditred for a vjhile^ till ptrj edition and afflidion arijing, difcovered that they had not root in themfelves ; nay, as good as they who could fay, Lordy Lord, have we not prophejied in thy name f 'drc. whom yet he never knew. Beyond this no mere man can pretend to judge, by whom the hearts of other men are impenetrable. But is all this fufficient to fupply the vifibie want of a neceffary and effential requifite, fo declared to be in the Chri- ftian revelation ? Let me put the charitable gentlemen in mind of a maxim that has been long admitted by all Chriftian moralifts, " Bonum ex integris caufis, malum ex " quolibet defetlu.'* Suppofe a Ihip ever fo flrong and tight in every other part, one leak, if it be not ftopped, will be enough to fmk her. One mortal wound will be the death of the ftrongeft and other- wife healthieft man. In like manner, in order to de- nominate an action, or a perfon, truly good, and ac- ceptable to God, there mufl be a concurrence of all effqntial qualifications, the want of any one of which would effedlually vitiate the adion, or the character, and is fufficient for condemnation. But can there be Sedi, 11. Aflent to articles, explicit. 6r a more eflential qualification than faith is declared to be in the fcripture ? and will we venture to pronounce a life truly good which is not the produ(9tion of a true faith ? If an infpired apoifle tells us, that -without faith it is impoijihlc to pidujc God ; does it become us to rqDly, that we know fome whofe life pleafes us, without this qualification, or with a vifible and very eirential defefl: in it ? I will not imitate Phileleuthe- rus in calling this " intolerable arrogance ;" becaufe I think, by fofter words, his argument would have loft none of its force. After what has been faid, no body can be at a lofs for an anfwer to the queftion put by Phileleutherus, in thefe words : " Where does the Bible make the affirming or denying what he calls found principles here, a criterion or teft for diftinguilhing between good and bad men ?" 1 anfwer, In fo many places are found principles made fuch a criterion, that it is aftonilliing to fee any one who has read the Bible aik- ing fuch a queftion. The paffages that have been quoted under this and the former propofition, may put him in mind of fome of them. To which I ihall here add one more, where there is a general, but ex- prefs aifertion, That the affirming or denying found principles, is a proper criterion or teft for diftinguifh- ing between good and bad men through all ages of the church. This it could not be, were it impoffible for true Cliriftians to be aflured that fome principles are eflential to the Chriftian religion : " For (fays " the apoftle) there muft be alfo herefies among you^, " that they which are approved, may be made mani- " feft among you," i Cor. xi. 19. SECT. C6 Do£trinal propofitions. Part II. SECT. III. The third propofition^ That true faith is accom" panied xoitk a certainty that excludes all doubt or hefitation. The attachment oj true believers to the important and iuterejiing doctrines reveal- ed in the gofpel. The influence of the Spirit in begetting a true faith. The difference between a lew and a high degree of perfuajion. Prop. III. Every degree of aflent to the doctrines of religion, is not a true divine faith. But with re- fpefl: to the mod important and leading truths of Chriftianity, our perfuafion of them mull be with a degree of certainty that excludes all doubt or fufpi- cion ; otherwife it will neither be acceptable to God, nor profitable to ourfelves. I readily own, that there are many opinions, even fome religious ones, embraced by every body upon only a probable evidence. Sometimes the probabili- ty is but of a low kind ; and fometimes there may be a very high degree of probability. But if it amounts to no more, there may be probability on the other fide too ; fo that we cannot look upon the contrary as abfolutely impoffible. Such opinions, no doubt, may, and often are changed. — — Your confounding the low degree of aflent given to probable opinions, with the kind of aflent which is due to the elfentials of Chriftianity, and your extending the fcepticlfni that runs through the whole of your book univerfai- ly, and without any exception, I take to be the fource of all your errors upon this fubjecl ; and there- fore I fhall, as I promifed, prove this propofition from thofe facred oracles which you (though very in- confiftently) have admitted as the ftandard of truth : and this I the rather do, becaufe your error upon this point is of the moft dangerous confequence. One Se£l. III. True faith excludes all doubt. Sf One needs but look into the New Teftament, to be convinced that faith is there reprefented as the great principle of the Chrifdan life : " The life which " I now live in the flefh, (fays the apoftle), I live by " the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and " and gave himfelf for me,'* Gal. ii. 20. The fame account he gives of all Chriflians, Heb. x. 38. "The " jufl fliall live by faith ;" and, 2 Cor. v. 7. " For " we walk by faith, not by fight." But if it be the' principle of our fpiritual life, if it be indeed the vic- tory that over Cometh the tvorld, it muft have a clearnefs and certainty in it, fufficient to overbalance the advantages which worldly things have, fufficient to make invifible and diftant objects outweigh the things that are prefent and fenfible, and that have fo powerful an interefl in our natural inclinations. Ac- cordingly the apoftle tells us, that " faith is the fub- *' ftance of things hoped for, the evidence of things " not feen," Heb. xi. i. The Greek word u^orair/f, here rendered fub ftance, is very emphatical. Our tranflators have added in the m.argin, " or ground, " or confidence,'' hinting that it fignifies a perfuafion founded on fo fure a ground, as to infpire one with the higheft degree of confidence. By this very word confidence, it is fometimes tranfiated elfewhere, as in 2 Cor. ix. 4. and chap. xi. 17, If the faith of the Old Teftament believers had confifted in a lower de- gree of perfuafion, how could it ever have produced the extraordinary effeds which the apoftle aicribes to it towards the end of the chapter, Heb. xi. ? Another very emphatical word is ufed by the fame apoftle in a precept given to all Chriftians, to denote the indubitable certaintv and full affurance that is re- quifite in a true faith : Rom. xiv. 5. " Let every man " be fully perfuaded in bis own mind," or, as it is in the margin, " fully affured," TrMfofofna^u. The cm- phafis cannot be preferved in Englifti, without ufing two words for one. According to all the critics, it fignifies the higheft degree of cert3,inty, or fo full a I 2 perfuafion 68 Doctrinal propofitions. PartIL perfuafic-n as excludes the lead: doubt. Doubting is always mentioned as the oppofite to faith. Even in matters of the fmalleft moment in religion, the apo- ftle tells us, in that fame chapter, that doubting is in- conliitent with that faith which mult govern all the religious actions of a believer : He that doiibteth^ (fays he), is damned if he eat, becaufe he eateth not of faith : for zohatfoever is not of faith ^ is fin. Thefe two emphatical words, implying the full af^ furance and well-grounded confidence there mufl be in true faith, are frequently ufed in other places of fcripture ; particularly Col. ii. 2. where the apoftle mentions the " riches of the full affurance of under- " {landing, to tlie acknowledgement of the myftery « of God, and of the Father, and of Chrift." A- gain, Heb. vi. 1 1. " And we deure, that every one of " you do iliew the fame diligence, to the full affurance *' of hope unto the end." See how the apoftle re- prcfents the fure ground we have upon which to found 40 full an affurance, f 16, " For meh verily fwear," &c. Without this abfolute certainty of divine faith, there could be no fuch boldnefs and confidence in a believer's approaches to the throne of grace, as the apoffle exhorts us to : Heb. x. 22. " Let us draw " near with a true heart, in full affurance of faith." Eph. iii. 1 2. " In whom we have boldnefs and accefs " with confidence by the faith of him." See alfo Heb. iv. 16. This was a property of Abraham's faith, for which he is highly commended, and propofed as an example to all believers : Rom. iv. 20. 21. "He ftaggered not *' at the promife of God through unbelief," (iiagger- ing, you fee, is a degree of unbelief) ; " but was " ftrong in faith, giving glory to God ; and being " fully perfuaded, that what he had promifed, he *' was able alfo to perform." This was likcwife a property of Timothy's faith, as we are told by the lame apoflle, 2 Tim. iii. 14. " But continue thou in , " the Sed. in. True faith excludes all doubt. 69 " the things which thou hafl learned, and haft been " ASSURED of." Upon the account of this undoubted certainty there is in divine faith, it is frequently, in fcripture, called ktiozulech\e, which denotes a degree of perfua- fion beyond what is due to any teftimony that is mere- ly human. Even Job, in the ancient times wherein he lived, could fay, " I know that my redeemer li- " vethj and that he fhall ftand at the latter day upon *' the earth," Job xix. 25. " I know (fays the Apoftle " Paul) whom I have believed," 2 Tim. i. 12. And all true Chriftians are defcribed by him as thofe that not only " believe," but " know the truth," i Tim. iv. 3. The Apoftle Peter tells us, that " all things " pertaining to life and godlinefs, are given to us *' through the knowledge of him that hath called us *' to glory and virtue," 2 Pet. i. 3. Our Saviour aflures us, that, " If any man will do his will, he " ftiall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God," John vii. 17. On the other hand, heretics are de- fcribed by the apoftle, as falling ftiort of this degree of faith fo necelfary to all true believers : " Ever " learning, and never able to come to the knowledge " of the truth," 2 Tim. iii. 7. Some very judicious and learned divines carry this matter fo far, as to maintain, that there is a certainty in divine faith beyond what is produced by the ftrift- eft mathematical demonftration. And perhaps this may be admitted, if we attend to two things that are advanced by them upon this fubje£t. Firft, If we diftinguifli (as they do) between a certainty of fpeculation, and a certainty of adhe- rence. The firft is an aO; of the underftanding, when we clearly perceive, not only the truth of a doc- trine, but the impoffibility of the contrary. This, it is owned, ought not to exceed the nature and degree of the evidence. The other has its feat in the heart, or in the will ; and confifts in that love and attach- ment to the precious truths of the gofpel, which e- very 701 Dodrinal propofitions. Part IL very true believer mult needs entertain. This arifes from the importance and ufefulnefs, the infinite beau- ty, lovelinefs, and excellency of them. And indeed whoever gives any credit to thofe interefling and ami» able informations of which the gofpel -revelation con- fills, and is ^pt ravifhed therewith, feems not yet, in them, to have taf'ied that the Lord is gracious : perhaps has not yet been fenfible what infinite grace and ailoniihing mercy his condition requires ; or he would, with Job, ejhem the words of his mouth more than his 72ece[fary food. Such an efteem of and attachment to the truths of religion, the Pfalmifl express in the ftrongeft terms, Pfal. xix. lo. — where he declares them to be " fweet- *' er than honey, and the honey-comb." And in ma- ny places of the 119th Pfalm, he infifts upon the fame fentiment ; particularly, f 97. " O how love I '* thy law ! it is my meditation all the day •," and, f 103. " How fweet are thy words unto my tafte ! " yea fweeter than honey to my mouth." As he re- peats it often in that pfalm, that God's law is his deliyht ; fo in the firft pfalm he gives it as the cha- racter of every good man, that his dehgJit is in the lazu of the Lord^ and in his law doth he meditate day and night. All this is no more than what God himfelf exprefsly requires, Deut. vi. 6. -—9.; Prov. iii. 3. ; Col. iii. 16. .^ fentiments from their words, and fet their prudence and fmccrity at variance.** When immoral and un- fair means are ufed to promote any caufe, that caufe becomes juilly liable to fufpicion. Another artifice which the fcripture imputes to falfe teachers, and which indeed procures them the great- eft fuccefs, is the accommodating their doctrine to the talie of a corrupt world. This is what the A- poltle John plainly intimates, i John iv. 5. " They " are of the world : therefore fpeak they of the " world, and the world heareth them.'' The true difciples of Chrift, even in a vifible church, are but a little flock. The bulk of mankind are worldly men. Hence they are frequently in fcripture, efpe- cially by this apoftle, called the ivorld^ in oppofition to true believers. The laft live amongft, but are dif- tinguiilied from the world. No wonder then, that falfe teachers never fail to have many followers in that world to which they properly belong. Their dodrines, their ethics, their meafures in church-ju- dicatories, all favour of a worldly fpirit, and muft needs be relifhed by worldly men. The very fame pernicious error by which the firft falfe teacher, the devil, deceived Eve, Gen. iii. 4. " Ye fliall not fure- " ly die,'* will commonly be found to run through, and to animate the whole fyftem of their doftrine. So it is at this day, and fo it was in ancient times, when the falfe prophets were blamed by God for per- petually " crying. Peace, peace, when there was no " peace. They Itrcngthen alio the hands of evil " doers. They fay ftill unto them that defpife me, " 7 he Lord hath faid. Ye (hall have peace ; and they " fay unto every one that walketh after the imagina- " tion of his own heart. No evil fliall come upon " you," Jer. xxiii. 17. Nothing can be more difagreeable to worldly men, than to be apprifed of the danger of their carnal in- dulgencies. If they give any credit to fuch doctrine, it cannot but mix fome bitter ingredients in their M 2 cups 92 Doctrinal propofitions. Part II. cups of fenfual pleafure, and four their fweeteft en- joyments. But, how difagreeable foever it may be, thofe who ft and in God's counfel are fenfible, that they cannot by any other means be turned from their evil tu ay, and from the evil of their doings. Nor can any difobligation of their hearers be confidered by faithful minifters as a fufficient difpenfation from their duty of blowing the trumpet., and giving ^varjiing from Cod. This is what falfe teachers, who love to fpeak fmooth things, and to prophejy deceits, are apt to mifreprefent, and to fet in the moil odious point of light. Not only is the good ef- itdi of fuch warnings prevented thereby, but fuch as dare venture to do their duty, are expofed to the in- dignation and hatred of the ivorld. lUiberality, un- charitablenefs, morofenefs, gloom, &;c. are the beft conftru'£lions of it that we have to lay our account with. If our Saviour's own words are infilled upon. He that helieveth not, jhall be damned, it is called damning people by Jljoals, as if it could proceed from nothing but pure mifanthropy and malevolence. It is never once fuppofed that it may be done out of the trueft charity, and that it may be intended to prevent people from being damned by flioals. To illuftrate this matter by an example : — What think you of celebrating, even from the pulpit, the piety and virtue of deceafed perfons in the high ranks of life, who were known to have had no fcruple about putting the bottle to their neighbour's mouth, and joining with them in drinking to excefs ? not to mention other iniiances of fenfual indulgence habi- tually and openly avowed. What think you of pla- cing thofe about the throne of God in heaven, who avoided the opportunities of his worlhip as a difa- greeable burden when upon earth ? ^That man is, furely, in a very dangerous fituation, who leaves the whole firil table of the law out of his fyftem of mo- rals }- who lives, in .a great meafure, zvithout Cod in the vjorld, negle^ing his worfliip in public, and in private, Se£l. V. Unfair arts of heretics. 9^ private, and feldom, if ever, partaking of the facra- ment of the Lord's fupper, but rather flying from the place where that ordinance is to be adminiftcred. Sup- pofe this character to become fafliionable in a Chri- Ifian land, would any but a falfe teacher make the leall infmuation that there is no danger at all in it ? But pray tell me. Sir, how this can be more effec- tually done, than by ordaining fuch men into the of- fice of ruling elders, and chufmg them members of the fupreme church-judicatory. Is not this accom- modating their doftrine, with a witnefs, to the pre- judices of worldly men ? I fay, their doctrine : for they could not more fuccefsfully inculcate upon them that defpifed God, that they (hall have peace ^ and upon every one thai zvalketh after the imag'maiioji of his otvn heart, that no evil (hall come upon them. Nay, is it not faying in effeft, that the in- terefts of religion, and the final decifion of all eccle- fiaflical afl:Virs, cannot be trufted in better hands ? You know, Sir, what fet of clergy it is who efpoufe fuch meafures, and confequently teach fuch doftrine. You know likewife who they are who teach how little re- gard is due to truth, by infilling, that prefbyteries lliould folemnly attefl a notorious falfehood in favour of fuch men, in order to procure them a feat in the aifembly, perhaps the only branch of their office that ever they pretend to execute. I fliall mention only one inftance more of the Jleight of men, and cunning craftinefs ivhereby they lie in wait to deceive. Of this the fcripture has likewife given us warning, and fo made it our duty to bew^are of it. I mean the high pretenfions which falfe teachers commonly make to virtue and morality. While they are induflrioufly undermining the very foundations of true holinefs, and even be- traying what they themfelves call virtue in particular inftances, they can exprefs a mighty concern for, and harangue, in general terms, in praife of mora- Uty, as if, indeed, they had the interefts thereof fe- rioufly 94 Doctrinal propofitions. Part II, rioufly at heart. The apoftle calls them deceitful 'workers^ transforming tkemfelves into the apojiles of Chriji. And no marvel ; for Satan himfelf is transformed into an atjgel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his minijiers alfo be transformed as the minifiers of righteoiifnefs ; ivhofe end flmll be according to their tu or ks^ 2 Cor. xi. 13. 14. 15. And thus (the fame apoflle tells us) by good words and fair fpeeches they deceive the hearts of the Jimple^ Rom. xvi. 18. You have, in feveral paflages of your book, aflu- med the charadler of moral preachers, or the moral clergy, as the denomination of your party, in oppofi- tion to the orthodox. Is there not an infinuation in- tended hereby, as if you had a greater concern than they have, to promote the practice of morality ? and yet I can appeal to yourfelf, whether they do not preach ftrider morals than you do ? and give lefs hope of impunity to all who indulge themfelves in the habitual practice of any known fm ? In the mean time, you yourfelves cannot help acknowledging, that " they have a greater appearance of fandity, and feverity of manners," p. 315. What then can be the meaning of your afluming the character of the moral clergy, but by good words and fair fpeeches^ deceiving the hearts of the Jimple f As for others allowing you the denomination you claim, the mean- ing of it is, not that your moral is purer, or your concern for the practice of it greater, than that of the orthodox ; but only that you know and preach no more of Chriflianity but the moral part of it, how- ever imperfedly. You do not pretend to be preach- ers oj Chrift, which was the denomination the apo- (tles chofe rather to be known by. Prop. VI. As the danger from heretics is great and imminent, fo church-rulers are exprefsly requi- red by divine authority to exercife ecclefiattical difci- pline / ) Sc6l. V. Church -cenfures required. 9^ pline for deteding and purging them out of the Chri- flian fociety. On the contrary, you tell us in the prefixed ad- vertifement, that " proceifes for herefy have deftr- vedly been brought into difgrace." You mufl mean only among thofe whom you converfe with : for you have feen that it is not fo with the majority of the fynod of Glafgow and Air. Again, p. 8. of the pre- face, (which mufl be underftood under the fame hmi- tation), " An herefy-proccfs is a curious enough phenomenon in this age." You go further : you call it pcrfccution ; and (as if you were a fearcher of the hearts) you impute it to no better motive than rancour. In your lamentation over that unchriftian term dctefiation, to which your friends were under the cruel necelTity of affording the fhelter of their fi-^ lence, when their prudence and fincerity were at variance, and the firft, it feems, prevailed over the laft, you add, " At the very inftant when they dif- courare perfecution, (i. e. a herefy-procefs), muft they approve the principle from which it proceeds, and give the fandtion of their example to the horrid fentiment of religious deteftation ? They order a- w^ay the ftake, and confirm the rancour which planted it,'* p. 48. Sir, I cannot fay, that the enmity you here exprefs againfl proceffes for herefy is equally confiftent with every part of your book. We are given to undcr- ftand, p. 276. that it is to laft no longer than while the orthodox doctrine is profefled in the church of Scotland. Upon the accomplifliiment of that refor- mation you have fo much at heart, though your o- pinions are unftable as the moft fluid element, you have already claimed a right of proceeding againfl heretics in a judicial way, as foon as you are at li- berty to judge them heretics who differ from your fentiments. And you have told us, " This is a power which will never be given up." You certainly do not intend, when you have got every thing to your mind. 96 Doftrinal propofitions. Part II. mind, to plant a fiakc. It is not in my power to believe that you can coolly and deliberately refolve to ncl from rancour, and fo long beforehand too : for I hope it will take fome time before the happy revo- lution you fo earneflly defire can be quite eftabliflied. Surely then heretics, by your own acknowledgement, may be proceeded againft in a judicial way, without rancour. Nor does fuch a procefs deferve to be com- pared with planting a flake. But however you may fometimes forget and con- tradi(3; yourfelf, I muft own the confiitency of your fyflem, which hangs well enough together when you are not catched at unawares a little off your guard. But then the whole of your confiftcnt plan has the mif- fortune to be diredly in the face of the facred oracles. If there were no fixed principles in Chridianity, to be equally received by true believers in all ages without fluduation ; if there be no one doctrine clearly revealed in the whole Bible, of the truth of which we can have any certainty ; if none can fay it is wrong to change our fentiments on nuy fubjeft, even of re- ligion ; there remains nothing indeed but rancour, to which a profecution for herefy can be afcribed. But without taking any advantage of your perhaps unguarded conceffions, I may fafely go the length to fay, that you cannot think it . • pOjjihle that there may be fome who are perfuaded in their minds, that there are fuch things as lurejits \ — that by th.fe the very eflence of Chriflianity may be deitroycd ; and that, for the preventing of this, the King and head of the church has flridtly charged the inferior off ccrs to w4iom he has committed the government of iu, ;o root them out by his ordinance of difcipline. In all that fluftuation of religious opinions, of which no body can be more fenfible than you feem to be, is it really im^ offihle that ever f ch opinions fliould have their turn ? If not, would it be a very extravagant ftretch of charity, to fuppofe that a herefy-procefs may be carried on from fuch motives as thefe, with- 2 out Se£l. V. Church-cenfures required. gf out the leaft: degree of rancour ? Will you pretend to fay, that a duty exprefsly enjoined by our Lord Jefus Chrift upon the miniflers of his kingdom, is no better than planting a flake ? and that it is impof- fible to difcharge it without rancour ? Indeed your fyftem is fo conne6led, that the over- throwing of any one part of it, carries along with it the deftruclion of the reft. As I have already fliown you the falfehood of the principles upon which you proceed, from whence I might infer, that the infer- ence is without foundation ; I iliall next prove the conclufion to be fallb, wherein the falfehood of your premiffes will likewife be involved. I demand no cre- dit to be given to any of the propofitions I have ad- vanced, without a direft proof from the word of God. The proof of the 6th proportion was fome time ago given in an anonymous pamphlet, intitled. Infidelity a proper objedi of cenfhre^ from which I fhall take the liberty to tranfcribe what I have never yet feen confuted. " How earneftly does the Apoftle Paul infifl upon this ? " Now I befeech you, brethren, mark thera *' who caufe divifions and oiTences, contrary to the* " doftrine which ye have learned ; and avoid them," &c. Rom. xvi. 17. This is what he exprefsly com- mands Titus to do : " A man that is an heretic, af- " ter the firil and fecond admonition, reject,'* Tit. iii. 10. And again, "■ For there are many unruly *^' and vain talkers and deceivers : — v/hofe mouths ** muft be ilopped. — -Wherefore rebuke them fliarp- " ly, that they may be found in the faith,'* Tit. i. 10, II. 13. To the fame purpofe he likewife charges Ti- mothy : " It any man teach otherwife, and confent " not to v*^hok:fome words, -^ from fuch withdraw " thyfelf," I Tim. vi. 3. 5. Nay whatever be the cha- racter or fratlon of the perfon, though an apoftle, or even an angel, he would not have him fpared. " Though, v/e, (fays he), or an angel from heaven, " preach anv other gofpel unto you, than that which N " we ought to be replied on the one fide of thefe general quefHons to all the infnaring fophilfry that is indulged without 2 bounds Se6l. I. Of his not defcndlncr the orthodox. lo^r o bounds on the other fide, until the particular qucftion of the right of the two competitors be determined, which is at lead as much determined for the poffeffor as for the pretender ? I would be glad to know how long you propofe to continue the embargo you lay upon our pens with re- fpect to the general queftion. You fay, " Until this point was previoufly determined, he ought to have held his peace, and laid nothing on the fubjedl.** I frankly own, that I do not understand your mean- ing, and wifli you had let us know more dlflinctly what fort of determination is to fet us at liberty, or if we fhall ever have your leave to difcufs the gene- ral quedion about fubfcription, in cafe the Socinian controverfy fhould never be more determined than it is ? You will not deny, that a great deal has been already written upon it. If you mean only till fome more be written upon it, pray, how much more will pleafe you, and relax the fetters you have forged for us ? If you mean, till all men be brought to an a- greement on the fubject ; this, I am afraid, is a pe- riod not to be foon hoped for. If you mean, till there be a decifion of the diiTerence by a general alTembly, how often has this been done ?■ and how much ofter would you have it ? How many general alTemblies. of this church have exprefsly determined this point, both before and fmce the Revolution ? and at this day, is it not actually determined by the whole clergy of the church of Scotland under. their hands? You know, I might add to thele the Weftminiler aifcm- bly, the fynod of Dort, every general fynod of the French Proteftants while they had the liberty of meeting, as well as the Confeflions of all the Re- formed churches. If you will not admit thefe to be determinations of the point, becaufe they are againfi: you, why mufl we wait for a determination you feem to hope for againft us ? Indeed, Sir, I fee no end of the restraint you would lay us under. And I con- fefs, I do not wonder at your attempting to impofe O filence io6 Phllalethes's letter defended. Part III. filence upon us, while you take the hberty to fay and to write what you pleafe upon the general queftions in the fame uncieter mined (late of the particular doc- trines. It would, I own, be the moft fuccefsful, tho' not the moft impartial, method of promoting your caufe. If )T)U found your arbitrary reftridion upon any thing that I have faid, I apprehend, you have mifun- derftood my meaning. You certainly have, if you imagined that the call in providence which I alluded to, was the formidable (as I think it appears to you) attack upon our doctrine by A. B. and his doughty reafoning. As for that odd phenomenon A. B.'s let- ter in the Scots Magazine, I am of the fame opinion with fome, perhaps the moft part of your own party, that it has done more hurt than real fervice to your caufe. How numerous foever your partifans may be, I believe there are few of them that would adopt an expreffion of yours, p. 213. as if the dodrine of the church of Scotland, tried at the bar of fuch a re- doubtable judge, had been " found in the wrong." One of the defenders of A. B.*s tenets in the Maga- zine, S. D. frankly confefles, that his letter is " e- nough to difgrace the beft caufe that ever was." I aflure you. Sir, that which alarmed me, and which continues to do fo, is quite a different thing. It is the zeal with which I found other more formidable books and pamphlets induflrioufly difl'eminated among our people, in a more private and dangerous way ; wherein the doctrine of this church, by the moft art- ful mifreprefentation, is like to fuft'er in the efteem of not a few of the leaft fteady among our people. It is the flight of men J aijd cunning craftinefs^ whereby ihey lie in wait to deceive, which was then begin- ning, and ftill continues more and more to be detected. It is the bringing in privily damnable hertfies by men that creep in unazvares, and by good -words and fair fpeechcs deceive the hearts of the fimple^ that drew from me the words which you fay Sect. I. Of his not defending the orthodox. 107 fay you " admired mofl." As you have mifap- prehended the intention of that palTage, I (hall now freely open my heart to you about it. Know then, Sir, that it was fo far from being in- tended as a declining the difcufiion you call for, that, on the contrary, it was inferted on purpofe to pave the way for it. You feem to call for it by way of bravado, as a thing which you defy. This may pro- bably be owing to your utter ignorance, both of what the orthodox doftrine really is, (trufling per- haps to the grofs mifreprefentaticns of its inveterate enemies), and likewife of what is to be faid on any fide of the queftion but that which is conformable to your own taite. In the mean time, I am confcious of the need there is, not fo much of any thing tor the convidion of thofe who will never be induced to read a word of what is written againfl their favourite tenets, (fuch is the impartiality of men of liberal fen- timents ! who c?Jl the prejudices of a licentious age againfl the dodliines of the gofpel, a fpirit of inquiry and free-thinking), but of an antidote to the poifon they are adminiftring among our people. In this convitlion, I inferted the paffage you have quoted, in the firft place, to roufe fome abler hand to it ; but with a determined refolution, that if God fhould be pleafed to fpare my life and health, with fome mea- fure of leifure and encouragement, it fliould, at any rate, not be left altogether undone. But you was very grofsly miftaken, if you thought I would chufe a Magazine for the vehicle wherein this antidote was to be conveyed. No, Sir, I am fenfible how much true religion has fuffered, and is fuffering, by thefe periodical and mifcellaneous colleftions. They muft be fuited to the vitiated tafte of a corrupt world, or they could not be continued. Variety mufh be provided for a tranfitory amufement to the floth- ful and indolent, who will not beftow either fo much time, or fo much thought, as is requilite for a tho- rough difcuffion of any matter of importance. No- O 2 thing io8 Phllalethes's letter defended. Part III. tiling can be more unfavourable to the intereft of re- ligion : Unum ^^pfilt^ mt i^norata damnetur. The more thorous^hlv that the doclrines of it are known and underftood, the more highly are they efteemed : and therefore a MagazinCi, where two or three pages s all that can be fpared for one fubje6l at a time, feems to be well calculated for the meridian of infide- lity, which is mod apt to thrive upon conceited igno- rance, or a night and imperlecl knowledge. Short andfpiritfd, is the general cry in this " funfliine of the fciences ;" i. e. in other words, J) rperjiciai and pc- tuhird^ A word or two, efpecially when feafoned with any thing like wit or fatire, is enough to difguife the mofl: important and interefting truth revealed in the gofpel, and to expofe it to the ridicule of the profane, and the half-learned, conceited, as they ufually are, with the fmattering they have got. And this is all that is to be expected from the little effays of which a Magazine confifts. But if a fober and ferious rea- loning upon the fame fubjeO: iliould be ofi'ered, in oppofition to thofe lively fpurtings of fancy, it would be returned to the author. Nor does the blame lie altogether upon the publifliers ; for, if inferted, it might contribute to leifen the number of their cu- ftomers. ", Reading (fays a late celebrated writer) is now funk at beft into a morning's amufement, till the im- portant hour of drefs comes on. Books are no longer regarded as the repofitories of tafte and know- ledge, but are rather laid hold of as a gentle relaxa- tion from the tedious round of picafure. But what kind of reading muff that be Vv'hich can attraQ: or entertain the languid niorning-fpirit of modern ei.e- minancy ? Any, indeed, that can but prevent the unfupportable toil of thiukii.'g ; that may ferve as a preprr-atory whet of indolence to the approaching pleafures of the day. Thus it comes to pafs, that weekly effays, amatory plays and novels, political pam- phlets, and booKs that revile religion, together with a general Sect. I. Of his not defending the orthodox. 109 general liafj) of thefe ferved up in fome monthly mefs of dullnefs, are the meagre literary diet of town and country." To illuftrate this, the fame author gives us a cu- rious anecdote of a certain hiftorian of our times, fuppofed to be be our countryman D. H. Efq; Ha- ving found in experience, that infidelity and fcep- ticifm had greatly promoted the fale of his fmall- er pieces, he ventured to lard a large volume there- with likewife. But it was like to lie upon his hand. He frankly owned, that it was to promote the fale of his book that he had given it that feafoning. But he was told, that therein he had miftaken his meafures ; that no allurement could engage a falhionable infidel to travel through a large quarto ; that as the readers of quartos that yet remain, lie moftly among the fe- rlous and fober part of mankind, he had offended his b'eft cuflomers, and ruined the fale of his book. He took the hint, and another quarto appeared much chafter than the former. As I cannot expe£t any readers of the firfl fort, I intend, if ever I undertake a defence of the doc- trhies of this church, to give a more thorough dif- cufTion than what can be admitted into a monthly ma- gazine, to fuch objedions as appear to me to be now making the deepefl imprellion. If this cannot be done without cofting a reader more time, and more thinking, than the bulk of our modern readers are willing to beftow upon articles of religion, there is no help for it. Convidiion, in my opinion, cannot o- therwife be obtained ; and not at all from readers of this character. I was once thinking to have delayed any anfwer to your book, till fuch a difcufTion could have accompa- nied it. I am fenfible what a difadvantage the one will labour undc;r without the other. It is natural to imagine, how invincible the prejudice againfl fuch a fublcription to the ConfefTion of Faith as I plead for, will prove, as long as prejudices againfl any of the dodrines no Phllalethes's letter defended. Part III. doftrlnes contained in it continue unremoved. Some, perhaps, there are, who, while this is the ftate of their minds, cannot, without the mod obftinate and invincible prejudice, read the very cleared demon - ftration of the inconfiftency of your plan of fubfcrip- tion with the inflexible rules of morality, or with the mod obvious ideas of common honedy. I may, up- on this occafion, adopt an expreflion of Dr Delany, when writing againd the eaters of blood ; being fen- libie, that till once fubfcribers be reconciled to the do' :U";r'Cs they are making profeflion of, I can only WruCj ■•• To Prejudice, which hath no eyes ; and to Ap- petite, which hath no ears." If one's temporal live- lihood depended on the rejecting of this propofition, That all the angles of a triangle are equal to two right ones, are there not men v/hom no demondra- tion could convince that it was true ? But what- ever difadvantages attend the delay of this difcuflion, I have fo little time to fpare for it, that it may be a work oi years ; and I faw likewife inconveniencies in putting off any reply to vour book, till both could make their appearance together. Having entered Into fo free a communication with you, I fliall give you a little more of my private hidory. In ray time, there have been feveral pro- ceffes for error carried on in the ecclefiadical courts of this church, which were not terminated but by the general aflembly ; In every one of which I have always been on the moderate fide. And, which is more, if the fame cafes were to occur again, I would be fo dill. Not that I thought the accufed always in the right. This was, really, not the cafe. I was fenfible that in Ibme things they did differ from my opinions. Would you know hov/ I can reconcile my former with my prefent or late conduct ? Sir, there is nothiiig more eafy in my view of things. I think, in both caies, it is the ntcefiary confe- quence of taking tlie fcripture for my rule. It is ob- vious Se£l. I. Concerning the erroneous. 1 1 1 vious to every one who reads the New Teflament, that, with refpeft to the erroneous, there are two du- ties that are both required of us, zeal and modera- tion. How is it poffible that both can be exercifed, unlefs we diftinguifli between different kinds of er- rors ? Between damnable /lerc/ic-s, (that there are fuch, we are aflured by the beit authority), and er- rors of lefs importance, which leave the eflentials of Chriftianity whole and untouched. The fame apo- ftle who commands a heretic to be rejected^ docs likewife require him that is xveak in the faith to be received^ arid doubt fid difputations to be avoided. It is a duty incumbent upon the paftors and rulers of the church, to preferve the doftrines of Chrijflia- nity committed to their care, and to fee that they be tranfmitted pure and uncorrupted to fucceeding gene- rations. With this view, they mud contend eanieft- ly for the faith once delivered to the faints. But this is fo far from obliging them to contend with their brethren upon every difference of fentimcnt among them, that, on the contrary, it is likewife a duty in- cumbent upon them to forbear one another in love ; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. It is far from being an unnecefl'ary or unimportant part of their duty, to watch over the peace of the church ; to guard, with all poffible care, againft fo ruinous a thing as divifion ; and, for this purpofe, to ufe all the lenity, in cafe of fmaller dif- ferences of opinion, that is confiftent with preferving the fubftance of religion. The laft is incumbent up- on us for the very fame reafon with the firft : for a hoife divided againfi itjelf cannot Jiand. And therefore we find the Apoftle Paul pathetically re- gretting the divifions among the Corinthians, while one faid, I am of PauU and another^ I am oj A- pollos, at the fame time that he expreffes the deepeft concern for preferving the purity of the faith. Ecclefiailical hiftory affords innumerable inftarices of church- divifions that have proved of fatal confe- quence 112 Phllalethes's letter defended. Part III. quence to the intereft of ferious pradical religion in the world Sometimes they have been occafioned by- pure logomachies, the contending parties affixing dif- ferent ideas to the fame term. Sometimes the mod bitter animofities have flowed from differences of o- pinion, that were real perhaps, but about matters of fmaller moment, vs'hich did not affed: the vitals of re- ligion, nor hinder either fide from complying with the neceffary terms of falvation. In all fuch cafes, I am heartily difpofed to the exercife of lenity and for- bearance. It muft naturally give pain to every one who loves our Lord Jefus Chrift in lincerity, to fee his myflical body, the church, rent and torn in pieces by the unfubdued paffions of its contending members. This will teach them to bear with a great deal, in- deed with every thing that has not a direct influence upon practical religion, and where the fubfl:ance of that revelation which God has been pleafed to favour us with is retained. Happy had it been for this church, about the middle of the laft century, had more of that fpirit univerfally prevailed, which breathes fo fweetly in a book written by one of the mofl; eminent minifl:ers of that time ; I mean, Dur- ham on Scandal, particularly,' the fourth part, on fcandalous divifions. They had not then been firft worried and torn in pieces by themfelves, and then expofed an eafier prey to their enemies. And would to God that lefs of a contrai-y fpirit had appeared in this age, among many, who, notvi'ithft:anding all their mifl;akes, I hope, are true and fmcere Chrifl:ians. In that cafe we had not now been in the rent condition we are. Befides what I have myfelf feen, and have read in hiilory, of the bitter confequences of unnecefl'ary divifion and contention, and of an intolerant fpirit extended even to matters of fmall moment, I own that the pathetical reprefentation of thefe things by able writers, had made a very deep, I may fay, an indelible impreiTion on my mind : fo that in all the 1 procefles Seel. I. Concerning the erroneous. 11-2 procefll's for error that have come the length of the general aflembly, I have always been, at lead a- gainft any high or fevere cenfure. As the accufed were willing to exprefs their fcntiments on the difputed points, in the very words of our Confeffion, I was confident, either that they were mifundcrfiood, or that the difference could not be of very great mo- ment. Bat I will not deny, that this propenfion to moderation, which, I acknowledge, was very ftrong, niay have fometimes led me into wrong fleps. A good many years ago, before any one among us had entertained, far lefs avowed the doclrine of Socinus, as far as I knov/, a quefticn arofe in our prefbytery, wherein, I nov/ apprehend, I took the wrong fide. A young man, in paiTing his trials, when he came to fign the Formula, told the prefbytery, " Tliat his fubfcription v/as not to be underflood as an alfent to every thing contained in the Confefnon ; for all that he meant was no mere than a general aflent as to the fubilance of it," or fomething to that purpofe, but without fpeciFying any propofitlon that he denied or doubted. To this explanation of his jfubfcription feveral members objected. I ccnfefs I was one of thofe who pleaded, and prevailed, for admitting it in his own fenfe, abfolutely unfufpicious, as 1 then was, that any body would ofler himfelf a candidate for the miniftry in this church, v/ho did not indeed receive the fubllance of her doctrine. Your book. Sir, has completed the opening of my eyes in this matter. If fuch a fubfcription implies no aflent to fuch articles as the divinity and fatisfaction of Chrifl, the prefent fallen ftate of mankind, v/ith all the neceflary confe- quences of thefe do&rines, I mufc own it is an un- fair and elufcr)' one ; and th4t what they call a gene- ral fubfcription, is no more than good ivords and fair Jpcrclics^ zjhereby ihey deceive the hearts of the Jimple. You reverfe all mv rules of conduct ; but in doing P , fo. 1 1 4 Philalethes*s letter defended. Part III. fo, you likewife overthrow the diftinclion, evidently fuppofed in the fcripture, between greater and finaller errors. Nothhig, I think, can be plainer in the fcripture, than that errors of great importance ought to be profecuted and cenfured by church-judicatories, while fmaller ones ou?ht to be borne v/ith, and treat- ed with lenity and forbearance. No, you fay : fo far from it, that the importance of the doctrine, in- flead of being a motive exciting us to a duty exprefs- ly injoined in the fcripture, ought to have a contrary operation, and is a good reafon for taking no notice at all of the matter in a judicial capacity. I, who fee it clearly revealed to us, on the one hand, that hsrctics are to he rejeded, and, on the other hand, that in fpeculations of fmaller moment, we mull bear v/ith differences of opinion among one another, and be extremely cautious, for the peace of the church, againft admitting groundlefs fufpicions, or accufmg our brethren without fufficient evidence, did confider it as an indication of our duty, that the doftrines denied by A. B. were not matters of trivial moment, but of the utmofi; importance in our reli- gion ; not fuch as the fcripture requires us to exercife forbearance about, but the very efientials of Chri- ftianity, the denial of which would involve us in no lefs than idolatry, and would be an effectual bar a- gainil complying with the terms of falvation. I did likevvife conlider in the fame lisht another circum- fiance, viz. that his denial of fuch do6trines was not a doubtful or difputable fact ; that he had not left us to infer the principles he had adopted by innuendos only, or far-fetched confequences, but had been a- bundantly explicit m his denial of the moii important doctrines of this, and of every Proteflant church ; that therefore the affair could not be negleded, with- out a vifible, and even fcandalous difobedience to the exprefs command of God in the fcripture. None of thefe circumflances are denied on your part : they are Sed. II. Socinian errors important. 1 1 e are all fully admitted ; but you draw a very different, and even contrary inference from them j the jufhiefs of which falls now to be confidered. SECT. IT. The deep importance of the Socinian errors^ jiozv Jo openly dijjl-minated. fVhether thtfc circum- fiances make for or againft a profccution. IN order to the decifion of this point, let us fee what you have faid upon it. Your own words, p. 217. are, " Whether do thefe circumftances make for him or againft him ? Mr A. B. has fpoken plain- ly. — We grant it. He has attacked eftablifhed doc- trines. — We grant this too. Thefe doclrines are of. the laft confequence. — Be it fo. In the warmth of his zeal, he has negleded — what if we fliould ufe the term defpijed — -that little prudence which, in this little world, is often neceifary to fecure a man's own intereft, even while he is labouring for the good of others.— We grant all this and more. — Is it, then, a vice in this degenerate age, to be too fmcere, too adventurous in the caufe of truth, and too difrntereft- ed ? No, Philalethes ! It is not for paffing over fuch a condu6t unnoticed merely that the fynod of Glaf- gow and Air fliould have blulhed : every fynod in Scotland, Sir, ought to redden this moment, that they have not yet dared to give it their fulieji and moji public ajrprohaiion." .Such is your diftatorial affertion, and, as ufual, without the leaft fliadow or pretence of any reaibning to fupport it. You often put me in mind of Reho- boam's young counfellors, whofe ftyle you fo exactly imitate. A plain refufal of the people's demands, with fomething like a reafon for it, would have ap- peared but a dull thing to fuch briik and clever young gentlemen. Thev afteci to be witty, forfooth, upon P 2 the 1 1 6 Phllalethes's letter defended. Part III. the occafion, to animate the ftyie of the Icing's an- fwer, and point it with antithefes, without any thing like a reafon for his behaviour : " Stat pro ratione " voliwitas.'* The fame kind of anfwer have we here from you. Let us now bring it to the teft of fober argument, and fee how far it is a proper or fa- tisfying reply to what I had advanced. But before I proceed, let me juft fuggeft what may be of ufe to you another time, That there may be more of your readers of the fame turn of mind with nie. If a difputant had both in his option, a good argument, and a very pofitive, not to fay petulant, allertion, whereby to maintain his point, I am apt to conclude, that a man of common underdanding would certainly chufe the fird ; and therefore when I find him relying entirely on the laft, it inclines me to fufpeft that the other was not in his power. This, however, is but a prejudice, and I iliall lay no greater ftrefs upon it, but proceed to confider how far you have anfwered my allegations. In order to this, let us attend to Vv-hat I had advanced, and fee what weight there is in your reply to it. Let us confider how far you have admitted, and how far you have re- futed what I have feid upon the fubjeQ : for a good deal of it is either implicitly or exprefsly admitted by you. I had obferved, thst " if there is any tiling in re- vealed religion, more than what the philofophy of the Heathens could fugged, it furely is, that mankind being now in a fallen ftate, can only be faved by the facrifice of the Son of God in our ftead, and by the influence of the Spirit of God, in regenerating our corrupt hearts ; which Son and Spirit are not differ- ent and inferior Gods, but the fame in fubflance with the Father." It was ailedged, that A. B. had de- nied every one of thefe articles, and confequently the very fubilance of the Chriftian revelation. What do you reply to all this ?.'—■ Not one word. — Does it not follow that it is admitted by you ? Did you intend to Se6l. II. Socinian errors important. 1 1 7 to include this conceflion, when you faid in the above- cited paflage, " We grant all this, and more ?'* But as it does not feem to have made a due impref- fion upon you, and as you pretend to defiderate from me foniething in defence of our doftrine ; allow me, by way of reinforcement, jufl to hint a confirmation of the above being a jufl account of revealed reli- gion ; a confirmation which will not be fo eafily eluded by the critical talents of the moft: ingenious Socinians, wTio make the fcripture a nofe-ot-wax, and wrefi: e- very paflage that ftands in their way. Not only is the corruption of the human nature clearly and ex~ prefsly alferted in the fcripture, (as I may perhaps fometime have an opportunity to demonfi:rate), but the analogy of the Chriflian religion necelfarily re- quires it. The other parts of it are plainly adjufted to this fuppofition. There is no accounting for ei- ther the dodrines taught or the facrarflents inftituted in the Bible, without fuppofing mankind in a fallen ftate. And, O ! Sir, what a low idea muft he who doubts of this have, either of what we ought to be, or of the ftate in which a rational being can be fup- pofed to come immediately from the creating hand of God ? which is not the cafe of infants, though you always affeft to fuppofe it is. Nothing can be im.agined more elTential in Chri- flianity, than that Chrift is the Saviour of the world, — of all, whether old or young. Not, furely, of a world that needed no falvation : He came to fave that zvhich was loji. Save ; from what ? To be fa- ved from innocence, is a contradiction. If all were not loft, how can all be faved by him ? How unan- fwerably does the apoftle argue ? 1 Cor. v. 14. " If " one died for all, then were all dead.^' Is there a more efl'ential principle in revealed reli- gion, than that mankind have no direft or immediate accefs to God, but muft approach him through a me- diator ? a mediator who Jits at his right ha?jd to make continual inter cejjion for us, having by him- fiif 1 1 8 Philalethes's letter defended. Part III. felf purged our Jins^ our advocate with the Fa- ther, being the propitiation for our fins. Is this the religion of a fpecies of creatures in a ftate of in- tegrity ? Who that has read the New Teflament, or the new covenant, as you know the word fignifies, can be ignorant, that we are now under a neiu and a bet- ter covenant, ejiablifloed upon better promifes f Why, dear Sir, a new covenant, if the firft would ferve the purpofe quite as well ? How can God be fuppofed to change his covenant-tranfaftion with us, and alter the condition of his favour and our happi- nefs, if the firft has not been broken on our part ? for God is the Lord ; he changeth not. Who knows not, that what is required of us now, in order to efcape the wrath of God due to us for fin, is repentance, without which our Saviour tells us, we fhall all perifh, and faith in a Redeemer, equally likewife required of all. Is this the religion of innocents ? Is he a mafter in Jfrael, who knows not the uni- verfal necefiity of regeneration ? that except a man he born agai)i, he cannot Jee the kingdom of God ; and that if any man be in Chrift^ he is a new crea- ture f Is this confiftent with our being born in a ftate of perfedl integrity ? Not only the efiential and diftinguifliing doctrines, but all the pofitive inftitutions of revealed religion, whether under the Old Teftament or the New, are altogether unaccountable upon the Pelagian hypothe- fis, adopted by the difciples of Dr Taylor, A. B.'s apoftle. Sacrifices, or ftiedding the blood of a vica- rious animal, was what the Jewifli religion, as well as that of the patriarchs, did very much confift in, and what, by tradition, had fpread through the other de- fcendents of Noah. Did this indicate a ftate of in- tegrity. The initiating feal of the covenant re- newed with Abraham, which was impofed by God upon every male child eight days old, was a painful and \ Se6:. II. Socinian errors important. 119 and bloody operation, fignifying, that there was lufl to be cut off or mortified, and that zuiihoiit jjjedding of blood there was 120 remijjlon. Yet this was in- difpenfably required by that God who has no pleafurc in the miiery of any of his creatures, and who can- not be fuppofed wantonly to inflict the leaft degree of unneceflary pain upon one who is perfectly innocent. The fame obfervation might be made on the Paflb- ver, as well as on the two facraments of the New Te- ftament. Where there is no guilt, of what ufe or fignification could it be, to kill, roft, and eat a lamb ? the type of Chr'iji our paQover facrificed for us. Is there any occafion for wafliing that which is clean ? — or for reprefenting the body of a Saviour broken, and his blood Ihed, for fuch as have no need of an expiatory facrifice ? In Ihort, Sir, it is not only from thofe paflfages of fcripture where our fallen ft ate is exprefsly mention- ed, that this dodrine is to be gathered : it runs through the whole frame and contexture of revealed religion. The rejedion of it, by neceifary imphca- tion involves a rejedion of all the moft important truths, ordinances, and methods of grace, which God has been pleafed to reveal to us in his word. It would entirely new-model the whole of our religion. Accordingly the followers of Dr Taylor do, very con- fequentially indeed, endeavour to explain away every thing elfe that diftinguifhes Chriftianity from the reli- gion of nature ; our redemption by the blood of Chrift ; his divinity, incarnation, and fatisfaftion ; the necefl!ity of regeneration, of grace, of faith in Chrift, &:c. Add to all this, that the iacraments of our reli- gion, on their plan, are moft unmeaning and ufelefs things. Their religion is no more than Deifm under a difgufe. Whatever it may be, it is not Chriftiani- ty. It would overturn the whole frame of revealed religion, and dig up the very foundations of it. This is another thing that I had obferved, to ac- count for the conduct of the fynod, that the Soci- nian 120 Philalethes's letter defended. PartllL nian and the orthodox fyftems differed, not in matters of little moment, whereby the vitals of religion were not much affeded, but in fuch a degree, that they were, m reality, quite diiferent religions, totally inconfirt- ent with one another in the moft effential and import- ant articles. This, you know, is what I not only al- ledged, but proved by two arguments. I fhowed how elfentially it mud atfeft the praftice, to embrace the Socinian creed, as it points out a quite different method of falvation, and likewife, that the one or the other mull needs involve us in idolatry. This you do take fome notice of. But what is your reply ? it is, in effeft, admitting the whole of what I had al- ledged, without pretending to invalidate the force of my reafoning. You do not deny the feveral fyflenis to be two quite diiferent religions : but you pretend the main queflion is, " Which of the two is the right f " And this is all the anfwer you think proper to return. Let it be remembered then, in the courfe of our debate, that this point is yielded. The opinions at which the fynod was aiming their cenfure, when taught by their own members, are acknowled- ged by thofe who efpoufe them, to be utterly and ef- fentially inconfiftent with the religion of this church. Here I was apt to think we had advanced one ftep at leaft in this difcufiion. That p'eat errors are to be cenfured, that heretics are to be rejected, you will not, you dare not deny ; nay, in faft you do not de- ny. Provided an error appears to you to be hcre/y^ if it differs horn your fentiments, you tell us, p. 276. " a power of meeting judicially, of taking cogni- fance of herefies, and of giving fentence, — is a power which will never be given up ; it wijl never be difputed by any intelligent, honefl man." And has not the majority of a fynod as good a right to judge according to 7/2^fr fentiments, as you have, to judge according to yours f But I find we are not fo far advanced as I imagi- ned. Perhaps you claim aright to change your fen- 2 " timents. Se6t. n. Socinian errors important. 