30. * Surely it should be as needless to exhort you to look earnestly

after every means of recovering your first glorious state, as to exhort

the blind to receive their sight, the sick to accept of health, or

the captive to suffer his chains to be taken off. For when you see

your _misery_ and your _redemption_, both of them so exceeding great,

you see _something_ that must needs penetrate the depth of your soul,

that leaves you no room to _doubt_ about the nature of any virtue; no

liberty to indulge _one vain_ passion, or to think it any hardship that

the gospel calls you to be _perfect_. For in this light every virtue of

the gospel stands recommended to us, as _health_, _purity_ and _sight_

stand recommended to a _sick, noisome, blind leper_, who was shut up in

a place that continually increased all his evils.

* It strips us of nothing, but the _uncleanness_ of leprosies, the

_miseries_ of sores, pains and blindness. It takes nothing from the

world which is about us, but its poison and power of infecting us.

* So that to be called to the height of all virtue, however excessive

it may seem to the _reasonings_ of flesh and blood, is only being

called away from every _misery_ and _evil_ that can be avoided by us.

31. * No virtue therefore has any _blameable extreme_ in it, till

it _contradicts_ this general end of religion, till it _hinders_

the restoration of the divine image in us, or makes us _less fit_ to

appear amongst the inhabitants of heaven. _Abstinence_, _temperance_,

_mortification_ of the senses and passions, can have no excess,

till they hinder the purification of the soul, or make the body less

subservient to it. _Charity_ can have no excess, till it contracts that

love which we are to have in heaven, till it is more than that which

would lay down its life even for an enemy, till it exceeds that which

the first Christians practised, when they had all things common; till

it exceeds that of St. _John_, who requires him that has two coats,

to give to him that has none; till it is loving our poor brethren more

than Christ has loved us; till it goes beyond the command of loving our

neighbour as we love ourselves.

32. See now how the Doctor instructs his readers on those two great

articles, Christian _temperance_, and _charity_. To remove restraints

of the first kind he says, Our Saviour came eating and drinking, was

present at weddings, and other entertainments. The Doctor may go on,

and prove these indulgences to be good and pious, because what our

Saviour worked a miracle to promote must needs be so. And so the adding

another bottle, when friends are rejoicing, may be made a Christian

duty.

But I must vindicate the life and example of our blessed Lord from the

indignity done to it by the Doctor. Our blessed Lord came indeed, as he

says of himself eating and drinking. But in what manner? In what sense,

did he say this of himself? Why it was in distinction from _John the

Baptist_, who came eating only one sort of food. And it was to shew

the _Jews_ their great guilt in this respect, that nothing could do

them any good. For the mortification of the Baptist they condemned,

as coming from the devil, and the condescension of the holy Jesus in

coming to their tables, they accused as gluttony and wine-bibbing. Now

the Doctor is plainly doing what our Lord accused the _Jews_ of; he

with them condemns the mortification of the Baptist, as coming from the

devil. But he differs from the _Jews_ in this that he does not condemn,

but _approves_ of our Lord, as a _friend_ to feasts, and merry meetings.

33. Our Saviour, suitable to his gracious love, in coming into the

world, sought the conversation of sinners and publicans, because he

came to save that which was lost, and because he knew that some amongst

such sinners were more moveable, than the proud sanctity of the learned

Pharisees. But may we thence conclude, that the lives of such sinners

were not blameable in his sight? Is not this as well, as to imagine he

favoured the indulgence of feasting, and good fellowship, because he

was found there? The holy Jesus conversed more freely, spoke of himself

and of the kingdom of God more divinely to a wicked woman of _Samaria_

than he appears to have done to his disciples. May we thence conclude,

that he approved of a woman of that character, or thereby set his seal

to the goodness, and lawfulness of her way of living? Is not this as

well, as to make his presence at a wedding an approbation of the usual

indulgences of such feasts?

34. O holy Jesus, thou didst nothing of thyself: thou soughtest only

the glory of thy Father, from the beginning to the end of thy life.

Thou spentest whole nights in prayer in mountains and desert places;

thou hadst not where to lay thy head. Thy common poor fare with thy

disciples was _barley bread_ and _dryed fish_. Thy miraculous power

never helped thee to any dainties or refreshment, tho’ ever so much

fatigued. But yet because this holy Jesus came into the world to save

all sorts of sinners, and to shew that every kind and degree of sin

could be taken away by him, therefore he came into all places, and

entered into all sorts of companies. He did not as the Baptist, tie

himself to one sort of food. But he came eating and drinking. But

why did he so? It was that he might reprove, and convert sinners at

their own tables. He came not to indulge himself, or to find such

gratifications as the Baptist abstained from; but to work miracles,

to awaken sinners in the midst of their indulgences.

It is said, that wherever the King is, there is the court. But with

much more reason may it be said, that wherever our Saviour came, there

was the temple or the church. He came to _feasts_ and _entertainments_

with the same spirit, for the same end, and in the same divine power,

as he went to raise a _dead corpse_, namely to shew forth the glory

of God. Wherever he came, it was in the _spirit_ and _power_ of the

Redeemer of mankind; every thing he did was only to destroy the works

of the devil, to deliver man from his power, raise the dead, and give

sight to the blind, and ears to the deaf. It made no difference to him,

whether he did this in the temple, or in the streets, at a feast, or

at a funeral. As he was every where God, so every place became holy to

him. Lastly, if our Saviour, was present, at chearful entertainments, to

shew his _approbation_ of such indulgences, how came _John the Baptist_,

that severe master of mortification to be a fit preparer of the way

to the kingdom of heaven? Surely his voice must cry wrong, if such

mortification was not right.

And if our Saviour disapproved of the severity of his life and manners,

how came