121 timents, not only at any time, but in any part of the fame book ; for in that part of it which we are now confidering, neither the importance of the doclrine, nor the clearnefs of the evidence, are allowed to have the leaft weight, as grounds of a proccfs. " Was the attack opcni' (you fay) ; this argues the fmceri- ty, the intrepidity of a man who defends the caufe of truth. It demonflrates alfo his thorough convic- tion of the opinions he avows.— — - Are his opinions fo totally inconfiftent with the eftabliflied dodrines ; and are thefe doctrines of fuch infinite importance ? What conclufion can a lover of truth draw from this, but that there is the more need to examine them ? " Confequently (or you mean nothing) thefe circum- ftances are no good reafons for a judicial examina- tion of them, the very thing you are pleading againit. Sir, no heretic can be more firmly perfuaded that it is truth which he appears for, than Paul when his name was Saul, and when he verily thought ivith himfelj that he ought to do many things contrary to the name of yefus of Nazareth. His zeal and atlivity in deftroying the Chriftian religion argued his fmcerity, and intrepidity too, in that caufe. But all this did not hinder him to call himfeif afterwards a blafphemer^ and a perfecutor^ and injuriuus. And if he had behaved in the fame manner after he join- ed himfeif to the Chriilian fociety, and was become a minifter of that religion, would the fame indications of fmcerity and intrepidity, think you, have been ad- mitted as a good plea againfl the exercife of difcipline upon him by the other rulers of the church ? I ap- peal to his own principles and injunctions, for the de- cifion of this queflion. According to your way of arguing, the more virulent and dc(l:ru6live mens en- mity to religion is, fo much the more do'the enemies of it deferve to be applauded, and fo much the lefs oppofition fhould their endeavours meet w ith from thofe who are fct for the defence of the gofpel. Upon, this occafion, allow me to give vou a hint Q^ ' that 1 2a Philalethes's letter defended. Part III. that you feem to ftand much in need of with refpeft to this point of fmcerity, which you harp fo much upon. If you are difpofed to take a friendly advice from an opponent, it may be of fervice to you. I cannot help thinking, that (even labouring as you do under the want of a better defence) a little exercife of prudence would make you more fparing of vour touches upon fo jarring a firing. How grofs an over- ftght are you guilty of, when you give an adverfary occafion, by your frequent boaftin.g of fincerity, to rip up this tender fore ? I aifure you, Sir, you are not able to bear the fofteft and moil delicate handling of it with any patience. Why then do you tempt a probing it to the quick ? I may have occafion to meet with it again ; and therefore I fhall only, upon this occafion, put you in mind of your own acknow- ledgement. That the impofers of confeffions (for you, it feems, are never to be blamed, even for your own actions) " have disjoined your fentiments from your words, and fet your prudence and fmcerity at va- riance." Your prudence then is at variance with your fincerity : Your words and fentiments are dif- Joincd. How grofs, how (hocking an inflance of partiality to ourfelves ! for men to, he inceifantly boafling of fmcerity, in a controverfy, where the very thing they are pleadhig for, is the moil palpable in- fificerity in words and aclions. That this is the cafe here, I iliall inak e manifeft before I have done. What wouM you think of a man that had procured accefs into the houfe of an enemy, by the moft fo- kmn aifeverations that it was a friend who knocked at the door, and had then deliberately murdered his holt'; what would you think of his boaiting, that it \vas done fairly and openly, becaufe, after fuch an imfair and hypocritical entrance, he had fired his pi- liol before the man's face, and not behind his back f 0r would his intrepidity defcrve to be celebrated, if he, had kept himfelf quiet, and continued his prote- ilations of friendlhip, till once a gang of aifociates, by Sfe£t. n. Socinian errors importanti I23 by the fame fneaking means, had got accefs likewife into the houfe, innumbers/ilifficient to overpower the whole family, and to protect the ai>or of the mif- chief ?— — To preferve any appearance of confi'len- cy, one of two things that you boait of mu't, furely, be given up ; either the great majority of your num- ber, or your intrepidity and difmtereitednei's. If you are fecure of yuur number and your power, now that infidelity has made fach amazing progrefs, and have held your peace till you were fo, you cannot pretend to have altogether renounced " that little prudence which in this little world is often neceilary to fecure a man's own intere't." But be your fmcerity what it will, let us try the ftrength of your argument : I fliould have laid, your iaflertion ; for you feldom condefcend to attempt the proof of any thing. Here particularly we have no- thing but art unfupported alfertion.— '— Neither the importance of the doftrines denied, let them be ever fo elTential in the Chriifian religion, — nor the clear- nefs and certainty of the denial, let it be ever fo a- Vowed, are, according to you, fufficient grounds of a herefy-procefs. As to the firiL, you fay, " Are fhefe doctrines of fuch infinite importance ? there is the more need to examine them ;'* meaning, that there is the lefs reafon for interrupting this examina- tion, by a profecuticn of any who denies them. To the lad, you reply, " Is it then a vice in this dege- nerate age to be too fincere ? *' I do, by no means, fufpe£l: that you would recom- mend opinions of another kind, as the proper objedls of difcipline, or church-cenfure : I mean fuch as are of Jniall importance, and where there is no fufficient evidence of their being maintained. No, Sir, I ab- folve you- from any fuch intention. Btit then I can- not abfolve you from intending and endeavouring to annihilate this branch of church government and dif- cipline altogether. If fmall differences in opinion arc excluded from being the proper obje£ls thereof) (as 124 Phllalcthes's letter defended. Part III. I prefuine they are by us both), and if (as you main- tain) the more important any religious tenet is in its own nature, fo much the more improper is it for the cognifance of a church-court, there can remain no- thing at all of error or herefy to be the objeft of ec- clefiailical difcipline. Again, I doubt not but yoir will a'gree with me, that bare fufpicion, without any overt ads, is an infufficient ground for a procefs. And if (as you here alledge j the more openly and a- vowedly that any opinions in religion are taught and maintained, fo much the more fliould the teacher be efteemed for his fmcerity, and the more effeclually fcreened from cenfure, then all fuppofeable circum- ftances are quite exhaufted, and a total negative is put upon this branch of difcipline. And then what becomes of the apoflolical injundions upon this fub- je6l, and the reproofs of Chrift himfelf to the neglect- ers thereof, which are recorded for our benefit and direction ? Nay, what becomes of your own claim, p. 276. which you fay you will never give up ? When you wrote what v/e have in p. 275. & 276. you certainly forgot your reply to my argument. Perhaps you were accuftomed, when you thought yourfelvcs the minority, to exclaim againfi: all profe- cutions for herefy, as inconfident with Proteftant li- berty, and ftill have recourfe to the fame principles when you have occafion for them. But now, con- fcious of your power, you are unwilling -to let this weapon fiip out of your hand. For there you tell us, that provided the prefent opinions of the majority of the clergy are to be the rule of judgement, (which you plead they ought -to be), you " ftill allow them a power of meeting judicially, of taking cogni- fance of herefies, and of giving fentcnce. This (you fiiy) is a power u'hich will never be given up ; it will never be difputed by any intellip-ent honeft man, — the precious right of every minifter of the gofpel." So it feemr, v/henever your power is fufficicntly e- ftabliihed, Sed. II. Soclnian errors important. 125 ftabliflied, the orthodox are to lay their account with having their dodlrine brought to the ted of whatever opinions happen to be the prevailing ones, in that perpetual fluctuation with which you feem not to be unacquainted or difpleafed. But if you were to put your threatenings in exe- cution, to " plant a flake," and give way to " ran- cour," (the terms are your own, p. 48.), how will you be able to reconcile a herefy-procefs with the reft of your book ? To what purpofe " take cognifance of herefies, and give fentence," if you are limited al- ways to a fentence of abfolution ? Indeed, how can you pronounce fuch a fentence, in the cafe of every orthodox error, (as our tenets muft appear to you), if you are obliged to give fentence according to your own fentiments ? If you pafs fentence of condemna- tion, what becomes of all your ideas of private judge- ment? You are bound in confcience, you fay, to judge according to your own fentiments ; and will you cenfure me for differing from you, when you claim a liberty of differing every day from yourfelf ? Dare you venture to beat your jtlloiv-fhrvant for that which you own will be no objedion againft him at the day of judgement ? If it will not be then afked him. Whether he was a Socinian ? neither (according to you, p. 56.) will it be afked him, Whether he was a Calvinift ? In claiming this power of meeting judicially, of ta- taking cognifance of herefies, and giving fentence, you do not feem to advert, that all your own prin- ciples (I cannot call them arguments, for you do not think it fit to deal much in thefe) will o- perate equally againft your difcipllne as againft ours. Suppofe all our conftitutions abolifhed, that you may be at liberty to judge according to your own fenti- ments, let us imagine one of your brethren perverted to orthodoxy, and fummoned before your judicial meeting for the pernicious herefy of maintaining, that the bieffed Redeemer, whom we worfhip, is not a mere 1^6 Philalethes's letter defended. PartllL mere creature, but Cod over all bleffedfor ever ; or thae men are now born in a worfc ftate than that "wherein Adam, and, in him, the whole human fpecies was created : fuppofe he fhould aik you, in your owrt words, " Is there any thing criminal in a man's altering his opinion on myfubjed? Who will fay it is wrong?'* — — mufl you not then have recourfe to our prin- ciples ? I think I hear you replying, " O ! but your error is of a deep and dangerous nature, injurious to God, and inconliftent with all religion." Have you not furnidied him with an anfwer ? " Are thefe doc- trines of fuch infinite importance ? what conclufion can a lover of truth draw from this, but that there is the more need to examine them ?" Should you in- fill: further, that he had left you no excufe for lenity and forbearance, by being fo open and avowed an heretic, might he not again reply in your own words, *' Is it then a vice in this degenerate age to be too fincere, too adventurous in the caufe of truth, and too difmtereftcd ?" If this is a defence which you would repel in his cafcj how can you infill upon it In your own ? The abfurdity of fuch a plea will beft appear by trying how it Viould look to urge it in other cafes that ar- parallel. Suppofe a loyal magiftrate applied to for a warrant to commit one to prifon for drinking the Pretender's health, it would not perhaps be very inconnftent wi':h his zeal for the Proteftant fucceffion^ to difcourage the haralhng people for a fault, which one might have been betrayed into by an eafmefs of temper rather than any bad delign. But let us next fuppofe him fitting in judgement upon one who own- ed hi. nfelf author of a book written to prove the Re- volution a national fm, vv^hich we ought to repent ofj by putting the Pretender in poffeflion of the throne* Here there are tv/o circumflances that could not fail to be of great weight with the judge : one is. That the crime was a matter of much deeper importance, and no fuch trifle as the other : the fecQnd, That there could Sed. II. Sociniah errors important. 127 could be no dubiety as to the faft, the perfon accu- fed having even gloried in being the author of the book. Would there be any advocate, think you, that durft venture to turn both thefe circumftances to the advantage of his client ? What vi'^ould you your- felf think of a judge that Ihould liften to fuch defen- ces as we have now under confideration, unlefs it was to laugh at them ? fuppofe it fliouid be replied to the firft, " Is this a matter of fuch importance? then there is the more need to examine it;'* to the fe- cond, " Is it then a vice, in this degenerate age, to be too fincere, too adventurous, in fo important 2^ caufe, and too difmterefted ?'* And do you really think. Sir, that every judge in the nation " ought to redden this moment, if they give not fuch a plea their fulled and mofc public approbation ?'* Even with refpe6l to doctrinal errors in religion, let us try the ftrength of your plea, by applying it to the cafe of fuch errors as yourfelf would condemn. You feem to go fo far in the Socinlan way, that, I believe, it would be in vain to dired my fearch for them thereabout. But I hope the zvirid of doCtrine ivherciviih you profefs to be earned ahout^ and toffed to and fro, has not yet, in the unftable fluc- tuation of your opinions, wafted you into Popi(h i- dolatry. Suppofe then a minifter of this Proteifant church fhould publicly and avowedly infift upon it. That his people ought to worlhip images ; that it is their duty to pray to the Virgin Mary, and other ' faints, or to angels, and to worfhip the hod ; in a word, to adopt the mod detedable (pardon the un- chridian word, which the fcripture-phrafeology has betrayed me into) idolatry of the church of Rome ; to which I might add the Jefuitical doctrine concern- ing the fafety of afting upon probable opinions, and that of the old and grofs Antinomians ; is it confident with the charader and office of church-rulers, to fuf- f-f.i: fuch poifon to be udminidered to the people, without 128 Philalcthes*s letter defended. Part III. without the leafl exercife of difclpline for preventing it? Your principles will admit of the trial being car- ried farther ftill. What if a minifter of this church, or a number of them, (who, according to you, may " change their opinion upon any fubject, — and who will fay it is wrong ?"), fhould, in the mofl; open and avowed manner, preach, That Chrift is not come in the liefli ; that Jefus was an impoftor ; that he never rofe from the dead ; that there will never be a refur- recftion from the dead, or a future judgement and retribution. You know, the more important that' thefe dodrines are, fo much the more need is there to examine them ; i. e. the lefs occafion is there for a judicial procefs againft the teachers of them, which is the obvious meaning of your words : and the more clearly and exprefsly they are taught, fo much the more does the fmcerity and intrepidity of the teacher deferve to be approved and encouraged. Pray, Sir, (if I may allude to an exprellion where- by the refurreftion of the fame body has been illu- ftrated), whatever acquifitions the Chriftian religion may have made of perhaps fometimes extraneoils matter, at leaft of lefs important, uneiTential, or cir- cumftantial doftrines or tenets, are there no original ftamina, no efl'entials, which being changed or re- moved, it is no longer Chriftianity ? And is it not incumbent upon thofe who have the government of the church, by all means to fee that thefe at leaft be preferved ? ,^ Had you, in anfwer to my defence of the fynod, allowed that it was the undeniable duty of church-ju- dicatories to preferve the elfentials of religion, and only alledged that the fynod- had miftaken for impor- tant articles what were not io, my buhnefs would have been to prove the contrary : but as you have thought fit to put your caufe upon a very difFerejit and more general ground, maintaining, that the im- portance of the articles aflbrted or denied is no good X reafon Se6l. III. Of cenfuring herefy. 129 reafon for the exercife of difcipline, you have laid me under a neceffity of illuftrating a point that many will think needed no iliuftration, and proving a ma- nifeftlv evident truth. But who can help it, if even firft principles, approved by the reafon of mankind at firil view, are not only called in queftion, but rejedt- ed in the moil confident terms? 1 wifli this had been the only inflance wherein you have put me upon a tafk that muft prove fo irkfome both to the writer and the reader. SECT. III. Our Jtithor's reply to the firft five arguments of Philalethes for cejftiring- herejj', corfidered, and jhewn to be extreme iy fuperficial and infignifi- cant. WE come now to the chief fubjed of my letter, (as it was the only thing infifiied upon in the two letters which I undertook to anfvver), your fenfe of fubfcribing the Confeffion of Faith. This you make to be no more but a declaration of your aftent to it, "- in fo far as it is agreeable to the fcriptures, though you do not at figning exprefs that qualifica- tion.'' I mentioned fix bad confequences of the fynod's letting fuch doftrine pafs uncontroverted and uncen- fured; And as you have a way of flurring things over which you pretend to anfwcr, there is no judging how far all that I had advanced is confuted, or pre- tended to be confuted, without recollecting what you have entirely overlooked, as well as confidering the. replies you have adually made : and therefore, in going over thefe particulars again, you muft allow mc taput you in mind of feveral things to which you have made no reply at all. My firft argument, vou know, was not intended '11 or 130 Philalethes's letter defended. Part III. or expefted to have any Influence upon the enemies of the efUibl'.ihed religion. But as its friends are not fo few, perhaps, as you imagine, it was fuggeiled, p-ajiffiuiiy for their fakes only, that the adTiilfiion of your plan would eiieftually take away all diiiinclion between it and the religion of any fedt or, party who afiume the Chriftian name; and lay open, to the worll and mofi: corrupt of them all, the advantages •we enjoy by either civil or ecclefiaflical authority. Neverthelels, though I did not pretend that it was to have any efl'eft upon you, and you muft be fenfible, that, if the edabliihed religion have any friends at all, it cannot fail to have an influence at le^ifl: upon them ; yet it is the only one of my firfl: four argu- ments to which you really make any reply. Your anfwer to it is apparently divided into a iji and 2.diy. But this is merely for parade, and in or- der to make the mod of it, at leaft hi Tnow. It is the very fame thing repeated with numeral figures pre- fixed. Under the firft, it is thus expreffed : That the confequence mentioned " would fellow upon v/hate- ver fide the truth is fuppofed to lie, even though Mr A. B.'s tenets ihould come out to be juft, and the orthodox fyftem erroneous." The fame thing is faid again, as a fccond aniwer, in thefe words : " If what you call the orthodox religion fliould, upon exami- nation, .appear even to you to be a falfe one, would 5^ou not be willing to give it up, and confequently to make an entire furrendcr of all the advantages with which it i.'- attended?" It is extremely obvious, that there is nothing here to invalidate in the lead degree the force of that ccn- fideration which I addreffed only to the friends of the eftablilhed religion. I did not pretend that it could have the fmallett influence upon thofe who either now are, or who may become, its enemies. The majo- rity of the fynod of Glafgow and Air appeared to be its friends, and the whole proftjjtd to be fo. It was therefore a fuflicicnt vindication of the majority, that the iiiterell of their religion required of them what they Seel. III. Of cenfurlng herefy. i-^i they did ; and indeed it was a condemnation too of the minority, that their conduft was hurting the in- terefl: of that religion which they profcifed at lead. "What do you fay in oppofition to this ? Nothing, but that if we faw it to be a falfe rehgion, we would be ready to give up all the advantages it is in poileilion of. Is this the fhadow of a reply to my argument as it is laid ? ' But how little foever it may be to the purpofe, I am willing to confider what you fay here, were I fure that I underftand your meaning. It may be confi- dered in two different lights ; for the fenfe of it does not feem to be very precilely afcertaincd. Either you muft mean, that though a public ellablilhmeut is due to the true religion, it is not the orthodox, but the Socinian, that is the true religion ; and therefore all the advantages of a legal eflabliihment lliould be ta- ken from the firft, and yielded to the laft ; or you muU: mean, that as no religion can be prefumed to be the true one, fo the advantage of an eflabliihment fliould be equally laid open to all, and not be ingrolfed by any one in prefexcnce to the rell. If there had been any confiflency between the dif- ferent parts of your book, I muft have taken your anfwer here in the firfl fenfe. There is no other pof- fible way of reconciling it with what you fay (p. 276.) will never be given up by any intelligent honefl man, viz. a power of excluding from thefe advantages thole who have diflerent fentiments of religion from yours. But I f^nd I mufl take your anfwer to me by itfelf, independently upon what you fay eifewhere. And in this view, it is impollible for m.e to put this fenfe upon it. For, in the firfl place, it would be fuch a way of arguing as I caimot impute even to you, v^ith all the contempt you have fliewn for the ordinary rules of logic. To leave the chief of your premifies, and the only one that you knew would be contefttd, without the (liadow of any proof, is a fort of rtaioning, of R 2 which 132 Philalethcs's letter defended. Part III. •which I cannot fufped any man to be guilty that had the leafl degree of common fenfe. For thus your ar- gument would ftand : The advantages of a civil and ecclefiaftical eftablifli- ment are due only to the true religion ; — but the So- cinian, not the orthodox, is the true religion : There- fore, &c. The minor is the only propofition that needs a proof; yet you are fo far from pretending to fupport it with any argument, that you have pofitively and exprefsly declined it : and therefore I cannot under- lland you in this fenfe. But I have yet a flronger reafon againfl putting this mterpretation upon your words. It would bein- confiftent with the plan you plead for through the whole of your book, efpecially in this very part of it. What is your objection to the engagements required from candidates among us ? Not that thefe engage- ments put a zvrongjc'iije upon the fcripture, but that they put any ferijc upon it at all. What you infift upon is, that the door of admiflion to the pafloral of- fice be laid open to all that are wiiling to fign the Bible. It is upon this account that you addrefs us here in the language of your ufual fupercilious petu- lance : " Go, ye luirroiv mortals ! for ye are not, ye cannot, be the fucceffors of thefe champions for truth and liberty.'" It is libtrty you plead for. You would furely take it for a piece of injuftice done you, to think you were fo narrozv a mortal as to be for limit- ing the advantages of an eftabiifliment to the Soci- nians any more than to the orthodox. Had you owned that fome religion was intitled to public encouragement in a ChriCiian country, and only pled, that it was the Socinians, not the ortho- dox, who deferved it, then indeed the decifion of the queftion would have depended upon a difcullion of the diiierence between tlie two id'yilems of doc- trine. But, on the contrary, if I underftand you a- r ght, anJ if there is any meaning -n your rant about Donala Cargiil, (the pertmency of which, I own, I cannot Se6t. ni. Of cenfurlng herefy. 133 cannot perceive), I take your oppofition to lie equally againfl all religious eftablilhments whatever, or at lead: againfl allowing a public encouragement to the teachers of any one fyftem of dodrines mere than another, let the truth lie where it will. " Even tho' Mr A. B.*s tenets Ihould come out to be jufl, (you fay), what a fliame is it for Chriftians, for Proteft- ants, to reafon upon fuch principles ?" So that your dbjeclion is of a general nature, and does not (as you pretend) at all depend upon a particular difcuffion of the queflion where the truth lies. Let it be the So- cinian or the orthodox doctrine that prevails, it is all the fame thing with refped to its claim to the public encouragement. It is not, it feems, a Proteftant, it is not a Chriftian way of fupporting it, to give it any temporal advantage over the oppofite tenets. I the rather take this to be your meaning, becaufe I know it is a firing that is much harped upon by infidels, and after them by heretics, when they have no profpect of procuring thofe advantages to their own errors ; and it is one of the fophiftical or incon- clufive arguments that has often been ufed, among other more folid and decifive ones, againfl perfecu- tion. Some of the advocates for liberty think they reafon juftly, when they fay, " If you have a right to punifli others for diifering from you, have not they the fame right to punifli you for differing from them ?" No body can be a greater enemy than I am to that inhuman wickednefs called perfecution. Perhaps not the lefs fo, that many of my anceflors, both by father and mother, were fufferers by it. As the ter- rors of this world cannot polTibly produce a real per- fuafion either of a truth or of an error, but rather the contrary ; to apply fuch a motive for extorting a profefTion thereof where it is not, which is all that penalties can afied, appears to miC to be altogether diabolical ; becaufe it is doing all that is in the power of perfecutors to force the commiflion of a heinous fm, 134 Philalethes's letter defended. Part III, fm, namely, the afting contrary to the di£lates of one's own confcience. If you are as great an enemy to it as you pretend to be, I muft be excufed at leaft to doubt if this is the argument that prevails with you. Your hinting fo plainly an approbation of the cruel treatment which Mr Gillefpie met with from an aifembly where your friends prevailed, about twenty years ago, is the ground of my doubt. The fophiftical reafoning of M. Bayle, and other infidels, may poffibly be more to your tafte. Your manner of treating the fubjeft in hand looks very like it. Perfecution is what I fo much abhor, that I am forry to fee a weak argument ufed in oppofition to it, when fo much flronger arguments are ready at hand. And that this is fuch a one, may be gathered from what follows. When it is pled, that true religion ought to be encouraged by an eftablifliment in a Chriftian coun- try, exclufive of a falfe one ; if you imagine our meaning to be, that it is the duty of every magiftrate to give encouragement to whatever religion he be-, lieves to be the true one, you take our meaning but by halves. The whole includes, that it is the duty of all people and their rulers to inquire after the truth "without prejudice ; and having found it, (as they cer- tainly will, if they feek it with an impartiality appro- ved, not only by themfclves, but by the fearcher of hearts), to give it the advantage of error through their dominions. From this it can never be juftly in- ferred, that it is the duty of a Heathen, a Mahome- tan, a Popifli, or a Soclnian magiflrate, to give their feveral errors the advantage over the oppofite truths, or that they are guilty of no fm in doing fo. Their fm lies, not in the general perfuafion that true reli- gion ought to be encouraged among their fubjetts, but in embracing error inftead of truth, which could not have happened but through their own fault, their culpable negligence, indulgence of criminal prejudi- ces, and provoking God, by their abufe of his good- nefs, Se£t. III. Of cenfuring herefy. i^^ nefs, to abandon them : Bonum ex integris caufis rnalitm ex quolibet defcdu. The cafe is the fame with that of an erroneous con- fcience in the general. It is the duty of every man to a£t agreeably to the di^lates of his confcience • but if, through floth or prejudice, his confcience is ill in- formed, will that preferve him from all manner of guilt in the fms he may be thereby led to commit ? Our Saviour aifured his difciples, that the time -would coine^ when he who killed them zuoiild think that he did God fervice. One who afterward became a convert, was an inftance of the accomplifhment of this predidion. But was he innocent in fo doing ? Not, furely, in the eye of Chrift, who (truck him blind for it, faying, Saul, Saul, why perfecuteji thou me f nor in his own fight, when he called him- felf a hlaffihemer, a perfecutor, and injurious^ up- on that account. A Papill thinks it his duty to worfhip images. Per- haps you may, for that reafon, abfolve him from all guilt, in fo doing : for it is the fpirit of Socinianifm to excjafe, extenuate, and make light of fin. This you call charity : but if it appeared in the fame light to the juft Judge of the world, would he have threat- ened, and executed too, fuch dreadful judgements as the fcripture informs us of, upon them who were as much periuaded it was their duty as any Papift can be ? In a word, by far the greatell part of mankind are led into the pradice of very heinous fins, highly provoking to God by their complying v/ith the idola- trous and fuperflitious inftitutions of their refpedive falfe religions : but can it be juftly inferred from this, that there is no fuch thing as true religion ? or that thofe who have been fo happy as to find it, are under no obligation to promote the intereft of it ? The crime of idolaters is, not that they think themfelves obliged to obey the didlates of their confciences, but that their confciences are fo ill informed, through their culpable floth, or prejudice, and their provo- king 136 Philalctlies's letter defended. Part III. king God, by not receiving the love of the truth^ to fend them Jh'ong dehijions that they jhould be- lieve a lie. It wouM be very wrong for a neighbour of mine, forcibly to exclude me from paying a civil vifit to him, though an unreafonable prejudice, taken up without ground, had made him give credit to a falfe and improbable information that I intended hurt to him or his family ; and yet I would have a good right to bar my door againft him, if I believed, upon cer- tain intelligence, that he was coming with a defign to murder me. It is the unqueftionable duty of Chriftian parents to inllruft their children in the knowledge of the Chriftian religion, and to perfuade them of the truth of it : Deut. vi. 7. ; Pro v. xxii. 6. ; Eph. vi. 4. Will you pretend that a Jew, a Heathen, or a Mahometan, has as good a right to inculcate the pernicious errors of thefe fe- veral religions upon their children, and to imprefs their tender minds with prejudices againft Chriftiani- ty ? or, if this be wrong in them, will you infer, that it would be equally wrong in a Chriftian to prejudice (as you might call it) his children in favour of the true religion ? ■ • ■ Some infidels indeed have drawn this inference, and argued againft the inftruclion of children in any religion at all : but as you profefs yourfelf a Chriftian, I hope you are not arrived this length yet. From all, I think, I may conclude, that true religion is intitled to fome advantages from a fociety profefling it, which ought not to be -laid o- pen to the moft pernicious herefies. The only evafion you have is, fuppofmg, but (N. B.) without fo much as attempting to prove, that our religion is not the true one, and therefore is no more intitled to any fuperior advantages than the So- cinian dodrine. You own that A. B.'s tenets are op- pofite to the tenets of this church ; but you afk, " Are they oppoftte to truth r" and you demand of me, with an air of triumph, " How came you not to 2 take Seft. III. Of cenfuring herefy. 1^7 take up the queftion in this view?" As this is a reruge vou have conftantly recourle to when you find yourlelf prelfed on the general argument, and you ieem, by infiiling fo frequently upon it, through your book, to iay a great deal of ftrefs upon it in the ar- gument between us, though I have already given you a fair account of this matter, I think it neceffary to drag you out of this fandtuary, and therefore fliall now add, I. That when youreprefent this as a capital omif- fion on our part, you feem to have forgotten what is the true and real- ftate of the queflion in difpute be- tween us . If you had contended, that the advanta- ges '^^ou are for depriving us of, are what the Soci- nians, not the orthodox, are intided to, becaufe it is the religion of the fir(l, not of the laft, that is the true religion, and had attempted any thing hke a proof of this, then indeed it would have been efTen- tial to the decifion of this queftion, 'to difcufs the point, on what fide the truth lay. But do you pre- tend to ingrofs thefe advantages to yourfelves, even if you have truth on your fide ? Is it not the very thing you infift on, that they Ihould be equally laid open to all who are willing to fign the Bible ? Indeed, to follow out your principles through all their confequences, and to adopt your fort of fubicription, the advantages we claim, mufi: be extended itill fur- ther. A fubfcription of the Bible itfelf, according to you, could only be underflood to mean an alfent to it in Jo fdi' as it is confiilent with common fenfe, not a declaration of your belief that it is confident with common fenfe : for,you could fign the Turkifli Goran, you fay, if it was required of you as a teft, or the de- crees of the council of Trent, or 500 fuch tefls. To what purpofe then atteip.pt a proof to you that truth is on our fide, while you maintain your tliefis, let trutli be where it will, though it Ihould be on our fide to-day, and on yours to-morrow ? Will you allov/, that, if ■ ' S we 138 Philalethes's letter defended. Part III. we have truth on our fide, our pretenfions are juft, and that the advantages we claim for truth, are not equally due to all the erroneous who might offer to fign the Bible ? 2. Let me afk you, D. Sir, who it was that led the contrcverfy to the general point, and declined the particular difcuffion, for the omiiiion of which you now complain of me ? Was it not your friends whd wrote the two letters which I undertook to anfwer ? We are willing to meet you on any ground you pleafe to chufe. This is the ground which they chofe ; this is the ground which you have chofen to conti- nue upon ; and now when we meet you there, you pretend to diflike it too, and tell us, we ought to have been upon the other ground, which you had de- clined. Do you blame us for following you to the ground you yourfelves have chofen ? Will it be made a fault in this ray anfv/er to your book, that I have replied to what you have faid, rather than to what you have .'^;f faid ? To filence your affefted clamour upon this fubje£l, (which I cannot help look- hig upon in no other light but as an afylum you flee to,- as a fhelter from the main argument, when it prcffes you clofe), 1 have interfperfed, in different places, fome defences of the orthodox doctrines. But in doing fo, I am ah aid lefl: I have expofed my- felf "to a cenfure of another kind. So little have you laid occafions of this in my way, that mofl readers, perhaps, may regard fuch paffages as fo many digref- fions from, the fubje«5t you have afforded me, and which I had undertaken to difcufs. 3. Granting that a proof of the particular articles of our religion was more indifpenfable than it really is in this controverfy, as you have led it, I afk, has it not been given ? — frequently? unanfwerably ? It is of no moment, by whom, whether by me, or by others, if the thing be done. Not to mention the many learned confutations of the Socinian herefy, fur- nifhed Sed. III. Of cenfuring herefy. i 'jp niflied by the great divines of the lafl: century, has not your modern apoflle Dr Taylor been confuted, as by feveral others, fo particularly of late, by Mr Ed- wards of New England, in a manner that feems to amount to no lefs than demonftration ? If you are determined never to look into any books written on that fide, why do you call for them ? Till once you have pointed out the defecf of the reafoning with which you are already providc^d in great plenty, )'ou, furely, are not intitled to found any pretenfions on the want of it. 4. If the decifion of the general point in difpute between you and me did depend (as it does not) up- on a difcuHion of the particular articles, pray. Sir, upon which of us is it mod incumbent to enter upon that difcuffion ? upon us, who are in polfellion ; or upon you, who are aiming to turn us out of poffef- fion ? Your two alTociates in the Scots Magazine declined it. You yourielf, after dec aring the fenfe you have of its necefllty, p. 6y 66. 67. even you have declined it. Though you acknowledge that it is " the precife point to which this debate is arrived, and from which you propofe to fet out ; — and that it is the only inquiry from which any good can be ex- pected ;" yet immediately fubfequent to that very de- claration you have exprefsly told us, that you do not propofe it. You are the ailailants : our part is on- ly defenfive. It is your attack that muft direct us what part of our works is to be made good. The doftrine which we maintain is no more than what has ahvays been the doctrine of this church. If we were introducing a new fyflem of religion, I aifure you, Sir, our defection from the contrary doftrines would not be a tacit one, as you acknowledge yours is, notwithftanding the difmtereftednefs and intrepidi- ty you boaft of, and even the numbers too, whofe proteftion you have to embolden you. Our doctrine is no more than what you yourfelves have avowed to S 2 be 14© Philalethes's letter defended. Part III. be the confeflion of your own faith, in the moft pu- blic and folemn manner : what occafion have we to defend it, till once your tacit objeftions are ftated, and brought forth ? You cannot but know, that the dodrine againft: which you have imbibed fuch violent prejudices, is not only the dodrine of this church, but of all the Reformed churches, agreed to at a general fynod, as well as in their feveral particular confeffions. Nayv I might go further flill, as it has been the doctrine of the whole catholic church, from the beginning of Chriftianity to this day. Therein, you know, the Arian and Pelagian tenets, as foon as they were broached, have been under a fentence of condemna- tion. Thefe things being fo, allow me to afk a- gain, from whom is the difcufiion you fo often call for, moft naturally to be expefted, and demanded ? When I refleft upon the univerfal condemnation under which your tenets have always been fince the beginning of Chriftianity, I cannot eafily conceive how ftrange a book the Bible muft pafs for among you. Do ye really imagine, that God has therein re- vealed his will to mankind concerning their moft im- portant interefts, in fuch a manner, that the fenfe and meaning of it has not been difcovered for above 1 700 vears, but by a few now and then, who have always been condemned for heretics by the reft of Chriftians, or bv fuch as creep in uiicnuart^s by hypocritically profcffing the contrary ? It is not at all furprifmg, that in fo large a book there (liould be fome obfcure paffages. But that the very fubftance of the revela- tion, the main end and dcfign of it, fnould be fo conftantly and fo univerfaliy -mifapprehended, muft be allov/ed to be fomewhat extraordinary ; efpecially in a revelation from the Father of hghts^ which is intended to be a light urito our feetj ami a hirup tmtr) our paths. The cafe of the church of Rome is very far from being parallel to this : lor befides that their moft per- nicious Se£l. III. Of cenfuring herefy. 141 nicious tenets were unheard of for feveral hundred years after the commencement of Chriflianity, they were derived from other fources, and fupported by other rules of tVith, which were, for the fake of thefe very doftrines, fuperadded to the fcrlpture ; and ac- cordhigly the corruption of doftrine among them confifted rather m adding new articles of faith, chief- ly with temporal views, than in denying the eifentials of Ghriftianity, which were moftly retained by theift ; and it is notorious, that the ages when their idolatry and fuperflition was mod rampant, were infamous botli for grofs ignorance and fcandalous wickednefs : whereas the orthodox fenfe of the Bible has always moft prevailed, at periods and among perfons noted for the highcft eftimation of that facred treafure of divine knowledge, and when it feems to have had the moft powerful influence upon the minds and up- on the lives of its abettors. That thofe good men who were ready to part with their lives fooner than with their Bibles, fliould not be able to difcover there- in what is the very religion it teaches, whether the objeft of religious worfliip be God or a creature, or what it is that is therein required of us to cfcape e- ternal mifery, and obtain everlafhing happinefs, and that the true meaning of it Ihould only be known to fuch as, through temporal motives, are ready to re- nounce, in themoft folemn manner, even their own fenfe of it, and to fign the TurkifK Goran ; this mud be ovmed to be very fingular indeed ; efpecial- ly wJien it is confidered, that the more eminent any of them have been for their regard for God and his word, and the ftricler their praftice of the precepts therein contained, fo much the more zealous have they appeared for the orthodox fenfe of it. The reft of what you fay upon this firft objedllon to your plan, is mere harangue and empty declama- tion, which you have thought fit to fubflitute in the place, and perhaps to cover the want, of argument. " Are 142 Philalethes's letter defended. Part III. " Are thefe the men ? &c. Is it you whom we hear eternally extolling ? '* &c. As it is only what has the appearance of fober reafoning that I propofe to confider, I would take no notice of this piece of idle declamation, if it were not to give you two fhort and friendly advices. The firft is. To beware of adopting expreffions, which a profane world has brought too much into fafliion, fmce the awe of eternal things is, in fo great a meafure, worn off their minds. Etcrnitv, Sir, is an edged tool ; and therefore you had better not meddle with it when you have nothing to do with it. The other is. To inquire a little into fafts, before you make any allufion to them : " You compare yourfelves to Donald Cargill ! " &c. fo you proceed in your declamation. Now, in the firfl place, we are fo far from emulating iVir Cargill, or boailing of any refemblance to him, that the eflablifhed church of Scotland, and the Cameronians his followers, are not fo much as in communion with one another. And, again, he was fo far from renouncing a civil efliablilh- ment, that the very difference between his followers and us, confifts in their refufmg fubmiffion to any king but a covenanted one, who would not fo much as tolerate any religion in his dominions, but the or- thodox ; whereas the eflablifhed church of Scotland, and even the Seceders, are notorioufly known to be the befl and mofl trufly friends that the prefent go- vernment have within their dominions, and have al- ways appeared to be fo in the moil trying times. Having now confidered every thing you have faid, in reply to my firft argument, and ihown you how little there is in it, allow me to put you in mind of what you have not thought fit to take the leafl notice of ; for you have thereby intitled us to count it unanfwerable, at leafl not anfwered in a book writ- ten for that purpofe. Without tranfcribing the illu- ilration of that argument, left quite untouched by you, Sect. III. Of cenfuring lierefy. . 145 you, I fhall only obferve, that you have neither granted, nor refufed to grant, its being the duty of Chriftian magiftrates and people, to make provifion for the miniflers of religion, and for the difpenfation of its ordinances, and to take care that it be not mif- applied to the encouragement of a faife religion, and the fpreading of per'nicious error among the people. You have not fliewed how this can be done, without fome teft for diflinguifhing between the one and the other. You have not told us, how far you are for extending the comprehenfion you plead for, or what feds ought to partake of the national provifion among all that might offer to fign the Bible, — or the Goran, — or what any body pleafes. Nor have you pre- tended to reconcile, with the reverence due to God, your turning a folemn tranfaclion in the houfe and prefence of God, during his public worfliip, into a ridiculous farce, or a meaninglefs nothing, wliile men of any confcience cannot but regard it as doing fomething, and have often fuffered rather than do it againft the light of their minds. All thefe things you have entirely paiTed over. You have not had the candour to own them unanfwerable ; yet, in fadt, you have made no reply. Have you any thing to fay to them, or have you not ? If you have, would not the difcuffion of fuch points have contributed more to the decifion of the queilion between us, than an idle harangue to no manner of purpofe, and a jocular pa- negyric upon an honell man milled by the cruel bar- barity of a tyrannical government ? The fecond argument I brought againft your plan of fubfcription, and the fynod's fuffering it to pafs uncenfured, was taken from the advantage it would give to the numerous infidels among us. It was afk- ed, What you can fay in anfwer to their accufation, that you do not believe the religion you teach ? If you allow yourfelves, for a livelihood, to make a fo- lemn profeffion, that you believe fuch and fuch doc- trines to be agreeable to the word of God, while it is notorious. 144 Pliilalethes's letter defended. Part III. notorious, and even confefled, that you believe no luch thing ; why may you not likevvife be fuppofed to preach that there is a heaven and a hell, &c. without believing one word of the matter for all that ? Now what have you returned in reply to this? Not one fmgle word ; and yet you have artfully infmua- ted too, as if it was not altogether without fome an- fwer. The only notice you take of it is a very gene- ral one, including no lefs than four of my arguments, which, it feems, you were glad to be rid of at any rate, and therefore huddled them together, that you might difpatch them at once. It is in thefe words : " The firil four of thefe confequences are merely of a political nature ; that is to fay, they would follow up- on whatever fide the truth is fuppofed to lie ; even though Mr A. B.'s tenets fliould come out to be juft, and the orthodox fyftem erroneous." And not a word more do you bellow upon the fubjetl:. And have you indeed. Sir, no better defence againft fuch an infmuation ? If you really intended (as you exprefsly fay you did) to include my fecond argument in this general an- fwer, I mufl own your logic is the moil inconipre- henfible that ever I met with. The argument is, He who avows, that, for the fake of a livelihood, he has no fcruple to fay, that a thing is true which he knows to be falfe, lays himfelf open to a juft fulpicion, that, whenever the fame is at ilake, he will have as little fcruple to aft over again the fame hypocritical part ; and thus muft ailord matter of triumph to the infi- dels, who alledge, that even the preachers of the Chri- ftian religion do not believe it tliemfelves. " Your an- fwer, without giving yourfelf the trouble of the leaft illuftration to help us to comprehend it, is. That this would follow, upon whatever fide the truth is fuppo- fed' to he. Have you any meaning here.'* or do you underftand it yourfelf? What can be more declfive in a controverfy, than to fee men of abilities reduced 2 to Se£l:. III. Of cenfuring herefy. 14^ to the neceflity of putting off an antagonlft with words that have not the leafl degree of meaning ? The like meafure of attention you have paid to my third argument, taken from the ftate of matters be- tween the cflabUfhed church and the Seceders. They accufe us, you know, of having departed from the doctrine of this church, to which we all profefs an af- fent, or we could not be intitled to our benefices ; while they are thofe who adhere to it. There is no other polTible defence againft this accufation, but a denial of it. Accordingly, till Mr A. B.'s letter ap- peared, it has always been denied on our part, and particularly by himfelf, in a pamphlet publifhed a few years ago, under the name of Alexander Fergnjjort •mln'ifler of Kihmnnin^. The quotation I gave you from him, you pafs altogether unnoticed ; and all that you fay to this whole matter is contained in a member of a queftion, *' What good purpofe doth it anfwer, — to aflc us what anfwer we could make to the Seceders ? " And are you. Sir, really fatisfied with this as a fufficient reply ? For my own part, if the accufation be indeed as well founded as you would have it, I think it ought to have had a dired contrary effeft from what it has had upon the Seceders. Inftead of weakening the orthodox intereft by a divifion, while nothing was impofed upon them againft their confciences, it fliould have inftigated them to a clofer union with their bre- thren, and laying afide all fmaller differences, to join their ui)ited flrength, in purging the church of fuch truly dangerous and hypocritical intruders. But if you are really at a lofs to know what purpofe it an- swers to mention it upon this occafion, I (hall tell you two purpofes it anfwers, and would be glad to know what you have to fay to either of them. Firft, it ferves to fhew what good ground the fynod had for their procedure againft Mr Ferguffon ; and, fecond- ly, to determine whether the Seceders, or you, ought to have been Seceders. The emoluro,ents of the T clergy 146 Philalethes*s letter defended. Part III. clergy are limited by the law of the land to the teach- ers of that dodrine which is contained in the Confef- fion of faith ; and none can pretend a legal right to them, without profefling and promifmg to be fo. If the Seceders continue to be what they profefs, and you have departed therefrom, fo far that you cannot deny yourfelves to be of a quite different religion ; whether is it you, or they, that are beft intitled to the enjoyment of thefe emoluments? But you have fallen upon a very eafy, if not a decifive, way of anfwering all queftions, and confuting all arguments, — by taking little or no notice of them. Surely, Sir. you have written your book only for ybur own party. You could not poffibly imagine that your anfwers to my arguments were to influence any body feife. For your reply to my fourth argu- ment is juft as Ihort and fupr rficial as the reft. Thi^ argument in defence of the fynod was taken from the laws and coni.itutions of this church, which were particularly pointed out and referred to. By them it was evidently apparent, that the fynod muft have been guilty of direft dilbbedience, had they taken no notice of A. B.*s letter. The whole reply you make to this is contained in another branch of the fam.e comprehenfive queftion, " What good purpofe doth it anfwer, — to refer us to the form of procefs ?'* &c. Sir, there are none fo blind as thofe who zvill not fee. If you really think that this formidable query has at once difarmed my argument of all its force, allow me to mention one purpofe which I wifli you had fpoken to ; and that is, to let it be known whe- ther we be in a ftate of the wildefl; anarchy, or un- der apy ecclefiaflical government. A legal govern- ment has always been thought to be a government of laws, not of men; while the known laws of the fociety, enacted by univerfal confent, are fupreme in authori- ty, this, and this only, is liberty, or free government ; this is what patriots have contended for in all ages. But if every judge is indulged with, that power which you iSeft. ni. Of cenfiiring herefy. 147 you are now openly contending for, and have in fe- veral inftances adually taken upon you to exercife, a power to fufpend the laws at pleafure, and to adt ac- cording to your own arbitrary will, this is to be un- der no legal goverment at all ; this is tyranny, tyran- ny over the fociety, whofe laws are trampled on and fet at nought. My fifth argument you have indeed vouchfafed a particular anfwer to, or at leafl fomething that looks like it. But what is it ? Let us fee if it be not as e- vafive as the reft. Left you fliould have objected, that they were only the laws of men that the fynod would have tranfgrelfcd, had they let A. B.*s letter pafs unceniured, I next referred to feveral palTages of fcripture, whereby it appears to be enjoined by an authority fuperior to all human conftitutions, to pre- fcrve the purity of doctrine by the exercife of difci- pline. Have you been pleafed to confider, or return an anfwer to any one of them ? Perhaps you found them too hot for you, and had no inclination to burn your fingers by meddling with them. Your only anfwer docs in effed: yield the point in difpute. It proceeds upon a fuppolition, (which you never undertake to make good, but which you never fail to have re- courfe to in a pinch), that A. B.'s tenets are truths, and not errors. But are you not fenfible, my D. Sir, that (unlefs you had attempted at leaft to fupport fuch an afl'ertion by fome fhadow of proof) this is flinch- ing from the point in debate. The queftion between us is of a more general nature, viz. Whether difci- pline is to be exercifed in the cafe of any error what- ever, real error ? This, you might have eafily per- ceived, was the queftion difputed, from the words of your fellow-labourer Philanthropos, againft whom I was arguing. As they were inferted under the illu- ftration of that argument, they could not poflibly e- fcape you. He had maintained, that even " ilie e- nennts of truth fhould not be deterred to fpeak out all their objedions j" and that " church-authority is T 2 tlie 148 Philalethes*s letter defended. Part III. the weapon of error, and never can convince ;'* con- trary to the Apoftle Paul, v^^ho direds Titus to re« bukc them jhar ply ^ THJT they may be found-in the faith. As you are of the fame opinion with Philanthropos, and it is the very defign of your book to fupport it, fo you could not but know that this was what I was refuting. Am I not then fufficiently authorifed to fay, that your only anfwer to my fifth argument is a mere evafion, and a pretence to cover your declining to engage with the paifages of fcrip- ture I had quoted, which do fo plainly militate a- gainil your pretenfions. Sir, you who feem to think that you have fuffi- ciently anfwered the firft five of my arguments in defence of the fynod, may perhaps yourfelf be fo a- floniflied at feeing how very flight and fuperficial your anfwers are, that you may, at firft view, be ready to fufped that I have given but a partial and defedive account of them : and therefore I befeech you, for my fake, to turn over your own book, and fee whe- ther they be really any fuller, or even larger than as I have reprefented them. May I not, upon this occafion, put you in mind, that nothing can be a more certain indication of prejudice, than a man's ftill pretending to fay fomething, and keeping up an appearance of defence, even where he muft be con- fcious that the arguments brought againrt: him are really unanfwerable ? When I fee how little you have to reply, I wonder that prudence did not lead you rather to take no notice of them at all. This might have been conftrued into a contempt of them. But the notice you have taken of them ferves only to fhew, that you would have anfwered them if you could ; and, at the fame time, that you had nothing of weight that could be oppofed to them. SECT, Se£t.IV. Of cenfuring herefy. 149 SECT. IV. The anfijuer. to the fixth argument confidered, and the clauje of adherence in the Formula vindica- ted. THE kfl: reafbn I gave in fupport of the fynod's conducl will bring us into the heart of the con- troverfy. In that part of your book where you pro- fefs to return a formal anfwer to me, I might ftill complain of fuperficiality, and that the moft part of what I had advanced upon this part of the argument is left quite untouched ; and confequently I may con- clude it, if not unanfwerable, at leall unanfwered. But as your whole book may be reckoned to be upon this fubject, how little foever you may think it proper to attend to what is faid on our fide, let us confider what you have been pleafed to fay either here or elfe- where. My (ixth reafon is, Tliat the offence which the fy- nod animadverted upon was a flagrant immorality ; the leaving of which uncenfured would have been hurtful to human fociety ; as it confifted in deflroying faith and truth in the mofl folemn alfeverations, and rendering the ftrictell bonds that men can invent erir tirely ufelefs and infignificant. If this be not made good, I acknowledge I have failed in my argument. If it be, will not you fuccumb, and yield the point in difpute ? Two things introductory to my illuftration of this argument (as you fay nothing in oppofition to them) I take to be yielded by you. One is, (in the words of a friend of your's, when pleading, not abfolutely againft all church-difcipline, but againft applying it to erroneous fpeculations). That " crimes pernicious to fociety are the proper objedis of cenfure and reproof, againft which the clergy ought to exert their utmoft efforts." I50 Philalethes*s letter defended. Part III. efforts.'* The other is, That the teaching and vindi- cating of fin is at leaft as heinous in the fight of God, and as offenfive among men, as the real commifTion of a fingle adt of it. Both thefe then I take for granted. Now, what is the pra6lice vindicated by A. B. and for which you have undertaken to vindicate him ? This you have yourfelf fet down. It is no lefs than (as you fairly quote from my letter) " a folemn pro- fefiion and declaration made before God, in a meeting for public worfhip, by a minifter at his ordination, and figned with his hand, that he believes all the doc- trines contained in the Confeffion of Faith to be founded on, and agreeable to, the fcripture, or the truths of God, while it is owned that he believes no fuch thing.'* Well, what is it that you fay to this ? Can you deny, that this is the very pradice which you have undertalvcn to vindicate ? And will you fay, that it is no immorality ? I really cannot help being in fome pain for one that has reduced himfelf to the fituation I fee you in here. Do you pretend that this is a falfe accufation, and that neither A. B. nor you have vin- dicated any fuch pradice ? Alas ! this would be yield- ing the whole dilpute at once, and giving up the very point in defence of which your book is written. There is indeed a palTage, p. 222. that might lead an unobfervant reader to imagine, that you deny your vindicating any fuch pradice. " Mr A. B. (you fay), nor none of thofe who have written on the fame fide, juftify any fuch praftice. Their adverfaries indeed af- fert it. It would not be to their purpofe to re- member, that they have been again and again con- tradifted.*' But if any body was to put this con- flruftion upon thefe words, as if you denied the fadt, that v/hat you vindicate is a folemn alTeve- ration of what you know to be falfe, they would foon find it to be a mere deception, and one of the arts which a difputant is fometimes obliged to have re- courfe Seft. IV. Of cenfuring herefy. 151 courfe to, when he will fupport a thing which all the art in the world is not able to bear the weight of. The only thing intended to be denied here is, not the fad, that you vindicate fuch a practice as is above defcribed, (what is your book written for, if it be not for this very purpofe ?), but that this pradtice de- ferves an ill name, or that it fliould be denominated dijjijnulation. If this be all that is meant, why do you exprefs it in fuch equivocal terms as may impofe upon an unwary reader ? and why do you infinuate, that the denial you mention is fomething which we forget ? If wc did not remember that you have contradicted us in calling it a difhoneft practice, would we be at fo much pains to convince you that it is ? And I appeal to yourfelf. Sir, whether there is any thing elfe that you meant here to fay you contradict us in ? Is it in the flate of the fad ? or only in the epithet bellowed up- on it? When you come afterwards, p. 225. to fet down the fa6t itfelf, as I had defcribed it in the words quoted above, without calling it diffimulation, or any thing elfe, do you pretend to contradict me there ? This, you know, you cannot do, without yielding the caufe. What is it, then that you have recourfe to ? As you cannot deny, do you fairly and avowedly own, that the ftate of the queftion as you have quoted from me is a juft one ? that this is the very practice which you undertake to vindicate ? Alas ! (I muft fay again) the lead glimmering of the very light of nature in the ftupidefl Hottenot muft immediately rife againfh fuch a practice when thus fairly ftated, and be fufficient to make all who have the leafl remnant of rationality fenfible of its moral turpitude. What is it then that you have recourfe to on fo diftreffing an occafion ? Only to raife a little dull, that, by favour of the ob- fcurity, you may, for this once, be able to flip out qf fight. The immorality of what you vindicate, appears, in the 152 Philalethes's letter defended. PartllL the above ftate of it, fo grofs and fo vifible, that you are obliged to lay hold on fonie pretence for infmua- ting, as if, there was fomething in it like a mifrepre- fentation, while, at the fame time, you dare not take upon you to fay fo exprefsly. But wherein does this infmuated mifreprefentation he ? Not in that A. B. has not faid as much as implies all this ; but only in that he has likewife faid more. You really feem to me, Sir, to be playing with your readers, and at a game of crofs-purpofes too. If you have not been fufficiently attending to what you was about, give me leave to recall your attention to it. Your profelfed bufmefs, in this part of your book, was anfwering my fixth argument in defence of the fynod. This was. That the crime at which they aimed their cenfure, was a grofs and fcandalous immorality, " againfl which (you do not deny) the clergy ought to exert their utmofl efforts.'* The im- morality, I told you, confided in defending a folemn declaration before God, in an aifembly of his people for pubhc worfhip, of what the declarant certainly knows to be falfe. You even quote my words to this purpofe. It was natural to expeft, that, having quoted this palfage of my letter, you would either admit this account of the matter to be juft, and un- dertake to prove, what you had aiferted a little be- fore, that it was no difTimulation, or deny it, and fay, that I had given a falfe reprefentation of the matter. Dat inftead of doing either the one or the other, you put us off with a (lory of a cock and a bull, that has no manner of relation to the point in hand. All that you reply is, that A. B. had faid more ; and to that more you immediately run away from the point in hand, glad, it feems, to get rid of it at any rate, fairly or unfairly. And fuch is your hafte to clear your hands of it, that you cannot flay to tell us fo much as whether you admit, or refufe to admit, the account I had given of the matter ; but difcoveripg, however, an inclination, had you the fmalleft p' e- . 2 ' tence Sc£t. IV. Ot cenfuring herefy. 153 tence for it, to Infinuate, at leaft, that there was fomething unfair in it. Your words are, " There is here a manifeit omiffion, for I will call it by no hard- er name, in Pliilalethes's reprefentation of Mf A. B.'s argument. Mr A. B. in every pa [J age where he mentions fubfcription, names both belie- ving and adhering, and dill inguiflies them as feparate claufes of the obligation. Philalethes, in the face of his own words, reftrifts him here to the former.'*—— And fo you make your retreat, as fail as you can, from the profefTion of believing, to the promife of ad- hering. Now pray, Sir, to what purpofe is all this, if it be not by way of evafion from the point in hand ? For, I . It is not true that Mr A. B. in every paiTage where he mentions fubfcription, names both believing and adhering. Witnefs the chief paifage he has upon this fubjett, I mean the fourth particular in his appen- dix, where he fays, " No man who a£ts with con- fcicnce will fign the Confeffion of Faith, or fhould be thought to fign it, but in fo far as it is agreeable to the fcriptures, though he do not, at figning, exprefs that qualification/' Where is there any mention made of adhering here ? Have we not here an ab- folute and independent proportion ? 2. Though he had aKvays mentioned both, (as you fee he has not), of what importance is it here ? or in- deed, of what fignification ? It may flill be true, that he reduces a profciTion of believing to nothing, akhough he reduces a promife of adhering to nothing likewife. If I fhould accufe a Papifc of breaking the firft commandment, what fort of a defence would it be, or what could be the meaning of it, to fay in his behalf, " It is not the firlt commandment only, but the fecond too, that he is guilty of breaking : why then do you limit him only to the breach of the firft?'* ^ 3. You fay, he diflinguifhes them as feparate claufes of the obligation. Be it fo. Why then may U not 154 Philalethcs's ctter defended. Part III, not we likewife allow them a feparate confideration ? I wonder you are not more fenfible that it is you, not I,, that is for taking any advantage either of their be- ing joined or feparated. I allowed each of them a feparate and diilinct confideration, without flying to the one as a pretext for declining the confideration of the other. This ufe of the diiHnclion, I fhall now be fo far from imitating you in, that as you have fled to this ground, there I am ready to follow you. You decline the quefl:ion about a profeflion of prefent be- lief, and fo get rid of ail that I had faid on that part of the fubjed:, upon the flight pretence, that the flirefs of the matter lies only on the promife of adherence. However, without abandoning the firft, T fliall now attend you to the fecond, including what is faid upon it in other parts of your book. I am the more willing to difpatch this point of ad- herence firfl:, becaufe I hope it will cofl: us lefs time than the other. Belides that I have already laid down principles, and proved them from fuch fcriptures as are proper for il]uft;rating this point ; a great deal of what you 'ay upon it, is what I have nothing to do with, VIZ. from p. 173. to p. 211. ; fo that here is a confiderable part of your book which I am entirely delivered from. There you impofe a fenfe of this claufe upon the orthodox, which we are as fenfible as you are, cannot be the meaning of it, namely, that it is only an engagement to lay down our office upon a change of cur opinion, if that fliould happen. This is fo far from being the meaning of it, that, with half an eye, infl:ead of an argument of forty pages, one may fee that it is an engagement jufl: to the contrary. Is there any poflible confifl:ency be- tween abidifig in the faith we then profefs, M'hich is what we promife in that claufe of the Formula, and giving fuch a teftim.ony to the prejudice of it, as throwing up our charge upon that account would a- mount to ? Who could imagine. Sir, that it would have Sc£t. IV. Of the adherence-claufe. 1^5 have cofl you above forty pages to fliew the abfurdity of fuch a fenfe ? The only pretence that I can thhik of for charging it upon us, mud be, that foine of us, perhaps, have faid, and do ilill fay, that there may be fuch a change of opinion, as to render it inconhllent with honelty for a minifler of this church, after fuch a change, to continue in his liation. And I dare fay, you your- felf will not deny that fuch a cafe may happen. If a minifter Ihould turn a Mahometan, or a Jew, or a Deiit, or even a Papiir, wlio would not refufe to fign the Bible, will any man. fay, that it would be honeil- ly done to impofe his minillrations on a Chriftian, or a Proteflant church ? If we (hould extend this to So- cinianifm too, you cannot deny that it is a religion totally and ellentially different from that of this church. But to fay that hor.efty would oblige him to demit his office, is very different from faying, that the claufe of adherence in the Formula ha>.ii no other meaning. I am the antagoniif, in oppofition to whom you have chofen to appear. You c-annot be ignorant that it is not the fenfe which I elpoufe. You had my let- ter before you, wherein, you know, I take that claufe in its literal, obvious, and fcriptural fenfe. Can you produce any writer on our fide who under- flands it otherwif:^?- But having once fet up this man of llraw, you feem to be happy that you have found or made an antagonift, in whofe overthrow you can eafily triumph. And fo you continue to bat ter him for above forty idle pages together ; in which combat I wifli you all the fuccefs that beating the air is capable of. Tiiis fenic, however, you are refolved to force up] on us, whether we are willing to adopt itor not With this view, you tell us, that, in the literal fenfe of the words, it would be engaging ourfelves to an abfolute impollibility, and even a downright contra- diction ', and therefore it cannot poilibiy be the true U '2 fenfe ; 156 Philalcthcs's letter defended. PartllL fenfe ; fo that we muft have recourfe to another at any rate. This you not only infifl on in anfvver to me, without taking the lead notice of feveral things I had faid, to prove the reafonablenefs of the claufe in queftion, in the plain and literal fenfe of it : but you aflert it over and over in different parts of your book, as if you would beat it into us by mere dint of frequent repetition. This, Sir, is your manner of reafoning. To make you fenfible of what nature your arguments are, I fhall here exhibit fome examples of your logic, all within the compafs of two or three pages. Thus you fay, p. 1 6'], " It is evident, that when a man promifes to adhere to thefe opinions, he promifes not, he cannot promife, he cannot be- underllood by any body to promife, that he will continue to believe them." If this be not fufficient to convince us, (as there is no- thing here but (irong and confident affertion, how- ever varied and repeated), we have it inculcated up- on us again, in the very next page, and that in ftill ftronger terms, p. 168. "When we promife to ad- here to the opinions we then fubfcribe, it is inipof- fible we can be underflood to promife, it is impof- fible that we ourfelves can think we promife, to con- tinue to believe thefe opinions." Should we ftill be fo obftinate as to call for proof, your fort of proof we have in plenty. For, p. 169. you tell us again, "If by requiring us to adhere to the opinions we fub- fcribe, they meant to take our promife that we would continue to believe thefe opinions, they, in fa6:, re- quire us to perform a thing v^'hich is impoflible. This therefore can never be the meaning of our fubfcrip- tion. The enadors of it themfelves could not make, thev could never be thought to make inch a rcquifi- tior." It would be endlefs to quote all the paffages of this kind. Every body who has read your book, muft be enfib'c, tbat it conjijis almoft of fuch-like bare, but confident affertions, without pretending to fup- port Se6:. IV. Of the adherence-claufe. i ^7 port them by any thing like an argument ; as if expref. fmg a thing in ftrong and pofitive terms, and repeat- ing the aflertion, ufqiie ad nauftam^ were fuffi- cient demonllration of the truth of it.— You go further : you even anfwer for us too, and have the affurance to affert in our face, that we are of the fame opinion, and that upon this point there is no dif- ference between us. From whence I fhall only ob- ferve by the by, that it is no wonder to fee you fo great an enemy to orthodoxy ; for you really do not know what it is. As for this aflertion of yours, which you think as clear as the fun, it is precifely of the very fame kind with the excufe we often meet with from the moll a- bandoned debauchees, for the wild work which the gratification of their lufts too frequently involves them in. They tell you too, and will face it down upon you in as pofitive terms as your own, that love (which is the name they give to luft, though no two things can be more different) is not in their power, and that it is abfolutely impoflible to govern or rellrain it within any reafonable bounds. The like they will af- firm of their other pafTions, when they are not difpo- fed to take the trouble of refifting their furious and irrational impulfes. And I wilh they were not too much countenanced in this dodrine by Socinianized clergymen, whofe divinity confifts in extenuating and excufing fm. If you fhould hint to them from the infpired writings, they that are Chri/i's, have cru- cijitd the fie jh, luith the affeiiions and hifis ; or, if ye live after the flefj^ ye floall die ; hut ij- ye, through the Spirit^ do mortify the deeds of the bo- dy^ ye (Jmll live, it would make jufl as little impref- fion upon them, as the paflages of fcripture I have quoted upon the fubjed we are upon, feem to have made upon you. I have fliown you, that in the fcripture we are ex- prefsly commanded to continue in the faith, ground- ed and fettled, and not to be moved away from the hope j^$ Philalethes*s letter defended. Part III. hope of the gofpel ; to abide in the doQrine of Chrifl ; to hold fall the profeffion of our faith, with- out wavering ; to hold fall the form of found words in faith and love ; to be no more children toffed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doc- trine. In the fcripture there is nothing reprefented as more provoking to God, nothing more fharply repre- hended, nothing more feverely threatened, than a- poflafy, making fliipwreck of the faith, or not con- tinuing to believe the truths of the gofpel which we have once received. The thick darknefs, and grofs idolatry, both of the Heathen and Popifh world, are there reprefented as judicial plagues, permitted by way of punifhment for this very fm, their not conti- nuing to receive the truth in the love thereof; or the want of a tafte and relifli for true gofpel-doftrine, by reafon of the prevalence of lull, and their crimi- nal indulgence of it. True believers are required to difcountenance and look down upon them that abide not in the dodrine of Chriji : nay, fo highly pro- voked is God by fuch a condu£l, that the apoille tells us, it is hnpojjihle to renezv thetn again unto re- pentance^ who were once enhohtened, if they fall away from the profeffion and belief of the truths they had embraced, Heb. vi. 4. — 6. Tell me now, Sir, you who profefs a regard for the word of God, (at leaft when it ferves for a pre- tence to pour contempt upon the doftrines of it that are contained in the Confeffion of Faith), how dare you take upon you to pronounce that to be impof- iible, and in fuch pofitive terms too, which God fo exprefsly requires of all Chrillians, and the negled: of which he fo feverely reprimands and refents ? Does God require of us impoffibilities and contradiftions ? or can he be fuppofed to punifli, with fuch unrelenting feverity, a fault which it is by no means in our power to avoid committing ? or to -require of us what you fay " is inconfiftent with every principle of our na- ture Seft.IV. Of the adherence-claufe. 159 ture as men, and of our profeffion as Proteftants ?'* p. 226, For my part, I would fain know where lies this evident impoffibility which you are fo mighty confi- dent of. The pofitive terms ufed by you might tempt one to imagine, that all the faith of which you have ever had any experience, has been of a very flight and uncertain kind. For if it were fuch a faith as is ex- prefsly enjoined in the fcripture, there would appear no myflery at all in the permanency of it. If there be fuch a thing as truth, which it is our indifpenfable duty to know and believe, (as it is certain there is, if the fcripture be the word of God), there mufl be evidence for it fufficient for the conviftion of an ho- nefl and impartial mind that gives due attention to it. And there can be nothing capable of drawing us from the belief of it, but culpable floth, and the indulgence of criminal prejudices. Now, can it be either impof- fible or unreafonable to give due attention to the e- vidence we mufl have for the truth, and to guard a- gainft the prejudices that are in oppofition to it ? Where is the abfurdity of fuppofmg fuch duties in- cumbent upon us ? or of our refolving and promifmg to beftow a proper meafure of diligence and atten- tion upon them ? Suppofe a teacher of the mathematics, after having demonllrated a certain propofition of Euclid, fhould tell his fcholars, that this propofition was of great im- portance, upon which a great many others depended ; and fhould therefore exhort them always to retain in their; minds a full perfualion of the certainty thereof, and never admit the leaft doubt of it, i. e. frequently revolve it in their minds, with the fleps of the demon- llration, and guard againft being impofed upon by any fophifm whereby it might be attacked, and their affurance of it fhaken ; would there be any thing un- reafonable in all this ? or would he be looked upon as requiring any impoffibility ? That which feems to me to miflead you here, is your l6o Phllalethes's letter defended. Part III. your not diflinguifhing between different degrees of aflent, but confidering our belief of all religious te- nets as being of the fame kind, and in the fame de- gree. The obligation to continue in the belief of go- fpel-truths muft be founded in the clear perception we have of their certainty : and therefore, one who ne- ver had a clear perception of the certainty of any go- fpel-truth, may indeed have a fcruple to promife a conftant adherence to it ; while he that has, can have no fcruple about the matter. One who knows no- thing of the golden rule in arithmetic, may be indu- ced, by the teftimony of a fkilful arithmetician in ere- . dit with him, to believe a certain proportion which he tells him there is between very complex numbers ; and yet, not having a clear perception of the evi- dence of that truth, he would be right in refufing to promife that he will continue always to believe it. But afk the fame perfon, if he has any fcruple to fay, he will never deny, that 2 is the half of 4, or any thing of which he has a clear and indubitable per- ception, and he will immediately tell you, he has none. Your not attending to this difference, has led you into that very " confufion of ideas" of which you in- advertently accufe me, p. 228. You confound every kind of belief, every degree of perfuafion, with the clearefl perception of the certainty of fome truths : and becaufe you cannot promife adherence where the degree of perfuafion is of the loweft kind, you infer, againll all the rules of right reafoning, that it is equally abfurd in every degree. This is the whole amount of your logic in p. 229. There are fome propofitions in the Weftminffer Confeffion, of the truth and certainty of which, I hope, you have a clear perception ; fuch as, That there is a God, and but one God. Have you^ any fcruple to promife a conftant adherence to thefe ? If not, you furely cannot " fcruple at this promife on 2 account . Sed. IV. Of the adherence-claufe. .161 account of its own abfiirdity.'* It mufl: only be on account of an apprehended mifappHcation of it. There are no truths fo clear and certain, or fo im- portant and interefting, but what vain men have rai- led objediions againft. Sophiflical arguments have been brought againfl the pollibility of motion, againft the exiftence of matter, againft truths that are evi- dent by mathematical demonftration. In like man- ner, the very being of God has been impiouily dif- puted by Atheifts. Ingenious fophiftry has combined with the lufts of corrupt fmners to efface the idea of a fupreme being out of the minds of men. This has laid us imder an obligation to guard againft fuch dan- gerous fnares. What fcruple can you have to refolve, and even to promife, (I know not what has led you to imagine (p. 228.) that I had any objedion to that word), a conftant adherence to that important truth ? that is, that you will guard againft the indulgence of thofe fenfual lufts from whence the prejudices againft it arife ; and that you will not liften to the cunning fo- phiftry of artful men, who are apt to deceive the hearts of the fimple ? I ftiall readily acknowledge, that all the tenets we embrace are not of equal importance, nor accompa- nied with the fame degree of evidence ; and there- fore it would be highly unreafonable to require or cxped from fuch fallible creatures an engagement never to change any of our opinions. This, I ap- prehend, is the only thing that could give the leaft plaufible appearance to what you fo confidently aftert. But there cannot be a groffer impofition, than to put our perfuafion of the cleareft and moft manifeft truth upon the fame level with the leaft probable of our o- pinions. Had you kept within any bounds, I am fo fenfible of the weaknefs and fallibility of myfelf as well as o- thers, that vou would never have had me for an an- tagonift in any fober affertion upon your fide of the queftion. Nor can I fee, that even the necellity of A your 162 Pbilalethes's kUgr defended. Part III. your argument obliged you to carry the matter fo far as you do, or to make your aflertion quite univerfal, jind without exception, as if there was no truth what- ever, the certainty of which we could have a clear perception of. Had you contended only, that it ■would be unreafonable to require a conftant adhe- rence to all^ even of our religious opinions ; that there are fome even of that kind fo unimportant, and pt which the evidence is fo obfcure, that no man can abfolutely promife to continue always in the fame piind ; and had you then alledged, that there were fuch opinions in the Confeiiion of Faith, pointed them ^ut, and proved them to be fo ; this would have had fome appearance of arguing foberly. But to take fuch an extravagant flight as you do, it is no wonder if your wings fail, and you fail to the ground. I had argued for the promife of adherence from/ the clearnefs and certainty of our perfuafion, that the truths we promife to adhere to are founded upon, and agreeable to, the word of God. I had obferved particularly, that it is fo far from being commonly thought abfurd to promife adherence in fuch a cafe, that we very often exprefs the hrmnefs of a prefent behef, by declaring a refolution of conftant adhe- rence ; " that is, (fay you), he explains the claufe of adherence to be nothing more than an expref- fion of prefent belief. It is only, it feems, our former declaration of belief redoubled."- Allow ?ne, D, Sir, to aik you, if I had done a very good office for you, or conferred a very important benefit upon you, and you fhould, in gratitude, tell me, that you would always retain a deep fenfe of it, and ne^^ \er would forget it while you breathed, am I to take thefe words as having no refpect to any time beyond the prefent? Suppofe an opportunity fhould fall in your way of doing a very obliging thing to me again, would you think yourfclf under no obligation from fuch a promife to embrace it ? And would you take me for a foolj if I had any expei^ation of a fiiitable return Saa.IV. Of the adherfende-claufe. i^j return when an opportunity offered, from words that were nothing more but a figure of fpeech, and otdy an expreffiori of the prefent fenfe you then had of the favour I had done to you ? A promife of adherence is indeed an evidence of oUr prefent perfuafion, and an effed of it. But by. what fort of logic do you infer that it is 720 more f The apoftles require a full and affured perfuafion ; but they likewife infift on a coiiftant perfeverance ift that perfuafion. And do you think, that abiding and continuing in it reaches not beyond the prefent mo- ment ? If there be any abfurdity in promifing adherence, there muft be an equal degree of abfurdity in requi- ring it. Whatever is the proper fubjedt of a com- mand, may certainly be likewife the fubjed of a pro- mife. If God fays, " Thou fhalt have no other gods ** before me,'* is it not fit for me to engage, or pro* mife, that I never will have any other gods before him? if he commands me not to worlhip images, may not I promife, that I never will worfllip images I although both thefe confifl in a prohibition to al* ter my prefent fentiments. In like manner, when he commands me to continue and abide in the doftrine of Chrift, may not I promife to do fo ? Whatever the Holy Spirit in the fcripture means by requiring us to continue and abide in the doftrine, muft like- wife be the meaning of our promife of adherence* You furely will not fay the firft has no meaning. If the one be not abfurd, neither can the other be. The infpired apoftles had very good reafon for in*- fifting upon it fo much as they do. They were fen- fible, that believers were in no fmall danger of apo- ftafy from the faith. And this danger appeared to them in a very different light from that in which you feem to view it. It arifes not only frdm fubtle fedu- cers, but from the lufts of their own heartSj from that partiality to fin, which will never be quite eradi- cated till we arrive at the region of ccleftial light and X % perfe6^. 164 Philalethes's letter defended. Part III. perfeft purity. The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God ; for they are foolijh- fiefs unto him : neither can he know them, becaiife they are fpiritually difcerned. And the remnant of the old nian^ though crucified -with Chrift^ and mortally wounded, is not yet, in the very holieft faints, quite dead. Againfl fuch powerful and dangerous temptations, the apoftles, under divine infpiration, found it necef- fary to excite in believers themfelves ferious efforts to cultivate a relifli for fpiritual things, a love of the amiable truths of the gofpel. They called upon them to preferve always upon their minds a due fenfe of the importance, the necellity, the beauty, excellen- cy, and ufefulnefs of thefe truths ; to give a conftant attention to the evidence wherewith they were accom- panied ; and efpecially to guard againfl; the criminal prejudices that are apt to millead us. This is what the apoftles require of us ; and this is what we pro- mife in the claufe of adherence. Where is the ab- furdity, where is the impollibility, where is there any thing like a contradidtion, in all this ? A contradiction, however, (no lefs indeed), you will have it, let the infpired writers infifl: upon it ever fo frequently and explicitly ; and no lefs than demon- ftration is offered in proof. You and your affociates, I find, are extremely confident of your ft;rength here. S. D. one of your fellow-labourers, offered a demon- ftration upon it too. As, in that letter of mine which you have undertaken to refute, I had pointed out wherein it fell fliort of demonfl:ration, or even of fair reafoning, it fell to your fliare to fupport it. And I doubt not, but you would have removed my excep- tions to it, had it been in your power. This you have not thought fit to attempt. But you offer us another in its Itead. Sir, I find it fo irkfome to contend with bare but confident affertions, and your mere ipfe dixits of " infinitely abfurd, incredibly ab- furd," &c. that it is really a fort of relief to me when I meet with any thing that has the face of reafoning, that Se£t. IV. Of the adherence-claufe. i6c that may bring the queftion between us to the teft of argument. And therefore I gladly and willingly at- tend to this demonftration of yours. You tell us, (p. 170.), that " the fecond part of our fubfcription, if it be underftood to mean a pro- mife by which we engage to continue to believe the fame opinions, implies an inconfiflency of the groffeft nature. One of the articles which we fubfcribe is, " That all councils and fynods are fallible ;'* and con- fequently, that the tenets which we now fubfcribe may, for any thing we certainly know to the contra- ry, be falfe. The two inconfiftent propofitions which we fubfcribe here are, — i//, I believe, that the opinions I now fubfcribe tnay be falfe. 2dfy, I believe, that the opinions I now fubfcribe cannot be falfe." And in the next page, you give us other two in- confiftent propofitions, viz. " iji, I believe, that the fcripture is the only in- fallible ftandard of religious opinion. idly, I believe, that the Confeflion of Faith is alfo an infallible ftandard ; this being the only fuppofition upon which a man can promife an invariable adhe- rence to the tenets either of the one or of the o- ther." Before I proceed to the confideration of this de- monftrative argument, let me only take notice of an inaccuracy in your language. I wifli, for your own fake, there were no more in it. What I hint at, is your calling the doctrines of religion only aphiionsy and the fcripture a ftandard of religious opinions. Divines, and philofophers too, diftinguifli between three different kinds of perfuafion, namely, know- ledge, taith, and opinion. Knowledge is a perfuafion founded upon intuition, or upon demonftrative evi- dence. Faith is a perfuafion founded upon teftimony ; ami divine faith is founded upon the teftimony of God ^ in his word. Opinion is a perfuafion founded upon e- vidence t66 Philalethes^s Icttdf defended. PirtllL videnee that is no mcrre than fh-obublc. Agreeable ttt thefe ideas annexed to the above terms, we call the fcripture a ftandard, not of opinions, but of religious truth, or the ftandard, and the only ftandard, of di- vine faith. Whereas your ealling the fcrij3ture 3 itandard of opinions only, feems to intimate, that yoa f^gard divine faith as founded upon no more thait probable evidence. Indeed this is fo conformable to there.' of yoUr book, that I am afraid, inif eaid of an inaccuracy of language, (which I was willing, at firft fight, to take it for), your words have rather been perfcdly well weighed. And I the rather take notice of it, becaufe it feems to be the true fource of all the difference there is between lis upon this point. The ( iirength of your argument, or proof of incon-i fi'iency, depends entirely Up6n the iiluilrations in- ferted before and after the alledged contradiftory pro- pofiticnts. The firlf of thefe propofitions is, " I be- lieve, that the opinions I now fubfcribe may be falfe." To illuftrate this ^ you ja n y premife,-^ — '^ One of the articles which we fubfcribe is, That all councils and floods are fallible ; and confequently, that the tenets which we now fubfcribe may, for any thing we cer-i tainly know to the contrary, be faife.'* Now, Sir, will you really ftand to it, that this is a juft confequence ? To make you more fenfible how far it is fo, fuppofe, in a Company confifting of A, B, C, &c. A ftiould affirm, that he was in Glaf- gow fuch a day : Upon his leaTing the company, B fays. He doubts greatly of A's being in Glafgow that day ; for he has known him, ofterier than once, affirm a faifehood : To which C replies, I lay no ftrefs upon his word, knowing him to be cap?ibje of affirming a faifehood ; but I have been told by feve^ ral perfons of undoubted veracity, that they faw him in Glafgow that very day ; and therefore I ani fure that what he has now faid cannot be falfe, finding it perfedly agreeable to a teftimony of far fupcrior cre- dit. W\x3it would you think, if B' ihoKiidy by the dint .RcQ:. IV. Of thf adkcFcnce-daufe. 167 jdint of your argunient, pretend to conyicl C of a xnanifeft contradiction ? Why, fgiys he, you think what he has faid camiot h.e falfe, and yet you allow ihat his teftimony is not to be depended upon ; fo that for any thing you know to the contrary it niny be falfe. This argument and yours are precifely the fame. We fay the authority of the Weftmiufter Af- fembly has not the lead degree of weight with us ; for we know, that all fynods may err. But as for the doftrines they have collected in the Confeffion of Faith, we perceive them to be founded on and agree- able to the word of God ; and therefore we are fure ihey cannot be falfe. Where, pray, is there any contradi6tion here ? Suppofe one of the articles which we fubfcribe was. That three and three is equal to fix ; would an affent to the fallibility of all fynods, and of this among the reft, neceffarily infer, that the above propofition may be falfe ? Some of the tenets which we adually do fubfcribe are. That there is one God ; That he is eter- nal, almighty, &c. ; and is it a juft inference, that thefe tenets may be falfe, becaufe we likewife fub- fcribe another certain truth, viz. the fallibility of un- infpired fynods ? If both thefe articles be true, how can our aflent to one truth render another uncertain ? Had you only faid, " And confequently for any authority we afcribe to the Weftminfter Affembly, they may be falfe ;" this is an inference which we would never have difputed with you. But to fay, as you do, " for any thing (any thing elfe) that we know to the contrary, they may be falfe ;'* where is the juftnefs of this confequence ? Let the Weftmiu- fter Afl'embly be not only as fallible, but even as ig- norant, as you pleafe to imagine ; are there not other fources from whence we may derive a certain know- ledge, that the tenets we fubfcribe cannot be falfe ? an evi'.^e v/f- that is not at all affected by the fcillibiiity of the Weftminfter or any other aflembly. If the fubfcribers did found their faith upon any human au- tJjority, '1 68 Philalethes's letter defended. Part III. thorlty, your confequence might have been admitted. So far are they, however, from doing fo, that they cxprefsly declare it to be founded on the word of God, the only rule of faith, to which they find thefe tenets to be agreeable : and may not this be infallibly certain, whatever may be faid of the other ? As you feem to have forgot your logic, (perhaps always defpifed it ; for this feems to be one of the fymptoms of the prefent funfliine of the fciences), al- low me to put you in mind of an eftablifhed rule in that fcience when it prevailed, namely. That no more ought to be put in the conclufion than what was con- tained in the premiiGTes ; and if I thought you could bear a little fcholaftic Latin, I would add, Aparti- ciilari ad univerfale non valet confeque?itia. Your reafoning is an egregious offence againft thefe rules. Your antecedent is very particular, and your confe- quence very univerfal. You cannot pretend, that your antecedent is as u- niverfal as your conclufion, from the word all being in it, which is the ufual fign of an univerfal propofi- tion, as it is immediately limited by the following word. All ; what ? all fynods only. If you include all means of religious knowledge, it mufi be by adopt- ing fuch a fyllogifm (pardon the obfolete word) as the following one. The authority of fynods is the only mean whereby we can be certainly aflured of the truth or falfehood of religious tenets ; But all fynods may err : Therefore every religious tenet may, for any thing we certainly know to the contrary, be falfe. The major proportion here you do explicitly re- jed: ; and therefore though you make ufe of the word «//, your propofition upon which the argument is founded, is far from being fo univerfal as your con- clufion. Your antecedent is. All fynods and councils (which is but one, if any, mean of knowledge in re- ligion) may err. From whence the inference is, 2 Therefore Scft. IVi Of the adherence-'claufei i^0 Therefore all religious tenets, for any thing we, by all other means whatever, can certainly know td the contrary, niay be falfc. Juft fuch another argu- ment would it be, to fay. All Europeans are born white, confequently all the people on earth are of the fame colour* If you apply all to a genus, in the conclufion, which, in the prcmilfes, was only applied to a fpecies, would this be fair reaioning ? as if you fliould fay, All horfes have four legs j therefore all animals are four-legged. The lalt proportion of your fecond pair of incon- fiftent ones, is fupported by an argument of the fame nature. It runs thus : " I believe, that the Confef- fion of Faith is alfo an infallible (landard, this (you add) being the only fuppofition upon which a man can promife an invariable adherence to the tenets ei-» ther of the one or of the other." Strange! how could you poihbly overlook another fuppofition that was flaring you fo diredtly in the face ? The very ground of this promife, exprefsly mentioned in the Formula, and actually given as the ground of it by all who make the promife, namely, that thefe tenets are founded on, and agreeable to the word of God. Is not this another fuppofition, upon v/hich a man may promife an invariable adherence to tenets which he views in this light ? and there is no body who pro- mifes adherence, till once he has declared that this is the light in which he does confider them. This overfight of yours is really fo grofs, that it la almoft incomprehenfibie. The fact is, he who figns the Formula, thereby declares, that the doftrines con- tained in the ConfelTion of Faith appear to him to bd founded on the word of God, and agreeable there- to ; and therefore he promifes aconftant adherence to them. As for the authority of fynods, he owns, at the fame time, he pays no regard to it in matters of faith, knowing that all may err, and many have err- ed. Now, D. Sir, is it a natural dedudion from all this, which you really think woiild readily occur to Y every 170 Philalethes's letter defended. Part III. every one, that there can be no other fuppofition up- on which adherence could be promiled, but that of the infallibility of the fynod ? Suppofe a fervant, fent out to the field to plough his mailer's ground, ihould be told by a fellow-ier- vant, that he was ordered by his mafter to plough in fuch a field, and he Ihould exprefsly fay to him in re- ply, I have known you oftener than once miftake our mafter's orders, and therefore I pay no regard to your report ; but I myfelf heard my mafter order the fame thing, in obedience to whom I am going to do it ; would any byftander be led, by fuch a dialogue, to conclude that the firft fervant could not have form- ed that refolution upon any other fuppofition but that of his thinking himfelf under an obligation of impli- cit obedience to his fellow-fervant ? Strange and furprifing as your overfight here is, I can eafily perceive where lies the fource of all the confufion of your ideas upon this fubjed. For- give me, D. Sir, for mentioning a fatl: which you feem not at all to be afliamed of. I afk forgivenefs, becaufe it is what I would be very much afhamed to be charged with.— — You, and thofe who are of your way of thinking, though you may perhaps have fign- ed the Formula, or at lead made a public profefiion, that you believe the do6lrines contained in the Weft- minder Confeflion to be founded on, and agreeable to the word of God ; yet in fa6l you do not believe that they are. You knov/, I am authorifed by your- felf to fpeak it out in the plained terms. This has led you into a habit of confidering the tenets you fub- fcribe, only as the tenets of the Weftminfter Affem- bly, not as the tenets of the fcripture, which you do not really take them to be. One muft be fenfible of this, from the manner of your expreflion here. You fpeak of " tenets either of the one or of the other." This plainly implies, that you do not take them to be the fame, but that you look ypon the dodrine of the fcripture Sed. IV. Of the adherence-claufe. 171 fcripture as one thing, and the do£trine of the Con- felTion as another. Having this impreffion habitually fixed on your mind, notwithflanding any profefiion you may have made of the contrary, I plainly fee hoVi'- you have been led to your fophiftical reafoning : and fo far I am rea- dy to yield to the force of it, that if you had none to deal with but thofe of your ov^^n way of thinking, I cannot deny, that, in their vievv-s of things, there would be foniething in it. If there arc any who arc willing to fubfcribe the ConfeHion of Faith, as con- taining the true dodrine, and as the confeffion of their faith, widiout believing that Its tenets are con- tained in the Bible, I flmll grant, that the infallibility of that flandard is the only fuppofition upon which they can either promife adherence or yield their af- fent ; and that there are fuch, appears from the ear- neltnefs with which you plead for fubftituting, inftead of the Formula 1711, the words of the act of parlia- ment 1693, which require both a profefiion of belief, and a promife of adherence. But all this while (mall I fay, in the mod egregious fnnplicity, rather than with a fophiftical intention Q you have quite forgot that it was with the orthodox you was reafoning, who not only profefs, but do really believe, that the tenets of the Confeffion are the fame with the tenets of the fcripture, or that the doc- trines contained in the one, are founded upon, and a- greeable to the other. You know, Sir, that all who promife adherence, do, at the fame time, affirm, that they regard them in the fame light. If there are any who have no fcruple to affirm what they know to be falfe, what fcruple can fuch perfons have to promife what they have no intention to perform ? On the o- ther hand, if they really believe (as they fay they do) that the dodrines which they fubfcribe are founded on the word of God, is not here another fuppofition upon wh.ch they can promife adherence ? The appearance of any thing Uke an argument, is Y z fo 1 74 Philalethes's letter defended. Part III. fo rarely to be met with in your book, that I thought this deferred a very particular difcuiTion. I wifh you had done the fame honour to the reafonirig on this point in my letter which you profefs to anfwer. You have found or made an artful pretence for leaving a great deal of it altogether untouched. You frequent- ly complain, that the writers on both fides have con- founded the two parts of the fubfcription together, and that we have unwarrantably transferred to the promife of adherence, the conclufion which you own to be juft, when applied to the declaration of prefent belief; and on this pretence you have utterly neglect- ed the mod part of what I had faid on this fubjeft. Jt is obvious to every reader of the letter you have undertaken to confute, that both the two parts of the fubfcription had there a feparate and diftinft confider ration beftowed on them, efpecially the laft, as it had been moil virulently attacked If I have unwarrant- ably transferred any conclufion from the firft to the fecond part of the fubfcription, I wifh you had point- ed it out, that I might have been more lisnfible of it. As you have not, but left me to guefs your meaning, as well as I can, I cannot help looking upon the alle- gation as a mere excufe for leaving fo much of my letter unanfwered. But as it might be reckoned te- dious to tranfcribe or repeat what was there faid, I fhall only refer you to it, as what you have left in its full force ; and /liall now proceed to the firfl part of the fubfcription, from whence you fied to the fecond, "where, I fuppofe, you thought yourfelf more able to, fland your ground. PART T^73 PART IV. Wherein is fhewn the iinfuhiefs of declaring our affent to articles which we do not be- lieve. SECT. I. The other claufe of the Formula, afferting prefent beliefs entered upon^ The dijjimulation in it on our Author^ s principles^ {though it had been ta* ken for granted^ as it ivas nnt^ but proved) , Jhown to be univerfally admitted, and that even by himjelf. fiow apt he is to evade this que- Jiion, THE firft part of the fubfcription confifts in a profefTion of prefent belief. To make fuch a profeffion, without a real belief of the dodrines pro- feffed, or fubfcribed, you maintain, is no fin, no lie, no dilTimulation. My fixth argument in defence of the fynod was, as you have yourfelf reprefented it, p. 222. " That the crime before them was diffimulation, a crime perni- cious to fociety in the higheft degree," &c. In an- fwer to this, you fay, " It is obvious to obferve, that the point is taken for granted which ought to have been proved. Mr A. B. nor none of thofe who have written on the fame fide, juftify any fuch pradice ; on the contrary, they exprefsly refufe it. It would not be to their purpofe to remember that they have been again and again contradided.'* Now, let us fuppofe for once, (what I fliall fhow you by and by is not the cafe), that I had taken it for granted ; 174 Sinfulncfs of prevarication. Part IV. granted ; pray what is it that is taken for granted,? is it not, that to aifert a known/alfeliood, known to the aiferter to be a falfehood, to aiTert it in the mofl formal and folemn manner, Is grofs difiimuiation, or a heinous fni ? There is no diiference between us a- bout the facl, or the circumftances of it. The prac- tice defended is, one's declaring his belief of doc- trines which he does not believe. This is not refu- fed. The only thing wherein we have been contra- dicted by you is, whether this may be called difiimu- iation ? For my part, I would be glad to know what is your idea of dillimulation ? whether it be any thing elfe than a man's afferting one thing with his mouth, or under his hand, and thinking the contrary in his heart ? Is not this what all the world calls, diffimula- tion ? Pray, D. Sir, what can be taken for granted, if this may not ? Do you contradid: us in any thing, but in ufing words for fignifying the very ideas that have always been annexed to them ? Would you blame me if I iliould take it for granted, that a man's lying with his neighbour's wife, knowing what he did, was the fm of adultery f that picking his neigh- bour's pocket, without his knowledge or confent, v/as the fin of Jiealing f and that whatever is prejudicial to the truth which one knows, is the fm of lyijig f Is there any thing elfe here, but taking words in their ufual fenfe ? May not I take it for granted, that gold is the name of the heavieft metal, of a yellow co- lour ? and that the animal which people in this coun- try commonly ride upon, is called a korje f Befides the general, the univerfal ufe of the word, has not this very fpecies of falfehood been conflantly regarded as a bafe, interefted, and cowardly difiimu- iation ? Is not the Vicar of Brae a Handing term of reproach to this very day, for all who are fo mean as to give their temporal intereft an avowed preference to their religion ? On the other hand, has not Cran- rner been univerfally celebrated for ihowing indigna- tion Sed.I. Claufe afferting prefent belief. 17^ tion at his own cowardice, by fo jfteadily holding in the fire that hand which figned a recantation of his principles ? Did not above half a million of French Prote'tants, near a century ago, chufe to abandon their native country, and worldly fubflance, rather than fign what thq'' called the mark of the beaft, and profefs a religion which in heart they difappro- ved ? In a word, have not the martyrs and confef- fors, in all ages, been conftantly celebrated for their courage and conftancy, their honefty and refolution, in refufing, at the hazard of their lives, and of all that was dear to them in this world, to profefs the be- lief of any tenets in religion, contrary to their con- fciences ? Is it pofTible to reconcile with thefe uni- verfal feelings of human nature, an approbation of your pufillanimous refolution to fubfcribe even the Turkifh Coran, if an ecclefiaftical benefice could not be come at without this condition ? And again, p. 282. where, upon the fuppofition that you fail in the accompliiliment of that reformation, as you call it, or change of our religion, which you have fo much at heart ; you fay, " If this be the cafe, we are indeed in a bad fituation. We mufi: continue to fubfcribe our confeffion as we can.—— We mufl: fold our arms, and be filent.'* And yet. Sir, if I had taken it for granted, that men of your fentiments are guilty of bafe prevarica- tion in going through our forms of admifiion into the minifiry, I have not only the countenance of the reft of the world therein, but I mull take the liberty to tell you, that I have even your own concurrence too. Yes, Sir, it is not only in the lamentation I have juft now quoted from you, but efpecially in what immediately follows, as well as in many other paffa- ges, that you have evidently betrayed your confciouf- nefs of a moral turpitude in that which you will not allow to be called diflimulation. With what view, D. Sir, did you write the whole of your book ? What elfe can be the meaning of your 176 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV* your earnefl calls for abolifliing fiich ftraitening forms ? or of the pathetic defcriptions of the diftrefs they in- volve you in ? Immediately fubfequent to the paf- fage laft quoted, wherein you have fufficiently exhi- bited the fupplenefs of your confcience, you let us know, however, that it will not bend, without fome feeling of pain on your own part. Your words arc, *' And yet, when from this folitary pofl fome warm- hearted man takes a view of the hopelefs fituation of affairs, he will probably be fometimes obliged to lift his hand to his eye, and with all his might endeavour to fupprefs a burft of grief and generous indignation, which will fwell up, and force its way, in fpite of all his efforts, at fo lamentable a profpeft/* Teii me, I befeech you, from what fource can this burft of grief be fuppofed to flow, if it be not from a confcioufnefs of fome moral turpitude in what you think yourfelves obliged to fubmit to ? It cannot be owing to any concern for what you may think the mtereil of truth, or the want of liberty to preach what you pleafe : for this, you tell us, you do under all your Ihackles ; and that if they were removed, both parties would continue to preach juft as they do now, p. 312. Befides, you do not pretend to have any affurance of your own opinions in religion, which you may alter, perhaps, to-morrow ; and feem to think it of no importance what opinions (for they are but opinions with you) the people are to be inftrud- ed in. Far lefs can your indignation be owing to your ex- clufion from a benefice. From this, you tell us, no- thing that can be contrived is able to bar up ypur way, even it it were figning the Coran of Mahomet. What elfe then can your indignation rife at, unlefs it be, that the temporal emoluments which you are ab- folutely determined not to renounce, coft what it will, cannot be obtained without violating the didates of your own confciences ? A real Indignation doubt- lefs J but the generofity of it is not (^ui.te fo apparent. r * Wheifi Se£l. I. Diflimulation admitted. i 'jj When the meanefl compliances, by your own account of the matter, are ready to be fubmitted to, how- could the idea of generous be conneded therewith ? Methinks the moft Ihamelefs partiality in your own favour might have revolted againft the word. Indeed, Sir, you mud give me leave to tell you, that you are fo far from being infenfible of that dilli- mulation which you charge me with taking for grant- ed, that, on the contrary, you impute it to callouf- nefs, that others have fo flight a fenfe of it. Expo- ftulating with thofe of your own party who fall Ihort of your zeal and adivity for what you call a refor- mation, you afk, p. 327. "To what fources is it to be traced ?" and your anfwer is, " To an indifler- ence for religion, to a cailonfiicfs^ the mark of a diflipated age, which hinders men from fhehnp; the impropriety of their otun conduct ^^ &c. May we not conclude then, that you have fome feeling of this impropriety, as well as of that dlfllpation which is the acknowledged charafter of this enlightened age ? If fubfcription did really appear to you to be as in- nocent a part of the ceremony of admiffion to a bene- fice, as the laying on of the hands of the prefbytery, (which is the light you fometimes feem to view it in)-, can you tell me why the one yields you more vexation than the other does ? If there is no more diffimula- tion, or moral turpitude, in the firft, than there is in the fecond, I am fure it is much eafier to write my name, or to bow my head, and pronounce the mo- nofyllable Tes, than to bear the weight of perhaps twenty hands on my head, for feveral minutes, kneel- ing all the while. What is it then in the firft that re- duces you to " fo difagreeable a fituation," as you call it," p. 328. ; " fo deplorable a fituation," p. j^'> ; " a bad fituation indeed," p. 282. ? Dijfimulatiun and irijincerity are words, which, if I underftand them aright, are of no very different fignification. U you take it for granted that your fubfcription is infmcerity, may not I take it for grant- Z ed 178 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV. cd that it is diffimulation ? The firftr, however, is "what you readily acknowledge upon many occafions, and frankly own that it is againft your confciences. The courfe of your argument frequently leads you to it, when " it would not be to your purpofe to re- member that you have again and again contradided'* yourfelf. Among other objeftions you bring againft religious tefts, this is one, p. 76. " That they afford temptations to injinccrity, which in an enlightened age are gene- rally irrefiftible." By the by, I wonder what idea you have formed of an enlightened age, that you fhould imagine it makes temptations irrefiftible. For my part, I am confident, that temptations to fm de- rive all their ftrengt-h from darknefs and ignorance ; and that in proportion as they are feen in a true light, their influence over us would be greatly weakened. So the Pfalmift David felt in his experience : " Through *' thy precepts (fays he) I get underftanding : there- " fore I hate every false way,'* Pfal. cxix. 104, To the fame purpofe, Solomon, Prov. ii. 10. " When ^' wifdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge *' is pleafant unto thy foul ; difcretion fliall preferve *' thee, underftanding fliall keep thee ; to deliver " thee from the way of the evil man ; who leave the *^' paths of uprightnefs, to walk in the ways of darkt- *' nefs." When fancied knowledge has not this ef- fect, there muft be great occafion for our Saviour's admonition, Luke xi. 35. " Take heed, therefore, " that the light which is in thee be not darknefs.'^ Indeed the darknefs, miftakcn for light, which has overfpread this (as you own) diffipated age, has con- tributed not a little to render the temptations of the world irrefiftible. But it is certain that the true light has a very different effect : It is that, and that only, which makes temptations refiftible. As, in the crea- ' fion of the world, light was the firft thing that was produced ; fo the formation of the new creature is i-lways begun with the iUvmin^tion of the uiiderftandr ing : Scdii I. DifTimuIation admitted* lyg ing : and the viClory that overcometh the world is- our faith. But to our prefent purpofe. You fee the fin you are tempted to by religious tefts, is allowed by yourfelf to be that of infincerity ; and you ftrug- gle hard to get the temptation to it removed ; being fo enlightened, it feems, that you cannot refifl it, if it be continued. It is not once or twice only that you admit the term infincerity, and, without fcruple, apply it to your fub- fcription. In p. 334. you fay, " Take away, as far as lies in your power, all temptations to infincerity;. This will be doing virtue a real fervice. Abolifli your Formula," &c. Nay, have you not exprefsly acknowledged, that the temptation to infmcerity has actually overcome you, when you tell us, p. 49* " Ye impofers of confefiions ! we owe this to you ; you have disjoined our fentiments from our words, and fet our prudence 2ind /nicer ity at variance ?" The orthodox in Scotland, during the laft century, had impofitions to ftruggle with that were enforced in an- other manner, in a manner v/ith which your tempta* tions are not to be compared. But their prudence didated fmcerity. Whether the light by which your" condud: or theirs was direded, is the true light that Cometh from the Father of lights by the fpirit of il- lumination, will be one day decided irreverfibly, by a more capable and impartial judge than either you or me ; when white robes ivfU be given unto every one that zvere fiain for the zvord ofGod^ and for the teflimony which they held. Your own confciences, it feems, have not been al- together filent. All the hght you boaft of has not been able to (top their mouths. So you are obliged to confefs, when you tell us, p. 53. " Our churcFi" [for guilty perfons commonly flee to the imaginary confolation of involving as many as poffible, v/hether guilty or innocent, in the fame condemnation v/ith themfelves] " is moft certainly at this day, and has for fome time been, in a very odd fituation. Our Z 2 inftitutiona i8o Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV* inftitutions and our opinions, confequently our thoughts and our aclions ; even our confciences and our duty have: been long at variance." Did you intend, Sir, to afford matter of triumph to the fneer- ing infidels, who are now fwarming fo much among us, and bafking in the light of this " dilTipated age?" To the fame purpofe you reprefent us, (for you make no exception in behalf of the honefl), p. 247. as " fluctuating between policy and conjcience, law and duty.'* And though you are refolved not to call it dijjliwilation, to fay you believe what you do not believe ; yet you fuf^iciently intimate how grievous it is to your own coiifciences^ p. 235. "I have the charity" (you fay) *' to think, that many iubfcribe thefe articles, even through the medium of the Formula, who believe not every proportion which they fubfcribe, and yet cannot be charged with difTi- mulation. But inftead of defending a pradice which is rather to be lamented, and which I would not re- commend," &:c. Now, pray. Sir, what is it we differ about ? is it any thing but the ufe of this ugly term, dijjhnulation f You own it to be infmcerity ; that it is againfl your confciences ; that there is an impropriety in it which mufl be felt by all whole confciences are not grown callous ; that it is a praftice rather to be lamented than defended, and which you dare not recommend : only you wdll not call it diliimulation. Let us then call it infincerity. For I am always loth to flickle about a word, when the thing contended for is yield- ed in any other word' of the fame fignification. And this is a word you cannot objed to, as it is one of your own chufmg. I do not wonder at thefe frank confefTions, when I compare the fenfe which you yourfeif are obliged to put upon the firft part of the teft required, with what you likewife own to be frequently the cafe in fad. For Scft. I. DifTimulation admitted. i8i For illullration of this, allow me to lay before you two paflages of your own book ; in one of which you give us your fenfe of fubfcription, in the o- ther the pradice which you have undertaken to de- fend. Without making any obfervations upon them, I (hall only leave them to your own confideration and comparifon . The firfl: is in p. 280. " We fubfcribe thefe articles as articles of prefent belief. This is evident from e- very circumftance attending our prefent method of fubfcription. It is the very hardfhip of which wc hear fuch loud and repeated complaints from all quar- ters. Whoever afferts that the clergy of the efta- blifhed church of Scotland fubfcribe thefe articles as mere articles of peace, aiferts an indifputable falfe- hood.'* So that your fenfe of the meaning of what a candidate does at his admiflion, is by no means e- quivocal ; I mean as to the firft part of his fubfcrip- tion, according to your own diftinclion. Now let us fee what the practice is among men of your fentiments, according to your own acknowledge- ment, and which, you fay, is no dilTmiulation. Wc have it, p. 244. " The candidate fets his name to it without hefitation, perhaps without fo much as gi- ving himfelf the trouble to examine its contents. And this is the hiftory of teds." You fliould have added, among candidates who have made (hipzvreck of the faith and of a good confcience . 1 have given you not a few inflances of others that have adt- ed without difTimulation, (I beg pardon, I fhould have faid, infmcerity), and who made confcience of what they did upon fuch occafions. Thus, Sir, you fee that if I had taken it for grant- ed, that declaring our belief of what we do not be- lieve is difTimulation, or infmcerity, or call it what you will, that confcience cannot approve, I have not only the univerfal fenfe of mankind, but even your own exprefs acknowledgements to keep me in coun- tenance. 1 82 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV. 'tenance. But after al), pray how came you to fay, that I took* this point for granted, and forgot that we had been contradided ? It is indeed a fubjett that, I •fee, you are not fond of; but could you fall upon no handfomer way of evading it, than to alledgc, I had forgot it ? What clearer evidence can there be, that an ailertion is remembered, than a man's fetting a- bout the confutation of it ? Could I have forgot that we were contradifted when a great part of my letter that was before you, confifted in Ihewing how fophi- ftical the reafbning of S. D. and Philanthropes was, in fupport of this contradiction ? Have you forgot, Sir, your own confeffion, that I had the better of them in the argument on this iirft part of the fub- fcription, and, to ufe your own word, triumphed there at lead ? p. 144. Was this any thing like for- getting that we had been contradifted ? Had I done no more, even this v/as fufficient t(5 convince you that the denial on your part was not forgotten. More, however, was done too ; how much foever it may be to your purpofe not to remem- ber it. Befides replying to what had been advan- ced on your fide of the queflion, a pofitive argu- ment was likewife advanced on our fide of it, which vou have not thoug:ht fit to m.eddle with. But what- ever was your motive, a better excufe would .have become you, or none at all, for overlooking it, than a denial of what was before your eyes. To refrelh your memory, I fhall tranfcribe one paffage out of the letter you have undertaken to an- fwer. Whatever be your reafons for diliembling it, you, furely, could not but read what follows. " As the moral charad:er of God himfelfiis allowed to be the ftandard of right and wrong, and we are fure that it is impojjihlc J'or God to lie, it may be thought ftrange how it came ever to be made a queflion, whe- ther the folemn aifertion of a known falfehood be cri- minal or not ? This, however, is the pradice that is avowedly Sed. I. Diffimulation admitted. 183 avowedly defended ; and mud we really (to allude to an exprellion of Dr Tillotfon on tranfubftantiation) prove that an €g^ is not an elephant, and that a mulket-bullet is not a pike ? For my part, after the affair of tranfubftantiation, it would not fur- prife me to find the very acuteft and moll ingenious men led by a train of circumftances into thereal be- lief (for I have no doubt of your correfpondent's be*, ing in earnefl, as well as moft of the Papifts) of the groffefl abfurdity that can be exprelTed in words," Now let me alk you, Does the above paiTage afford" no argument worthy of your confideration, againfl the pradice which you contend is no diflimulation, but confiftent with honefty ? Are we not command- ed to " be followers of God as dear children," Eph. V. I. ; and, " as he which hath called you is holy, fo *' be ye holy in all manner of converfation," i Pet. i. 15. But if God himfelf be capable of reveal- ing to us a falfehood, what credit can be fuppofed due to the fcripture ? and where is the flandard of truth? Say,- I befeech you, whether the pradlicc which you vindicate is fuch as could be imputed to the fupreme Being without blafphemy ? Do you really think him capable of the meannefs which you cxcufe ? Suppofe the holy Jefus, when he taberna- cled among men, had been offered the greateft advan- tages, upon the condition of his profeltrng a belief or approbation of the Pharifaical traditions which he knew to be erroneous ; will you pretend to fay that he would have fwallowed this bait, or fatisfied him- felf with your diflinclions, of general and particular ? &c. If any thing like this be impoj/ibk in the mofl perfe£l pattern of moral reftitude, can it be without moral turpitude, to aft directly contrary to fo fure and unerring an example ? With what truth then do you ailedge, that I voluntarily forgot the denial of diffi- mulation on your fide, while fuch an argument wa* flaring I $4 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV. flaring you in the face, and remains too without the leaft: reply ? Inftead of pretending to anfwer my argument, or to fupport the reafonings on your own fide of the que- ftion, which (I acknowledge to your honour) you have the candour to give up, let us fee how you e- vade the attack, as it is really fomewhat curious. " It is remarkable (you fay, p. 223.), that from the very beginning of this difpute, the oppofite party have endeavoured to turn the whole force of the de- bate upon this point. This point, however, is but a fubordinate one. According to their own affer- tions, Mr A. B. has attacked their mod important doftrines in the mofl unreferved manner. One would, therefore, be naturally led to think, that the main action would lie here.^ They even acknow- ledge, that there feems to be a prefent call in provi- dence for a difcuflion which of the two parties is in the right. Take the whole in this light, and we have as capital a tranfadion before us as ever pafled upon the religious theatre of Scotland." This is all the anfwer you have returned to my argument. I wifli I could have praifed your candor here again, as much as I admire your ingenuity and addrefs in the conftant recourfe you have to this refuge whenever you are hard preffed upon this point. A defence of the important doftrines of our religion would indeed be a capital tranfadion, and may have a difcuflion in its proper place. But the queftion before you was. Whether they who do not believe thefe doftrines are guilty of diffimulation in faying they do ? This is the fubjedl which S. D. and Philanthropos undertook to elucidate ; this is the fubjed of my letter in an- fwer to them ; and this. Sir, is the fubjeft of your book, whatever inclination you betray to flinch from it when you are brought clofe to the point in difpute. You know, you have exprefsly declined the dil'cuflion which you fo often flee to in a pinch, and have confined your labour to the point of fubfcrip- 2 tior , Seft. I. The queftlon evaded. 185 tion, which you are here endeavouring to evade, and from which you would fo fain divert us. What would you think of an advocate, whofe client was accufed of perjury, and, when called to plead in his defence, fhould harangue the judge in fuch terms as thefe : " To what purpofe do we a- mufe ourfelves with fuch trifles, when our conflitu- tion itfelf is called in queftion ? The Revolution is arraigned of injuftice ; the very title of the King, by whofe authority you aft, is difputed. Take the whole in this light, and we have as capital a tranfaclion be- fore us as ever palfed upon the political theatre of Britain ?" Would he not be told, True, Sir ; but the queftion now before us is. Whether your client be guilty of perjury, or not ? How often have you availed yourfelf of this eva- fion ? Nothing has ftood you in greater ftead, efpe- cially fmce the letter of Philalethes came under your confideration. But do not imagine. Sir, that you are to efcape in this manner. No : the prefent que- ftion between you and me is. Whether the folemn all'ertion of a known and a grofs falfchood be diffimu- lation, be morally evil, or not ? This is what you deny. You have even accufed me of forgetting that you contradict us upon this point. This then is the point I muft hold you to, flip away from it as you will : and a point it is. Sir, of no fmall importance, a very capital tranfadion too. Upon the decifion of it depends the prefervation of our religion. And therewith likev.'ife, in our apprehenfion, is clofely connedled the eternal happinefs or mifery of many of your friends. We are not, you know, of fuch libe- ral fentiments as you are. Indeed we take God to be in earneft in his threatenings as well as in his promifes. It is a recrnved and eftabliftied maxim a- mong us, founded upon the word of God, That a wilful indulgence in a practice diametrically oppofite to his character and example, and directly contrary to his exprcfs laws, is (without repentance) necefla- 4- a rily }86 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV. rily connecled with eternal ruin, and utterly incon- fillent with being in a (late of favour and friendfhip with our great and final judge. 1 am forry that I am obliged to exprefs myfelf in fuch terms. But thefe are matters that are not to be trifled with, or handled^deceitfully, whatever torrent of alledged un- charitablenefs and illiberality I may be expohng my- felf to> and perhaps overwhelmed with fuch imputa- tions. SECT. II. The queftioji difcuffcd, IVhcthtr Jigning our ajfent to dodriiles zvhich we du not believe, is a Jin f That there are fome aCiioiis ejfentially Jinful, ivhatever confeqitences they 7nay produce* That mofl of the pleaders for falfehood betray^ in their zuritings^ a coufcioufnefs, that lying is not an indifferent adion, in its ozun nature, COme then, Sir, and let us give this important que- ftion a thorough difcuffion. Let us, without fear or favour, go to the very bottom of the matter ; and let there be no more complaints, either of my taking it for granted, or of your endeavouring to evade it. "Why fliould you feek to evade it ? Let the truth lie where it will, can there be any inconvenience in the difcovery of it ? If the praftice which you vindicate be indeed an innocent one, let your righteoufntfs be brought forth as the lights and your judgement as the noon-day, in this " funfhine of the fciences." On the contrary, if it be indeed a fmful praftice, is there any thing you can be more deeply interefted in than a dctedlion of the guilt of it, that you may be preferved from fo great an evil, and be no longer a promoter of it ? Your fair and open manner of ftating the facts will be of great advantage to us in this inquiry, as there can Se£t. II. Of figning' to what we do not believe. 1 87 can be no ambiguity in the terms of the queflion.' . You have frankly acknowledged, that we fubfcribe the Confeffion as articles of prefent belief at leaft. Whoever alferts the contrary (you tell us) afferts an indifputable falfehood. — — On the other hand, you own, that there are fome (you will have them to be many) who do fo without a prefent belief, perhaps (you fay) without fo much as examining the contents. This, you think, they may^ do, without dillimulation. And if our conllitution be not altered, you fay, that even thofe who do not believe, " muil continue to fubfcribe our Confeffion as they can.'* The queftion therefore is. Whether the affirming (not to fpeak now of any folemnity in the affirmation of) a known falle- hood, when a temporal emolument cannot otherwife be obtained, is a fin ? If it be a fin, it mull be a deliberate one, wilfully indulged, and confequently a prefumptuous one, not a fin of infirmity. I hope you will indulge me in the liberty to ufe the word lying inftead of the above definition, after advertifing you that it is only for the conveniency of faving many circumlocutions, without taking the immorality of it for granted. All that I mean by that word is what you maintain the innocence of. Let us fee how far you are right. This, I know, is not the only inftance wherein people of your fentiments maintain the innocence of lying. And I the rather take this opportunity of dif- cuffing the general queftion. How far lying in any cafe is allowable ? not only as it is the main point up-, on which the decifion of the prefent controverfy di-^ reftly and immediately depends, but likewife- as it is one of the points of dodrine wherein the two parties differ^ For it is to be obferved, that notwithftanding your pretence of the clergy who have your approba- tion being preachers of morality, it is always the ea- fieft kind of it that they are fatisfied with. Where- ever there is any difference upon that fubjeQ: between them and the orthodox, (as there is upon every one A a a of 1 88 Slnfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV. of the ten commands), they are always cwi the lax fide of the qucftion. Is not this fome prefumption, that their inquiries are not carried on without prejudice, and that of the worft kind, a prejudice againil ftrict hoiinefs, or a conformity with the moral character of God himfelf ? I will not pretend to argue with you from merely human tellimony ; yet it may be allowed to be no fmali prejudice againfl you, that you have very few authorities, if any at all, in favour of- your doftrine among men of learning who have applied themfelves to difcufs the queftion. Not only do all the orthodox divines in all the Reformed churches give it unani- moufiy againfl you, but even the Jefuits themfelves ; and all the Romifh cafuifls, how dreadfully fo ever fome of them have corrupted the dodlrine of mora- lity, yet none of them have ventured to go your length. Even the Jefuitical doclrines of equivocation and mental refervation are only fubtle contrivances to elude that obligation to fpeak truth v/hich they own to be incumbent on us at all timics } while the moft corrupt among them ftill protefh againil abfolute and downright lying upon any occafion. The greatell names on your fide of the queftion are Crellius, and other Socinian writers, Limborch, dnd fome modern philofophers, as Grotius, Puffen- dorff, and, among ourfelves, the late Dr Hutchifon of Glafgow; all of whom, without excepting even Puften- dorff, who carries the matter farther than any of them, are clear aQ-ainil the ufe vcu make of their dodrine. But as their do6trine, how infufhcient fo- ever even it h to bear you out, is the only pretence upon which you can either hold up your faces to the world in avowing fuch a pra£tice, or keep your own confciences in any meafure of quiet, let me try if I can deprive you of this rotten prop. You fay, That the obligation to fpeak truth admits of exceptions ; and that circumftances may be fuppo- -fed, wherein a known falfehccd may be innocently affirmed. Sed. II. Acllons eflentially fmful. 189 affirmed. To fupport this, you muft likewlfe, and accordingly do, maintain another thing, namely, that there i^ nothing eflentially and intrinlically moral in its own nature ; but that all adtions are morally good or evil, juft according to the confequences they are apt to produce. In order, therefore, to go to the bottom of the matter, here is another point that de- mands a little previous confideration. Every body admits the diftind;ion between moral good and phyjical good. By the lafl, is meant the pleafant and delightful fenfations of fenfible, and e- Ipecially of rational creatures. And a tendency to procure the greateft quantity thereof, you fay, is that alone which conftitutes the nature of moral good, as a contrary tendency is that wherein moral evil con- fifts. On the other hand, we maintain, that there are fome things in their own nature morally evil, and that fo effentially, that no effeds of this kind which they may be thought capable of producing, nor in- deed any circumftance whatever, can pollibly alter their nature, fo as to render them morally good, or even innocent. We readily allow, that in the difpofal of temporal property, your rule muft fometimes, though not al- ways even in that cafe, be admitted ; and that there are cafes where the fmaller good of this kind muft give v/ay to the greater. But this is by no means to be extended fo far as to give room to imagine, that there is no adtion fo vile and bafe in its own nature, but what may be innocently done, if there is ground to exped a greater quantity of phyfical good being produced thereby than what would otherwife be. There are fome things intrinlically immoral, (among which this of lying is one), fuch as hatred of God, pride, idolatry, profaning the name of God, adul- tery, perjury, &c. I can imagine circumftances, wherein the fm of adultery, or the fm of perjury, might be inftrumental in promoting the fenfible and temporal happinefs of a great many, or lelTening theif pain. 190 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV. pain, without hurting others. But would it there- fore be an innocent mean of obtaining that end ? When I hear you talking of the good of the whole, as a proper rule of adtion for fuch puny fliort-fighted creatures as we are, it puts me in mind of the fly creeping on one of the pillars of a grand cathedral, mentioned in a paper, I think, of the Guardian, whofe eye could only perceive fome of the little ine- qualities of the furface on which it moved, far from being able to judge of the fymmetry and proportions of the whole magnificent fabric. As little are we ca- pable of extending our views fo far as to judge what is necelTary for the good of the whole. This we muil leave to the determination of him who formed the glorious plan. All that belongs to us is to do all the good that may be brought about by innocent means. And whenever we find that the good we might wifh for cannot be accompliflied without the breach of his laws, we may be affured, that he does not require it in that cafe at our hands ; and we may fafely trufl the event to his providence, who can bring good out of evil. The original error that mifleads people here, lies in overvaluing the prefent fenfible enjoyments of this world, and a proportionable aggravating in our own imagination the pain or mifery that men may be ex- pofed to in this tranfitory flate. This is that which hides from our eyes the inconceivable difference there is between phyfical and moral good or evil. Without this erroneous imagination, it would be impoflible to conceive of the firfl, as the only rule and flandard by which the other is to be eftimated. Senfible pleafure and pain are things that appear mighty big in our view ; but are of much fmaller confideration in the light of God. And in proportion as the love of mo- ral good, and the hatred of moral evil, prevails in any character, fo Is our confideration of phyfical good and evil lelTened in the comjjarifon. There cannot be a more flriking initance of this than what the revela- tion Se£l. II. Ly^ng noit an indifferent a£lion. 191 tion of the gofpel has placed before our eyes. There it appears, that it was not inconfiftent with fo per- fect a charader as that of the Son of God in the hu- man nature, to be fubjefted to the higheft degree of phyfical evil; while, at the fame time, we cannot, without blafphemy, fuppofe him capable of the leaft degree of moral evil. Indeed this was the grand point of dodrine M'hich he inculcated upon men when he tabernacled among them. He came to difabufe them in relation to the foolifh preference they are fo apt to give in favot'r of phyfical good, to the prejudice of that which is of a moral nature. Look but to the beatitudes with which he begins his fermon on the mount, and there you will find him, contrary to the general opinion of the world, pronouncing them blejjtd that are poor infpirit, that itiourn^ that are per/ecuted for righ^ teoiffnejs fake. This laff, whether pofitive, or even Jfiegative, you feem refolved, at any rate, to avoid, coft: what it will, as to compliances of an immoral kind. But Chrift taught his difciples to undervalue phyfical good, and even to look down upon it with the mod fovereign contempt, in comparifon with mo- ral good;, to defpife the light affiiClions of this world; to take up their crofs ; ayid not to fear men^ ivho can only kill the body. And he affured them, that he ii'ho faved his life by immoral compliances, fjjould lofe it in the ijffue. For what, fays he, pall it profit a man, if he pall gain the whole world, and lofe his ozvn foul f So far was he from making the quantity of fenfible pleafure, or phyfical good produced, the meafure of that which is of a moral nature. David, when he had Saul in his power, could not but obvioufly perceive a great many advantages, or a great deal of phyfical good, that might be the ef- fect of fuffering his life to be taken away. Not to mention his own dehverance from a cruel and unjuit pcrfecution, he knew from the teftimony of God himfelf. 192 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV. himfelf, that his advancement to the throne to which he had been anointed by the exprefs command of God, would be of unfpeakable and extenfive in- fluence in promoting the happinefs of the nation in general ; that it would prevent the mifery which the maleadminillration of Saul threatened efpecially good men with ; that it would tend greatly to the common intereft of the whole people, in refped both of their civil and religious concerns : confcious as he was of the fumtd piirpqre ^ ivhen he jhould receive the con- gregatiori, to judge uprightly, to be a terror to evil doers, and a praife to them that did tvell^ as he explains his intentions in the loifl pfalm ; yet, not- withftanding all this flattering profped:, he knew that the greatefl advantages of this kind were not to be procured by unlawful means. And therefore, leaving the event to God's providence, he Ifeadily refilled all the felicitations of lefs fcrupulous perfons, and would TLOtJiretch forth his hand againji the Lord's anointed. For whatever might be the confequences, who, faid he, can do fo, and be guiltlefs f Indeed this precife point is fo clearly and exprefsly decided by the Apoftle Paul, that there is no main- taining your fide of the queftion without the moft manifeft inconfiftence, by any who admit his divine infpiration, or who dare not deny it. The paffage you have, Rom. iii. 8. " And not rather, (as we be " flanderoufly reported, and as fome affirm that we " fay). Let us do evil, that good may come ? whofe " damnation is jufl." Let the fevere cenfure in the latter part of the verfe fall upon whom you will,' whe- ther upon them who maintained fuch doctrine, or upon them who flandered the apoftles as maintaining it, it could not have been condemned in llronger terms . Now, what is the dodlrine upon which fo fevere a cenfure is denounced ? It is nothing elfe but this, that the good effefts intended to be produced by a fmful adion will juflify it in the fight of God, and 2 be Seft. 11. Lying not an indifferent action. 195 be a fufficient excufe for the aftor. Is th^re any room for this condemnation, if an action cannot be fmful or evil,' from which good may come, and is intended by the agent ?. The general point is here undoubtedly determined, that there are fome a£lions which, in their own nature, are efTcntially and intrin- fically fmful, and that no benevolent intention, or defireable confequences, can alter their nature, or render them innocent : and, which is particularly re- markable, and to our prefent purpofe, lying is the very evil which the Apoftle is fpeaking of, and which ought not to be done that good may come. Dr Hutchefon's ftruggle with this text is enough to fatisfy me how unanfwerable it is upon his principles. He feems to be utterly at a lofs what to make of it, and is of opinion, that it can be of no ufe in morals. This he does not diifemble, but fpeaks it quite out. But when he attempts to put fome fenfe upon the a- poftle's words, however clear and diftinct a writer he is at other times, it is not eafy to guefs what it is he would fay here. For this I appeal to any body who will take the trouble of confulting the paffage itfelf. For my part I confefs I do not underftand his mean- ing. When a man of fenfe, and an able writer, is reduced to the neceflity of pretending to fay fom.e- thing when he has nothing to fay that is intelligible, it is a violent prefumption that the argument is too hard for him, and that his judgement is fwayed by prejudice more than by reafon. The fame fort of ftruggle again ft an exprefs deci- fion of the fcripture, v/e had an example of fome years ago from the fame quarter, in the queition a- bout obedience to fuperiors againft the dictates of one*s own confcience. Upon that occafion. Ads v. 29. as well as Rom. iii. 8. was, by your party, re- duced to an unmeaning piece of nonfenfe. Accor- ding to your principles, as there never can be an in- terference between the authority of God and that of men ; fo there never can be any evil done, when B b good 194 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV, good is intended by it ; and therefore the pleading for a preference of the authority of God to that of men, and the fevere cenfure paffed againft the doing e- vil that good may come, muft, according to your friends, have flowed from pure ignorance or inad- vertence in the facred writers. This, however, I cannot help obferving, that Dr Hutchefon, as .well as the other writers on his iide of the queftion, betray a manifeft confcioufnefs that there is a moral turpitude in fpeaking contrary to the fenfe of our own minds, coniidered abfolutely, and without any regard to its confequences. How elfe ihould they all agree (except Pufiendorf, who is the mod confident advocate for lying) to condenm it in many cafes, where there is no pretence of any other fm either accompanying or following upon it ? Crellius permits it but rarely, and upon important occafions only. He allows it to be a fm, if it be fre- ' quently pra61:ifed, or for trifling caufes. Grotius mentions the particular cafes wherein only he thinks it allowable : and, which is very remarkable, he adds, that to refrain from it abfolutely and totally, has fomething in it more generous, and conformable to Chriftian fnnplicity. As for Dr Hutchefon, the very title of the chapter which pleads the caufe of lying upon fome occafions, fuflicientl)/^ fhows his fenfe of the matter. It is, " The extraordinary rights arifmg from fom.e fmgular neccfiity.'* See how he expreifes himfelf, b. 2. ch. 17. § 9. "The more virtuous any man is, and the higher his fenfe of all moral excel- lence, the lefs apt will he be to abufe this plea in mat- ters of too fmall importance, or for any intereft of his own.'* And again, § 8. "If one departs from the ordinary law for trifling caufes, abufmg this plea pf neceflity, his own heart muil condemn him upon Tefle£lion, and all men diftruil: his integrity. This plainly ihows, that the evils to be declined, or the advantages in view, muft be very great, in propor- tion Sc6l. II, Lying not an mdiifererit aftion. ! 95 tion to the importance of the law which can found any excepiion to it." Now, either lying muft be, in its own nature, and feparated from all the circumftances and confequences of it, fmful and immoral ; or it muft be, in itfelf^ indifferent, neither good nor evil, but according to tile views or motives from whence it proceeds. If you admit the firft, that there is a moral turpi- tude in lying itfelf, even when accompanied with no other fin, as injuftice, malevolence, &c. then you muft own, that no circumftance can alter the nature of it. If the immorality of it confnfts in the cppofi- tion there is between the thoughts of your heart and the words of your mouth, where-ever there is thiij oppofition, there muft be moral evil. It is only fuch an action as is indifferent in its own nature that can be rendered morally good or evil, by the intention with wl)ich it is performed* The throwing a ftone out of one*s hand, is an action in itfelf indifferent, and therefore it may be rendered good or evil by the intention. If it be done to fave the life of a perfon in danger of being devoured by a wild bead, it is a good action ; becaufe it is not in itfelf finful, and therefore a lawful mean of doing good. But if per- jury was the mean ufed for prefervation of the fame life, all agree that the intention would not be fufficient to fandtity it, or even to render it innocent ; becaufe perjury is, in its own nature, fmful. And whatever is effential to any thing, cannot be feparated from it by any circumftance. Even the taking away the life of our neighbour, is an a£tion fo far indifferent, that the moral nature of it depends upon the circumftances of the cafe, and the ends in view, being in fome cafes cxprcfsly commanded by God ; whi(ih cannot be faid of lying in any cafe. The very fame ends which are allowed, nay required, to be profecuted, by taking a- way the life of our neighbour, would not fanSify the fin of perjury, or adultery, or idolatry, or blafpbe- xny, 2cc. becaufe thefe ads are, in their own nature, ef- 13 b 2 fcntially ig6 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV* fentially immoral. In like manner, if lying be of an immoral nature in itfell, ttie intention can never render it innocent. It is an unlawful mean for pro- curing any advantage we may have in view ; and tJidir damnation is jnji icho do evil that good may come. As for any fmgular neceffity to commit fm, or to do v/hat is in itfclr of an immoral nature, the true difciples of Chrift dare not admit any fuch thing, or entertain any fuch idea. They have it always in their choice to fuffer rather than to fm ; and they are ex- prefsly required, by their divine Mafter, to chufe the firft, v/henever the laft cannot otherwife be avoided. The enemies of Oliver Cromwell have alledged, that he adopted a maxim^ importing, that moral laws were only binding in ordinary cafes, while an extraordi- nary neceffity difpenfed with their obligation. But if there was any ground for this imputation, I believe the mofl zealous of his admirers will not pretend to juftify him therein. Every body mufl be fenfible of the danger and loofenefs of fuch a teriet. A philo- fopher, it feems, will fometimes go farther than the mofl partial hiflorian durfl venture to do. If you tal?js the other branch of the alternative, and hold that a contrariety betvreen the heart and the tongue is, in its moral nature, purely indifferent, (as you muft do, if you think the intention can make it either right or wrong), then, according to the befl •writers on your fide of the qucftion, you run your- felf into the miofi: glaring contradidlions. I fliall men- tion fome of them. You all agree that lying is a fin, when no good purpofe is ferved thcrebv. Nay, you require that the motive be of confiderable importance. If one departs from the truth for trifling caufes, Dr Kutche- i'on tells us, his own heart muft condemn him. He is even of opinion, that the evils to be declined, or the advantages in view, muft be very great to excute .fuch a practice. How can this be leccncilcd wiih its Se£l. II. Lying not an indifFercnt a6lion. 197 its being an a£lion that is purely indifferent ? Where can be the harm of doing what is in its own nature indifferent, for the mofl trifling purpofe ? If I have occafion for fo trifling a thing as a pin, may n^t I afi^ it from anotlier ? May I not floop to hft it from the floor ? and if lying be as indifferent in its moral na- ture, as fpeaking, or bending my body, why may I not procure it by that means likewife, provided no body is hurt thereby ? This is not all. If lying be, in its moral nature, an indifferent action ; whenever any advantage can be procured by it to ourfelves or others, without hurting any body elfe, we not only may, but we ought to do it. It becomes a duty, and it would be a fm to o- mit it. If I could, by wagging my hand, procure the leafl advantage to my neighbour, fpiritual or tem- poral, without injury to any one, would it not be an offence againfl the law of charity, fliould I refufe, at fo fmall an expence, to better his circumftances in any degree ? and againfl the law of prudence, if I refu- fed it to myfelf ? And if there be as little moral evil in Iving, as in wagging my hand, would it not be e- qually foolifli and uncharitable to refufe the one as the other ? and confequently offenfive to God as well as man ? How then can Grotius pretend to fay, that it would be more generous, and more agreeable to Ghrifl-ian fmcerity, never to lie at all ? Some of the writers on that fide, who admit the innocence of lying to fave the life of a good man, or to prevent a public calamity, confcious, it feems, of fome moral pravity infeparable from it, go fo far as to fay, it would be no fm for one rather to fuffer him- felf to be murdered, than to fave his own life by a lie. Strange ! that it fhould be acceptable to God, to let your neighbour be involved in the heinous guilt of murder, and to give up fo precious a thing as your own life, which you are under an obligation to pre- ferve by all lawful means, for the glory of God, and the good of yourfelf and others, rather than do a thing 198 Sinful nefs of prevarication. Part IV. thing that is perfe6bly innocent. If I could prevent fo great a crime in my neighbour, and fo great an in- jury to myfelf, by flying, by expoflulating, by prayers and intreaties, would it be no fm to negle£b the ufe of fuch innocent means? and if lying was as innocent, how can it be omitted without guilt ? DrHutchefon, I believe, would not have gone fo far. Yet even he tells us, b. 2. ch. 10. " An habit of fmcerity fo naturally attends and affifts a virtuous difpofition, and a contrary one is fo pernicious, that all diHimulation and difguifes, as well as dired falfe- hood, ihould be feverely reftrained in the young ; nor ought they before the full ufe of reafon to be al« lowed in fuch arts of concealment, as a good man in mature years may fometimes juftly ufe." If there be no moral turpitude even in dired; falfehood, why fo feverely reftrained ? If there be, can it be ren- dered innocent by any end which the matured years may fuggeft ? Again, if lying be, in the abftrad nature of it, confidered feparately from every other fm, a perfeft- ly innocent thing, how comes it that almofl all its ad- vocates fiiould infill: upon its being very rarely prac- tifed ? The frequent ufe of it, they fay, would be inconfiftent with the virtue of fmcerity. This, I readily grant. But if ten lies be ■ dellrudtive of fm- cerity in ten degrees, is not one lie proportionably fd in one degree ? If habitual adultery be highly incon- fiftent v/ith the virtue of chadity, is not a fingle ad of it likewife inconfiftent therewith, though in a lefs de- gree ? SECT. Sed. in. Immorality of falfehood. 199 SECT. III. The ejjential and intrinfic immorality of falfehood^ ab/iradcd from all other fins that may fame- times accompany it, proved by eight argutjtents. THE only confiftent plan therefore of defending the violation of truth upon any occalion, is that of Puffendorf. His doctrine is, That whenever we can obtain any advantage to ourfelves, or others, without injuring any one, it is lawful to accomplifh it by falfehood. " Quia fermo non folum eft inventus ■^' propter alios, fed et propter nos ipfos ; ideo, ubi '' aliqua mea in eo verfatur utilitas, neque cujufquam " alterius jus lasditur, licebit mihi fermonem ita for- " mare, ut diverfum ab eo quod in animo volvo " exprimat,*' Puff. De officio horn. 6-c. /. i.e. 10. And if it be a lawful mean, to be fure it mufl be a duty to ufe it, whenever the leaft degree oi good may come thereby. All other fuppofitions are full of in- confiftencies and contradidions. But againd this I have the follo\^'ing arguments to offer. 1 . That lying, and every degree of falfehood, abf- trafted from all other fi'ns, has in itfelf a moral tur- pitude, evidently appears from hence, that it cannot, without the moil horrid blafphemy, be imputed to God, the ftandard of all good, efpecially of moral good. The very light of nature teaches this. But the fcripture makes ufe of the ftrongeft terms to re- move fuch an imperfeftion at an infinite diftance from the divine nature, with the greateft abhorrence and deteftation of it: Numb, xxiii. 19, '•'God is not a *' man, that he fhould lie.*' Thefe are the words that God himfelf put in the mouth of him who uttered them. 1 Sam. xv. 29. " The ftrength of Ifrael will " not lie.'* Rom. iii. 4. " Yea let God be true, and « every man a liar." John xvii. 1 7, " Thy word " is 200 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV. " is tn!th,** fays our Saviour. Nay, the fcripturc goes farther. It not only removes lying and falfe- hood from God, but reprefents it as utterly inconfift- ent with the nature of that perfect being, as impof- fible and contradictory to imagine him capable of it : Tit. i. 2. " In hope of eternal life, which God, that " CANNOT lie, promifed," &c. Heb. vi. i8. " That *' by two immutable things, in which it was impos- " siBLE for God to lie," &c. Even the Heathen philofophers were not ignorant of this truth. There are two things which they thought eflential to the divine nature, namely, to do good, and to fpeak truth, tuipyiTur kch axnB-i-juy. It was a faying of one of them, That if God would ren- der himfelf vifible to men, he would chufe light for his body, and truth for his foul. And we are told, that one of the precepts of Pythagoras was. That men fliould chiefly fpeak truth, becaufe this a- lone could make them refemble God. Now, if the leaft degree of falfehood, if lying up- on any occafion, be fo incompatible with the charac- ter of God ; is not this a demonftration that there is in itfelf an elfential obliquity, utterly inconfiftent with the true ftandard of moral rectitude, and which no circumftances can reconcile thereto ? The fureft rule for the diredion of our moral conduft, is to imi- tate God. By how much we are like him, fo much the nearer do we approach to the perfeclion of holi- iiefs. (This is what Grotius himfelf feems to have been fenfible of, when he owns, that the renouncing thofe liberties which he pleads for, would be a more perfeO: charader than taking the advantage of them.) The confequence of this is, that in fo far as our be- haviour is contrary to the moral attributes of God, and inconfiftent with the ideas of him that we have from both fcripture and reafon, fo far mud we needs be advanced in moral depravation. If lying for any purpofe be diametrically oppofite to the character of the mofl perfect being, it muft be an imperfediion. 2 It Se£l. III. Immorality of falfehood. 201 It is not a phyfical, but a moral imperfettion, con- trary to his immaculate holinefs and inflexible redi- tude. There never could have been a queflion upon this fabje6t, if men would but afk at their own con- fcicnces, on every occafion that affords a pretence for the violation of truth. Is this a mean, the ufe of which can be conceived not inconfiftent with the cha- racter of the fupreme being, the ftandard of moral redlitude ? As Chriff , %vho is the image of the iu- vifible God, did for a while tabernacle among men, we may, in imagination, fubftitute him in our place ; and if we would but confider how he would have act- ed in like circumstances, our own confciences would foon decide the queition. I appeal to your own. Sir, upon this occafion. Place that perfeft pattern of ho- linefs in your circumftances : Suppofe him complain- ing, that the tenets which the minifters of this church are obliged to fign, have not fo much as a plaufible afpect of truth : would he (do you really think ?) be capable of faying with you, that if your plea againft them be rejected, we mud continue to fubfcribe as we can ? Your leaving this argument altogether unanfwered in your reply to my letter, where it was urged, looks as if you were fenfible of its force, and that you was not able to repel it. What then but partiality and prejudice can account for your not yielding to it ? 1. As God himfelf is incapable of falfehood upon any occafion, or for any purpofe ; fo he has, in the moft abfolute, and in the {trongefl terms, forbidden us to lie. And here I defire you to obferve, that the ftrength of my argument lies in this, that he has not only prohibited injuftice, malevolence, or the doing any injury or wrong by lying, but he has enjoined us to fpeak always the truth, and exprefsly forbid lying itfelf abfolutely, and pointed out falfehood, as being, in its own nature, and without regard to any effeds it may have, the object of his deteftation. Attend, I C c bcicecli 2,02 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV. befeech you, to the following, among other pafTages of fcripture to the fame purpofe : Eph. iv. 25. '* fVhdrsfore putting away lying, fpeak every man " truth with his neighbour.'* To fave me the trouble of tranfcribing, I wiih you would turn over the Bible to Lev. xix. II.; Rev. xxi. 27. and xxii. 15. &:c. Nay, he not only forbids it, but exprefles a pecu- liar deteftation of it : and no wonder, as it is fo very unlike, fo diredly oppofite to his pure and holy na- ture. In Prov. xii. 22. we are told, that ." lying lips *' are an abomination to the Lord." And, Prov. vi. 17. "A lying tongue** is faid to be one of " the " things that the Lord hates, and are an abomination " to him.'* And therefore it is no wonder to find, in many pafTages, peculiar vengeance threatened a- gainft liars : Pial. v. 6. ; Prov. xix. 9. ; Rev. xxi. 8. Our Saviour makes lying one of the charaders of the devil, who, of all creatures, jflands in the diredeft oppofition to God : " When he fpeaketh a lie, he " fpeaketh of his own ; for he is a liar, and the fa- ** ther of it," John viii. 44, Obferve in how abfolute and univerfal terms the practice is condemned and prohibited. We are not required only to abftain from lying, when it proceeds from envy, from malice, or when it may do mifchief, but abfolutely and univerfally. We are not reflrain- ed by the command of God from running, being in itfelf an indifferent action, but only from running to do evil. We are not forbidden to ride, or to fail, though many have done both for a mifchievous pur- pofe. If lying were as innocent and indifferent a thing as riding or failing, is it to be fuppofed that God would have forbidden the thing itfelf, inftead of cautioning us againft the bad ufe of it ? or that it. "would have been abfolutely condemned, if there were fome kinds of lying that were allowable, or fome cir- cumftances that rendered it not only innocent, but c- ven a duty incumbent upon us ? To create excep- tions out of crw;^ Q^iXk imagiriations, from rules deli- vered Sed. ni. Immorality of falfehood. I03 vered by God in the ftronged and mofi: abfolute terms, when no fuch exceptions are furnifhed by the fame word of God, nor the lead fhadow of them to be perceived there, would throw every thing loofe ; nor would the word of God be a fufEcient light unto our feet, and lamp unto our paths ; nor could we be faid to be thereby throughly furnijljed to every good ivork. There is not a firmer who might not, by the fame artifice, elude any of the commands of God, and interpret them with his own addition, thus. Thou flialt not worfhip images. Thou fhalt not com- mit adultery, &c. unlefs fomething of importance be in danger by your refufal. 3. If the affirming a known falfehood had been an indifferent adion, i. e. either good or evil according to the effefts it might produce, furely the fcripture would not have pitched upon the fpeaking truth as one of the marks and charafters of good men, whereby they are diftinguillied from the wicked. Yet this is what we frequently meet with in the Bible. la the 1 5th Pfalm, we have the charader of the good man, who is defer ibed as one that -walketh upright- ly, and fpeaketh the truth in his heart ; that fweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not. A* gain, Prov. xiii. 5. " A righteous man hateth lying ; " but a wicked man is loathfome, and cometh to " fhame." And therefore the apoftle giveth it as one of the characters of thofe who were to be admit- ted to an ecclefiaftical office, that they mufl be " not " double-tongued,** i Tim. iii. 8. " I hate and ab- " hor lying,*' fays the Pfalmift, " but thy law do I " love,'* Pfal. cxix. 163. And it is the character of the redeemed. Rev. xiv. 5. that " in their mouth was " found no guile." Now, not to infifl upon the improbability that a thing which is of an indifferent nature, fliould be made ufe of as a character to diftinguifh between good and bad men ; it may be aliedged, that a lie may be almofl as often uieful as the truth. But how- C c 2 ever 'io4 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV. ever that may be, no boJy vi^ill deny that it may very frequently be fo ; and if fpeaking what we know to be falfe, be, in itfelf, a matter of indifference, it if? certainly not inconfiftent with the character of a good man to make frequent ufe of fo innocent a mean for promoting a good purpofe ; fo that fpeaking the truth in his heart, could be no diftinguifliing part of his charafter. On the contrary, a fhrewd worldling, out ot very cunning, would be a perfon of greater veracity than his neighbour who feareth God. The firft would, from his worldly fagacity, no doubt, be on his guard, not to tell lies very frequently, and ne- ver but when it ferved fome purpofe of real import- ance to his worldly intereft, and when he was lead ■expofed to deteftion. All this he would be naturally led to, for fear that he might lofe fome degree of his •credit, and confequently might be deprived of fome part of the advantage he might otherwife make of his falfehood ; whereas the other might be led, by his very innocence and fimplicity, to think himfelf under an obligation of duty, upon miany occafions, not to omit fo allowable and innocent a mean of doing good. And thus a cunning fliarper would have an obvious advantage over a plain Chriftian of honeft fmiplicity in this part of his character. How then, upon your hypothefis, can fpeaking the truth in his heart be a diitinguifhing mark of a pious and good man ? 4. The liberty of fpeaking either truth or falfe- hood, according to the end we may have in view, would entirely defeat the Very purpofe for which the faculty of fpeech v/as beflowed upon mankind. For what purpofe has our kind Creator endued us with fo valuable a gift, but for enabling us to communicate to one another what is really in our hearts ? Not, furely, for the purpofe of dilguifmg our thoughts, and leading others into error. This is always fpoken of in fcripture as an abomination to him ; and there- fore, whenever we make this ufe of it, the lead thing that can be faid of fuch a behaviour is, that it is an alienation Se£l. III. Immorality of falfehood. 2,05 alienation of one of the nobleft and moft diftinguifh- ing powers wherewith mankind have been favoured, from the end for which it was given ; and therefore muft needs be provoking to the bountiful author ; unlefs we can imagine that God is pleafed to fee his gifts abufed, and his purpofes in bellowing them up- on us fruilrated. 5. To fpeak contrary to the truth in our hearts, is a notorious and downright breach of faith, which is univerfally allowed to be a fin. Although we are not obliged to reveal all our thoughts, and may keep fi- lence ; yet if we do fpeak, it implies a tacit paction be- tween the fpeaker and the hearer. I do not mean fuch a general and arbitrary convention, as is fuppofed by fome writers on this fubje£l: to have been enter- ed into by men when they were formed into focie- ties. This fcems to be a mere fiction of their own imagination. No body can prove that ever there was any fuch thing ; nor is there any occafion for it, be- ing necelTarily implied in the nature of the thing. What I mean is an immediate and particular padion. Whenever "I open nty mouth, apparently to commu- nicate my thoughts to another, I do two things : I oblige myfelf to tell ' him what I really think ; and I require of him to believe it. This is the plain, the natural meaning of that action. It is the only fignifi- cation it is capable of, and what is neceflariiy implied in it. If the hearer gives credit to my words, the paction is not only concluded, but actually executed on his part. If I tell him a falfehood, the convention I made with him is certainly broken on my part. Is not this againfl the law of nature, which obliges me faithfully to fufil the engagements I enter into ? Even although the perfon I fpeak to Ihould refufe to be- lieve me, or rejed; the treaty without acceptance on his part, it would, neverthelefs, be deceitful dealing in me to propofe what I have no intention to per- form ; fo that whether I am believed or not, I am undoubtedly obliged to fpeak truth. Grotius. loS Slnfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV. Grotius and PufFendorf proceed upon a groundlefs fuppontion, of a convention among men at the firft formation of fociety. Upon this they found the ob- ligation to fpeak truth to one another. But what need we have recourfe to a fictitious convention which never exifled but in their imagination, when the thing is much eafier accounted for by a particu- lar and immediate paction neceflarily implied in the circumflances of our own behaviour, every time that cither by words or writing we offer to communicate our thoughts to another ? From this fictitious ima- gination, however, they derive an excufe for decei- ving enemies in a ftate of war, by words as well as by actions. Their pretence is, that the obligation to fpeak truth, being founded upon this imaginary con- vention, v/hich is a pure contrivance of their own, it is vacated by a ftate of war, wherein the bonds of fociety are broken, and no treaty remains in force. I fhall readily acknowledge the innocence of what is-ufually called ftratagems in war, which are coun- tenanced by the authority of God himfelf in the fcripture. If an enemy miftake the meaning of my adions, this is no breach of faith on my part ; be- caufe I am under no fort of obligation to explain it, or to communicate it to him : but if I fpeak or write to him, I thereby oblige myfelf to fay nothing but what is true. The very nature of the action necef- farily implies an offer on my part to do fo ; and if I do not punctually execute the propofal I then make, of communicating my real thoughts to him, I break not any ancient and unknown convention, but a pre- fent one, evidently and naturally implied in my own behaviour. When the Spaniards firft arrived in A- merica, there could be no agreement fubfifting be- tween them and the native Indians ; and yet when they fpoke to them, they were certainly obliged to fpeak truth. When God firft fpoke to man, there Gould be no previous convention between them j and yet it was then impojjible for Cod to lie. 6. If Sefl:. III. Immorality of falfehood. 207 6. If this doftrine were univerfally received, that there is no wrong in fpeaking either what is true or what is falfe, according as it may, in the opinion of the fpeaker, be attended with good or bad confequences ; it is evident that all confidence in one another would be abfolutely baniflied from among men, and confe- quently all the comfort of human fociety would be at an end. It is impoflible that fociety can fubfift, but under a perfuafion that what we fay to one another is true. But how unreafonable would fuch a perfuafion be, if once it was taken for granted, that not only men of bafe and unworthy characters, but the very bed and mofl honefl of men, I do not fay barely may, but ought, upon many occafions, to tell us ferioufly, and with all the tokens of fincerity, a deliberate lie ? The knowledge of our neighbour's virtuous difpofi- tion, is commonly looked upon as a ground of confi- dence in his word. But upon the fuppofition we - are now fpeaking of, this would be fo far from being any fecurity, that it would often oblige him to de- ceive us ; and that upon motives which the nature of the thing obliged him to conceal. If all our neighbours were of fuch principles, how foon would we be reduced to that undefireable fitua- tion of which Jeremiah makes fo mournful a com- plaint, in the 9th chapter of his prophecies ? " Oh " that I had in the wildernefs a lodging-place of way- " faring men, -that I might leave my people, and go " from them ; for they be all — an aflembly of treache- " rous men. And they bend their tongues like their " bow for lies : but they are not valiant for the truth " upon the earth. ^Take ye heed every one of his " neighbour, and truft ye not in any brother ; for " every brother will utterly fupplant, and every " neighbour will walk with flanders. And they will *' deceive every one his neighbour, and will not " fpeak the truth : they have taught their tongue to ** fpcak lies.— Shall I not vifit them for thefe thiners ? *' faith 2o8 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV". *' faith the Lord : fhall not my foul be avenged on ** fuch a nation as this ?'* If you. Sir, are a preacher of the gofpel, are you not fenfible how much this doftrine muft needs de- tract from your credit in the pulpit ? Who can tell whether you believe what you fay there, or not ? or from what motives you may be fpeaking ? You ac- knowledge, that in order to intitle you to a benefice^ you have no fcruple to declare, in the mod public and folemn manner, your belief of doctrines, which you really regard as foolijljnefs and a ftumhlin^' block ; and you maintain, that you may innocently do fo. Why then may you not likewife, upon your principles, for the fame reafon, or perhaps for the good effects only you may hope from it, fpeak of a heaven or a hell, while at the fame time you yourfelf believe not one word of the matter for all that ? Nay, how terribly mud it (hake the credit due to the Bible itfelf, and render our faith in it uncertain ? a fort of faith which is good for nothing. If the prophets and apoftles were of opinion, that the good effects likely to be produced by their uttering falfehoods, did fuf- ficiently authorife the affirmation of them, who can tell whether they themfelves believed what they faid and wrote ? and how can we, upon this hypothefis, be fure that their writings contain truths that may be depended upon ? 7. That lying has, in its own nafbre, fom.ething bafe and unworthy, appears from the univerfal fenfe of mankind, even of fuch as have vindicated the practice upon fome occafions. It is but too well known, that among gentlemen who have little fenfe of religion, and at leafl; as little profefTion of it, it is regarded as the highefl affront to be called a liar, an injury not to be expiated without blood ; and that be- caufe it implies a meannefs, or a fort of cowardice that he dared not to tell the truth. Montaigne, in his effays, has an obfervation, that " to fay a man lieth, is as much as to fay, that he is brave towards God, 2 jind Se£l. III. Immorality of falfehood. 209 and a coward towards men." To the fame purpofe Dr Tillotfon, in his fermon on Rom. vi. 21. " What fliameful fear and cowardice a man betrays, when he is frighted to tell a lie out of fear, or tempted thereto for fome little advantage, and yet is fo inconfrrent with himfelf, as to have, or to pretend to have, the courage to fight any man that fhall tell him fo fancy a truth, as that he told a lie.'* The ancient Heathens had the fame fenfe of the matter. Homer makes one of his heroes fay, that he hated like hell thofe who had one thing in the mouth, and another in the hearty And Ariftotle exprefsly affirms, that lying is evil in. itfelf. As for the defenders of lying upon fome import- ant occafions, I have already ihown, that the mofl part of them exprefsly own an intrinfic evil in it. I fhall here only add one pafiage from Dr Hutchefon, whom I take to be the firjfl member of the church of Scotland that ever appeared in its defence. Having mentioned a difpofition in men to communicate their fentiments to others, of which, he fays, we have an immediate natural approbation, he adds, " And a yet higher approbation of a ftedfaft veracity and can- dour in fpeech, whether we are relating fa(3:s, or af- furing others of our defigns and intentions ; and, oa the other hand, have a natural immediate diflike of a. felfifh, liillen, dark taciturnity, and a yet higher dif- approbation of falfehood and infmcerity in narrations^ or profellions of our intentions or engagements, and, of all intentions of deceiving others, and difappoint- ing them of what, by our fpeech, we caufed them to expeftfrom us." Syji. of Moral Phil, b. 2. ch.g. 8, Laftly, Is there not fucb a virtue as we com- monly call fmcerity, which confifts in faying, upon all occafions, nothing but what is the real inward thought or fendment of our heart } This is the very difpofi- tion of which Dr Hutchefon owms, " we have an immediate natural approbation." This is what our Saviour emphatically fignified his approbation of in D d Nathaniel, 210 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV, Nathaniel, when he faid, " Behold an IfraeHte in- ^ deed, in whom there is no guile,'* Johni. 47, The Apoflle Paul, and the primitive Chriftians, " re- *' joiced in this, that by the grace of God they had *' their converfation in the world, not with flelhly " wifdom, but in fimplicity and godly fmcerity," 1 Cor. i. 12. ; and whatever be a man's ov/n praftice, perhaps there are none who do not approve of fm- cerity in another, and regard it as a beauty highly e- ftimable in the charader of a neighbour. Now, if fmcerity be a virtue, the contrary mull: be, in its own nature, a vice, even unaccompanied with any other crime. The truth is, thofe other fms that commonly do accompany lying, and aggravate the guilt of it, are not the direft oppofites of fmceri- ty. When one adds perjury to faliehood, when he lies from a motive of covetoafnefs, of malignity, in- juilice, &c. thefe other fins do indeed greatly increafe his guilt ; but ftill it is not fmcerity that is the virtue directly oppofite to thefe other fms. They are the contraries to other virtues : perjury, for example, to piety, or a reverence for God ; covetoufnefs to a contempt of the world j malignity to charity ; inju- jlice to juftice ; whereas it is falfehood only that flands in dired oppofition to fincerity : and if fincerity be a virtue, mull not the contrary be a vice ? But if ly- ing and falfehood be a fin, does it not neceflarily fol- low, that there is fomethlng criminal in the nature of the thing itfelf, which, being effential to it, cannot poffibly be feparated fi'om it by any circumilance whatever f SECT, SeQ:. IV, Of general Arbfcriptions. ill SECT. IV. Otif Author's firji excvft for the falfchood he viju dicates^ taken from the fuhfcriptions behv^ cl gefieral, not a particular oney cojijidered^ and Jlwwn to be without the leaji foundation^ in all refpeds. I Shall now proceed to confider the excufes yoii have made for the falfehood which you feem both to regret and to vindicate. For though you have fuf* ficiently betrayed the pain which you fuffer fronx your own confciences, in faying you believe v/hat you do not believe, (a fenfation that can never be felt m a matter that is perfeftly innocent), yet in the di- refteft inconfiftency with this, you, neverthelefs, maintain the innocency of fo doing ; and that upon the following grounds, as far as I can gather them from your book. I. Your main plea feems to be taken from a dif- tinftion you make between what you call a general find a particular fubfcription. You own, that a fub- fcription of the Formula 171 1 is indeed a particular fubfcription ; and you ibmetimes (in contradiftion to other parts of your book, where you maintain, not only the innocence, but the obligation, of " comply^ ing with every little ceremony which cuftom has en- tailed upon us, as a matter of mere form, though it were a fubfcription of the Turkifh Cor an ;" in con- tradiction, I fay, to this, you fometimes) give up all defence of the honefly of that kind of fubfcription, and fairly yield that we have the better of our antago- nifts, if this be what is meant. You even allow us, in that cafe, " a well-founded triumph," p. 144.; but then you alledge, that it was not this fort of fubfcrip- tion which A, p. undertook the defence pf;, but only D da a aii Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV* a general one, being all that was required by either church or ftate before 1 7 1 1 . " It is remarkable, (you fay, p. 143.), that in Mr Ferguifon's whole account of fubfcription, as contain- ed in the above extracts, there is not one word of the Formula, nor the mod diftant allufion which could induce us to think that fuch a conftitution ex- ifted. His argument relates merely to fubfcribing the Confeffion. This forces me to think, that Mr FerguiTon, knowing the Formula to be unconffcitu- tional, confidered it as null, and undeferving of any notice." And, in the following page, you ex^refsly grant, that if it was fubfcription to the Formula that he meant, his confutation was complete, and unan- fwerable. Your words are : " The orthodox party, proceeding upon the foundation of the Formula, in- filled, and in my opinion fuccefsfully, that this claufc reduced the fubfcription to downright nonfenfe. It was in other words declaring, that he believed the Confeffion to be agreeable to the fcripture, fo far as It was agreeable. Here, therefore, they triumphed ; and indeed, grant them their principle, their triumph was certainly well founded. They reflected not that 3Vlr FerguiTon, in any part of his letter or appendix, had not faid one word about the Formula." If granting us our principle, makes our triumph complete, then. Sir, complete it fhall be. For I will force you to grant our principle, and that by the very argument which you have brought againll it. By your own argument, A. B. made no diflinftion be- tween one formula of fubfcription and another. The fubfcription which was accufed of dilhonefty, and which he undertook the defence of, was no other but that of his friends the Socinian clergy of this church, of which you fay there are a great many. He gives not the mofl diftant hint that it is any other kind of fubfcription which he or you, perhaps, might have ' wiihed to be fubftituted in its room, to which he h- niited his defence, while he gave up that which was accufed. Seft.IV. Of general fubfcriptions. a 13 , accufed, as being really diflionefl. Your own argu- ment is a clear proof of this. There is not one word of the Formula, you fay, in his whole account of fubfcription ; — confequently he had recourfe to no dillinclion between a formula-fubfcription, and one ot a different kind, but applied his defence to the prefent well-known practice, which was the fort of fubfcription that was accufed of dilhonefty. It would have been impoiTible for him to have put his defence upon the fame foot that you do, without mentioning the Formula, and diftinguifhing it exprefsly from an- other fort of fubfcription, which alone he pretended to vindicate. This you mull be fenfible of from your own management of the argument. Could you have made any ufe of this diftinction without mentioning it ? and how can it be imagined that he had any- other fort of fubfcription in view, when by your own ac- knowledgement he has recourfe to no fuch diflinc- tion ? Suppofe an advocate had pled the caufe of a thief, by vindicating the very thing that was laid to his charge, as confiftent with honefty ; and fuppofe him accufed upon this, of proftituting his talents in fupport of a crime fo pernicious to fociety ; would any body take it in his head to defend him, by fay- ing, That he certainly meant not what his client was accufed of, but fomc other thing that he might have done ? And what would you think of attempting to prove, that this mull have been his meaning, by ob- ferving, that he himfelf, in the whole courfe of his pleading, had not made the leaft infmuation of any fuch diftinclion ? That a fubfcription of the Formula 171 1 is the only fort of fubfcription that, in fact, is ufed among us, is fo notorious as really needs no proof. But fomc infmuation having been made, as if it was not fo, I fhall produce three evidences to confirm it. E- very extract of a licence given to a probationer, the form of which is verbatim prefcribed by a6ts of af- fembly, muff bear, in exprefs terras, that he has figned a 14 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV. figned the Formula, and anfwered the queflions pre- fcribed by the loth ad: of afleiiibly 171 1. — ——Every miiiifter at his ordination has thefe queflions publicly put to him before ail the clergy and people aflembled upon that occafion for divine vvorlhip, to v/hich he gives his afient, at lead by a bow. • And every com- niifGon to a minifter to be a member of affembly, the form of which, you know, is exactly prefcribed, and ftridly adhered to, muft exprefsly bear, that he has figned the Formula 1 7 1 1 , without which it would be rejefted. This therefore undoubtedly is the fort of fubfcription that was accufed of diflionefty in men of your fentiments. And what is your defence of it ? Does it amount to any more than that you acknow- ledge this to be difhoneft indeed ; but that there is fomething elfe that is not ? And you will have Mr Ferguifon's defence entirely limited to this fomething elfe, without the leafl intimation, or the remoteft hint from him, by your own acknowledgement, that this is his meaning, and, which is more ftill, when fuch a meaning would have been quite befide his purpofe, being a defence of that which was not accufed. To give fome plaufible colour to this very extra- ordinary way of arguing, you alledge, that the For- mula, though it is in fa£i: the thing that is fubfcri- bed, yet it ought not to be fo ; that it is unconftitu- tional, and that the impofition of it is without fuffi- cient authority, either civil or ecclefiaftical. Now, Sir, granting all your premilTes, (hov/ falfe foever they Ihali prefently be fhown to be), will they infer your conclufion ? You undertake to prove the innocence of thofe Socinians v/ho have figned the For- mula. And your argument is. The Formula ought not to have been impofed : therefore the ranked So- cinian may iign it without any difhonefty. Is this a juft inference ? Suppofe you had taken an oath where* in a known and acknowledged falfehood had been af- firmed, would it vindicate you fram the guilt of per- jury to alledge that fuch an oath ought not to have been Se£i:. IV. Of general fubfcriptions. 215 been impofed ? I have heard of officers in the excife extorting from country-people a declaration upon oath concerning the quantity of candles they had made for the ufp of their own families. Suppofc fuch a requifition complied with, would the illegality of the impofition be a fufficient excufe for fwearing to a falfehood ? But let us fee upon what grounds you call the For- mula 1 7 1 1 illegal, unconftitutional, &c. You fay it is without any lawful authority, civil or ecclefiaftic. As to the firff, fuppofe it were entirely dcftitute of any authority of that kind, is it therefore optional in the members of this church to obey, or not, the in- junctions of their ecclefiaftical fuperiors ? Very dif- ferent. Sir, were the pretenfions of your party a few years ago, in the cafe of Mr Gillefpie. Yet now, in- llead of raifmg the authority of the church above that of God, you make it in itfelf nothing at all. You tell us, p. 131. " That every religious eftablillmient, be- ing the creature of the civil legiflature, is limited in the very nature of things, by the power to which it owes its exiftence. The authority of all its mtafures is founded folely in this power ; ^nd the moment its regulations are extended beyond this, they ceafe to be binding." This you alfert in a dictatorial man- ner, as ufuaJ. But however new fuch Eraftian doc- trine is among us, you have not been pleafed to vouchfafe the Ihadow of an argument in fupport of what you cannot but know was never before aflerted by any member of the Prelbyterian church of Scot- land. I beg leave, however, to alk you. Has not Chrifl inftituted a government in his church, in imm.ediate fubordination to himfelf, and commanded fubmiffion to it from all the members of that fociety whereof he is the king, whether the powers that be in the civil government concur or not in meafures that are pure- ly ecclefiaftical? Did not the church fubfift for fome centuries, not only without, but againft the autliority zi6 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV. authority of every civil legillature ? Does the provi- iion made by Chrillian magiftrates for the regular , maintenance of church-rulers neceflarily imply the deftruclion of that charadler, or the annihilation of the very thing they intended to preferve ? Was there ev€r a church whofe regulations did not extend one hair's breadth beyond thofe of the civil magiftrate in matters purely ecclefiaftical ? Our church, totally unacquainted with this dodrine, has made many re- gulations about intrants to the miniflry, prefcribing the number of years to be fpent in the ftudy of di- vinity, before they can be admitted upon probation- ary trials, the feveral pieces of trial they mufl under- go, &c. All thefe regulations the civil power never feenis to have had the lead thought of either enabling or repealing. Did the General AlTembly, that mo- ment, as you exprefs it, exceed their powers, and enact what was not binding? Indeed, upon your plan, it would be the idleft thing in the world for them to meet at all, and a perfeft farce for the King to countenance them in doing nothing. But, Sir, though I did not think it proper to let your Eraftian doctrine pafs without fome animadverfion, I muft tell you, that the prefent argument does not re- quire any jlluftration of the general point. For the civil legillature of this land has, in the moft exprefs terms, committed the government of this church to our ecclefiaftical judicatories, and thereby authorifed whatever meafures are taken by them for the prefer- vation of our religion, that are not inconfiftent with^ or an incroachment upon, the civil conftitution. Be- fides all the former laws, it was an exprefs article in the treaty of Union, " That the faid Prefbyterian go-, vernment fliall be the only government of the church within the kingdom of Scotland.'* Is there no power at all granted here by the civil government to our church-judicatories ? Can they have the government of the church entirely committed to them, who can- not take one ftep in it of theinfelves, or make the leaft 2, regulation. Sc£l. IV. Of general fubfcriptlons. 217 regulation that is binding upon Chriftians ? Is there not here a ratification of all the meafures taken by ecclefiaftical judicatories in the government of the church ? Infomuch, that although the authority of their meafures had been founded folely in the civil power, (as it is not), their regulations are undoubt- edly binding, even when extended beyond the regu- lations of the civil legiilature, if words have any meaning at all '^ and that not only by the authority of Chrifl, but likewife by the authority of the civil nia- giflrate. Suppofe a gentleman who had feveral important affairs upon his hand, had employed an overieer in fome particular bufmefs, which was entirely commit- • ted to his care, and trufled to his management, and fhould tell his other fervants to take their direQions from him, and execute whatever orders he gave them in that affair ; would they not, in obeying fuch or- ders of the ovcrfeer, be really afting by their mafter's 'authority, as much as if the orders had proceeded immediately from his own mouth ? And in like man- ner, if the Formula 171 1 be enjoined by the autho- rity of the church, it cannot but be confidered as ha- ving all the force of a law of the land, the civil le- giflature having delegated all their authority in that matter, and in the moft exprefs terms, devolved it upon the ecclefiaftical judicatories. This would have held good with refped to the For- mula, though no particular regulation of the fame kind had ever been enacted by parliament. How much more then, Vv'hen the parliament itfelf had made a regulation, fo fimilar at leaft, if not identical, that an honeft man would not readily have perceived anv material difference. If the one is extended at all be- yond the other, it is only to guard againft the unfair arts of fuch as might incline to evade and fruflratc the defign of the parliament itfelf; and that in a matter purely ecclefiaftical, the regulation of which, as it is unqueftionably within the province of church- » E e government. -ji8 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV. government, fo it had been exprefsly committed to the ecclefiaftical judicatories by the laws of the land. All this, I fuppofe, you are fo much apprifed of, that you find yourfelf under a neceflity to deny that the Formula has fo much as ecclefiaftical authority. But upon what pretence can this be alledged, when there is not only an aft of aflembly enjoining it, cor- roborated by feveral other afts pafled fince that time, but all thefe adls univerfally fubmitted to through the •whole church, without ever a remonftrance againft them, and become now the conftant and daily prac- tice of the church, of fixty years continuance, and fo interwoven in our conftitution, that it is become in a manner effential to it. At the writing of your book, you, it feems, as well as others, had an imagination, (which now ap- pears to have been groundlefs), that there had been an informality in pafling the aQ: 1 7 1 1 . . Thofe who ^re ready to grafp at any thing to get rid of the For- mula, took it in their heads to affert, upon mere negative evidence of the printed ads only, and that above half a century after the tranfaclion, and with- out confulting the records, that the act in queftion had not been tranfmitted to prefbyteries, according to the barrier afts. And what is your conclufion from thefe falfe premiffes ? not merely that it ought to be repealed, but that any particular perfon, by his own private authority, may find it null and void, and a£b accordingly. Nay, if we are to follow you through all your confequences, you feem likewife to infer, that the alledged informality in pafling the a£t renders the unbelieving fubfcribers gf the Formula perfedly innocent. For my part, I could never be perfuaded, that the fa£t alledged, upon fuch flight grounds at this di- ftance, (though it had been true, as it is not), could bear fuch confequences as were drawn from it. In- deed there never was an aft againft which the want cf uiiiverfal confent could have been more unluckily objefted j^ Sed:. IV. Of general fubfcriptions* a 1 9 objeded ; I mean, for a long time after it was fully eftablifhed, and, I may fay, till very lately. By the Very nature of the thing, every prefbytery in Scot* land had frequent occafion, either to put it in prac* tice, or to remonftrate againfl it ; in licenfmg pro- bationers, in ordaining minifters, in their annual at- teftations of the members they fent to the aifembly* Conftant and invariable practice grows into a law, and commonly into the mod facred of all laws, even where it was never enabled with the ufual formalities* And yet this law, befides invariable practice, is to be found in our ftatute-books, frequently repeated and enforced; particularly by ad i6th, alfembly 1736, and in all the ads (of which there are feveral) that prefcribe the forms of commifTions to members of af- fembly, and the form of a licenfe to probationers. Nay, it has now for a long time been repeated an- nually. In the 6th ad of affembly 17 17, the com- mifTion of that aifembly is inflruded " to inquire how the tenth ad of the General Aifembly anno 1711, concerning probationers, and fettling minifters, with queftions to be propofed to, and engagements to be taken of them, are obferved/* This inftrudion has been annually repeated ever fince that time, in fome fuch words as thefe : " And the General Affembly renews the inftrudions given by the General Affem- bly 17 17 to their commiffion, and appoints the fame to ftand in full force, as inftrudions to the commif- fioners above named, and to be obferved by them in all points, as if the fame were fpecially herein infert- cd." This is a claufe annually renewed in the ad appointing the commiftion. Does not the univerfal acquiefcence of the whole church, the frequent repe- tition of it, and the conftant pradice of every pref- bytery in Scotland above half a century, fufficiently fupply the omiffion (if there had been an omiffion) of tranfmitting an overture which contained no fuch in- novation as would neceffarily bring it under the ap- pointment of the barrier ads ? Let any thing really E e 3 new 120 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV. new be pointed out, if it be not one fingle word, in- fended to guard againft difhonefly in eluding the de- fign of what was undoubtedly in force before, and I jfhall grant, that the not tranfmitting it as an overture would have been a more effential informality than I own it has always appeared to me. But now. Sir, all reafoning upon fuppofition of this informality, both on our fide and yours, is en- tirely fuperfeded. The records have been confulted ; and it appears, that the overture concerning the que- ftions and Formula, inftead of having never been tranfmitted at all, had really been, oftener than once, and had actually been under the confideration of prefbyteries for a courfe of fome years immediately preceding that of 171 1. In the regifter of that af- fembly which pafled the a6t, p. 258. on the 2ifl of May 1 7 1 1 , feff. 1 o. are thefe words : " Some over- tures containing queftions to be put to all probation- ers, and intrants to the holy miniftry, before they be licenfed to preach the gofpel, queftions to be put to miniflers at their ordination, and queftions to be put to miuifters who have been formerly ordained, at their admiffion to parifties ; and a formula to be fubfcribed by them, tranfmitted to prefbyteries in the larger overtures, and returned zuith their remarks there^ on^ received a firft reading, and were ordered to lie upon the table until the next federunt.'* Whether you are now dilpofed to yield this point, I know not, as your book was written before the re- .gifters were infpefted. But I find, by a letter in the Scots Magazine, that fome of you are ftill loath to give up this objeftion to the Formula, how much fo- ever the regifters have difconcerted them : A plain proof this of obftinate prejudice, which will not yield even to flubborn fafts. That writer indeed confeffes, that " he did not entertain any fufpicion of fuch an article's lurking in our ecclefiaftical archives, fince there is not the leaft hint in the printed afts that the quellions and Formula had ever been under the con- fideration Se£l. IV. Of general fubfcriptions. 221 fideration of prefbyteries before they were pafled into a law." But now that his imagination is clearly dif- covered to have been a miftake, owing to a forward prejudice, will he not give up the objection that was entirely founded upon that miftake ? No ; he is re- folved, it feems, at any rate, to find, or make fome informality in the pafling of this law. And his pre- tences are two ; one upon which he feems to lay no great ftrefs himfelf, and another which he calls deci- sive. The firft amounts to no more than this, that al- though he is forced to grant, that the overture con- cerning the queftions and Formula had been indeed tranfmitted, and had been feveral years under the confideration of prefbyteries, which he did not know before, yet they were not tranfmitted alone, but in company with others. As the author himfelf feems to be confcicus how little there is in this objedion, it is needlefs to take up time and paper in pointing out the weaknefs of it, and infifting upon what you your- felf cannot but be fenfible of, that all that is required in the barrier atls is only, that an overture muft be under the confideration of prefbyteries before it be pafTed into a ftanding law, without limiting the num- ber of other overtures that may be tranfmitted a- longft with it. Suppofe twenty overtures tranfmitted together, nineteen of then! rejeded by the majority of prefbyteries, and only one of them confented to, may not that one be paifcd into a law, without any prejudice to the barrier ads ? His other objedion, which appears to him to be quite decifive, (fuch is the ftrange force of prejudice !) is of a very odd complexion indeed. It is no lefs than an addition of his own to the barrier ads, or at lealt a very new and fmgular idea that he has formed of their meaning. He feems to think that an aftembly fhould firft tranfmit any new propofal that is made to them, in order to have the opinion of prefbyteries, whether it may be again tranfmitted as an 52i Slnfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV. an overture, to have a fecond confent to its being turned into a {landing law. He cannot get it denied, that the overture about the queftions and Formula, in fa6t, was tranfmitted. He fees that the number of other overtures tranfmitted therewith cannot nul- iify the confent given to it : but then, by a fort of metaphyfics, which I know not where he has learned, he diflinguifhes between the tranfmiflion of an over- ture as the deed of a private perfon, and the tranf- miflion of one as already exalted to the dignity, not indeed of an aft, but of an overture by the authority of the affembly. He allows to the Formula (feeing fome fort of tranfmiffion muft be granted) a tranfmif- fion of the firfl kind only, not of the fecond. He mufl be of a very barren genius indeed, who can trump up no pretence againfl a thing which would fpoil his whole plan, if admitted. And here we have a diftindion, which, I dare fay, was never heard of before. This is juft, Categorematice nego^ fVhit'- tledsgoreftice affirmo. Mod overtures, I believe, are drawn by fome par- ticular perfon. When they are laid before the affem- bly, that court mult either put a negative upon them, or approve of them fo far (if they be novations) as to tranfmit them to the confideration of prefoyteries. This tranfmiffion can be with no other view than to have their opinions returned, whether they approve or difapprove of their being turned into i landing ads. That the overtures, of which that about the Formula was one, were tranfmitted with this view, and for this purpofe, we have the exprefs tefrimony of the affembly itfelf in the year immediately before the fa- mous afl: was paffed. The overtures having been formerly tranfmitted, in the regiiler of that affembly, p. 135. " May 2. 1710. feff. 6. prefbyteries are ap- pointed to fend their opinion to the following affem- bly, that if the plurality of preibyteries do agree thereto, that affembly may enad thefe overtures to be perpetual Handing rules to this church." Thus, Seft. IV. Of general fubfcrlptions. ^2* Thus, Sir, you fee, that this evafion in which you have chofen to take refuge, is entirely without foun- dation in every refped. But now let us even fuppofe, that you had a better colour for it than you have, and let us fee what fort of fhelter it is capable of af- fording you from the imputation of diflionefty. Would it be any vindication of thofe who have al- ready complied with their (in their apprehenfion) ille- gal requifition ? Or even fuppofmg you could get the alteration brought about which you are contend- ing for, what better fituation would intrants be in for the future ? ^Why, if you could but get rid of the Formula 171 1, which, you fay, is a particular fubfcription, and therefore indefenfible, and given up as utterly inconfillent with honefly, you would have no fcruple, it feems, to fign that of 1694.. In order to judge what fort of falvo for honedy there is in this exchange, let us compare them together. The Formula 1694, in fo far as the profeiTion of prefent belief is concerned, runs in thefe terms., « I -___— do fmcerely own and declare the above Confeflion of Faith — to be the confeffion of my faith ; and that I own the doftrine therein contained, to be the true doftrine which I will conftantly adhere to,'* &c. And is this indeed a declaration which a Socinian can fmcerely and honeftly fubfcribe ? D. Sir, what fort of idea can you have of fmcerity ? For my part, if I could fmcerely declare as above, I cannot fee what I could bogle at in the Formula 1 71 1, There are, in fo far as the Confeffion of Faith is concerned, three additions which you complain of, p. 1 29. viz. the whole doftrine, — its being agreeable to the fcrip- ture, — and the promife of adherence. As to the two laft, he mull be a more fubtile me^ taphyfician than I am, who can honeftly fay, " Which I will conftantly adhere to,'* and yet has a fcruple to fay, " I fhall firmly and conftantly adhere to the fame," or who can fay, " It is the confeffion of my faith/* and yet is ftartlcd at faying, " It is agreeable to 224 Sinfulners of prcvaricat'ion. Part IV. to the fcripture,'* the only rule of faith. Thefe ob- jedlions are, furely, affefted, and ferve only to fwell the number. May I not, therefore, take it for granted, that the addition of the word whole is the only real objedion that flicks with you ? If it is, I would fain know how you can fign the Formula 1694, without having recourfe to the Je- fuitical doftrine of equivocation, and mental referva- tion ? Is it fair and honejfl to declare the above con- feffion to be the confeflion of your faith, ajid the doc- trine therein contained to be the true dodrine, while you mean only that a part of it is fo ? Do you not difcern the very fame abfurdity here that you have granted to be in Mr Ferguflbn's fenfe of fubfcription, when applied to the Formula 17 11 ? You have fair- ly yielded, that it is downright nonfenfe to fay, the Confeffion is agreeable to the fcripture, fo far as it is agreeable to it. And what elfe can you mean in fign- ing the Formula 1694, but that it is the true doftrine, fo far as it is the true doclrine, and the confeflion of your faith, fo far as it is the confeffion of your faith ? Do you really think it confiftent with Chriftian fmipli- city and godly fmcerity, to fay this in general of the Conteffion, while you are of opinion that many of its tenets have not a plaufible afped: of truth, p. 232. ; that they are the invafions of fuperilition and ignorance from which the genuine doftrines of Chriftianity ought to be afl'erted, p. 66. ; that it contains tenets that are manifeftly erroneous, p. 269. the fupporting of which is fupporting the caufe of Belial, p. 336. If one who regards it in this light can fincerely and ho- nelfly fign the Formula 1694, I mull: own that he and I have very different ideas of fincerity. When you declare that the dodrine of the Wefl- minfter Confeffion, is the doftrine which you will conftantly adhere to, and is the confeflion of your faith, (the very words which you plead for being fubflituted inftead of the Formula 171 1), do you mean only that there are fome propolitions in it that •2, you SeS:. IV. Of general fubfcriptions. 225 you believe to be true ? When we fpeak of any thing abfolutely, even without the addition of the word zvhole, does not every body underfland us as fpeaking of the whole, efpecially if there be neither words nor circumftances to limit our meaning to a part only ? Would the omiffion of the word whole falve the credit of a declarant upon any other fubjeft or occafion ? If you Ihould fay that the kingdom of Spain is lefs than that of Portugal, though you did not fay the -whole kingdom of Spain, would you think it a fufficient defence of fuch an aflertion, that you meant, not the whole, but only a part of Spain ? Suppofe you had borrowed lool, and given a neigh- bour your bill for that fum., would you have the con- fcicnce to fwear that this bill was paid, meaning that a part of it was paid, perhaps 70 or 80 1. or perhaps but 5 or 10 1. ? Can any body imagine that the parliament, or af- fembly, when they firil required a fubfcription to the Confefiion of Faith, did not mean the whole ? Do they not, in requiring it, refer to the a6l of parlia- ment 1690, whereby the Confefiion was ratified? and are not the whole chapters and articles inferted and ingrolfed into that a6t ? Nay, though this had not been done, are their v/ords, in the common ufe of language, capable of any other fenfe ? Can it be thought that they really intended to leave the fubfcri- bers at liberty to make a fecret choice in their own minds, what parts of it they adopted, and what not, without the lead infmuation above board that it was not the whole that they agreed to ? To be fenfible of this, let us only confider for what purpofe any fubfcription was at all required. Vv^as it, or could it be for any other end, but to be a teO: of the fubfcriber's fentiments in the controverted ar- ticles of relicrion, or to let his ooinion in thefe mat- ters be known ? If it was not to have this eifecl, it is extremely obvious, that it could have been to no manner of purpofe whatever to require it. To de- F f feat 9,26 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV, feat this end, is, in a manner, to repeal the a£t, or to fet it at fl^fiance. But how is it poiiible that this end could be obtained by your plan of what you call a general fubfcrlption ? If a fubfcriber is fuppofed, notwithltanding his fubfcrlption, to keep his mind to himfelf, his fentiments are not thereby difcovered up- on any one article, fince no body can infer from his fubfcrlption, what he believes, or what he does not believe ; fo that fubfcrlption, in your fenfe of it, muft needs be reduced to an abfolutely ufclefs thing, that cannot pofTibly ferve any purpofe whatever ; and can you pretend that this is what either the parliament, or the aifembly 1694 meant ? Upon the whole, I think I may juflly conclude, that if the act of aifembly 171 1 were actually repealed, you would only be out of the thorns among the briars, and that a Socinian can, with juft as little ho- nefty fign the earliefl as the lateft of the two Formu- las, how fond fo ever you feem to be of the ex- change. As for any other pretence you make ufe of in fa- vour of this odd fort of crotchet you have got in your head, to- excufe downright falfehood, which you call a general fubfcrlption, i. e. fuch as does not difcover your opinion upon any one article, and entirely e- ludes the delign of requiring it, I need only mention them to expofe them. Who, for example, that did not labour under the mod deplorable penury of argu- ment, would have thought of fetching one for elu- ding the defign of both church and flate, from the parliament's faying, that the Weftminfter ConfelTion contained the fum and fubftance of the dodrine of the Pveformed churches? as you do, p. 112. Sup- pofe they had required as a tefl, a fubfcrlption of the apoilles creed, and given this reafon for it, that it con- tained the fum and fiibflance of the Chriflian religion, would any body have inferred from thence, that all they required was fuch a fubfcription as did not imply an explicit alfent of the fubfcriber to any one article ? Of 6e£t. IV. Of general fubfcriptions. 227 Of the fame nature Is another pretence we meet with hi the fame page, of which we have, in another page, a dlreft, and indeed unanfwerable confutation by yourfelf, when you had forgotten, it feems, your own argument for this ekifory general fubfcription which you are fo fond of. To give fonie colour to it, you alledge, that the defign of the parliament in re- quiring a fubfcription of the confefiion of Faith, was not to guard againft Pelagian, Socinian, Sec. errors in dodrine, (the purpofe they had obvioufly in view), but only to guard againfl the external conftitution of fome other churches, 'in worfliip, difcipline, and go- vernment." " There is not (you fay) the fmalleft appearance of jts being meant to extend to minute doctrinal diftindions. The vifible intention of it is to diftinguifh and fecure our church as a Preibyterian Proteftant eftabliihment.'* That the parliament did intend to diflinguifh us-, in refpeft of worfhip, difcipline, and government, from the church of England, and the church of Rome, is very true ; and they contrived proper tefts for this purpofe likewife. But how you came to con- found this with their concern for purity of doctrine, (a quite different objeQ), is not fo very obvious. They had indeed a concern for both, and appointed proper tefts for each particular purpofe. They them- felves do plainly diftinguifh the one from the other, as different objects of their care, by the words, as ai/u, in pafTmg from the one to the other. A fubfcription of doctrinal articles was a proper mean tor prefer- ving purity of do6trine, and particularly for guard- ing againfl thofe who look upon the moft important articles of the Chriftian religion as inconfiderable trifles, who regard fuch queftions, as. Whether the object of our worfhip be God, or a mere creature ? whether man be in a fallen ftatc, needing falvation ? &c. as but minute doctrinal diftinctions. But that it would have been a very inadequate mean for the purpofe you here affign to it, is moft exprefsly at- F f 2 firmed iiS Sinfulncfs of prevarication. Part IV, firmed by yourfelf : and indeed I cannot confute thi$ pretence of yours in flronger terms than your own, p.. 1 63. where you fay, " It is a fad that this is not the means by which they are diftinguiflied. All the confeffions of the different Reformed churches con- tain effentially the fame fyflem of dodrines ; and you could not, by comparing the thirty-nine articles with the Weftminfler Confeffion, be able, fo far as the doftrine is concerned, to diftinguifli the church of England from the church of Scotland.*' Are you not fenfible, Sir, that all the pretences you have fet up in favour of what you call a general fubfcription, as an excufe for a formal and folemn lie, are extremely forced and unnatural, and what you muft be confcious, upon refledion, have really no- thing in them, being fometimes confuted, even by yourfelf accidentally, when you have any thing elfc in view. SECT. V, Other three excufes conftdered ; —'ihat there is no deception in his fenje of fubfcription ; — that it is in the fenfe of the ?nctjority of ninft prefhy^ teries ; — and that it is but a mere piece of for" mality, A Second excufe you make for the falfehood of declaring your belief of what, you own, you do not believe, is, that that there is no deception in the matter. " Diflimulation (you fay, p. 148.) is a relative word : it fuppofes two parties, a deceiver^ and a party deceived.'* And, p. 245. " I fay that neither of the parties is deceived. Where no body js deceived, there is no deception : where there is no deception, there is no diflimulation.'* — — Now here. Sir, as in other inflances, I mull deny both the fad upon Se£t. V. Other three cxcufes. 22^ upon which your argument is founded, and likewifc the inference that you draw from it. As for the fa£t upon which you found your argu- ment, viz. that no body is deceived by your fubfcrip- tions, it is (o manifeftly falfe, that if any thing could aftonifli me now, I would be not a little furprifed to find any body who durft infmuate any fuch thing ; how much more to fee it alTerted in fo confident and pofitive a manner. Intrants into the m/miflry, have to do both with the prefbytery that ordains or licences them, and with the Chriftian people, who are to partake of their mi- niftrations. Are none of thefe ever deceived, who are witneffes of the profefTion made by a candidate of his being of the fame religion which is eftabliilied a- mong us, if he really be of another, totally and effen- tially different from it, if, notwithflanding his public profeflion, he thinks that fupporting it is fupporting' the caufe of Belial ? Do you really think that there are none concerned who are not fufficiently apprifed, that the man whom they have feen or heard give a folemn aflent to the do£lrines of this church, is one who looks upon them as the invafions of ignorance and fuperflition, that are really worthy of cenfurc, and have not fo much as a plaufible afpecl of truth ? I can anfwer for myfelf at leaft. Nor can I ima- gine how you durft venture to anfwer for me, when you took upon you to affirm, that 720 body is decei- ved. I am a member of a pretty numerous prefby- tery, and have afted a part in licenfmg and ordaining a great many ; and however you may be difpofed to laugh at my fimplicity, I am not afhamed to own, that it is but a very few years fince I durft entertain any doubt of the fmcerity of my brethren in the pro- feflions which I have feen and heard them make upon thefe occafions. I cannot help thinking that my own teftimony may be allowed to go as far as yours con- cerning what paiTes within my own breaft. "What- ever reafon I may have had of iate, to fufpe*^ one or two ■1^0 Slnfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV. two perhaps, this does not intitle me to "^extend my fufpicions beyond the grounds that are adually gi- ven. That I am not fmgular in this charitable difpofition, rnuft be admitted by all who attend to the paflages I have already quoted in the firft fedlion from Profeflbr Dunlop's preface to a collection of confeffions ; and it is not very many years ago fmce your hero Mr Fer- guflbn was of the fame opinion, when he adduced our figning the ConfefTion as a proof of the orthodoxy of the clergy on the eil"ablifhment, againfl: the Seceders, who are apt to entertain the fame jealoufy of them that you indulge yourfelf in. I hope you will not ac- cufe your deceafed friend of diffimulation here, but add him to the number of thofc who have been de- ceived. I had occafion to mention this, and quoted his words in the letter to which you have replied. But you have not thought fit to take the leail notice of that paffage. Surely, Sir, if your opinion of the doctrines of this church be indeed as univerfally re- ceived among our brethren as you fuppofe, I, and many other members of prefbyteries, muft have been often very egregioufly deceived by the fcenes of hy- pocricy that have been adted before our faces. But, Sir, though every member of every prefby- tery in Scotland fliould be allowed to be in the fecret, as well as you and a few more, are there none re- maining to be deceived ? Indeed you fometimes fpeak of the clergy, as if they only were the Chri- ftian fociety. You cannot, however, be ignorant, that a candidate is obliged, not only to fubfcribe the Confeffion at the prelbytery-table, but likewife, when he is ordained, for the fatisfaftion of the people, pu- blicly and folerrtnly to declare his alTent to the doc- trines of our religion in the face of the congregation affembled for public worlhip. Will you really pretend to fay, that it is no concern of theirs whether their minifter be of their religion or not ? and do you real- ly think that there is not one among them all who does Sed. V. Other three excufes. 131 does not know, that the profeffion he has jufl: made before their eyes, is but a hypocritical farce, that he is an enemy in his heart to the dodrines he has affent- cd to with his mouth, or by the bowing of his head ? that he looks upon them as nonfenfe, and what ought to be cenfured and forfaken ? D. Sir, what could have put it in your head, what could induce you to fay, that no body was deceived, if things be really in the ftate you have reprefented ? You not only found your argument upon an un- doubted falfehood ; you likewife draw from that falfe- hood an unjuft inference. I could grant your ante- cedent, and^et deny your confequence. Allowing that every body knew the falfehood of your profef- fions, and that, in fad, no body was deceived, would this be fufficient to fave you from the guilt of dilTimulation ? — I know you have iffued from the dictatorial ch:iir, of which you have prefumed to take polfeflion, a fort of authoritative mandate againft any diflinftion between deception and dilTimulation, in thefe magifterial words : " Now, in the anfwer that is to be written to this, let us have no fchool-dillinc- tions introduced here, — I mean between the words deception and dijjimulation" p. 247. 1 fee you have been apprehenfive of this diflinclion. But pray. Sir, by what authority do you prefcribe rules of logic that were never before heard of ? If there be a real difference between diffnnulation on the one hand, and deception on the other, who can deprive me of the right which that difference gives me to make ufe of the diflindion ? Do you think that fuccefs in fin is neceffary to con- ftitute the guik of it ? One may certainly contrad the guilt of injuring his neighbour, even when, in the iffue of things, no injury is adually fuffered. If a thief were deteded in picking his neighbour's poc- ket, and thereby the lofs ffiould be prevented which otherwife might have been fuftained, would not the thief be really guiky of diihonefty in the fight of God ? 43 i Sinfulncfs of prevarication. Part IV. God ? ay, and in the fight of men too. To attempt the commifTion of murder, is, furely, a breach of the fixth command, though the attempt fliould proVe unfuccefsful. In like manner, whoever fays any thing that is calculated for deceiving, is guilty, on his part, of diffimulation, whatever effcft it may actual- ly have, and though, in fad, no body fhould be de- ceived. Suppofe a notorious liar, fo well known in that character, and fo often .deteded, that no body gave any credit to him, are not his lies the fame of- fence againfl truth, and the fame breach of the mo- ral law, after his credit is loft, as they were before ? I have heard of a practice, that I have been told fome time prevailed among fliipmafters. To fave the additional duty upon French wines, it is faid, they fell upon the following contrivance to quiet their con- fciences in the commifFion of a grofs fraud. They firft agreed among themfelves to give the name of Bilboci in Spah2 to fome part of Bourdeaux, and then, in entering the fhip, they had no fcruple for- footh to fwear, that ihe came from Bilboa in Spain. The cuftomhoufe-officers, and all concerned, knew very v/ell that the cargo was French wine. A cuftom- houfe-oath became a proverb, for an oath of no cre- dit. The very perfons who gave the oath, and the merchants by whom they were employed, would have been highly difappointed, had people been really de- ceived, and actually taken the cargo for Spanifh wine. And is this, Sir, in your opinion, a fufScient vindica- tion of fo bafe and diflioneft a practice ? or would you chufe to have your fubfcriptions ranked in the fame category with a cuPcomhoufc-oath, becaufe no body is deceived ? Suppofe a notorious Jacobite, who ftill continues to maintain his old principles, fhould take the oath of abjuration, every body knows, that in fo doing, he is violating the dictates of his confcience, from no other motive, but that it is neceifary to qualify him for fome place of. profit, the want of which would be 2 inconvenient Sed. V. Other three excufes. ^33 ihconvenient for him. Every body knows his mean- ing. The matter is perf'edly well uhderflood on all hands. Is all, therefore, perfectly fair, and no diffimulation or diflionelly in the whole tranfaclion ? Indeed, according to your ethics, a well-known knight of the po//, who will fwear to any thing he is paid for, (though a mod detellable peit of fociety), is ten times more innocent than one who was never guilty of perjury but Once, and therefore did aftually deceive every body. Are thefe fuch principles, Sir, as deferve to pafs current in fociety ? Befides all this, do you never confider yourfclves as having God to do with ^ He cannot indeed be deceived. But is he therefore an unconcerned fpec- tator of the grofs diffimulation and hypocrify that is fo avowedly afted in his prefence ? What can approach tiearer to the folemnity of an oath, than for one to ftand up in the midft of ah affembly met for his im- rhediate worfliip and fervice, and there, before hirri in whofe name the congregation is aifembled, to de- clare in a folemn manner, his belief of, and attach- ment to, doftrines which God knows are regarded by the falfe diflembler 2i?,foolij}mefs and a Jii.anb ling- block f Can the God of truth, think you, be pleafed "with filch a fcene, or beftow his acceptance upon fuch ian a6lioil ? There is a third pretence you have fet up to excufe acknowledged falfehood, in p. 95. and 96. You ob- fbtve. That " in fubfcribing any deed whatever, the fubfcriber fubfcribes it in the fenfe of thofe who re- quire the fubfcription." You fuppofc that it is the prefbytery who require the fubfcription, and add, " Now, I v/ill engage to fubfcribe the Confeffion in the fenfe of the majority of moft preibyteries in Scot- land at prefent ; and I will engage, that thii fenfe fhall not be far different from Mr A. B.'s." To this you fubjoin, " I declare I am not conlcious of iiaving ufed atiy fophiflry in the above argument. It appears plain to me, and convincing. However, I am quite do- G jr cible^ -234 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV* cible, and fhall reckon myfelf obliged to any perfon who will fliew me where it is defeftive, — always pro- vided he employs decent language." Decent language, Sir, is a debt every writer owe& to himfelf and to the public, as well as to his anta- gonift. He who ufes indecent language, fuffers more by it himfelf than any body elfe ; as it difcovers not only his want of temper, but want of argument. For I have often obferved, that a controverfial writer is never more apt to lofe his temper, than when he is reduced to any diftrefs in his argument. I take it for granted, that few who have fair and clear reafon- ing to trufl to, will chufe to have recourfe to fcold- ing. What I mean by fcolding is, when perfons or things are only called ill names, without fufficient proof that they deferve them. But I hope you will not reckon it any breach of decency, to call things one cannot avoid fpeaking of by their proper names. For example, if a man's lying with his neighbour^ wife be the unavoidable fubiedl of difcourfe, how can it be treated of, without uling the term adultery f And how can I call the folemn affeveration of an ac- knowledged untruth by any other name than falfe- hood, or a lie ? efpecially when I have proved that it is fo in a criminal fenfe. Nor, if a man feems infen- fible of any thing that is wrong in his own condudt, do I think it indecent to attempt his convidion by folid argument. 4-S to your reafoning above recited, I am glad to find you in a docible difpofition ; quite docible, you fay. If fo, I hope you have no objection to fitting at the feet of your friend the kite Dr Hutchefon. See what he taught his pupils ex cathedra, " In oaths required by law, we muft fvvear in the fenfe of the legiflator, or decline them altogether. No deputy- magiftrate, or court, has the power of explaining them." Syft. of Mor. Phil. b. 2. ch. 11. I aifure you. Sir, that you cannot be a greater e- nemy than I am to laying an undue ftrefs upon mere human authoritv. And therefore all the effe<^ which I SeG:. V. Other three excufes. 235 I hope for from this authority that is fo clear againft you, is only to leflen your confidence in the flrength of this argument, which appears to you fo plain and convincing. But let us examine the fteps by which you arrived at your conclufion ; and if you will but attend to the principle upon which you found your argument, Dr Hutchefon's opinion mufl: certainly be your own too. The fubfcriptlon, you fay, mud be in the fenfe of thofe who require it. I am glad to find you for once laying down a right principle as the foundation of your argument. And I defire you only to flick to it, and follow it through its genuine confequences. Now, by whom is it required ? Is it not required by law ? by adls of parliainent and aflembly ? It is the par- liament and aflembly then that require it ; not the preibytery on whofe table the book is laid, and by whom the queftions are put. They are but the ex- ecutors of the law, and ad: the part of officers or fer- vants to the parliament and aflembly. Tou^ particu- larly, need no argument to fatisfy you of this. You feem to be perfuaded, that if it had been left to them, fome of them at leafl: never would require it. Their part in the affair is merely inffirumental or minifl:erial. If I ffiould fend my fervant with a difcharge in his hand, to demand payment of a debt, is it he, or I, from whom the requifition properly comes ? Or, does my employing him as an infl:rument impower him to compound with the debtor, without any commifllon from me for that purpofe, or to give up the difcharge without payment of the debt ? Suppofe a Jacobite fhould apply to a magiftrate of his own fentiments to adminifter the oath of abjuration to him, would the concurrence of a Jacobite magiff:rate's opinion with his own, legitimate a fenfe of the oath, inconfiftent with that of the legifiature, and with the plain mean- ing of the words ? An impartial byfl:ander cannot eafily imagine what fort of reafoning will pafs current with one who is mterefted and prejudiced. There is no arriving at G g 2 prelbyteries 2^6. Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV, prejfbyteries as the requirers of fubfcription, as long as both parliament and aflembly ftand in your way. But how to deprive them of this office is the difficul- ty. As for the firft, you difpatch it in a word. You alfume it as a maxim not to be difputed, That " it is the church which requires the fubfcription.** And fo you have no more to <\o with the parliament. All the art here lies in the manner of expreflion. Had you faid the fame thing thus, " The church requires the fubfcription," this would not have ferved your purpofe. It is very trne that the church requires it, • — and the flate too. There is no inconfiftency here. It is required by both church and flate. By this the requihtlon of parliament is not excluded. But to ex- prefs it as you have done, " It is the church which require,^ the fubfcription," looks fomething like what you havfe not ventured to fay plainly, though it is what alone can ferve the purpofe of your argument, vis. that it is the church Ou'ly which makes the requi- fition. And fo, taking this for granted, you proceed as if the civil requifition was quite out of the que- fiion. Your words are cunningly contrived, and fliow you not to be unacquainted with the arts of fophi- ixYj. For though they contain a truth, it is expreff- ed in fuch a manner, that an inattentive reader may. be taken, in, and have a fenfe flipped upon him be- fore ever he is aware, that feems to favour your ar^ gument. Indeed I am not furprifed that you have not been more explicit in rejecting the authority of parliament in this matter. The wonder is, how any neceiiity could have drawn from you the ieafl infi- nuaticn, as il ihe ecclefiaftical requifition was the 072ly one to be regarded, as it is the civil requifition oiily that you think yourfelf under any obligation to com- ply v/ith. You tell us elfe where, that the moment the ehurch/s regulations are extended beyond tkofe of the flate, they ceafe to be binding ; and that " the Formula of 1694, which is founded upon the a<^ of parliament 1693, '"-iit^ ii^ every refped:, except in one article. Scft. V, Other three excufes. ^■^^ article, a faithful copy of it, confidered with refped to its contents, is ftridly legal ; and except in that article where the religious exceeds the civil requifi- tion^ is undoubtedly binding upon this church,'* p. 131. Here, inftead of its being only the church that requires the fubfcription, which is what you mtift mean, to make any advantage of it in your prcfent argument ; on the contrary, it is the civil re-? quifition only that is binding upon this church.. Well, but (as it is convenient for you now to have it fo) let this general point be admitted, that it is the church, and only the church, that requires the fub-^ fcription. You have not yet got the requifition brought down to a prejODytery. There is a fuperior power in the church that remains to be excluded. It is natural to take the requifition as coming from the eccleliaflical legiflature, by whofe authority the fub- fcription undoubtedly was impofed, in fo far as " it is the church which requires the fubfcription." In or- der to eifed this exclufion, you have fallen upon a very new and fmgular argument. I dare fay, you may claim and enjoy the unrivaled honour of the in- vention. It is this : " The primitive compofers and eftabhfhers of our Confeffion are dead. Their re- prefentation ended with their lives," p, 95.- ■ And did the authority of all their a6ts die with them ? or only of this one ? Is there any thing peculiar to this that diftinguifhes it from others ? Or do you adopt it for a general dcdrine, that every aQ: of parliament and aflembly, though ftanding unrepealed by any fubfequent one, is null and void, as Ibon as all the members of that meeting in which it was pafTed are dead? or when a majority, or when any of theni are dead? The doftrine is fo new, that it is no wonder if it needs a little explanation. Ycu yourfelf have plainly betrayed a fenfe of the infufficiency of this argument, by not applying it to the parliament likewife, where you had fo much need of it. In order to bring the requifition down to a prefbytery^ 238 Sinfulnefs of prevarication* Part IV. prefbytery, you know you had the requifition of the parliament to rid your hands of in the firft place. The pretence you have had recourfe to for fetting at nought the authority of the aflembly in this matter is at lead equally applicable to the parliament ; and yet, confcious, it feems, that no lawyer would admit it there, rather than make any ufe of it againft the au- thority of parliament, you have chofen to contradict yourfelf, by imputing the whole authority of the re- quifition to the church alone, and excluding altoge- ther the civil requifition which alone we are elfewhere told, *' is undoubtedly binding upon this church." And do you, really, upon a review, perceive no fophiflry in any (may I not fay, in every) ftep of this demonftration ? I cannot JKelp thinking it fomewhat unlucky, that you Ihould fo often fail, not only in your logic, but likewife in the fafts upon which you found your rea- foning. Though your argument had been more plau- fible than it is, where is the evidence of that aifcrtion upon which it is founded ? You know, there can be no more flrength in the conclufion, than there is in the weakeft of the prertiilfes. But how does it ap- pear, that the fentiments of the majority of mofl: prefbyteries in Scotland, are conformable to Mr A. B/s ? If this fad be inevident, the whole argu- ment mufl: fall to the ground. It is a fa<3: of that na- ture, els renders it inadmiffible without the clearefl and ftrongeft proof. And what is all the evidence we have for it ? No more than your engagement. Do you pretend to fupport it by any other proof, but " I will engage that it is fo.*' And pray. Sir, what fort of evidence is the bare engagement of an inter- eded perfon for a fadl which it is impoffible for him to know, and which is denied by them who are concern- ed, in the mofl formal and folemn manner ? I fhall only add further upon this argument, that ■whatever you allow to a prefbytery, though you fliould call it a reprefentative of the whole church of Scotland, Seel. V. Other three excufcs. ^3^ Scotland, which it is in this matter no more than a meffenger is the reprefentative of a judge whofe de- creet he is charged with the execution of; you, fure- ly, cannot allow them a power to repeal, or even to fufpend the afts of the legiflature. But your fenfe of fubfcription, were it to be admitted, would be, in effed, a repealing the ad altogether, or fetting it en- tirely at nought. Your fenfe is really no fenfe. It does not ferve to difcover what your fentiments arc upon any one article of religion ; and if it does not ferve this purpofe, it ferves" no purpofe at all. The legiflature, civil or ecclefiaflic, could have no other end in requiring fubfcription, but to be a teft of a man's principles. He that makes it no tefl, does in- deed moft effedlually abrogate the law which requires it. To vefl fuch a power in a prefbytery, is utterly inconfiftent with every idea of our conftitution. Pref- byteries invefted with fuch a power, inftead of being thofe who require the fubfcription, would, in reality, be thofe who difpenfe with the fubfcription, who make it entirely ufelefs and infignificant j and then fee how your argument flands. The laft excufe you make to palliate the falfehood you have undertaken to vindicate and recommend, is of fuch a nature, that I will not fo far abufe the pa- tience, or affront the underftanding and the morals of the reader, as to fuppofe that it needs any anfwer. It is no lefs than an affirmation, (for proving a thing which you know is not yielded, is a piece of drudge- ry you feldom fubmit to, while you can fupply its place by a bold and confident affertion), that when the folemn profeffion of believing what we do not believe* is required as the condition of an office, it may be re- garded as but one of the infignificant ceremonies of admiffion, a mere piece of formality, which no body ought to have any fcruple to comply with. And is it indeed at laft come to this with us ? That in a church profeffing reformed Chriftianity, or even in a fociety pretending to the leaft degree of civiliza- tion. 44^ Sinfulnefs of prevarication. ParttV. tion, fuch doftrlne fhould be openly maintained, I wifh I could not fay, hearkened to and relifhed ? See the blefl'ed effe£l of the relaxation of our difcipline ! Within the compafs of this very century, the filent whifpering of it would have expofed one to the detef- tation of every member of this church. But indeed we v/ere not then arrived at the liberal fentiments which the funfliine of 1769 has brought to light. Upon your plan, it would be perfedlly confiftent with truth and honefty, if the places of the moft im- portant truft under a Proteftant government were fill- ed with the moft avowed Jacobites, and that by men of unblemifhed characters tooj though there were five hundred tefts invented to keep them out. In- deed what fhould hinder the cuftoms and the excife to be every day defrauded of the things that are Ca:^- fars, were fuch doftrirte to have an univerfal curren- cy ? But it is extremely obvious, that there would be no fuch thing as any forms of that fort, if they were univerfally regarded in the fame light. The ufe of them, by almolt every government, is an evidence that the general fenfe of mankind upon this fubje6l is very diuerent from yours. If it were not fo, what would become of that trull and confidence in the pu- blic folemnities of afleveration which is the band of human fociety ? Your converfation. Sir, as well as your readiiig, and every mean of intelligence, feems to have been fo entirely confined within the narrow circle of your own party, where, perhaps, this doiStrine pafTes un- contradi(5led, that you have taken it for granted, and have not given me the trouble of refuting one argu- ment brouglit in fupport of it. As for others that are without that circle, the very mention of fuch pernicious dodlrine, without the leaft pretence of any reafoning to recommend it, will, I prefume, be enough to explode it ; and I doubt not it will be regarded as a dead weight upon any caufe that needs fuch a fup- port. The only thing I am concerned for wiU^ regard I to Se£t. V. Other three excufcs. o^.r to fuch readers into whofe hands this may fall, who have not feen your book, is, left they fliould impute to me a mifreprefentation of your meaning, and doubt if I be really doing you jullice. I fiiall therefore, for their fatisfaclion, and to fhow what fort of morality is taught by you who call yourfelves moral preachers, refer any who want fatisfaclion in this matter to your own book, p. 243. — 251. It would be tedious to tranfcribe the whole. The following fpecimens may fuffice. You tell us, " The fociety confiders it [the teft] ^s ^ mere matter of form, and the no*-ice paid it is regarded in no other light than as a compliment paid to the government.'* Again, " There is only one little ceremony, which cullom and our wife forefathers have entailed upon us, to be previoufly complied with. It is a matter of mere form. The teft is prefented to him in this light. They underftand him^ and he underftands them. The parties are in perfeQ: intelligence upon the point. The candidate fets his name to it with- out he/itation, perhaps without fo much as giving himfelf the trouble to examine its contents. And this is the hiftory of tefts." And a httle after, " The argument arifmg from the wdiole, and which feems to put the innoce72ce of this tranfadion beyond doubt, is this. Matters are now in fuch a fituation, that it would be pofitively criminal in either party to a6t differently. If the religious fentiments of the candidate be really the fame with theirs, the members of the fociety cannot, without guilt, refufe him, whe- ther his opinions are the fame with thofe of the Con- feffion or not. On the other hand, it would be high- ly criminal in the candidate, and what he could not anfwer to his own confcience, were he to refufe com- pliance with this ceremony, in cafe it fhould be in- fifted on. It would be incapacitating himfelf to be ufeful, becaufe his forefathers were unreafonable." I fhall add only one paffage more. "^^ When it was aflferted, that no body ough': to fubfcribe the Confef-* fion, but in fo far as it is agreeable to ihe fcriptures, H h it 54'i Slnfulnefs of prevancation. Part IV. it was loudly urged in oppofition, that, with this qualification, we might fubfcribe the Turkifh Coran, The anfwcr we now give is, and fo we may : — ^The fociety cannot in conicience refufe to admit a candi-» date, though there fhould be 500 tefts in his way, and all of them unrepealed, if he poiiefles the requi- fjte qualifications." If there are any readers who are not (hocked at the bare recital of fuch doftrine, I take their prejudice to be too deeply rooted to be removed by any reafon-f ing. Allow me only, D. Sir, to alk you, upon this occafion, a queflion or two. How can you re* concile all this with the earneftnefs and zeal you ex- prefs to get a little, and indeed but a very little, al- teration made in this " little ceremony," this mere piece of infignificant form? If the Formula 171 1, and 500 fuch tefts ; if even the fublcription of the Coran be a " tranfaclion, the innocence of which is beyond doubt ;" v/hy fuch concern for fo fmall an al-. teration as the Formula 1 694 would be ? what occar. fion for refleding on the calloufnefs of your friends who feem not to be fo fenfible as you fometimes are, of the impropriety ? which you allow it yourfelf, up- on other occanons, to be. And pray. Sir, is it no fign of a bad caufe, think you, \vhen the defence of it obliges you to have re- courfe to fuch wretched excufes, and untenible ar- guments as thofe we have had under confideration ? or, when it cannot be maintained without trampling upon the moli: eilential obligations of morality ? SECT, VI. That it is a fin of a very heinous nature^ including many other fins^ and attended xvith very great aggiciociiions. HAving thus fhown that your profeiTmg your be-. lief of doftrines which, you own, you do not believe, but hpl4 in tlie l^ilt degree of contempt, is ^ great Se£l. VL A very heinous fin. 243 great fin, being a downright lie, a grofs difiimulation before God and men ; and having pointed out the manifeft futility of thofe excufcs, whereby you have attempted to palliate, and even to vindicate fo finful a practice, I might let the matter refl: here, and re- fer it to the confciences of all concerned. But as this. Sir, is the precife quefiion between you and me, (whatever inclination to evac|e it, and to flinch from it, you cannot conceal, even in the book you have written on this very fubjedl), and as it is a fubjeft of the utmoft importance to this church, and to the in- dividuals concerned, I mu(i: beg a little further in- dulgence to attempt your conviftion, and to fliow you, not only that it is a fin, but that it is a fin of a very heinous nature, accompanied with very, great aggravations. Any one who confiders how difficult it is to overcome a prejudice arifing from worldly in- terefl, (the obvious fource of your error), will ex- cufe me for beftowing a little more labour upon a point of fo capital a nature ; efpecially as it is fo fre- quently treated in a light and ludicrous manner, very unfuitabiy to the real and deep importance of the que- liion. In order to convince you of this, 1 mufl obferve,, in the firfl place, that the practice which you mairr-* tain to be innocent, nay a duty which it would be criminal to omit, is a manifeft and dired difobedience to the exprefs commands of our Saviour and his a- poftles concerning the profefl^ion of the truth. This argument proceeds upon the fuppofiticn, (which you, furely, will not call in queftion), that you re* gard your own tenets as truths. And it is certain, that, whether they be fo or no, if you regard them as fuch, you are guilty of difobedience to Chrift, if you deny or difavow them upon any occanon. I muft likewife put you in mind, as a foundation of this argument, that you have admitted fuch a dif- ference between your do£trines and the dodrines of this churchj as really makes them quite different re- H h a ~ ligions, lAA Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Fart IV. ligions, totally and eflentially inconfiftent with one another. You have exprefsly afferted that the laft, inftead of being the true dodrines of the gofpel, are the invafions of ignorance and fuperflition, without fo much as a plaufible afpeft of truth, from which the genuine doctrines of Chriflianity ought to be af- ferted ; and that to fupport them, is fupporting the caufe of Belial. Now, of thofe two religions, let us fuppofe yours to be the right one, as it certainly is in your opinion ; and then let us fee what are the obligations that Chrift has bound you to with refpedt to the external profeffion of it. For this purpofe, I propofe to your confideration the fallowing paflages of fcripture : Matth. X. 32. 33. " Whofoever therefore will confefs '* me before men, him will I confefs alfo before my " Father which is in heaven. But whofoever fhall " deny me before men, him will I alfo deny before " my Father which is in heaven." Luke ix. 26. *' Whofoever ftall be afliamed of me, and of my *' words, of him fhall the Son of man be afhamed, " when he fhall come in his own glory, and in his " Father's, and of the holy angds." So likewife Mark viii. 38. ; Lukexii. 8. 9. The Apolfle Peter requires us to *' be ready always to give an anfwcr to every " man that afl;eth us a reafon of the hope that is in *' us," 1 Pet. iii. 15. And the Apoftle Paul affures us, that not only an inward belief in the heart, but an outward confeflicn with the mouth of gofpel-truth, is indifpenfably required of us in order to falvation : '' For with the heart man believeth unto righteouf- " nefs, and with the mouth confellion is made unto " falvation," Rom. x. 10. From thefe paflages you fee, that our duty, with re- fped to an outward profeffion of the truth, confifls of two branches. The firft is contained in an exprefs pro- hibition, which, like other negative precepts, is binding at all times. We muft never, upon any occafion, deny the Seft. VI. A very heinous fin. 345 the truth, or diffemble our belief of it. The other is pofitive, and binds us only upon particular occafions. Whenever we are in providence called to it, we are obliged to make an open and avowed profeffion of the truth. Now both thefe branches of plain duty are entirely fet at nought by your dodtrine upon this fubjeft, as well as by your pradice. There cannot be a more proper opportunity of confeffing the truth than when called to it before a court of judicature, and in the midfl of an aifembly met for the public worfhip of God. But what do you do upon fuch an occafion, according to your own account of the matter ? Far be it from me to accufe you upon bare fufpicion. Out of your own mouth I judge you. It is yourfelf who have informed us, that inftead of confeffing what appears to you to be the truth, you folemnly re- nounce and deny it, and profefs your belief of, and adherence to, what you take to be fuch grofs and pernicious errors as, in your opinion, loudly call for a fpeedy reformation. — — Is this. Sir, agreeable to what our Saviour exprefsly requires of us ? On the contrary, is it not diredly contradictory to his mjunc- tions, and an involving yourfelves in the complicated guilt of a great many heinous fins ? — — — I Ihall point out fome of them. The lirft is lying. This is fo plain, that it cannot be denied without additional falfehood. But having already difcufled this point, I fhall not infifl any far- ther upon it. Another fin, the guilt of which you contraQ: by the practice you think fo innocent, and the omillion whereof, you fay, would be criminal, is no lefs than a mod outrageous infult upon God himfelf. It is no lefs than telling him, as it were to his face, in the words of the Apoille John, that he is a liar. This is indeed a very deep accufation. But after what you have acknowledged, how is it poffible for you to deny it with any plaufible appearance of truth ? The te- nets 24^ Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV. nets which you renounce upon that occafion are, in your appreheniion, the truths of God, which he has revealed to us by his Holy Spirit. In this very view of them, you do, in the prefence of God, in a fo* lemn afi'embly for his worlliip, and when called up before him, declare them to be falfe and pernicious errors. And, on the other hand, you affirm of other tenets which you think are condemned and denied by him, and which appear fo you to be manifefl ab- furdities, that they are founded on, and agreeable to, the word of God. Can you imagine a more outrage- ous infult, or a more dired giving him the lie to his face ? -Again, if your opinions are the truths of God, (as you think they are), what a grievous injury do you commit againfl the truth itfelf, by abjuring and re- nouncing it in fo public and folemn a manner? Truth, Sir, is a precious treafure. It is our honour that the guardianfhip of it is committed to us. Who- ever are duly fenfibie of this, will be very careful not to betray fo important a trufl. They will treat it fuitably to its dignity, its ufefulnefs, and neceffity. And is it not truth, in your opinion, which you allow and even require to be fmothered and fdfled, to be denied and difavowed ? What is the pradlice you have undertaken the defence of, but a concealing, a diflembhng your fentiments of it, as if you were a- fhamed of them, or afraid to avow them openly ? Is this doing that honour or juftice to truth which it deferves ? Accordingly our Saviour calls it a being afihimcd of hwi and of his words ; a treatment which the God of truth cannot but refent. It muil likewife undoubtedly, in your ov/n views of things, be li flagrant injury to your neighbour^ You can fcarcvdy do him a more irreparable preju- dice. In proportion to the ineilimable value of truth, fo muft be the hurt you do him, in your ovm eitima- tion, by the praQice you infill on. If his creed be, in your opinion, erroneous, and the " invafion of ignorance Se£l. VI. ' A very heinous fm. 247 ij^norance and fuperftition," you confirm him in it, bv iblemnly declaring it to be the confeiiion of your own faith. If he has prejudices againll the tenets which you take to be truths, you rivet them by a pubfic renunciation of thefe very tenets. At leaft the pradlice which you recommend has a natural tenden- cv to produce thefe effects. It is a ftumbling-biock oVer which many may be apt to fall. A public de- nial of the truth has in it all that is moli: criminal iri fcandal ; that fm of which our Saviour affurcs us, that rather than be guilty of it, it would be better to have a miUJhme hanged about our 77cck, and to he thrcnun into the depth of the jea. In fine, as it is infulting God, reproaching truth, and hurting our neighbour in his moft important concerns, fo it is likewife no fmall offence againft one's felf. It is indeed an irreparable injury done to our own charac- ter ; the very confcioufnefs of which cannot but ren- der us little in our own eyes. To fpeak againft the light of our owm minds, and the dictates of our con- fcience, (befides other confequences), is actmg below the dignity of our rational nature, an expofmg our own character to a juft contempt, a fubmitting to fo much nieannefs of behaviour, that even worldly men who pretend to any degree of honour, are always a- ihamed, and feldom can fit quiet under the imputa- tion of it ; efpecially when it is knowm, or alledged to proceed either from a fear of evil, or a defue of obtaining fome temporal advantage thereby. No wonder that God is utterly incapable of any thing like it : for it always neceffarily implies, and carries in the very face of it, weaknefs, meannefs, and imperfection. It niuft naturally lead us to fup- pofe a deficiency of power to fupply fome want by a- ny other means, or a want of courage to fupport us under the inconveniencies that we might otherwife be expofed to. All this, you know, muft needs be removed at an infinite diftance from our idea of the divine nature. And even a creature is not ufually •fond 248 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV. fond of a charafler that mud be founded in imper- feftion. There is indeed fo much bafenefs and un- manly difmgenuity in the behaviour we are fpeaking of, that Chrifl not only threatens to difown the coward who is guilty of it, but (which is very re- markable, and fets the fhameful bafenefs of fuch a conduft in the mod (Iriking point of view) declares, that he would even be afliamed to own fo daftardly a poltron : " Of him fhall the Son of man be asha- « MED," Mark viii. 38. But however attrocious and fcandalous a fin it may be in itfelf, to deny or diflemble on any occafion a fmgle article that is at the time an objeft of our faith, it is certain, that there may be circumflances which confiderably aggravate it, which render it peculiarly heinous in the fight of God, and more than ordina- rily fcandalous among men. For example, if it be a fm and a fcandal in a pri- vate Chriflian to diffemble or deny any article of his religion, it muft be much more fo for one in the cha- racter of a minifter of the gofpel to ad fo bafe and cowardly a part. He has the honour to be fet for the defence of the gofpel ; and when others forfake and abandon it, it is his bufmefs to appear boldly and openly for it againfl all oppofition. He is fup- pofed to believe it more firmly than others ; and he is bound by the very duty of his office to ftrengthen 9n.d confirm the faith of other men. For him, there- fore, to lay a ftumbling-block over which his fellow Chriflians may fall, to abandon the caufe of what he takes, or even miffakes, for truth, is acting a part mofl unworthy of thofe who have undertaken the patronage of it. This is the light in which orthodox divines have always viewed the matter. If you aiid your affociates have not the fame regard for your creed, it is a fhrewd prefumption, that it is not the faith of Chrift : for he cannot bear with fuch a beha- viour in any of his difciples, not to fay his miniflers, with refpe£t to his dodrine. a Another Sed. Vl. A very heinous fm. ^4^ Another circumftance that cannot but greatly ag. gravate the crime, may be taken from the number and the nature of thofe articles which are diirembled and betrayed. To treat one fmgle article of faith in this manner, though it were of the fmalleft import- ance, would be highly provoking to God, if it ap* peared to the denier to be clearly revealed by him. What then fhall we fay of pouring contempt upon the whole fyftem of revealed religion ? This, how- ever, is the cafe in hand. There is fuch a depend- ence of the dodlrines of religion upon one another, that one truth, or one error, leads to another. All the parts of different fyfcems are connected together. The orthodox and the Socinians differ, I may fay, toto c(s,lo. The firfl regard the dodtrines wherein they differ from you as being of the utmoft import- ance, deeply affeding the terms of falvation, and the right worihip of God. I fee you confider the differ- ence between us in the fame light, by the zeal with which you infifl for a reformation. And therefore, in profeffmg your affent to our Confeflion, it is not one or two articles of your faith only, and thofe of little moment, but a great many, and of the laft im-. portance too, v/hich you abjure and difavow. A third difference arifes from the number of per- fons that are fcandalifed by your behaviour. Our Saviour affures us of the great evil and danger there is in offending fo much as one of his little flock. If you ffiould difavow the do£lrines of Chriftianity before a fmgle perfon, and thereby tempt him to do the fame, it were better (if any credit is to be given to the words of Chriil) that a millftone were hanged a- bout your neck, &c. How much more provoking and dangerous then muff it be, to do fo in the moffc public manner, whereby the whole church of which you are a member muff needs be affected ? Laftly, this, as well as other fms, may be highly aggravated by the fmallnefs of the motives whereby we are led to the commiffion of it, I fliall readily ac=. 1 i knowledge. ^5^ Sinfulncfs of prevarication. Part IV, knowledge, that the mofl powerful motives we can imagine, even the lofs of life itfelf, and that under the moil cruel tortures, being all but temporal confider- ations, are next to nothing, and do in a manner dif. appear, in the comparifon with thofe motives we have to perfift in our duty. What is there in all the world that can be put in competition with the grandeur, the majefty, the authority, or the favour of God ? What temporal evil can bear a comparifon with the eternal torments of the damned ? Or what good of the fame kind, with the exquifite and everiafting felicity of heaven ? Accordingly many faints and holy martyrs have "been enabled by grace to fliew their contempt equally of all temporal motives whatever, when in competition with fo much greater confiderations. They feared not mtn^ who can only kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But though, in this view of them, they are all in a manner annihilated, there is no doubt, that one who looks no farther than this life, and who com^ pares them only among themfelves, will perceive a very great difl'ererice in the comparative greatnefs of them. A profpecl of cruel perfecution, of imprifonment, of baniiliment, of death, of torture, fuch as our fa- thers were expofed to before the happy Revolution, by boots, thumikins, &c. may be fuppofed to fhake the refolution of one who might be able to refill a fmaller temptation. But, pray, what is all the temp- tation that moves you to betray and deny the articles of your faith ? Is your fubfcription enforced by fines, by imprifonment, by death, or by torture ? Is there any other rifk you run, but merely an exclufion from an office to which you have no natural or legal right or claim, and which the fociety has a right to beftow upon what conditions appear to them to be proper and neceffary to the ends of it ? an office too, the temporal emoluments of which are fo moderate, that an exclufion from it often gives an opportunity of ri- Seft. VII. Not a fin of infirmity. 25 r fing to what is called a fortune in the world, which an admiflion into it deprives us of. Is this a motive that will be admitted by either God or man as an e- qual excufe for denying the faith, with other more violent temptations ? This circumftance furniflies one very confiderable difference between the fm of Judas and that of Peter. Both of them were guilty of the fame fm which you are not afliamed fo openly to avow. The one denied, the other betrayed, the Meffiah, convinced as they both were that he was the Son of God. But Judas did it from the paltry motive of a fmall fum ot mo- ney ; whereas Peter was driven to it by the fear of death. I may add, that the firft did it deliberately with premeditation ; the other was taken at a difad- vantage, and frightened into it by a fudden tempta- tion. This moved his kind mailer to caft on him fuch a look of difpleafure, mixed with companionate love, as drew from him thofe bitter tears that teftified a particular and explicit, as well as a fmcere and tho- rough repentance ; while the other was left to the natural effeds of his folly. SECT. VII. That it is not a Jin of iiifirmity, but a prefump- tuoiis Jin^ utterly inconfijient with a ftate of grace. ALlow me, my D. Sir, (for I would gladly be the inftrument of doing you the greateft of ail fer- vices, i. e. of refcuing your precious foul from the paths of inevitable and final deftruclion), allow me to take occafion from the inftances that have juft been mentioned, to attempt your convidion in a very im- portant point, viz. that the fm which you have de- fended is not only a very heinous one, but utterly ruinous to all who continue to indulge themfelves i^i W 1 it 252 Shifvilnefs of prevarication. Part IV. it without repentance. If you could bear with a little orthodox language, I would fay it is none of the fpots of God's children, or confident with a flate of grace. In order to this, I mufl have recourfe to fome or- thodox doftrine, wherewith you feem to be extreme- ly unacquainted. But do not miflake me, as if I in- tended to argue with you from any human authority. No, Sir, I demand your affent to no proportion, but in fo far as it is proved from the fcripture, which you have exprefsly admitted as the rule of faith. An ad- Vantage this (and no fmall one) which you have ex- plicitly given me, and which I heartily accept of. Till once you fay otherwife, I fhall take it for granted, that you admit, with the infpired writers, a diftinftion among men, between fuch as are yet children of dijobedience, confequently children of lurath, being not yet bori2 again, or nezu creatures, tind fuch as are the childrejt of God, or in a flate of favour and reconciliation with him, being tratisform" ed by the renezving of their mind. Perhaps you may remember to have heard, when you was a boy, another diftindion between different kinds of fms, which, in this imperfed: flate, may be ufeful for enabling us to underfland the difference be- tween the above characters. Sins are often divided into Fms of infirmity, and prefumptuoiis fins. Thofe of the firfl kind, viz. fins of ignorance, inadvertance, and furprife, many fins of omiffion, the firfl motions of lull in the foul, diflraftions of mind in prayer, and other parts of divine fervice, the imperfections adhering to the performance of our befl duties, &c. thefe (it is admitted) will cleave to the holieft faints while they continue in this life, in fpite of all their vigilance. Their old man is indeed crucified with Chriji ; but though mortally wounded, he is flill living and lively: dethroned indeed; but, like an obflinate re- bel, he has many flruggles for victory. Where he is allowed to reign without any or much oppofition, the flruggle Se£t. Vn. Not a fin of in/irmlty. 253 ftruggle will fcarcely be perceived : When a ftrong man armed keepeth his palace^ his goods are in peace. The rebellious flruggles are moft fenfibly felt, where his motions are moft carefully watched, and where there is the greateft concern to mortify and iubdue the declared enemy. He who fwims againft the current, feels its ftrength, however infenfible thereof another may be who fuffers him- felf to be carried along with it. [Nonfenfe ! per- haps all this, to one that was never exercifed to god- linefs.'] Thefe rebellious motions, and rifmgs of fm, however, in this militant ftate, are really fo nume- rous, that a particular confeffion of, or an explicit repentance for every one of them, is not to be cx- peded. Therefore God is gracioully pleafed to par- don them upon a general repentance. See Pfal. xix. 12. 13. J I John i. 8.9.; Gal. V. 17.; Rom. vii. -22. 23. &C. The cafe of prefumptuous fins is quite different. It is not to be denied, that even a good man, through the force of a prevailing temptation, may fometimes be overtaken in fingle ads of fuch fins. But he is not a good man, according to the fcriptural charac- ter of good men, if he continue impenitent in the ha- bitual praftice, I do not fay of many, but of any one fin of this kind, and does not, in cafe of contrafting the guilt even of a fingle ad, recover himfelf by a particular and explicit repentance, as David and Pe- ter did. There is all the dilference in the world be- tween fingle acts into which a man off his guard may be furprifed upon occafion, and an impenitent indul- gence in a habitual pradice. Tills will obvioufiy ap- pear to be the fcripture-dodrine, by comparing I John iii. 9. with chap. i. 8. We have a lift of prefumptuous fins in i Cor. vi. 9. and in Gal. v. 1 9 . and in other places of fcripture ; -where it is'exprefsly declared, that finners of that {ort pall Tiot inherit the kingdom of God. And it is . obferveable, that the Apoftle does not fay, *' Forni- " cators, S54 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV, ♦' cators, ami idolaters, and adulterers," or thofc who indulge in I'everal of thefe fins ; but the expref- fion is, " Neither the one, nor the other." The exclufion is plainly extended to all who indulge them- lelvcs in fo much as one of them. This, Sir, may be too flri£t a morality for you moral preachers, as you call yourfelves. But it is the doc- trine of the gofpel, the doctrine of the infpired wri- ters, as well as of all orthodox Chriftians, whom you allow to be the Jiridi party. We maintain with Chrift, that except a man he horn again, he cannot Jee the kingdom of God : and with the apoflle, 2 Cor. V. 17. " If any man be in Chrift, he is a new *' creature," and that not only fome, but " ah. *' things are become new :" and with the Pfalmift, " That then only we fliall not be afliamed, when we have " refpect to all the commandments." " For he that *' faid, Do not commit adultery, faid alfo. Do not *' kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou *' kill, thou art become a tranfgrelfor of the law. *' For whofoever lliall keep the whole law, and yet " offend in one point, he is guilty of all," James ii. 10. II. and confequently unacceptable in the fight of God. To illuftrate our do£trine upon this fub]e£l, let us fuppofe a perfon naturally endued with a fweet bene- volent difpofition, meeting with an opportunity that could not fail to draw it forth into exercife ; and that upon fuch an occafion, he fliould adually imitate the example of the good Samaritan. This, he may be fuppofed to do, while at the fame time a voluptuous difpofition reigns in him unfubdued, and is habitually indulged on every fuitable temptation. In this cafe, the good office he did to his neighbour is no fufficient evidence of his being in favour and friendfhip with God : nor is it fuch a good work as hath the promife of divine acceptance. For, befides other effential de- feds, it is plain that, however it might gratify his own humane and companionate feelings, it could not be Sccl. VII. Not a fin of infirmity. ^^j be done in obedience to the command of God, or out of a true regard for liis authority, the fame authority being d'efpifed in other inflances, where it is as evi- dently interpofed. This is the rcafoning of the Apo- ftle James. According to him, he who has not a re- gard for all God's commandments, laas not a true re- gard for 'lay of them. See Prov. xv. 8. and xxi. 27. and xxviii. 9. ; Pfal. 1. 16. 17. j If. i. ii. — andlxvi. 3. ; Jer. vi. 20. &c. I have the rather mentioned the above-ftated cafe, becaufe I am informed by the news-papers that it was thrown out by one of the friends of your caufe in the parhament, as an inftance of the abfurdity of the or- thodox do6lrine. A very different idea, indeed, of what diftinguiflies the charafter of a good man, is, I find, entertained by thofe who would fain reconcile the indulgence of a favourite luft with their hopes of future happinefs. They feem to be of opinion, that the charafter of one who is in a flate of favour and acceptance with God is dillinguiflied, not by the univerfality of his obe- dience, or his hatred of every fin, but by the num- ber of his virtues exceeding that of his vices ; v.hile fome of thefe vices are wilfully retained and habitual- ly indulged. They think that although a man conti- nues fubjecl to, i. e. habitually indulges himfelf in fome failings, (as they chufe to call them by a fort of palliative word), perhaps drunkennefs, profane fwear- ing, Sec. yet if thefe are overbalanced, as they think they may, by more and greater virtues, he is fafe, and his other afiions are accepted of God, as truly good work?. This way of thinking they are apt to mifcall charity, and to condemn us for uncharitable- nefs if we are not ready to give the fame indulgence : whereas the fcripture-doctrine evidently is, that though one cannot be convidled of any open difobe- dience to the fixth, for example, or the eighth com- mand, yet if, at the fame time, he pernfl impeni- tently in the habitual breacli of the. feventh or the ninth j 1^6 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. PartlV. ninth ; or if he could be fuppofed to give ever fo exad an obedience to the whole fecond table of the law ; yet if he wilfully indulge himfelf perhaps in the breach of the third or the fourth commands, he is not in a (late of acceptance v.fith God, nor can any thing he does pleafe him, as it does not proceed from a right principle, is not done in a right manner, or direfted to a right end. In a word, the moil fliinhig appear- ances, and even the mod amiable difpolitions, though fuch a^TlSeman Jejus loved^ however neceffary, in the preient difpenfations of providence, they may be to the peace of the world, and the comfortable fub- fiftence of mankind in this Ifate of trial and proba- tion ; yet as to the concerns of a future life, they will never pafs for true virtues in the fight of God, or find a full acceptance with him, unlefs they proceed from a true, or which is the fame thinc;, a fiiperla- tive love to him, i. e. a love that habitually prefers him, not to fome things only, but to every thing whatever. As it would lead me too far to illuflrate the proof of all this, which you will find (not to men- tion other authors) clearly done in Placette's Traite des bonnes oeuvres ; I iliall only refer you to the following paiTages of fcripture, from whence, I think, it may eafily be deduced : Matth. x. -^j, ; Luke xiv. 16. ; Mark x. 21. ; Matth. v. 19. ; John xiv. 23. 24. and XV. 4. ; — Matth. vii. 18.; i John ii. 5. &c. And now. Sir, to apply this dodrine to the prac- tice patronifed by you, when you fay, " We mud continue to fubfcribe as we can." That fuch a fcandalous denial of the articles of your faith is a //?/, has been already demonftrated, and even admitted by yourfelf, when you fo bitterly complain of the difa- greeable feelings of your confcience, and impute it to calloufnefs that others are not equally fenhble of the impropriety, as you foftly call it. (If elfewhere you maintain that it would be criminal to omit this grievous impropriety, I cannot help your inconfilt- ency). That it is not a fm of infirmity, but a pre* 2 fumptuous Sed. VII. Not a fin of infirmity. 257 fumptuoiis one, appears but too obvioufly, from its being habitually abetted, and deliberately indulged.. It has, indeed all the charadters of a prefumptuous fin. It is a direct wilful difobedience to a plain po!i- tive precept, as formal and precife as any in the word of God. It admits of no excufe from the fudden at^ tack of an unforefeen temptation, whereby one may be furprifed unaware, as Peter was ; but is delibe-^ rately refolved on with premeditation. It is againffc the light and dictates of your own confciences. It is fo far from being repented of, even by a general re^ pcntance, that it is pofitively and obftinately vindica- ted. And, in fine, it is an avowed preference of a worldly livelihood to the command of God, and the concern you ought to have for what you take to be his truth. How, Sir, can you reconcile all this with the ex-, prefs declaration of our Saviour ? Matth. xvi. 2,4. " If *' any man will come after me, let him deny himfelf, *' and take up his crofs and follow me. For whofo- " ever will fave his life, fliall lofe it ; and whofoevei: *' will lofe his life for my fake, fhall find it. Foi! " what is a man profited, if he fhall gain the whole " world and lofe his own foul ? or what fhall a man *' give in exchange for his foul ? No fervant can " ferve two mafterg, (Luke xvi. 13.) Ye cannot *' ferve God and Mammon." And, fays the Apoftle John, ** Love not the world, neither the things that *' are in the world. If any man love the Vv^orld, the <' love of the Father is not in him," i John ii. 15.^ In all which paifages you may obferve, that a prefer- ence of any worldly confideration to our duty, not only is a fin, but, if impenitenly perfifted in, is ut-. terly inconfifl:ent with the favour of God and eternal falvation. Do you not exprefsly teach, that our temporal arq to be preferred to our fpiritual concerns ? tnat truth may be facrificed to a worldly livelihood ? and that when obedience to the command of God comei in K k competition. 25S Sinfulncfs of prevarication. Part IV. competition with the apparent intereft of this prefent life, the firfl: muft give way to the lad ? And can any thing ftand in a more diametrical oppofition to the conftant doftrine of our Saviour, who has fet us fo illullrious an £xample of the contrary ? Nay, does he not ahvays point out this as the very rock up- on which thofe who perifh do fpHt P What you vin- dicate is precifely the very thing which proves the ruin of the ftony-ground hearers. Thefe, we are told, having no root, withered away. For when tribu- lation arijeth becaiife of the word, by and by they ,are offended. It is not a fmgle ad or two only of denying your faith, that you arc guilty of, but a conllant and ha- bitual lifing in the profeflion of a religion which you feem to have the utmofl abhorrence and contempt of j a religion which you have reprefented as confiding in grofs ignorance, and upon which you have not fpared the moil opprobrious epithets. Confequently, you live in a conflant and habitual courfe of diffimulation and hypocrify. I fmcerely lament. Sir, that there has been any occafion for fuch language, and am really loth to ufe it. But if there is the mod unde- niable ground for it, confider, I pray you, if this be confiitent with a life of favour and acceptance with God. You are fo far from condemning the profeffiono? an abhorred religion, or at lead of tenets that you look upon as falle and contemptible, upon a certain particular occafion, that you have written a book in vindication of it. But you infinuate, in fome parts of your book, that when once you have, by this means, procured admllTion, you then preach as freely, and avow your fentiments as openly, as if you had come under no engagements to the contrary. You tell us, p. 312. that had you all the liberty you contend for, " the moral clergy would preach jud as they do at this hour.'* Whatever credit this may meet with in England, where Se£l. VII. Not a fin of infirmity. -259 where I believe it is the cafe, you cannot, furdy, hope to impofe fo far upon us who are members of the church of Scotland. I can tell you what there were many witnelTes of. When I ventured to report fomething like this in a meeting of the General Af- fembly, and that only as ailerted in your book, not as my opinion, I was like to be accufed of calumny ; and it was univerfally admitted by the p'rty, whofe meafures have your approbation, that nothing but orthodox do£trine was preached in our pulpits. I af- fure you, Sir, that if you durft venture to aflert in the ailembly houfe, what you have publiflied in your book, viz. That the majority in mofl prefbyteries are of the fame fentiments with Mr A. B. you would foon find it difavowed by your own party ; efpecially if you fhould pretend that they actually dare to vent thefe doftrines from the pulpit. Your preaching, I own, is indeed very different from that of the orthodox. They preach Ckriji af- ter the example of the apoftles. You do not pretend to do fo ; and fo far your pretenfions are admitted. You call yourfelves only preachers of morality ; fuch as it is. Of this your book has exhibited a fample. Would to God that what you preach was Chriftian morality, or what we call true holinefs, inflead of fu- perficial declamations about virtue in the general, wherein you are rather excelled by Lord Shaftiibur)'', and other modern infidels. But befides your omifiion of the peculiar doCtrines of Chriftianity, and fometimes indirect and artful in- finuations to the prejudice of them, conceived in T.ords that are capable perhaps of a found fenfe, you dare not yet, openly and diredly, oppofe them. You know. Sir, that you dare not. If all the dif- cipline of this church were as entirely abolifhed as you could wifh, the people themfelves would not bear It. I appeal to yourfelf, Sir, whether, to your own knowledge, this is not the cafe of all fuch of our people at leaft, as have the greateft profeffion of reli- K k 2 gion, a6© Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV. . gion, and are lead infefted with the profane manners of the age, confequentiy thofe by whom our churches are filled. As for them who have a relifh for your dodlrines, and whofe efteem you boaft of, they have already, in a great meafure, left both your churches and ours ; fo that if you were indeed to fpeak out as plainly from the pulpit as you do in an anonymous book, you would foon have little more than empty walls to preach to. This is what you are not unappri- fed of : For, in p. 338. you thus expoftulate with thofe of your own party whom you blame for want of re- folution. " Your opinions are known m fad ; why will you not avow them in name f The people have already feparated from you on this very ac- count." Nor arc you infenfible how much their cowardly behaviour is contrary to their duty : For in the fame addrefs you endeavour to roufe them by this argument, " In the mean time your enemies loudly infult over you, and the facred caufe of truth, for which you ought to fuffer every extremity, lies bleed- ing from the w^ounds of bigotry." Tell me. Sir, you who boaft that the moral clergy, as you love to call them, do at this hour preach jufl as they would do, were all their fhackles removedj Have any of them yet ventured to preach, that our Saviour is no more than a mere creature ?- — that his death is not an expiatory facrifice for our fins ? — that mankind is not in a fallen flate ? &c. I apprehend that matters are not yet come fuch a length with us, but that moft of you would be afhamed to be heard preaching up one day for truths, what hundreds of witneffes faw you, the other day, renouncing as e^- rors. No, Sir, you cannot but be fenfible that it is the eftabiiflied religion which you ftill continue to profefs in all your public miniftrations, abfurd and unreafonable as you conceive it to be, in your private thoughts. The fa6t cannot be denied, that you live in the outward profeffion of a religion, wherein one whom you efteem to be a mere creature is honoured and Sed.VII. Not a fin of infirmity. 261 and worfhipped as God, wherein mankind is fuppofed to be in a very different ftate from that in which the human nature came from the hands of God, and where the method of recovery is fuppofed to be fuch as you can neither underftand nor approve. In a word, a religion totally different from, if not oppofite to what you believe in your hearts. And do you really think that fuch a behaviour can pleafe that God who infills upon a confejjion zvith the mouth, as well as a belief in the heart f who requires us to let our light fhine before men, and to glorify him with our bodies, as well as our Jpirits, both of which he claims as his f Thefe confiderations, Sir, are infifted on, not merely as ferving to confute your fenfe of fubfcrip- tion ; but in order to induce you and others who have adopted it, to break off fo ruinous a fin by repent- ance, and to apply for the pardon of it, through that blood whofe merit you feem not to have a fufficient value for. And to inforce this yet a little farther, al- low me to mention the following obfervation. Martyrdom has not only been always highly ex- tolled in the Chriftian church, but it is exprefsly re- quired of us by Chrift, when a profeffion of the true religion cannot be made without being expofed there- to. According to your doftrine, however, it would argue the moft egregious folly, to render ourfelves ufelefs and miferable, becaufe our rulers are unrea- fonable. You, it feems, would fubfcribe, not only what the French Proteftants at the revocation of the cdift of Nantz, called the mark of the beaji, but even the Turkifli Goran, rather than be excluded from an office and emoluments which you have no natural right to. Nay, martyrdom, upon your prin- ciples, inftead of being one of the noblefi: effeds of grace, and the higheft effort of piety, would, on the contrary, be a grievous fin. For it cannot but be highly criminal to throw away not only a temporal e- molument, but our life itfelf, when we can preferve it l5'i Sinfulners of prevarication. Part IV. it by means that are perfectly innocent, as the profef- fion of what we do not believe is maintained by you to be. How different are your fentiments from thofe of the primitive church ? Under the perfecutions to which Chriftians were then expofed, cruel and fevere as they are known to have been, it is no wonder that fome of the leafl fteady among them did fometimes fo far fuc- cumb, as to offer incenfe to an idol, or to partake of idolatrous facrifkes. But need I tell you the feverity of ecclefiaftical difclpline upon fuch occafions ? Do you not know that, by the canons of councils, it was protracted in fome cafes to three years, in others, according to the degree of the fcandal, to fix or fe- ven years, before the fcandalous could be admitted into communion with the faithful ? The Apoflle Paul, fpeaking of this fm, i Cor. viii. allows that thofe who were guilty of it, did entertain the truth in their hearts. They had knowledge^ f i . they knexu that an idol "was nothing in the worlds f 4. This, however, did by no means atone for their betraying it in their external behaviour : " For, " (fays the apoflle), f 10. if any man fee thee who " haft knowledge fit at meat in the idols temple, fhall *' not the confcience of him who is weak be embol- *' dened to eat thofe things which are offered to idols, " and through thy knowledge fhall the weak brother " perifh for whom Chrift died ? But when ye fin fo *' againft the brethren, and wound their weak con- " fcience, ye fin againft Chrift.*' In that bloody perfecution that was raifed by Jeze- bel in the church of the ten tribes, there is no doubt that a great many Ifraelites, in whom the world and the fear of men prevailed, were overawed into a com- pliance by the threatenings of their perfecutors. I make no queftion that they believed in their hearts what they denied with their mouths. Not a few of them, probably, had as great a contempt of thofe idols to whicb they bowed, as you have of thofe ar- ticles Stdi. Vn. Not a fin of infirmity. fi6^ tides to which you fct your names. But did God own them for his people, and accept of the inward reverence they had for him, without any external pro- feilion or appearance of it ? By no means. He con- fidered them all as apoftates and deferters. He told Elijah, that he had only refe-rved for himfclf faven thonfand. And what is their charader ? " All the " knees that have not bowed unto Baal, and every •' mouth that hath not kiffed him,'* i Kings xix. i8. You know how much the wifdom as well as the piety of Daniel was celebrated by the Prophet Eze- kiel, his contemporary, and how highly it was valued by the befl judging monarchs, both of Babylon and of Perfia. Yet, in your apprehenfion, he mufl: have been a moft egregious fool. He chofe to run the rifk of being call: into the den of lions, and of being torn in pieces by thofe fierce and favage beads of prey, rather than omit an open and avowed profef- fion of his religion. How eafy \Vould it have been to have prayed in a more fecret manner, at lead without opening his window three times a day, and expofing himfelf to the danger of being convicted, by the tef- timony of witneiTes, of difobedience to a law made by as unreafonable men as our forefathers ? Was it wrong in the Spirit of God to record for our inftruc- tion and imitation fo noble an example of fortitude, when he might have preferved his life, with his ho- nourable and lucrative employments, by a diffimula- tion beyond comparifion lefs than yours ? How unaccountable, upon your principles, was the conduct of Shadrach, iViefhach, and Abednego ? and how much more flill that of God himfelf, who honoured it with fo extraordinary and even miracu- lous an approbation ? How awful are the warnings, how exprefs the threatenings, denounced in the fcripture againfl thofe who continue in the profeffion of a falle religion ! and that even when it is but a corruption of Chri- flianity. t64 Sinfulnefs of prevarication. Part IV. ftianity. See Rev. xiv. 9. lo. ii. ; 2 Cor. vi. 17. ; Jer. li. 6. ; If. lii. 11.; Rev. xviii. 4. Some people are apt to imagine, that a man may be in a ftate of acceptance with God, may have true grace, though he has it not to that degree which is neceflary to carry him the length of martyrdom.. They are ready to think, (and are flattered in fuch opinions by falfe teachers), that the courage and refo- lution that is neceflary for that purpofe, is fomething different from regenerating and fandifying grace. j^You fee I fometimes take the liberty of ufing the terms of that religion which you profefs. This, I think myfelf intitled to by your external profeflion of it, however you may allow yourfelf to abufe it when lying concealed]. Not a few, even of thole who are fenfible that it is a fm to deny the truth upon any oc- cafion, are apt to look upon it as but a fm of infirmi- ty, confiflient with a fl;ate of grace. They will grant that God difapproves of it : But this they fondly imagine he may do, and yet bear with it in gracious condefcenfion to the weaknefs and frailty of our na- tures ; and though they will admit the neceflity of grace, yet they think the grace given to martyrs is far beyond that which is neceflfary to make them true Chrifl:ians. There cannot be a more grofs and pernicious error than this. It is certain that God pardons no fm but what we repent of, either by a particular or general repentance. As for bearing with unpardoned fm, it is a thing not known in fcriptural divinity ; nor in- deed has it any meaning. According to the infal- lible ftandard of our religion, no fin whatever is ca- pable of forgivenefs, while a wilful indulgence of it continues : " The wicked muft forfake his way, and " the unrighteous man his thoughts, before the Lord ** will have mercy upon him, and our God abundant- " ly pardon," If. Iv. 7. : See Prov. xxviii, 13. ; Luke xiii. 3.; Acts iii. 19. &c. Even fins of infirmity, if, when detected, they are not abhorred, but know- % ingly Se£t. VII. Not a fin of infirmity. 265 ingly perfifted in with approbation, do then become prefumptuous fms. Unlefs we fight againft them, and endeavour, as far as they are known to us, to fub- due them, we cannot expert the pardon of them : I'Vhofoevtr is horn of God, doth not commit fin^ \i. e. indulge himfelf in the habitual pradice of any known fin], for his feed rcmaiueth in hiin, and he cannot [thus] fin, becaiife he is born of God. It has always been a maxim in Chriilianity, that every true ChrifHan mufl be a martyr, if not in act, yet in difpofition and rcfolution : ^11 that tvill live godly in Chrifi Jefns^ mufi be ready to fitffer per- fecution. If ive fiiffer, tve f))all a/Jo reign with him ; if zue deny him, he alfo zoill deny us. See Matth. xvi. 25. and x. 38. 39. '28.; Mark viii. 34. 35- There can be no other motive to induce us to deny the truth, but fome worldly confideration, i. e. a pre- ference of fome prefent temporal enjoyment to the. honour, to the authority, and the favour of God. In your cafe particularly, nothing elfe is fo much as pre- tended. Is not this direftly inconfiftent with what our Saviour has exprefsly affured us of ? A fuperla- tive love to God is effential to the character of a true Chridian : Matth. x. 37. ; Luke xiv. 26. where we are exprefsly affured, that if we prefer our life itfelf, or the deareft enjoyments in the world, to God and our duty, N. B. we camiot be his difciples. And does not the Apoflle John as exprefsly affure us, that " if any man love the world, the love of the Father " is not in him," - 1 John ii. 15. Surely that man loves the world prevalently, loves it above God, who, for the fake of it, perfifls impenitently in what his own confcience is fenfible of the impropriety of, to ufe your own palliative word, and which nothing but calloufnefs of confcience can hinder others from per- ceiving. Was it a fingle aft only, upon an unfore- feen and violent temptation, there might be hopes of recovery by repentance. But to refolve upon it dc- L 1 liberately 266 Sinfulnefs of prevaricatian. Part IV. liberately before hand, and afterward to adhere ob- liinately to, and defend pertinacioufly, fuch an acl re- iterated, ho\y can the love of God dwell there ? I can think of no objcdlion againft all this, except one : but indeed it is a formidable one. I am fen- fible, that it mud cut me down with by far the ma- jority every where. 1 know there is no ftanding be- fore it but in tlie opinion of very few : It is, that ac- cording to this dodlrine, there are very few that will be faved. And indeed I frankly own, that it is too plain and too juit an inference from M'hat has been, faid. But as it is a truth fo difagreeable to the bulk of mankind, I muft even lay my account with the u- fual reproaches cad by thofe ivho are at tafe in Zion, upon thofe who have the impertinence to dif- turb the falfe peace whereby fo many are lulled ailecp in a fatal and dangerous fecurity. I expeft to be accufed of downright malevolence ; and that warning men of their danger will be called damning them, and that by wholefale, or in fholes. I muft be over- whelmed, in the opinion of the many, by fuch terms as the orthodox have been long accuftomed to ; e-r fpecially from the infidels of the prefent age ; fuch as gloom, melancholy, cruelty, and inhumanity, illibe-i rality and uncharitablenefs. It is no fmall comfort under th>s load, that we have it to bear in company with our Lord Jefus Chrifl, the moff charitable perfon that ever appeared among men. He has taught the dcdrine, and be admits the inference, however uncharitable it may appear to. men of liberal fentiments, who cry, peace, peace, zuhere iJiere is no peace. Ke, as v.-elfjihe apoflles, always diflinguifli between his little flock on the one hand, and the xvorld on the other ; plainly inhnua- ting, that the bulk of m.ankind are not of his flock. Nay, he tells u?, that even of the many that are called^ few are chofev. If we take his word for it, the road to deflruftion is a broad and paved one, and the gate that leadeth to it a wide one : whereas Jirait Sed. Vin. No cruelty in cenfuring it. 267 firait is the gate, and narrozv is the "way, that ^icadcth unto ^ life, and fctu there be that go in thereat. If this doctrine be melancholy, as indeed it is, it belioves us lb much the more to attend to it ; for it is the true do£trine. Thofe who cannot endure the leaft interruption of their preient fenfual plealure, will not give ear to it. But if he who came to fave a loft world did, in the trueft charity, frequently inculcate it, furely they do the worft and the moil uncharitable office, who lull thofe afleep whom he thought it ne- ceffary to route and awaken, and that in real charity to their precious, but perifliing fouls. To celebrate one cyf thefe ways of thinking as liberal, and to ftig- matize the other as narrow, will by no means decide which of them is the jufleft and trued, or moft con- formable either to fcripture-revelation, or the real hature of things. SECT. VIII. fhat there is no cruelty i?i cenfuring this praCiice, So7ne other evils in it pointed out. I AM fenfible, that what has been faid, however juft, is by no means pleafant or palatable to worldly men. And indeed what can be fo, where the world prevails, which apparently interferes with our temporal intereft ? One who appears on the fame fide of the queftion with you, in the Scots Magazine^ pleads that your plan of fubfcription ought not to be cruelly cenfured. The very expreffion implies, that you feel the juftnefs of the cenfure, not without a coniiderable degree of pain. No body would think it, or call it cruelty, for an opponent to expofe hin\- feif, and give you an advantage over himj by attack- ing you with an inconclufive argument, the weaknefs of which you could eafily detect. In fuch a cafe, the idea of cruelty would not readily be fuggefted. Then L I 2 only z6S Sinfulnefs of prevarication. "Part IV. only can you be fcnfible of pain in a controverfy, when a point appears to be really untenable, which you are wilfully determined never to give up. If one were fincerely difpofed to admit the true knowledge of his duty, and to liave his errors deteded, that he might abandon them, he would take it as the kindeft office, and look upon him as his bed friend, who did him fo real a fervice. The more clearly and mani- felily that the falfehood of his error was difplayed, fo much the more vvould he think himfelf obliged to the deteder. So did holy David, Pfal. cxli. 5. On the contrary, a worldly man cannot eafily bear a difcovery of the fmfulnefs of any practice which he is abfolutely determined to approve. If worldly mo- tives bear fuch a fovereign Iway over him, that the cleared difcovery of lin or duty mud yield thereto, the only effe£t that fuch difcovery can have upon him is to make him uneafy. And the clearer any fuch demonftration is, fo much the more uneafmefs mud he feel. Confequently, one who points out the fm- fulnefs of a praftice which he is refolved not to a- bandon, can be regarded by him in no other light but as an enemy : and all his reafoning, the more forcible it i&,- Vv/ill only feem to be the feverer cruelty, becaufe it gives him nothing but pain. This fufficiently accounts for their negle£ting to perufe or look into any reafoning that may be publiflied in oppofition to their favourite opinions, and con- fequendy for the litde efi'eft which the mod laboured argument can ever be expefted to have. " This is " the condemnation, th^t light is come into the " world, and men loved darknefs rather than light, " becaufe their deeds were evil. For every one that f' doth evil, hateth the light, neither cometh to the " light, led his deeds fliould be reproved. But he " that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his " deeds may be made manifed ;" John iii. 19, The pain v/hich obdinate fmners feel from the light of truth, frequently provokes them to pour out their refentment upon thofe v/ho dare venture to fet the hated Sed. VIII. No cruelty in cenfuring It. 269 hated obje£l in their view. This has given rife to all the reproachful terms of illiberality, gloom, uncha- ritablenefs, cruelty, &c. wherewith the orthodox have been loaded by the enemies of truth, whether open infidels or concealed heretics. But all this affords no fufficient difpenfation from doing our duty : " And *' thou, fon of man, (fays God to the prophet), be " not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, " though briers and 'thorns be with thee, and thou " doff; dwell among fcorpions : be not afraid of their " words, nor be difmayed at their looks, though " they be a rebeUious houfe. And thou flialt fpeak " my words unto them, whether they will hear, or " whether they will forbear, for they are moff: rebel- ^' lious ;" Ezek. ii. 6. 7. Indeed if one can be fuppofed fo malevolent as to pour light into the eyes of his neighbour, with no other view but to give him pain, I confefs he would juftly deferve the imputation of cruelty. And I fhall frankly own to you, that I am not altogether without fufpicion, that liich of you as complain of cruelty, upon the fmfulnefs of their conduft being fet in a clear light, will feel no better effe£t of this good office than an increafe of their pain. But as we cannot forefee what efl'ecl the light may produce, it is furely a duty to communicate it, whether you will hear, or lahether you luill forbear. This is fo far from be- ing cruelty in the fight of God, that, on the contra- ry, he looks upon the omiflion of it in that very light, ind actually imputes the neglecl of this part of our of their own regulations," &c. To thefe I fliail fubjoin one padage more, which Sed. IV. Of the people's concern. 33^ we have in a note at the bottom of p. 291. "So far from its being true, that the clergy enjoy their bene- fices upon condition that they preach only 'what is a- greeable to the people, I may pafs from the point of right to fad, and aitert that the vifible effeft of grant- ing thefe benefices is to render them independent of the people in this very refped ; " or, as you exprefs it elfewhere, " that they may be in a condition to exert their fuperior abilities for the improvement of mankind,** p. 290. I have thrown thefe few paflages together from a- mong others to the fame purpofe, that it may appear what your plan and your pretenfions really are. And from them it appears to me, that what you contend for is no other but the chief and diflinguifhing pre- tenfion of the church of Rome, the main pillar that fupports that whole fabric. It is in eifed making the clergy lords over God's heritage^ and giving them dominion over the faith of his people. Accor- ding to you, the clergy, being it feems of fuperior abilities^ are the befi judges, not only for them- felves, what is the religion moil proper for them to embrace with refpeft to their own perfonal concerns, but alfo for the people under their infpeftion, what is the religion that muft be profefled and exercifed in their public aflemblies, though ever fo contrary to that which they have already embraced. Like the Jewifh priefts, your language feems to be. Have any of the rulers or of the Pharifees believed on him f But this people, zvho knotceth not the law, are curfed. The people being in your efteem of inferior abilities, (the very pretence of the Popidi clergy), are not capable to judge for themfelves. You think, it is an affair in -which they have fmall concern, and that it would not be difficult to convince the people that it is wholly out of their province. Very fmall indeed muft their abilities be, if it would be fo cafy to convince them of this as you imagine. It is true, the clergy are, by their office, teachers of dWBMMHIIt£SK>!evaaSSfe£.' 334 Neceffity of a public teft-. "PartV^i of religion. But of what religion ? of any religion they pleafe ? of Mahometifm ? of Deifm ? fhould they be drawn over to any of thefe tenets. This you will not pretend. You agree fo far to a reflraint upon this Hberty, by their being obliged to fign the Bible. And will this authorife any of them to teach the Coptic religion, if he jhad taken a voyage to E- gypt, and been converted to their errors by the pa- triarch of Alexandria ? or the errors, the idolatry, and fuperftition of the Greeks or Mufcovites ? Can it be any other religion but that of the fociety whofe emoluments he enjoys that he is authorifed to teach, though he fhould pretend to receive the Bible ? And if Socinianifm be as different from the religion of this church as thofe above mentioned, why fhould his li* berty be extended to the one more than to the o- ther ? As for the expreffion which you have chofen to fignify preaching the religion of this church, or as you call it, " what is agreeable to the people,*' we can be at no lofs to underftand the meaning of it, when compared with other pafTages of your book, where you let us know the contemptible opinion you have of the religion embrueed by the generality of our people, efpecially the- moft fcrious part of them. If it was not agreeable to the people to hear the doc- trine of the eflablifhed religion preached, and all the parts of public worfhip performed according to the fame principles, it would not be their religion, i. e. the religion which they approve of. No wonder if it be difagreeable to you, who take it to be no better than ignorance, fuperftition, and nonfenfe. But there is a bad fenfe of the phrafe you have chofen, which we utterly difclaim. If you intended to infmuate any fuch thing, we challenge you to make it good. Such of our people as are of a ferious turn, underftand their religion, and can dif- tinguifh what is, and what is not, agreeable thereto. Chrift*s peep knonv his voice, andfollozv him. And a Sc6t. IV. Of the people's concern. 33^ a flranger will they not follow^ but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of flr angers. But in almofl every audience, there are too many who, from a partiality to their lufts, are apt to wreft even the founded dodrines, and to draw inferences from them that help to lull them afleep in the prac- tice of fin. There were of this fort among the ear- lieft profeffors of C.hriftianity. The dodrine of the Apoftle Paul vi^as foon zvrejied by fome that were unlearned and iinjiable, as aljo the other fcrip- tares J to their own di^Jiruciion. — *— If you mean that we preach what is agreeable to the firft, we will not contradid: you. If you mean that we feek to pleafe the fecond fort, or that we give indulgence by our dodlrine to any firiful practice, however agreeable it may be to fome nominal Chriflians, we can appeal to our hearers, who, we truft, will bear witncfs, that we are as careful to guard againft the pernicious in- ferences, which, by the unlearned and unftable, are fometimes drawn from the Apoflle's dodrine and ours, as you are to faften them upon it. Would to God, that you could as eafily vindicate yourfelves from the charge of loofmg the bands of morality by your dodrine, as well as your example, and that your book was not a proof of this, which you muft fmk under the weight of, in the efteem of all the truly godly. But now. Sir, that we have both your plan and ours before us, let us compare them, and confider which is moft unfriendly to private judgement. This natural right, which is common to all men, whether Chriftian or Heathen, Jew or Mahometan, can only be hurt, or incroached upon, when men, not content with the liberty of judging, or chufmg a re- ligion for themfelves, aim likewife at judging or chu- fmg a religion for others too, and impofmg the pro- feflion of it upon them. This is what the church of Rome manifeftly does, and what, we readily own, is vnjuft and tyrannical, where- ever it is done. You fay. 336 Neceflity of a public teft. Part V^ fay, the church of Scotland incroaches upon this pri- vilege, by appointing a teft whereby to diftinguifh what candidates for the miniflry among them are, or are not, of the fame religion. We, on the other hand, look upon fuch a regulation as indifpenfably necelTary for preferving unto ourfelves the exercife of our own religion ; and we cannot confent to let it be aboliflied, without yielding up the privilege of private judgement on our part. So that we not only deny this praftice to be the leaft incroachment upon pri- vate judgement, but we retort the accufation, and maintain, that admitting miniflers who are not of our religion to prefide in the public exercifes thereof, would be a real and grievous incroachment upon this valuable privilege. Let the feveral circumflances of both plans decide the queftion. And, I. Let us attend to the number of perfons, or the proportion of the fociety, whofe private judge- ment can be alledged to be hurt on either plan. Here, it muft be allowed, there is no comparifon. A few candidates for the miniflry on the one hand, and the whole body of the people on the other. Even granting that there was fome incroachment on the private judgement of the firft, (as it is certain there is none), how few are expofed to it ? None at all, you know, except they pleafe. At any rate, what an inconfiderable proportion of the whole fociety ? Indeed fo very inconfiderable, that the church (taking the word, not in your narrow, but in the largeft fenfe) can fcarcely be faid to be affefted thereby. Every thing is denominated from that which the bulk of it confifts of. A guinea is gold, and a iliil- ling filver, though there is fome alloy in both. Why ? becaufe the alloy bears but a fmall proportion to the gold or filver. Notwithftanding all the frefli water that falls into the fea from the heavens in rain, and from the land in rivers, the ocean is ftill a body of fait water. And may not a Proteflant church be de- nominated free, and adualiy enjoy the liberty of pri.- % vate Bed:. IV. Which plan bears hard on confcience. ^^-p vate judgement, without any fuch impofition as dif- tinguifhes and dlfgraces the church of Rome, if there be not a thoufandth part of it that can pretend to have any ground of complaint ? whereas it 999 parts of the whole are fubje£l:ed to thraldom, the fo- cicty Purely cannot fo juftly boafl: of their liberty. I own indeed, that the people are not admitted by you to be fo much as a part of the church, far lefs the mod; confiderable part of it. The clergy alone feem to be the whole of it in your eye, including thofe who are candidates for the office. You tell us, that the people have no concern in the matter. This, I fee, you very confidently aflert. And confident af- fertions are all that we have to expeft from you on moft occafions. But how fo glaring a falfehood as tliis could once enter into your head, would have been quite aftoni filing in any other writer. Have the people no concern whether he who pre- fides in and leads their public worfhip be of their own religion, or one who has the moft fovereign contempt of it ? who looks upon it as grofs ignorance and unintelligible nonfenfe ? Is it no concern of theirs, whether, inftead of being entertained from the pulpit w'ith the doftrines of their own religion, which are the joy and comfort of their fouls, they mud fit in the public aifemblies to hear them run down, abufed, and mifreprefented ? Is it a matter of no concern to them, whether their children be taught the truths which they count rj:07'e to be dejired than gold, yea than much fine gold, fiveeter alfo than hom^y and the honey-comh^ or what they count damnable herc- fies, that may involve them in eternal ruin and dc- flruction ? If they have no concern in thefe things, what is it, I pray, that they can be fuppofed to have any concern in ? Indeed, Sir, if this be the cafe, they mufl be as utterly incapable of any religion as the horfes that draw their ploughs. And I fhall rea- dily yield, that there can be no other occafion for thofe clergymen, of whom, according to you, the iJ u church 338 NecelTity of a public tefl:. Part V. church entirely confifts, than to erjoy the annuities annexed to the ufelefs and unnecefiary office. But, 2. Let us next proceed to confider the na- ture of that incroachment, which, on either fide, is alledged to be. made on private judgement. On the one hand, the fociety, by excluding candidates of a different religion, do indeed judge for themfelves, and claim a right to the exercife of their own reli- gion. But unlefs we were to fall into your odd con- ceit, and to imagine, that putting a candidate to the teft is an authoritative mandate, requiring him to be- lieve what he does not believe ; if we regard it in its true light, only as a trial, (fuppofmg him to have fome remains of honefty), whether he be fo far of our religion as is neceflary to qualify him for teaching it, and leading the public devotions or no ; in that cafe, there cannot be the fmalleft pretence for al- ledging that the fociety judges for him, or impofes any thing in religion upon him that he does not think right. If I lliould weigh in a hydroftatical balance a piece of metal that v\^as offered me for gold, this is not to convert it into gold. No man of common fenfe would entertain any fuch imagination. It is only to . try whether it be gold or not. When you require of a candidate a renunciation of Popery, you furely do not mean to convert him. You mean only to try v.'hether he be a Papifl or a Proteftant. Or when you require him to fign the Bible, you certainly cannot think this a proper method of converting a Deift to Chriftianity. It can be with no other view but to af- certain the fa<5l:, that he is a Chriflian, as far as it can be afcertained to men, whofe prerogative it is not to fearch the hearts of other men. As thefe are tefls, to the ufe of which you have given your con- fent, you mufl either maintain, that Deifls and Papifts have no right to the exercife of private judgement, after you have told us that it is the right of evtry mauy or you muft own, that the putting a teft to can- didates Sed. IV. Of tee nature of the incroachment. 339 didates is no incroachment upon it at all : for you certainly do not intend to deprive any Deid or Papi(t of the exercife of private judgement. All that is done upon fuch occafions is no more than obliging one who is offering his fervice as a minifter of this churcli, to let us know what his pri- vate judgement concerning the articles of our religion is. Let it be what it will, the fociety does not upon that occafion fo much as defire him to change it. Only if it be inconfiilent with the religion of this church, they judge him unfit to be employed in teaching or preaching a religion which he defpifes or abhors. That is all. It may be inconvenient to him with refpe6l to his temporal circumftances ; but there is not the leail impofition upon him with refpeft to his faith. That this is no incroachment upon his private judgement, is fo very plain and obvious, that I fee it has extorted from you an exprefs acknowledge- ment that it is not. " The right of private judge- ment (you fay) is perfectly confiftent with declaring what our private judgement concerning the fcriptures is." But how to make fuch a confelFion confiftent with, your accufmg it of Popery, here was the diffi- culty : A difficulty which, it feems, you could not otherwife furmount, but by the invention of a very curious diftinftion indeed. You diftinguifh between the cxijience and the exercifs of private judgement. But I befeech you, tell us what you meant when you faid, that declaring what our opinion is, was perfectly confiftent with the right of private judgement, if it was not, that it was confiftent with the exercife of it ? Would you chufe to fay, that delivering over a heretic to the fecular arm, is perfectly confiftent with the right of private judgement? Or can you pre- tend, that requiring of a candidate a renunciation of Popery (to which you have given your own confent) is inconfiftent with the exercife of private judge- ment ? U u 2 You 340 NecefTity of a public tcft. PartV, You fee, you are forced to confefs, that there is nothing in our plan inconfiftent with the right of private judgement ; that we judge only for ourfelves,- and do not pretend to chufe a religion for any body elfe ; nor do v/e impofe upon any one fmgle perfon the profellion of any religion but what is his own volun- tary choice. It is only the exercife of our own reU- gion, the prefervation of our own private judgement, that we can poffibly have in view in that which dif-. pleafes you fo much.- — —If there are any fo mean, fo much under the government of worldly motives, that they cannot rehft the temptation, even of the fmall temporal emoluments annexed to the paftoral office in the church of Scotland ; but are influenced thereby to ad contrary to their own private judge- ment, and to make a profeflion of what they do nol believe ; this is what we cannot help, without yield- ing up our own private judgement, and the exercife of our own religion. Nor would we be apt to fuf- pe6l any man of fo bafe an aftion, if it was not fo openly and fhamefully avowed. It is fo far from bcr ing the defign of the fociety, to induce any man to afl: a part fo inconfiftent with Proteftant and Chriftian principles, that if it was in any particular inftance either confefled or proved, it would be regarded as a jult objefl: of cenfure, which the refufal of the teft never ^v^xs. — But can you pretend, that there is no im- pofition upon the people in your plan ? no judging for others, as well as for yourfelves ? Let us fee the one as fairly and clearly vindicated from impofition as the other is. In our plan, all is merely negative with refped to the candidate. If he refu'es the teft, he is indeed not admitted to an office which he has no natural rig'ht to. It has no other confequence with refped to him. If he even chufes to continue in communion with us, his refufal to fign our articles is never once ©bjefted to hini. Nor do v^e fo much as inquire in- to the pofitive articles of his own faith, if he has any, - ^ On SeQ:. IV. Of the nature of the incroachment. 341 On the other hand, in your plan, all is pofitive with refpedb to the people. They muft either fubmit to a different religion, which is perhaps the objeft of their abhorrence, or be deprived of the public exercife of any at all. You plainly deprive the whole laity, i. e. the bulk of the fociety, of all liberty to judge for themfelves, and lay them under a fevere neceffity, of receiving and fubmitting to all the alterations in reli- gion that an imfiablc clergy may introduce, even fiich as are diral circumflances. — I lliall not infill arry further upon the difproportion betv/een the number of perfons whofe temporal circumflances may be aifeded by the different plans j but fhali on- ly obferve, I . That one thing Is extremely obvious to all who have read youv book, namely, that, liowever your exclulion from chmxh-benehces might have been m- tendcd ; yet, at this day, according to your own acr count of the matter, it is not actually accomplifijcd. You affure us, that tlie mod part of the benelices in this church are now adually poffeiTed by men who are of the fame fentiments in religion with yourfelf, A. B. and Dr Taylor, i. e. men who look upon the tllabliihed relip,ion as the invafion of ignorance and fuperftition. Here then is a very remarkable and im- portant diitercnce between the tv\^o plans. On the one fide, the temporal penalties are really and truly infiitled, and feverely felt ; on the other fide, the pe- nalties you make fuch a noife about, are nothing but mere bugbears, "threatened indeed, but not actually inflicted. None of you can pretend to be,, in fact, fuffering the fmalleft temporal inconvenience thereby. Indeed it is impoffible for any teft whatever to ex- clude perfons of your principles. When once a fub- fcription, if it WTre even of the Turkifii Coran,' or ?;oo fuch tefts, come to be regarded but as a little ce- remony of no meaning, our ecclefialticai emoluments mult be laid open to all who are of this way of think- ing, without remedy. Sed. V. Of the temporal penalty. 351 A teft might have had the efFed of a real exdufion at the beginnnig of this century ; and we know it ac- tually had that effeft in the preceding one, before the world came to be enlightened with the convenient doctrine, of how inconfiderable a circumflance truth is in folemn engagements : A teft, though relating only to the circumftantials of religion, was thought e- nougli in that unlearned age, it feems, to exclude from the eftabli/lied emoluments moft of the Pref- byterians before the Revolution, and fome of the E- pifcopal perfuafion after it. But the light that has been borrowed from the fceptics and infidels of this age is fufficient, it feems, to defeat this defign. — So that, in this refpecl, you have a great advantage (I nlfure you, it is only a worldly advantage that I mean) over thofe whofe private judgement you incroach upon. They have not yet availed themfelves of the funfhine of 1769, fo far as to poftpone religious concerns to temporal emoluments ; and therefore they muft really and aftually forego any worldly convenience which cannot be had v/ith a fafe confcience. Here then there muft be acknowledged to be one difference between the two plans, in refpeft of the tem- poral penalties, whereby the incroachments alledged to be made on private judgement are enforced, which every body muft own to be of the utmoft importance. On the one hand, a penalty which is not, and in the nature of the thing cannot be inflicted ; on the other hand, one which is really and feverely felt, and which the people, at this moment, are actually groaning- under. But, 2. Suppofe your confciences were fuch as did really fubjedl you to temporal inconveniencies, there is likewife an obvious difference between your iofs and that of the people. That which you complain you are deprived of, and which, I own, you would indeed be (deprived of, did you ad confcientioufly, is what you have no natural, v/hat you have no legal 4i«fe to. Confequently you cannot reafonably pre- tend. 55^ Neceflity of a public tefl:. Part V« tend, that there is any real hijufiice done you. On the other hand, if you drive the people from the churches, by introducing into them another rehgion, inconfiflent with theirs, you do them a manifefl, an indifputable injufticc. Thofe churches you drive them from, vi^ith the manfes, glebes, and ftipends re- fpeclively annexed to them, are exprefsly limited and appropriated, by the law of this land, (which confli- tutes propertv among us), to the maintenance of mi- niflen that are of /^Acir religion, not oi yows. Con- fequently tlicy have an undoubted legal right to the benefit tiiereof ; and when you deprive them of it, you rob them -of what is flridily their own. I am heartily forry for the occafion, and am ex- tremely loth to ufe fuch harfii, and, doubtlefs, difagree- abie terms, as thofc of thieves and robbers. Gladly, therefore, would I learn what fofter or politer names would come up to any thing like juftice in this cafe. That the laws of this land have, in the flrictell terms that could pc devifed by men, appropriated our ec- clefiaitical benefices to the orthodox religion, and ex- prefsly prohibited them to be bellowed upon the en- couragement of yours ; and that all this is confirmed by the higheft ccclefiaflical authority, is fo evident, and fo far from being difputed, that this is the very thing which is the ground of your complaint. Have not the orthodox people then an indifputable property in them ? And are not your pretcnfions to them a grain- ing at that which is not yours by any juft or legal title ? If you, Sir, who apprehend our religion to be *' the invafion of ignorance and fuperftition," fhould appear openly and avoAvedly in oppofition to it ; fhould you honeflly feparate from our religious afibmblies, and uniting wirh others of the fame fentiments, create a fund for procuring the public exercif^ of religion ac- cording to your own confciences, without any thing that appears to you to be fuperllition or idolatry, or that favours of ignorance and unintelligible iionfenfe ; I God Se£l. V» Of the temporal penalty. 353 God forbid that ever I fhould plead for the fmallefl incroachment upon your private judgement, or feek to alienate that fund from the purpofe it is appropria- ted to, by thofe whofe property it is, without their own confent. But if, inftead of this fair dealing, you creep in unazuares among thofe whom you de- fpife, by difl'embling your religion till once you are in poflelfion of what is ftridliy appropriated to 'the maintenance of an orthodox miniftcr, and then, in a magifteral tone, tell the people whom you have im- pofed upon, to get them gone as incumbrances you are glad to get rid of; is not this plainly cheating them out of as real and clear a property as law can create ? How can you, after this, icipeyour mouths^ and fay ^ IVe have done no ivickednefs f I may pofTibly view this matter in a wrong light ; but I wiih any body would explain to me the diffe- rence between fuch a conduct, and Healing a neigh- bour's horfe in the night-time, or robbing his orch- ard. Add to this clamant injuflice, the necefTity thereby laid upon them who are thus defrauded of their own property, to build new churches at their own ex- pence, while the old ones are Handing empty and ufelefs ; and to provide new flipends out of their own pockets, the old ones being alienated from their original purpofe, and converted into fmecure annui- ties. You know. Sir, that this is now no chimerical or apprehended confequence only. I believe, within the laft thirty or forty years, there are near 200 ex- amples of it, and every year is producing more, to the no fmall increafe of public burdens, already fo heavy, and fo much complained of. When the circumftances of the people who are mod expofed to this burden are attended to, the temporal penalties wherewith your plan is pregnant, will ap- pear to be neither fmall, nor merely of a negative kind. It is but too well known how the riches of the great are difiipated : In projects of diverfion, you Y y know. 354 Neceffity of a public tell. PartV. know, for the mofl part ; not in any,, where religion is concerned. The bulk of thofe that continue to think their Creator and Redeemer worthy of, and in- titled to public as well as private homage, and who either are already, or by the full execution of your plan, may be driven from our churches ; are among the pooreft of the people. Some of them are fcarcely able, by their daily labour, to fupport a numerous family, which is more likely to be thdr lot than of people in the higher ranks of life. Yet this addi- tional burden of building and endowing churches, inftead of thofe you rob them of, they mufl either fubmit to, or be utterly deprived of all opportunity of public worfhip, and all enjoyment of gofpel-ordi- nances according to their confciences, if your plan was entirely to take place. No true Chriftian, if he can polTibly help it, will chufe to be zvithont the true God, xvithoitt a teach- iiiir prieji, without pure gofpel-ordinances, and the inftituted means of grace : and therefore the above enormous expence, now grievous foever to fome in-, dividuals, would really, on your plan, be unavoidable and indifpenfable to thofe who have any concern for their fpiritual interefts. How then can you pretend that your incroachments upon private judgement are not enforced with temporal as well as fpiritual penal- ties ? And now let any impartial perfon judge between the two plans, which of them approaches neareft to Popery, and which of them is moft friendly to pri- vate judgement. The one is calculated for the fole purpofe of preferving to the people of this church the cxercife of their own private judgement. This they could _ not enjoy, without being ferved by mini- {lers of the fame religion with theml'elves. But tho* the only proper mean is ufed for fecurlng that inva- luable privilege, not a fmgle perfon has the belief of one article impofed upon him, or the profeilion of a- ny religion that is not his own choice. > On the Ssd. V. Of the temporal penalty. t^^^ the other hand, your plan is all inipofition and vio- lence committed on the bulk of the people. Accor- ding to it, they muft be obliged to adopt the religion of the clergy, whatever it happens to be, and even without knowing what it is. An orthodox congrega- tion, for example, mult receive a S.ocinian to minifter to them in holy things, and that under the fpiritual pe- nalty of excommunication ; and under the temporal penalty of lofmg that intereft which the law ^ of this land has given them in the churches, ftipends, &c. fa flriftly appropriated to their ufe in religious concerns: and of building and endowing new ones, or of being deprived of gofpel-ordinances, and of all public ex- ercife of rehgion according to their own confciences. The church of Rome will not fuft'er the people to judge for themfelves : The clergy, they tell us, are much better judges ; and the people^, according to them, have no more ado in matters of religion, but to yield an implicit fubmiffion to whatever their Ipi ri- tual fuperiors think proper to impofe upon them. The via examiuis is what they have declared the people incapable of, and that they are only fit to be treated via aiithoritatis. • • So fay you precifely. This is your very language. You are not tor draw- ing them with the gentle cord of perfuafion, but for driving them with the iron rod of authority. " The clergy [you tell us] are the be/i judges. It is their office to exert their fiiperior abilities for the inflruc- tion of the people [i. e. in other words, to judge not only for themfelves, but for the people too.] The cler- gy l^you fay3 are the teachers of the people, not the people of them. To judge what religion is to be ex- ercifed in the public alfemblles, is wholly out of their province. It is an affair in which they have fmall concern.'* Is this, Sir, Proteflant or Popifh lan- guage ? It would be eafy to run the parallel between your affociates and the church of Rome, in more refpeCls than one. The clergy of that church, being iirtjiable Y y 2 in. 356 Neccflity of a public tefl. PartV. in religion, gradually changed the do£trines of pure primitive Chrifhianity for very different ones, till at length, as you juftly exprefs it, " we had a different religion.'* This happened at a time when knowledge and learning were fall declining, and a moft alarming corruption of manners was fpreading through all ranks, efpecially among the clergy.'j ^The true pri- mitive fcripture-dodrines, which had been deferted, were reftored at the Reformation, and in a great meafure maintained their ground about a couple of centuries, while true knowledge and folid learning were making furprifing advances, while the Reformation con- tinued in its moft vigorous ftate. Now that learning is vifibly upon the decline, and infidelity (or igno- rance, as all Chriflians muft own it to be) is fpreading from the higher to the lower ranks with a moft alarm- ing rapidity, and that in an exaft proportion to the prevalence of difljpation, and contempt of all ferious religion, (the diftinguifliing charader of the prefent period), there are not wanting clergymen, and candi- dates for that office, who feem not to be ftabli(]jed in the faith^ but are making innovations that do e- vidently proceed from the fame fpirit, and are of the fame general tendency, with thofe formerly made bv the church of Rome. Socinianifm and Popery are more nearly allied than you feem to imagine. For this, I refer you to a book written for the illuftration of this precife point by our learned countryman Pro- feffor Jamiefon, intitled, Roma racoviana, et Ra- covia Komana. To this I muft add, that it was the religion of the ancient Heathens which the church of Rome adopted, inftead of the fmiplicity of the gofpel. By degrees, the whole fyftem of Heathenifm was incorporated with a nominal Chriftianity. Their idolatrous poly- theifm was truly and effeftually reftored. The names indeed of their inferior deities were changed : but the fame rites and ceremionies, the fame times and feafons of worfhin, with a correfpondent hierarchy too, Se6l. V. Hurt to religion. '^i^'j too, and many other circumftances of the ancient Heathen idolatry, took place in the Romifli church when it became thoroughly Antichriftian. Our modern Heathens call themfelves Deifls ; but really are fceptics, or infidels, enemies of Chriflianity, and of all ferious religion. This is the leaven that is now fermenting among us ; and in proportion to the pre- valence of a very grofs corruption of manners, and of that unufual dillipation which the lower ranks are fad catching from their fuperiors in ftation, it feems to be fpreading with a mod alarming rapidity. — — So- cinianifm is jufl as much the religion of Deifts, or of our modern Heathens, as Popery is that of the an- cient Heathens ; both under a difguife of Chriflianity. In both, Chviji is become of no tfftcl^ Whereas, in the Apoftle PauFs religion, Chriji is all, and in all. This, Sir, is that which alarms us at the opening of your budget, efpecially at a time when there feem to be too many, among the great and powerful, dlf- affeded to our holy religion, and indeed, from the courfe of their lives, muft be fo to every doClrine ichich is according to godlintfs. It threatens us, not only with the profcription of the dodrines that vvere revived and reftored at the Reformation, and have obtained among us ever fmce, but with the ex- tinction of Chriftian religion, and perhaps, in time, of the very name, or even the external profeflion of it among us. I know very well, that our views of the prefent ftate of religion do not at all coincide with yours. The prefent progrefs of infidelity fcems to be confidered by you rather as an increafe of knowledge. Nor do you feem to be at all alarmed at the difiipa- tion and contempt of all religious exercifes that, I may fay, is fo ardently cultivated among the rich and powerful. I do not pretend, by a bare reprefenta- tion of our views, to open your eyes. I know it will cofh a great deal more, if ever they be opened. I mention thefe apprehenfions only as our views of the matter, and in order to account for the zeal which animates 35^ Neceffity of a public tefi:. PartV, animates our oppofition to your plan. You fnay laugh at our fears : but where is the abfurdity of the following fuppofitions ? 1 frankly acknowledge, fome of us do not think them at all impoflible, or al- together chimerical. Let us fuppofe, that a time may come when mofl of the patrons of church-benefices, as well as ma- ny others of our nobility and gentry, are carried away with the dream of diflipation and infidelity. Let us fuppofe, that at fuch a period, the very pro- fcffion of any fort of religion comes to be looked up- on as a difgrace to a gentleman ; that plays, balls, mafquerades, routs, cottcries, &c. fhould come to be entirely the tafle and fafliion of the times ; that high gaming, parties of pleafure, luftful intrigues, horfe- racing, hunting-matches, rioting and drunkennefs ^ chambering and tuantormefs^ Ihould kill (as they call it) {o much of their (really precious) time, as to. leave little room for the fober and cool fedatenefs of a rational creature in a ftate of probation for eterni- ty ; that the religious worfliip of a fupreme Being fnould be banifhed out of their houfes, and them- felves and families be voluntary ftrangers in the places, of public worfhip. ' . Thefe fuppofitions, how improbable foever they might have appeared formerly, will not, I prefume, found fo very extra'/agantly novv\ A corruption of manners is a downhill affair. The farther it goes, its progrefs becomes more rapid, and the greater muft be the difRculty in putting a flop to it. That it is not only begun, but has already made no fmali progrefs, is a faft which cannot be called in queftion. The com- plaints of it are fo loud, and fo univerfal", that there is no flopping our ears againfl them. Even in the remotefl corners, there are few that can help being, in fome meafure, witneffes to the truth of them. For my own part, I have lived to fee fo great a change in this part of the ifland, that I cannot think the" fup- pofed period at a very great diflance. When Se£b. V. Hurt to religion. 35^ When once that period is fully arrived, it is pro- bable, that not only the real belief and practice, but even all profeflion of Chriltianity, will be entirely laid afidc by many, at lead in the higher ranks of life. They who have already deferted one of our facra- ments, will then probably be afliamed of the other too. Sure I am, it will be mod palpably abfurd to initiate their children in a religion which is fo vifibly the objeft of their own contempt. The lives and man- ners above mentioned are fo plainly, fo directly, fo utterly, and abfolutely inconfiltent with Chriftianity, •—I might fay, with the profeflion of any religion, but efpecially with the religion of the holy Jefus, th(; doClrint -which is according to godlinefs^ — that the inconfifl:ency mufl be (hocking, even to that remnant of rationality which is infeparable from the hurtian nature, not in a ftatc of downright infanity. Then all the ordinary methods of convidion muft needs prove abfolutely ufclefs, and to no purpofe. Let ever fo clear and demonftrative arguments be ad- vanced, how is it poflible, I do not fay that they can make an impreflion, but that ever they can "reach perfons of fuch a character ? If they come from the pulpit it mufl: be out of their hearing ; and out of their fight if from the firefs. Should the heat of their intemperance and fenfual indulgences allow them the relaxation of any cool moments, there are more corrupting plays and novels, more infidel and liber- tine writings, than are fufliclent to fill them up with more agreeable and fathionable entertainment. Any thing written in defence of religion, or upon fuppofi- tion of its tri'.th and neceffity, as it would be too grave and ferious for their volatile fpirits, fo it would be ready to give them that very fort of pain which it is the bufinefs of their lives to avoid at any rate. The idea of a future judgement, and of a flate of fi- nal retribution, is quite inadmifTible by them. In confequence of this difpofition, they would be as much afhamed to be feen with a book of that kind in their 360 NecelTity of a public tefl. PartV. their hand, as to be catched in the humble, or, as they are apt to account it, ignominious pofture, of keeling before their Maker. Now what imprellion can be made by fermons that are not heard, and books that are not read ? But let us proceed in imagining the probable cir- cumftances of that period. Is it not natural to fup- pofe, that mofi: of the ftudents of divinity, who are deftined to fill the paftoral charges of this church, or rather to enjoy the benefices annexed to them, will have the belt part of their education in fuch families ? This is by no means unlikely. We may be alTured, that in fuch a period, ecclefiaftical benefices will not be made very tempting to thofe whofe parents are able to bear the charges of their education. We have already feen the eliect of this, in the fmall number of candidates that are thus qualified, and the great num- ber of fuch as have been under the neceffity of fub- mitting to the drudgery of teaching others the infe- rior branches of learning, while they fhould have been plying their own ftudies, and adva'ncing in the knowledge of divinity. Let us now imagine what may too juftly be fup- pofed to be the confequence of fuch a fituation of things. The picture is too interefling, and too ftriking, not to be fometimes an objedt of my ima- gination. A poor young lad, the fon, perhaps, of the poorefl tenant of one of thefe infidel gentle- men, lives for years, at the mod flexible period of his age, in a family where all religious worfliip is held in contempt ; where the name of God or Chrift is never mentioned but by way of profanation ; where the Lord's day is ufually fpent, not in any exercifes that have the lead relation to our" Creator and Re- deemer, who has referved that day for himfelf, or that has the leait tendency to promote the eternal falvation of their own immortal fouls, but in cards or dice, in rioting and drunk<=!nnefs, or in unneceffary travelling, perhaps to houfes where they meet with I the Se£t. V. Hurt to religion. 361 the fame entertainment ; where every ihmg ferious is laughed at ; where the doctrines of Chriltianity are only mentioned with ridicule, being really thought to be, and always mifreprefented as, unintelligible non- fenfe. So, I fee, they are openly and avowedly called in the Britifli parliament already. This is done un- der the flight pretence, that they are not the dodrines of Chriftianity, but only of the church of England, and the other Reformed churches . Nor, if credit is to be given to the news-writers, v.-as there one in all that aflembly who ventured to appera* in their defence, or in vindication of the Proteftant churches who have efpoufed them. So far are things gone already a- mongil us. At the fame time this candidate for holy orders, a great part of whofe time muft be paffed in fuch com- pany, may be fuppofed to regard his patron, not only with partiality, but with a fort of fubmiffive awe, as one upon whom not only himfelf, but perhaps his pa- rents too, have a confidcrable dependence. The one iaughs at the fame things the other laughs at. He cannot be fo rude as to pretend a regard for what he fees is held in fo much contempt by his fuperiors. This might hurt his intereft among thofe upon whom he depends for a livinir. This is the only light in which the minifterial office is regarded, perhaps, ei- ther by the one or by the other. As for divinity, how little of his time can pofTibly be fpared for the ftudy of it ? The moft part of it mult be bellowed upon his pupils, the only bufmefs for which he is retained. To qualify hiaifelf for the converfation to which he has accefs, his fpare hours muft be beftowed upon fuch books as are in vogue in the higher ranks of life. Of what fort thefe are, is but too well known, and may be eafily gathered from the characters that do moft prevail there. Though he had more leifure for it, he cannot be fup- pofed to deal much in the writings of orthodox di- vines. Among thofe who know nothing of them Z z but 3^2 NecefTity of a public teft. PartV* but from fome tranfient mentioning of them by infi- dels and heretics, they pafs under fuch a character of dullnefs and ftiipidity, that it is no wonder if he Ihould think it a throwing away his time, to fpend it upon fuch nonfenfe. If he- had a greater inclination to look into them than can well be fuppofed, they are not to be had in the family where he refides, nor has he money to purchafe them ; and perhaps by this time it would be in vain to look for them in any bookfel- ler's fliop, v/ho can only deal in fuch commodities as. are faleable. If he has an opportunity of attending the divinity- lectuvcs in any of our univerlities, it may well be fuppofed that Socinianifm is all that is left of Chrifti- ^nity there. At the time we are fpe^king.of, it can- not well be otherwife, confidering the intereft by which tli€- profevforo will be promoted to their offices, the theological chair not excepted ; fo that if ever our ftudent was taught a catechifm of revealed reli- gion, his bufmefs there will be to unlearn it, and to be convinced that the whole ftory of the fall of man from a fiate of innocence, and his redemption by the blood of Chrift, is all foolifhntf^, and a Jhimhl'rng- blocks and that the Heathen philofophers were far better divines than the apollles. Thus will Chriftia- nity be loft, and Deifm, (as they who profefs it chufe to call it), or rather fcepticifm and infidelity, univer-r fal'V prevail. Only an^.ong thofe whofe temporal inter- eft leads them to believe, or to fay they believe, the truth of the Chriftian religion, it v/iJl appear under the difguife of what they may call Chriftianity, whereoi Socinus, Crellius, Volkelius, he. had the honour, before Dr Taylor was born, to be the apo- ftles. Yet from fuch feminaries muil the churches of Scotland then be fupplied, and that by patrons who have not fo much as the profeflion of Chriftianity, or indeed of any religion. Then will you. Sir, or fome fucceifor ot yours, have better ground than, I hope, you now have, to boafl, as you do, of the great ma- jority Se£l. V. Hurt to religioni ^6^ jority of Dr Taylor's difciples among the miniftcrs of this church. — Then I doubt not you will make a clean houfe, and fweep us out by Iholcs, if fholes are then remaining to be fwept out; But what {hall then become of poor orthodox Chri- flians ? I hope Chrill Ihall always have a remnant a- mong us, a feed to ferve him, and to raife up a gene- ration that will feek him, when he returns in mercy to vifit this land wherein he once delighted. It is not improbable that his return may be in a temped, o\' whirlwind. The church's air, when full of noxious vapours, is feldom cleared without a ftorm. In the mean time thofe who will not bow the knee to Baal, mufl feparate from you, when once things are come the length that has been fuppofed. They cannot join in your worfliip, they cannot bear your doctrine, and will be obliged to feek eifewhere more wholefome food for their fouls. Why, as to them, you fay, let them gd. " It is abfurd enough [you tell us] to imagine that this is any difadvantage." Indeed if all the advantage that you have in view be only the enjoyment of the temporali- ties, I cannot fay the difadvantage would be great j but if you have any concern for your own ufefulnefsj i£ you have any concern for their fouls, or for the profperity of the church of Chrift, you could not, furely, hold this language. But however you may be affetted with this profpect, you muft excufe us who look upon tliefe as the confequences of your plan, to refift the execution of it with all our might, and to retard at lealt, as much as we can, the dreaded ap- proach of fuch a period. I own my hopes of being able to fet it at a very great diltance are not very fan- guine *t * It is with no fmall pleafure, and not without thankful nefs to God, that I have, efpecially iince the above was written, come to the knowledge of fevei-ai hopeful young men, that have been lately received into the miniftry, or are candidates for that officcj in whom I truly rejoice. From their charadters, I would fain hope that it may pleafe God to fufpend the approach of the dreaded period a- bove mentioned fonie time longer than I onc«; feared. Z z 2 Before? 364. Necefllty of a public teft. Part V. Before I have done with my prognoflications, I muft take the liberty to make one obfervation more. ——You may perhaps think, that if the Pelagian or Socinian fyif cm be, as we alledge, more than half way to infidelity, it iTRift certainly be at fo much the greater diftance from Popery. This is a confequence I can by no means admit. On the contrary, I be- lieve it will be found in the ilTue, to be jufl going round to Popery. Without referring you again to Profeffor Jamiefon's Roma racoviaha, I fliall content myfelf with obfcrving. If a man, altogether unacquainted with the prin- ciples of geography, was to make the circuit of the globe, ftill moving on in a ftraight courfe, whether eaft or weft, he would be apt to conclude, that the farther he went, the greater would be his diitance from the place from whence he fet out. But I hope you will allow, that upon his arrival at the 359th de- gree of longitude, he would be nearer the firil meri- dian again, and more likely foon to fall in with it, than one who was ftationary at the 180th degree. — In like manner, thofe who have only opinions in re- ligion, and are unfiable in them, carried about xvith every %vind of do(^rine^ ready to " change their fen- timcnts on any fubjeil:, without ever thinking them- felves wrong," are really whirled about in a circle, and may frequently be nearer than they imagine, to the very dottrines from which they think they are re- moving. The infidels am.ong us, I believe, do not fufpect themfelves of any friendfliip to Popery ; and yet it is certain, that if ever it prevail again here, it is by this door that it will moit probably enter. Open and a- vowed profanity is an unnatural ilate of mankind ; and (efpecialiy confidering the inftability of opinions liphtly taken up, which commonly liave a run like other fafliions, and then give place to new ones) it cannot, I think, laft long in the vigour it has now acquired among us. There is a natural confcience in Se£t. V. Hurt to religion. 355 in every man, which, in fpite of all endeavours to fup- prefs it, will be, now and then, revolting againlt the infults it meets with, and alarming them with the moll uneafy forebodings of futurity. If all the while there is no change of nature by divine grace. Popery, of all religions, is the readiell to offer its fervice, and will be found moft convenient for reconciling the in- dulgence of our lufls with a quiet confcience, and the hopes of future happincfs : and accordingly there are not wanting inflances of the mod determined in- fidels having r^courfe to it upon certain occafions. Our travellers, efpecially through France and Italy, feem to agree, that infidelity very univerfally prevails in thefe Popifli countries, even among fuch as are, for all that, very good Catholics, fo far as to comply with all the idolatry and fuperftition that diflinguiihes the kingdom of Antichriif , without the leafl remorfe. This is agreeable to the principles efpoufed by them ; and as you have adopted the fame principles, the fame conduft may be expedled from you too, in their fitu- ation. You who can fign the Turkilh Coran, would likewife, no doubt, bozv the knee to Baal. You, as well as they, think it a matter of no confequence what a man believes, or what religion he profeffes. You go even a Itep nearer to Popery, by maintain- ing, that the laity are not capable of judging for themfelves in matters of religion, but are bound to yield an implicit fubmiffion to whatever regulations the clergy think fit to impofe upon them. I dare fay, you who think it will not be afked by our fupreme judge, whether a man was a Socinian or a Calvinift, mull likewife be of opinion, that it will not be aiked, whether he was a Papift or a Prote- flant ; whether he had one only, or many objects of religious worfliip ; whether the true God, or mere creatures alfo ; v.-hether the living God, or lifelefs flocks and (tones ; whether he had recourfe to one on- ly Mediator between God and man, or if he acknow- ledged an hundred .'* If 3^6 Neceffity of a public ted. Part V. If ever we fhall be again threatened with the dread- ful judgement of a Popifli king over this Proteftant nation, (and who knows what may be in the womb of Providence but the highly-provoked Governor of the world ?), you, Sir, furely could not have the fame inducement that we have, either to dread or to refill fuch a revolution ; and if ever it be accomplilhed, you cannot have the fame fcruple about complying with the regulations that may then be expefted, or, as the prophet expreffes it, wiUingly walking after the comnuin. Iment . You feem to think Calvinifm (as you fometimes chufe to call the dodrine of the Reformed churches) the worit of all religions, the very " caufe of Belial, the invafion of ignorance and fuperftition,, from which there is a ftrong neceffity of an immediate re- formation :'* And yet, after all, (I am not anfwerable for your inconfiftencies), fo little difpleafmg to God is this horrid religion, which has been profeifed by the Proteftant churches above 200 years, and fo unim- portant is the matter, it feems, in your apprehenfion, that it will not be afl^ed by the judge of the world, whether a man was a Calvinift or a Socinian ? An indifference about all religions, paves the way for the reception of the worft ; and thus, by adopting your plan, might we be naturally led, not only into infide- lity, but, by the fame means, into Popery too* P A R t 3^7 PART VI. \ Our Author's felf-deception dete(5led with re- lation to the charader of himielf and his party, SECT. I. ^ difcovcry of his partiality in the articles of — » freedom from prejudice^ — love of truths — ho- nejiy, HAviNG now difcuffed the two main queflions in difpute between us; having fhewn the reafon- ablenefs, and the neceffity of diltinguifhing between candidates for the miniftry, by fome teft of their prin-^. clples ; and having Ukewife fhewn how fmful, how bafely diihoneft, and dangerous it is, for any of them to fubfcribe fuch te(t againfl the diftates of his own confcience, and to profefs his beUef of what he takes to be grofs and pernicious errors, in the folemn man- ner that, it is well known, every miniOer of the church of Scotland, at his ordination, profefl'es his belief of the doftrines contained in the Weft minder Confeffion, and renounces the contrary tenets ; I might here take my leave of you, were it not that I think it a pity to leave you under fuch miftaken ap- prehenfions of yourfelf and your affociates, as are but too apparent in your book, without attempting at lead to difabufe you. O ! Sir, how little do we know ourfelves ? and how apt are we to misjudge our own charadlers ? You feem to boafl of a great majiy excellencies, as if. 368 Self-deception deteded. Part VI. if, in thefe refpefts, you and your aflbciates had an undoubted advantage over your antagonifts ; and yet the contrary, in every particular, is fo vifibly betray- ed in this very book of yours, that, I think, it is but a piece of charity to try if I can undeceive you. Thefe are, — ^your freedom from prejudice, — your love of truth, — your honefty, — your hatred of per- fecution, — your charity, — your imitation of or fi- milarity to the Reformers, — your regard for the Bible, — and for the practice of morality. In all thefe refpefts, you take it for granted, and feem to think it unqueiiionable, that the defpifed orthodox come far fliort of you, and others that are of your way of think- ing. Will you allow me to make a difcovery of yourferf unto yourfelf ? There feems to be great occafion for it, as in the above-mentioned particulars you have certainly viewed yourfelf with the groflefl partiality. Being called in providence to defend, againft your at- tack, my own arguments in favour of the doftrine and difcipline of this church, I think my anfwer to your book would be defeftive, if that (train of ground- Icfs confidence that runs through it were let pafs with- out any animadverfion. And having fo fair an op- portunity, an omiiTion of this kind on my part, I am afraid, would expofe m.e to the divine cenfure. Lev. xix. 17. where the omiflion of a feafonable rebuke of our neighbour is imputed to hatred, or want of true charity and brotherly love, and faid to be fitf- faring (in upon him. If I Ihould barely charge you with a failure in the particulars I have mentioned, this is wiiat I take to be no more than fcolding. From this no good can be expected ; and therefore you mull allow me to illu'lrate the feveral particulars. All the credit I demand from you, is only in propor- tion to the evidence I fliall produce for your convic- tion. L Nothing is more common among you, or more apparent in the work I have under confideration, than I charging Sc6t. I. A difcovery of partiality.. 369 charging the orthodox with being led into the fenti- ments they entertain by the prejudice of education, while you ingrofs to yourfelves the whole praii'e of impartiality in your inquiries, and a freedom from all prejudices that are capable of mifleading you. . This is no more than what your allies, the avowed infidels, have always been wont' to do. Indeed it is fo notorious a part of their charafler, that, you know, they have aifumed to themfelves the title of freethinhrs, as their peculiar denomination ; there^- by infmuatingi that no body can believe the gofpeli, without being under the power of prejudice, and that their infidelity is the effect of the impartiality of their inquiries. As you admit the divine mfpiration of the Bible, yon will not furely deny that this fond imagination of theirs, with what confidence foever entertained by them, is founded upon infufiicient grounds. The fa- crcd writers afiure us, that the gofpel cannot be re- jected without indulging the moft-criminal prejudices. They afiure us, that " if the gofpel be hid, it is hid *' to them that are lofl ; in whom the God of this " world hath blinded the minds of them who believe *' not,'* 2 Cor. iv. 3. 4. Accordingly they are threat- ened with damnation, Mark xvi. 16. and v.-ith the eternal vengeance of the Lord Jefus, 2 ThefT. i. 8. ; not, furely, for that which has nothing criminal in it* You fee, the moil inexcufable prejudices may really be indulged by thofe who are quite infenfible of them, and utterly unacquainted with the true fi:ate of their own minds. This, I am fure, you will not deny to be the cafe of infidels : and if you would attend to the fource from whence their infenfibility of their own prejudice arifes, it might help to cure you of the fame groundiefs conceit. I can no otherwife account for fuch a fond and par- tial conceit being fo univerfally entertained among the Deifl:s, than by fuppofing that they admit no other prejudice to be criminal but that of education alone. 3 A l"hcv 37o Self-deception detected. PartVT. They feem to think this the only one that is capable of mifleading us in matters of religion, or v/orthy to be guarded againfl. In thefe fcriptures, however, whofe divine authority is profeifediy admitted by you^ though rejected by them, there are other prejudices chiefly infiif ed on, while this is fcarcely ever mentioned* For my part, I fliall readily grant, that this is one of the prejudices which a fincere and impartial inquirer mufl needs fubdue, and againfl which every man ought to be upon his guard : but I am fo far from thinking it is the only one, that I take it to be one of the molt innocent of thofe that ufually millead us. To indulge the prejudice of education, is a fymp- tom of inexcufable fiothfulnefs and criminal indiffer- ence ; which cannot but be, in fome mcafure, dif- pleafmg to God, becaufe fo unfuitable to the infinite importance of religious truth, wherein we are fo deeply interefted. It argues, indeed, ?jn imperfec- tion in our love of truth ; but not that dowmright ha- tred of it which is fo often mentioned in the fcripture ks the fource of errors in religion. 'There is a great difference between thofe who mifs the truth (and jufl- ly too) through a defeat in the degree of their dili- gence in fearching after it ; and thofe who rejedt it, not fo much for want of evidence, as through a pofi- tive difafi'eftion to it. It is this laft that we find God ufually complaining of in his word. This is what he gives as the reafon of thatfevere punifliment which is there threatened fo frequently and fo exprefsly againfl the grofsly erroneous. There we are told, that what miileads men into herefy and infidelity, is their /o- viiig darknefs rather than iight^ becaiifc their deeds are evil ; their hating the light, leji their deeds jhould be reproved ; their not liking to retain Cod in their knozoledge ^ J^'y^^^S ^^ ^^'^ ^lmight)\ Depart from zis, for we defire not the knotv ledge of thy %oays\ &c. Thefe are the moft criminal prejudices to which the fcripture imputes our niiffmg the truth. Till once Sed. I. A dlfcovery of partiality. 37 1 once they be fubdued, there can be no free inquiry. In a word, whenever our minds are influenced and biaffed by a partiahty in favour of fin, or by any tem- poral confideration, in palling a judgement concern- ing the truth or falfehood of any religious tenet, then are we governed by criminal prejudice, and very un- fair inquirers after truth. How unreafonable, then, mud it be, to overlook all prejudices of this kind, and to conclude that all who have changed their fenti- ments in religion, and adopted different principles from what they were taught in their younger years, have thereby given an indifputable -demonitration of the impartiality of their inquiries, and thar they are unqueitionably free from all prejudice of every fort ? Now, what elfe can it be that fupports your high pretenfions, but the very fame falfe conception that has mifled the infidels in Chri.Han countries ? To found your confidence upon the obvious evidence of your tenets, and the apparent fuperiority of your ar- guments for them, would be extremely childilli : for every body is apt to prefer his own tenets, and the arguments ufed in fupport of them, as v,^ell as you. If, indeed, you had expofed yourfelves to the lead degree of perfccution ; if you had but declined the profeffion of a religion fo highly difapproved by you, and had been thereby laid under a necefiity to follow fome other bufinefs than that of a clergyman ; this might have afforded fome fliadow of ground for boading of a peculiar freedom from prejudice, and ranking yourfelves d.mong the pretended freethhikers. But as it is not only your pradice, but your avowed principle, to run no rifk upon that account, you cannot avail yourfelves of any fuch pretence. The only ground that remains, as far as I can perceive, for your claim to the character and denomination of freethinkers, is nothing elfe but what the Deifts have in common with you. You have forfaken the reli- gion of your fathers ; and you feem to know of no other criminal prejudice but that of education alone* 3 A 2, Your 37-2 Self-deception dcteded. Part VI. 'Your opinions are not the fame with thofe of your molt early inftrudors ; and from thence you prepo- (leroufly conclude, and imagine, that every body elfe oi!.[rht to conclude, that you cannot be under the influence of any prejudice at all. Is tills, Sir, a jull inference ? — "When Cain and his wicked pofterity, firll, and after that the fons of God themfelves before the flood, and the potterity of Noah after the flood, made defe£tion from the true religion, did they not abandon that of their fa- thers ? When the Ifraelites forfook the law, and the Lord God of their fathers, and adopted the i- dolatrous tenets of their Heathen neighbours, as they too often did ; when the church of Rome, at differ- ent times, and in many infl:ances, abandoned the pri- mitive tenets of Chriitianity, and introduced new ar.- tides of faith, till at length, as you obferve, we had a difierent religion ; did they not all, upon thefe oc- cafions, overcome the prejudice of education, and renounce the religion of their fathers ? And was this, think yoii, a fufficient evidence of their being unin- fluenced, in all thefe changes, by prejudice of any kind ? Surely the Apofi:le Paul thought otherwife, when he tells us, with refpect to the Heathens, that it v/as bco:zi{je tkey did not like to retain God in their knoza ledge, that he gave them over to a re- probate mind : and with refpeft to the corrupters of Chriftianity, that it v/as bccaufe they received not the love of the truth, that they anight be faved, that Cod zvoidd fend them firong delufion, that they fould believe a lie, Rom. i. 'zS. j 2 ThefT. ii. 10. II. On the other hand, where-ever the true religion has obtained am.ong a people, it can be no fign of prejudice that they adhere to it, though it has been, according to the divine injundions, inculcated upon them by their parent?. For in the fcripture, we fre- quently find a zeal for the true religion among the Jews celebrated and commended under the particu- lar Se£t. I. A difcovery of partiality. 373 lar defignation of adhering to the covenant of their fathers^ and following the God oj their father Sy •1 Chron. xxx. 22. and xxxiv. 32. 33. he. And when the queflion is fuppofed to be put, What was meant by the heat of God's great anger againfl them ? the anfwer is, Becaufe t/iey have forj'aken the covenant of the Lord Cod OF THEIR FUR- THERS, Deut. xxix. 25. As to the prefent departure from the eftablifhed re- ligion among us, we can be at no lofs to account for the prejudices which have operated this revolution. The manners of the age afford an eafy explanation of the matter. Do but refleft upon the -general cha- ra£ter of thofe who adhere to the orthodox dotSirine, and of thofe who prefer the Pelagian or Socinian fy- flem, whether among the clergy or the laity. I think I may appeal to yourfelf upon this point. Is the difaffeftion to the doftrine of the Reformed churches among the laity mod remarkable in the pundual attenders of playhoufes, — or of churches? in the promoters of that luxury and diflipation which is vifibiy and quickly ruining this nation, or in thofe of the mofl regular and fober lives ? Is it mod obfervable among thofe who appear to have fome concern about the falvation of their fouls, and are mofl afiiduous in the ufe of thofe means that are appointed for that purpofe ; or among thofe who feem to have call off the fear of God, and to have given up all correfpondence with Heaven, in public, in pri- vate, and in fecret ? In a word, are not thofe who have the higheft pretenfions to free thinking, llkewife the mod noted for free living ? — and are not Dr Taylor's mofl zealous difciples among the clergy, fuch as (to ufe Bifhop Burnet's exprelfions con- cerning the Englifh clergy) are the moll remifs in their labours, and the leaft fevere in their lives ? or, according to your own charafter of them, fuch as Teccm>mend themfelves chiefly to people of rank, and 374 Self-deception dete6led. Part VI. and that have the leaft appearance of fandity, and fe- verity of manners ? p. 3 1 5 • For my part, if the Socinian herefy be really fo prevalent, not only among people of rank who lead the failiions, but among our prefent clergy, and the candidates for that office, as you tell us it is, I am fo far from thinking that this is a good argument for their being free from all prejudices, that I do not think it evidence enough of their being free from the very fame kind of prejudice with that of education, in fo far as there is any thing criminal in it. The great evil that is in the indulgence of the prejudice of education, confifts in a degree of flothfulnefs which is inconfiitent with a due love of the truth. They who are under the power of it, are ready to embrace the firft counterfeit they happen to meet with for truth, how abfurd foever, without exerting the fa- culties which God has endued them with in detecting the falfehood. They do not buy the truth ; they do not cry after knotcledge^ and Uft up their voice for under fianding ; they do not feek her as Jilver, and fearch for her as for hid treafiires ; but fit down contented with whatever comes firft to hand, be what it will. — And is not the very fame indolence appa- rent in thofe who fuffer themfelves to be carried along with the prefent prevailing ftream where-ever it hap- pens to run, who readily fail in with the fafliion of the times, and have not fortitude enough to ftem an impetuous current when it runs with any degree of violence ? They do not take the trouble to fearch any farther for truth than in the books and in the converfation that moft readily occurs. They are or- thodox when orthodoxy is in fafliion, and hetero- dox when heterodoxy is in failiion, efpecially in the higher ranks of life, without ever troubling them- felves fo much as to inquire into any thing that feems to be grown obfolete. Strong fymptoms appear through your book that this is fomething of your own c^e. I cannot help prefuming Seft. I. A dlfcovery of partiality. 375 prefuming that you have fcarcely ever looked into an orthodox book. So contemptible an opinion you have conceived of the fenfe and abilities of all the writers on that fide, that I dare fay you have formed your ideas of them entirely from the reprefentation of their antagonifts. You make no queftion, that *' all men of fenfe are of your opinion." This you feem to take for granted, and frequently intimate to us ; and it appears to be likewife inculcated upon your difciples. The Socinian pamphlets that are in- duftrioufly fpread among our people, are making fome converts to your religion ; and a very unmannerly religion, it appears from their conduct, to be. It teaches them a language with which they were formerly un- acquainted. Stupid idiots is what they are then taught to call every minifler that believes and preaches the religion which he profeffed at his ordination. Well meaning men they will allow us to be, but with- al very weak men, and of the moft contemptible a- bilities. This feems to be the flyle of the party. ' I mention it by way of prefumption, that you are quite unacquainted with the writings of orthodox di- vines, and confequently that your prejudice is much of , the fame nature with that of education, owing toT' a defeO: of diligence and impartiality in fearching for the truth. You feem to have fatisfied yourfelf with what the prefent tafte and fafhion of the age has firft offered to your perufal. The infidel and fceptical writers, .now fo m.uch in vogue, do, indeed, after one another, load orthodox writers with fuch a cha- rafter of dulnefs, as renders it very unlikely that much of their entertainment has lien among works of which they have fo contemptible an opinion. If inftead of taking their character upon truft from fuch partial judges, you had been at the pains to judge for yourfelf, it is impoflible that you could have pronoun- ced them all fo indifcriminately to be void of fenfe and reafon. If I fhould even yield to you the Hel- vetick, the German, and the Dutch divines, whofe dulnefs 37^ Self-deception detefted. PartVI* dulnefs is become proverbial among fuch as know very little about them ; will you extend the fame cen- fure to the brifk and lively French, whofe Protellant church was noted for orthodoxy from its beginning at the Reformation to its lamentable difperfion ? And will you include the whole divines of the church of England, before (and many of them fmce) the turn that was given to their religious fentiments by the High-Church party in Archbifhop Laud's time ? I would fain hope that many of the erroneous a- mong us at this day are chiefly influenced by a pre- judice of this kind. I have already obferved, that it is one of the mod innocent of thofe that we have to beware of. Much more criminal prejudices there are, which may, perhaps, fome time be pointed out. • ^If it fliall pleafe God to give me leifure and en- couragement to accept of your confident challenge, by vindicating the tenets of our ConfefTion, I think I fliall be able to trace the Socinian herefy to a yet more inexcufable origin. Some indeed may be, more in* nocently, through mere llothfulnefs, drawn after o- thers, when the hcentioufnefs of an age has given it a prevalent currency. But I think 1 am able to fl^iow, that mofl of their tenets do naturally flow from the moft criminal of all prejudices, a prejudice in favour of fm, flight impreffions of the evil and defert of it, and a difregard of thofe threatenings of that wrath which is fo plainly revealed from heaven againfi it, ' But, to confine myfelf now to the prefent fub- jeft of difpute. How, Dear Sir, can you poffibly pretend, that it is the light of truth only by which you have been di- redled to the fide you have taken in this controverfy ? and that you are influenced by no worldly motive, no felfifh confideration whatever ? Is it pollible to ima- gine any man's worldly intereft more clofely connect- ed than yours is with the queilions we have been dif- cufling ? — If my arguments are admitted to be good, you know, the confequenceis, that neither you, nor 2 any Sed. L A difcovery of partiality. • 9^7 any that are of your way of thinking, are Juftly in- titled to the benefi.:es, or temporal livings, which you are in poileflion of, or candidates for : A circunidnncc that rarely happens to be fo vifibly and i'o intimate] v involved ifi clifputed quellioKS ; and a circumftance which every body mull be fcnfible is extreniely apt to bias a man's judgement in forming his opinion. It i^ not eafy to imagine a cafe, where the operation of prejudice can be more obvious and apparent. It is even acknowledged by yourfelf. On the one hand, you own, that rather than fubmit to an exclufion from a temporal living, in - the view of which you have been educated, you would fjgn the Turkidi Goran ; and, on the other hand, you cannot conceal how hard it bears upon your conicience to do fo. This ii is that renders your diftinguiining claim, to impartiality and freedom from prejudice fo very rrcfs- ly abfurd. A man's judgement may be really, and in fact, often is influenced by partial or temporal confif derations, when, at the fame time, fuch influence is not fo very fenfible and obvious. In this cafe, there may be admitted fomc excufe for his not perceivin;^ it. - A denial of it, though not fufiiciently founded in truth, \vould not, however, be fo ridiculous as in a cafe M'here the influence was manifefl, undeniable*, and even acknowledn^ed. To boafl of freedom from prejudice in fuch a cafe, can have no other efFeft but to expofe the fond partiality with which he views his own conduct and behaviour. • Suppofe, for example, a Proteftant at' the court of Spain, in high fiivour with his Catholic Majefty, (as he is commonly cal'cd), and earneftly urged by him to embrace the Popilh religion ; in that h'aiation, his temporal interefl may eafily be imagined to havi really, tho' perhaps fecretiy and infenfibiy, no fmali influence upon his judgement. In convcriluions v/ith learned men upon the fubjeci, it is not at all un'ikcly that he might be thereby fwayed to hearken to their argunients with a prejudice in favour ox them, till at lall he de- -; B clared 278 Self-deception detected. Part VI. dared hirafelf a convert. In all this procefs, whate- ver influence the confideration of his temporal intereft might really have in determining his judgement, yet if it was indeed his judgement that was affefted, and if he did really and truly view things in a new light, there would be nothing very extraordinary or furpri- fmg in his affirming, and even actually thinking, that it was entirely by the arguments of learned men that he was influenced in his i onverfion, without the leaft prejudice arifmg from any temporal qonfideration. But what would you think of one in that fituation confidently infifting on the fame pretence, after ha- ving owned to his friends, and even to the world, that he ftill continued to look upon Popery as Anti- chriflian, idolatrous, and tyrannical, in as high a de- gree as ever ; but tnat he had been offered the arch- piflioprick of Toledo, and who could ftand out againfl fuch a temptation f For his part, he frankly owned, he would have no fcruple to fign the Turkifh Coran, or 500 fuch tefls, for a far iefs confideration. After all this, to value hlmfelf upon his peculiar freedom from prejudice, would there not be fomethlng in it fmgu- larly abfurd, and moil ftrikingly ill judged ? — I might eafily expatiate in applying this to you, if there was any occafion for it after what has been already faid. I fliall only obferve farther upon this head, that you own yourfelf fo far prejudiced on your ov/n fide of the queftion as to fay, " I acknowledge I fliould be forry to fee my reafonings [you might have faid, your ai- fertionsj refuted," p. 265, 6. Had you faid, you ihould be forry to fee them difputed, this would have only implied the clear nefs of your own perception of their truth. But to fay you would be forry to fee them refuted, implies a fuppofition of their falfehood being detefted, and yet a prejudice in favour of them, even in that view. You are not quite indifferent, it feems, on what fide the truth may appear, as you would be, if it was truth only that you was in fearch pf, aiid if you was difpofed to embrace it where-ever it Sed. I. A difcovery of partiality. ^^I^ it was to be met with. He that would be forry to find the truth where it realJy is, is very ready to ima- gine he has found it where it is not. But where-ever the truth lies, you are already re- folved, it feems, to maintain your o\^n fide of the queftion at all events : for, p. 316. you fay, with your ufual confidence, " Would to God that John > Knox were alive at this moment ! In him I fliould find a vio^orous and undaunted fupporter. He would fave me the trouble of anfwering the anfwers which are to be written to this trad:." So the anfwers to your tra6l, be what they will, are to be anfwered* This we are told, as a thing determined, before you could poffibly know the nature of them, or guefs at the ftrength of the reafoning contained in them. Here is no faving claufe, not the mod diftant hint of any condition, fuch as, " in cafe you be not convinced,'* or the like, fo lifually annexed, by writers of any modeily, to threatenings of this kind. This, efpe- cially in fo fceptical a divine, whofe grip of othef truths is owned to be fo flight, and fo eafily let go, does not look very unprejudiced-like. In the mean time. Sir, the plighted talk will cer- tainly lie upon yourfelf. John Knox is not alive at this moment ; and if he were, you have fufficiently infmuated how unlikely it is that he would be one of your fupporters. You confefs, that this he could not be, without " reforming his own regulations, and at- tacking his own, inflitutions." And therefore it is much more probable, that if this age had the benefit of his affifliance, he would have faved the trouble now taken by one of his defcendents, who thinks it no flain on the blood of his worthy anceftor to fupport the doctrine and the difcipline which he v/as fo inflru- mental in reviving, and which you have loaded with the moft opprobrious epithets. II. Of much the fame nature is another pretence you frequently fet up, of being lovers of truth, wherein you feem to think you are diftinguifhed with 3 B a great 3?o 6elf-dece].7tron detecled. PdrtVI* great aclvantage from the orthodox. Here again, I am afraid, there is a great deal of felf-deception. In order to convince you of it, let us try your preten- fions by the ordinary characters that ferve to mark, eiir love or eiteein of other things or perfons. If truth, in your opinion, has no criterion to dif- tinguilh it trom error, fo as you can be fure it is truth and not error that you are embracing, even when it is of the laft importance to difliufruiOi between the two, I ihould think it cannot fland very high in your erteem. If there was a lady whom you pretended to be the miftrefs of yovir affections, what, pray, would ihe tlHuk of your love or efteem of her, if you de- clared that you faw nothing difcinguilhing between her and the Icaft auiiable of her fex, fufficient to af- fure vou that flie was worthy of preference to any o- thcr ? To continue the ufe of the Jaitie fimile, how, think you, would it be taken by your miftrefs, to be told, tliiit there is not a woman in the world to whom you can promife a conllant adherence ? and that, how well foever you love her to-day, you cannot fay that ■\:au will not caft her off to-morrow ? Yet this is the treatment which the moil facred and interelting" truths uf the gofpel have met with at your hands. You tell us, that it will fignify nothing as to \3ur jfinal happinefs or mifery, whether we be orthodox or heterodox, i. e. \vhether we embrace truth or error. How would your miftrefs take it to be told, that vou did not look upon ycur happinefs as at all inte- refteu in having or loiing her, and that you would be juft as well v.?ithout her as with her ? Again, let me afk, What if you avowed yourfelf as ready to renounce her for one that had a better portion, as you are, v/ithout any fcruple, to renounce what you take to be important truths, when they li and in the way of your getting a fmall benefice? Would you have the alfurance to own to her face your diipofitlon to wed the moll dii agreeable creature on earth, for better for worfe, were Ihe but fuffi- ciently Sccl. I. A difcovery of partiality. 381 ciently endowed, rather than her whom you pretend- ed to admire ? You know, you have avowed your readinefs at any time, from no other motive, to pro- fefs with your mouth, and to fubfcribe with your hand, to tenets which are the declared obje<5ts of your averfion and derifion. Finally, is it confiftent with a real love of truth, to be a zealous pleader for wilful and acknowledged falfehood ? to write a book in recommendation and vindication of a foiemn and notorious lie ? — — O ! Sir, examine yourfclf again upon this point with fome meafure of impartiality, and you will fee reafon enough to retract your boaiting. III. But of all the inflances you have given us of the groffefl and blinded felf-deception, I admire molt your bragging of your honefty. As this point has already had a fufficient illuflration, I fhall only add, upon this occafion, that there feems to me to be really fo much fnnplicity in your harping upon this firing, that it only fliews how eafily we can cheat ourfelves, and how artful felf-love is in blinding our eyes to our own charafter. To overlook the lecret operation of worldly motives, or to reconcile it with a claim to common honefty, would not be fo very fur- prifmg in the prefent imperfefl; ftate of human nature: but to make a complication of the groifeft falfehood and hypocrify pafs for uncommon honefty, worthy to be boafted of, merely becaufe it is avowed, has fome- thing in it beyond the ordinary pitch of felf-deceit, and flattering partiality. What would you think of a thief, when called to account for his dillioneft: praftices, who, after he had owned that ftealing was the trade by which he gained his livelihood, fnould add, in the confidence of fuch an impudent ' acknowledgement, " I hope you will allow me, at leaft, to be an honeft man?" SECT. Self-deception dcteded. PartVt SECT. II. How groundlefs the preten/ions are which our Author makes to — hatred of perfecution. IV. You feem to be uttertly ignorant of the per* fecuting difpofition of yourfelf, and your party. This you lay to the charge of your antagonifls. But what evidence have you to produce for tPieir conviftion ? Nothing but a moft prefumptuous and daring inva- lion of the divine prerogative, your own pretended knowledge of their hearts. You cannot alledge that they have ever actually made any difcovery of it. But this you refufe to give them any credit for. You ac* count for it entirely from their want of power. Had they power, you are fure they would exercife it in the moft tyrannical and unchriftian manner ; for no other reafon, but becaufe they think it a duty incum* bent upon them to infiift fpiritual cenfurcs according to ChriiVs own inftitution, and the exprefs command of his apoftles, while they qwn that his kingdom is not of this IV or Id, and that their weapons arc not carnaL • • If I had no better evidence of your per« fecuting difpofition, you had not been troubled with the mention of it here. Before I produce my evidence againft you, I mufl obfer've, that in this article, likewife, you have the in- fidels going before you. They ufually afrecl; to make a handle of this topic of perfecution to the prejudice of. religion, as if perfecution was a fruit that could only grow upon that tree ; infoniuch that M. Bayle was of opinion, that if the civil government of a country was in the hands of Atheifts, it would be at- tended with this advantage, that no m.an would be perfecuted for religion. I doubt not but you and they both proceed upon the fame irxfufficient grounds. In Chriilian countries, they, as well as you, are e- nemies Se£l. II. Pretended hatred to perfecution. 383 nemies to the eftabliflied religion : and therefore it is verv natural for you both to oppofe every method of enforcing it, lawful or unlawful ; efpecially fuch as you are confcious you could not withftand. It is not therefore at all furprifing, that complaints of fo o- dious a thing as perfecution come more frequently from diffenters than from friends of the eflabliflied religion. There is another thing that gives fome colour per- haps equally to both your pretenfions. The obvious fituation of all difl'cnters IVom the eflablifned religion naturally leads them to uiidtfvalue the credenda, and to repreient it as a matter of no moment what prin- ciples are received or rejected. Whereas true Chri- ftianity lays a peculiar ftrefs upon the knowledge and belief of the truth : And if the fall of man, and the corruption of the human nature confequent thereup- on, had not raifed the brutal to the prejudice of the rational faculties, this very thing muil have been a recommendation of it to every rational creature. But then it is as true, that Chridianity lays no ftrefs at all upon fuch a pretended faith as carnal weapons are capable of producing ; and therefore cannot give the lead countenance to force and violence in matters of religion. Indeed the application of temporal penalties, and worldly motives, to force a profeflion of religion, is fo inconfiftenLvvith the nature, fo oppofite to the fpirit of it, that without having recourfe to fa£ts, I (hould be apt to fuppofe, that none but worldly men could be guilty of it. Accordlrgly, when we look into the odious hillory of fo unchrittian an affair, we find, that the moil barbarous cruelties have been exercifed upon this pretext, by men utterly del iitute of the very profelhon of religion, and almoft avowed A- theifts and infidels. Wicked men, as foon as they find themfelves in power, are apt to forget all that was faid by themfelves or alfociates when out of power, 384 Self-deception deteded. Part VI, power, and to lay hold on the pretext of religion, or any thing elfe, to promote their own ambitious views. ►—So far do I, fo far do fads, difagree with M. Bayle, that the only charaders from whom I dread the enor- mous evil of perfecution, are freethinkers or unbe- lievers, who, having power in their hands, have no principles to fet any bounds to their ambition, pride, and impatience of contradiction. The leaft acquaintance with hiftory would put this out of doubt. The firfl: perfecutor for religion was the profane and impious freethinker Cain. What was it but pride and refentment that infligatsd him to murder his innocent brother ?>- The moil extenfive fcheme of cruelty that ever was contrived ,was that of Haman, whereby, if Providence had not feafonably interpofed, the, whole church of God was to have been cut off at one ftroke. And though he interefted the King's pride, by reprefenting the Jews as a people whofe hnvstVL-re diverfe from all people, neither keep they the King^s lazus, (the conftant pretence of all perfe- cutors for the moil inhuman barbarities), could it be religion that moved him to fo bloody a mafi'acre, when the King and Haman fat down to drink^ but the city Shtfljan ivas perplexedf ^The next great perfecution which the Jews were expofed to was un- der Antiochiis Epiphanes. Was he a religionill ? or even a zealot for the worfnip of his owri falfe gods, who would have done the feme think to the Heathen temple of Elymais that he did to that of Jerufalem ? Not to mention his robbing, and attempting to rob other temples likewife : A notorious free-thinker, to be fure, and free-liver too ! The firft perfecutors of Chriftians v/ere the Saddu- ces, the freethinkers or unbelievers among the Jews. It would be eafy to illuftrate this fubjeft from the characters of Nero, and the other Roman emperors, \A\o perfecuted the priinitive Chriflians with fuch in- bumaii cruelty. But that I may not be tedious upon 1 - ' facts Se£l. II. Pretended hatred to pcrfecutlon. 385 facls that are fo well known, and to come nearer our own times, it is no lecret, that many of the lords of the inquifition, (that terrible tribunal, an indelible reproach upon the human nature), and of the j)opcs themfelves, who, for the fupport of their own gran- deur, exercifed the moft unrelenting cruelty upon diflenters, were moft notorious infidels and Atheifls. We are told, that they Ibmetimes trampled the crofs under their feet, in contempt of that fable, as they called it, to which they owed their grandeur. Pope Innocent VIII. who fo cruelly perfecuted the Vaudois, is reprefented by all the hiftorians as a man utterly -void of all religion. And it is a notorious faft, that Pope Leo X. who was the firit that fet on a perfccu- tion of the Proteftants, was an infidel or freethinker. One of the moft cruel perfecutions that ftains the page of modern hiftory, is that of the Proteftants in France, at the perfidious and ungrateful revocation of the edift of Nantz.- Of this M. Jurieu remarks it as a ftngular circumftance, (though far from being fo fmgular as he imagined), that neither the King, nor the clergy who were the- moft active inftruments in it, were bigots in religion, but rather a fort of freethinkers. Lev/is difmiiTed a confefTor out of his fervice, who had the fimplicity to imagine that the King had as much religion as to part with a whore. And the Pope was infulted by him, at the fame time that be perfecuted the Proteftants. Nothing could have happened to be a ftronger con- firmation of all this, than the experience of the church of Scotland. The feverelt perfecution we have been expofed to fince the Reformation, and wherein the moft barbarous cruelties were exercifed, fuf^icient to difgrace the molt uncivilized favages, broke out u}X)n the relloration of King Charles II. Was he, were his chief inftruments in thcfe tyranni- cal barbarities, bigots in religion ? Was not the King a knovi^n infidel, at whofe court religion was openly ridiculed ? Was the Earl of Middleton any octtci t ^ G or j8^ gelf-deception deteQ:ed, Part VI, pr that parliament of his, who, it is faid, were con-. Itantly drunk, even when enacting their perfecuting laws ? Was it zeal for Epifcopacy that moved the Earl of Lauderdale, whofe principles, if he had any, Bifhop Burnet tells us, were Prefbyterian to his dy- ing day ? It would be eafy to multiply inftances to the fame purpofe ; but to add no more to this catalogue of infidel perfecutors, I fhall only obferve farther, that imy body who has read David Hume's hiftory of the reigns of the Stuarts, will plainly perceive what mer^ cy is to be expefted from fuch rulers as are in his; way of thinking. It obvioufly appears, not only from the hatred he every where difcovers of religion, and the profeffors of it, and the mifchiefs he endeavours to load it with, but by his approbation (not indeed of a- iiy difcouragement of Popery in Britain, but) of the French court in their perfecution of the Protcllants, and of the Engliih court in perfecuting the Puritans, that he has not the patience to wait till the government be in the hands of profeffed unbelievers, to let us know what we are then to expe£l at their hands.' Of all perfecutors, may God preferve us from falling into the unrelenting hands of free-thinkers and free-livers ! Yet fo grofs is the felf-deception of almoft every one of that character, that we find nothing more common among them, than a groundlefs imagination, as if it was only from true believers that perfecution was to be apprehended. This it is that has given me occafion to demonftrate the contrary from plain and obftinate facts, to which you mufl be fenfible many might be added, I had almoll faid, without number. How they have been fo entirely overlooked by unbe-. lievers, without the grolfcft prejudice and partiality, is more than I will pretefld to account for. But I fhall now proceed to convid you of a persecuting dif- pofition, while you throw the mod opprobrious epi- thets of rage, rancour, animofity, &c. upon the ex- ercife of that neceflary difciplin? which Chrift has in-, ftituted ^ed. n* i^retended hjltred to perfecution. 387 ftituted in his church, and which is entirely of a fpi^ ritual nature. With this view, let us, firft of all, fix the idea annexed to the odious terni perfecution. Does it not fignify the applying the terrors of this world, or temporal penalties, in order to force one to att con- trary to the diftates of his own confcience, whether his confcience be enlightened or unenlightened ? The Apoftle Paul, in the account he gives of his own per- fecuting deeds^ very juftly and emphatically calls it compelling them to blafpheme* It is the command- ing men to fay or do what appears to them to be a fm, and punifhing them if they do not ( in the lan- guage of the Prophet) ivalk after the command7nent. It is certain, that to him that efteemeth any thing to be unclean, to HIM it is uncleam It is likewife certain, that he who tempteth, efpecially who com^ mandeth another to commit fm, or to do or fay what he thinks unlawful, is himfelf guilty of a very heinous fm. Yet you not only vindicate, but feem to boafl of this very thing done to Mr Gillefpie, by the party Whofe meafures you approve, p. 314. They did not pretend fo much as to fufpedl that he was telling them el lie, when he afiured them, that what was required of him he efteemed to be a fm* His cbara6ler was quite eftabliihed, as a man who would not tell a de- liberate lie for the world. A cenfure merely fpiritual would not fatisfy them, fuch as fufpcnfion from his judicative capacity, which they infiifted upon others that were in the fame category. Nothing lefs than the highefl temporal penalty which they had power to infiiQ:, the depriving him of his bread. They were at no lofs for inftruments enough to execute their fentence* There was a fufficient number of the fame prefbytery who did not pretend to have any fcruple a- bout the matter* But nothing would pleafe them, unlefs reluctant confciences were racked into an un-* willing compliance, through the bafe fear of men, who 3 C 2 can. 588 Self-deception detefted. Part VI, cah only hurt the body ; or, in other words, unlefa their brethren, unneceffarily, and I may fay wanton- ly, were comjx:lled to undergo the levereft of all tortures, the condemnation of their own minds. Sir, I will retraft what I have faid, if you can but fhew me a pollibility of conftruing the language of that affemblv to the confcientious man then before them into any other meaning than this : " You muft do wliat you efteem a dehberate fm, and what 'we mufl own would undoubtedly be a manifeft fm on your part, fmce you think it fo, and confequently run the riik of eternal damnation ; or we will do you the greateft temporal hurt in our power." O ! the cruelty of periecutors, to infill fo unrelentingly upon a thing, in comparifon«,with which the being bound to a itake is a perfeft trifle to a confcientious man, and actually did appear fo to the pious Mr Gillefpie. This is the true fpirit of perfecution. Perfecutors have no idea of the infinite fuperiority of eternal above tem- poral confiderations : and therefore they never fail to apply the laff , as being, in their apprehenfion, abun- dantly fufiicient to overcome the firfl. Your defence of this flep is precifely the fame with that of all perfecutors. We have it, p. 314. in the charge you bring againft the orthodox. You tell us, ^'Theyalfert the right of private judgement in its utmofl extent, fo far as to vindicate every man in following his own prejudices, humour, and caprice. Here they fet up the authority of confcience in opposition to the authority both of the parliament and the church.'* This is juft the language, the condant and uniform language, of all perfecutors. Hainan would have had the Jews utterly exterminated, as following their own prejudices, humour, and caprice, their Icnvs being diverfc from all people^ neither did they keep the Kind's lazus. It is nothing but mere obftinacy and difobedience that ever they pretend to punifh. Nor will they allov/, that obedience to men can ever interfere with Se£t. II. Pretended hatred to perfecution. 389 with obedience to God, as the apoflles were fo fimplc as to imagine. About the middle of the laft century, all Europe, Papifls as well as Proteftants, was fhocked with the inhuman and almofl unheard-of barbarities that were committed upon the poor perfecuted Vaudois in the valleys of Piedmont. This brought upon the court of Turin complaints and remonftrances from mod of the Proteftant powers : to which the anfwer was the very fame with yours, That they were juftly punifhed for difobedience, and rebellion againft the laws, or, in the words of the Prophet, becaufe they did not luillingly walk after the coimnandment. " Negabat " ullam ipforum conlcientis vim illatam, rebellio- *' nem juftis armis^ caftigatam ; — paternam tantuni " et lenem caftigationem fuifie fumptam de immori- " geris et rebellibus fubditis : quee perpetua erat " tantjc crudelitatis excufalio." Horn. Hiji. EccL This was likewife the conftant excufe for all the inhuman butcheries committed upon the Prefbyte- rians, both in England and Scotland, in the courfe of the laft century. The declaration for profaning the Sabbath in England, under the influence of that cruel perfecutor Archbifliop Laud, fays it was " for fup- prelling of thofe humours that oppofe truth.'* The fame was the language of all the perfecutors between the P..eftoration and the never-to-be-forgotten happy Revolution. The perfecuted can fay nothing in any cafe, but what the perfecutors will call " prejudices, humour, and caprice." To give ill names to whatever they diflike, is eafily done, and cofts nothing. To prove the juftice of thefe names, is another thing, the drudgery of which, they who have pov/er, do not always think incumbent upon them. Obftinate dif- obedience is a fhorter and readier defence of all the feverity that is thought neceffary for fubduing it ; and this is what you chufe to have recourfe, and adhere to. But 390 Self-deception dete£ted. Part VI* But what can be more ridiculous than fuch a vin* dication ? You may with half an eye perceive, that it would equally vindicate all the perfecutions in the world, where a lawful human authority is once inter- pofed. Suppofe, for example, an order iifued by in- difputable authority for the worlhip of images under the fevered penaltieSj which was actually the cafe a- monpj the poor Vaudois, would it be no perfecution to inflict thefe penalties upon the obflinate, becaufe it is only for difobedience that they would be punilhed ? It could be no perfecution then, according to this doc* trine, in Nebuchadnezzar to caft into the burning fiery furnace three perfons fo remarkably diflinguilh- ed by the divine approbation ; for they had, oblti- nately, difobeyed the king's exprefs command* Allow me. Dear Sir, to afk you one queftion. Yoii fay, that it was only for difobedience that Mr Gillef- pie was depofed, and for following his own preju- dices, humour, and caprice* Vv^as it in this light that he viewed the matter ? and have you fufficient e- vidence of this ? or is it only the opinion of the de- pofsrs, and their abettors ? If he confidered his dif- obedience to men, as obedience to God, whatever might have been the opinion of others, it mud be upon a point of confcience that he fufFered a depri- vation of his living. If fuch ufage can be fufficient* liy vindicated from the guilt of perfecution, by the perfecutors being of a different opinion from the fuf- |"erer, there never can be fuch a thing as culpable per- fecution in the v/orld. For there is nothing more ea* fv, nothing more common, than for perfecutors to prefer their own opinion to that of the perfecuted, and to brand them with following their own prejudi- ces, humour, and caprice. According to your doc- trinccj all the world is at once abfolved from that o- dious accufation. If there is a difference of opinion in religious matters between the rulers and any of the ruled, no matter, it feems, what the laft think of it $ tlie firfl will, furely, impute it to prejudices, humour, and SeG:. II. Pretended hatred to pcrfecution, 391 and caprice, and then there is no harm in chaflifmg them. If there is no difterence in opinion, but all do willmgly ivalk nfter the commandment^ there may be tyrannical cruelty indeed, but there can be no occafion for what is properly called perfecution, or fuffering for confcience fake ; fo that if your ex- cufe is to be admitted, it will ferve to vindicate ail the perft cutors that ever exifted. After all. Sir, though I have no occafion for any thing elfe to convift you of a peri'ecuting difpofition, I cannot help adding here the following obfervation. If you do not, you may know that evidence has fre- quently been given, and never yet attempted to be difproved, that Mr Gillefpie's refufal, fo feverely ani« madverted upon, was, really, neither againfl the au^ thority of the parliament, nor of the church. For the firft, I refer you to a collection of the ads of parliament relating to patronage, v/ith remarks, late-. ly publifhed at Glafgow. As for the church, it was fo far from being againfl her authority, that, on the contrary, it was, indeed, in obedience to her jull and regular authority. For this I reier you to aft 14, alfembly 1736 : from which it will appear, that the illegal command which he refufed to obey, was di- reftly in the face of thofe (landing laws and conftitu- tions by which the court that commanded him, was as much bound as any inferior court of judicature, Otherwife we have no conftitution. It was a command which they had no power to iffue, as every member, in his commiflion, is by his conflituents, according to our ftanding laws, limited by the conftitutions of this church j fo that really and truly it was a twn ha~ bentibiis potefiatetn. This, Sir, you know, or may know, has been made evident beyond the poili- bility of a reply ; and yet we are flill told the fame baffled tale, as if it had never been refuted. This it is to have ado with thofe who deal only in confident^ t)Ut vinfupported affertions, SEC T, 392 Self-deception deteded. PartVI» SECT. III. The fame thing further manifefted, in the articles of — charity^ — fimilitude to the Reformers^ — re^ ' gard for the Bible ^ — and for morality. V. Another advantage you pretend to have over us is in the article of charity. And here, to avoid any difpute about words, I (liall allow you your own fenfe of the term, though it is certain that it is not the fcriptural fenfe of it. In the fcripture, charity, or love, in fo far as it relates to our fellow-creatures, is ufed to fignify an univerfal, real, and hearty con- cern for the true happinefs of every one, not only in the life that now is, but efpecially in that which is to come, and the moft fmcere and earned: endeavours to promote it. Among you, the word charity h commonly ufed to denote a particular branch of this general idea, viz. a favourable opinion of a man's ftate as to the favour of God, let his principles and pradiices be what they will, unlefs we are to except thofe who have a more than ordinary profeffion of religion. This, indeed, feldom fails to expofe one to your harflieft and fevered cenfurcs and fufpicions. Now, as I do not deny, that pafTmg rafli judgements upon our neighbour, to the prejudice of his charad:er, is a vice condemned in the fcripture, though not by the term zmchiritablenefs, let us, without infifting ri- gidly on the propriety of terms, fee how the matter flands between us in this rcfpeft. If we are to confider it as charafterifhical of the orthodox and heterodox, I believe it will not be de- nied, that the uncharitablenefs. (to ufe the word in your own fenfe of it) imputed by you to the firft, confifts, not in laying to mens charge afts of what we think infiddity or immorality, where the fafts are refufed ; but where the facts are admitted, in pro- z nouncing Seel. III. JPretended charity, Sc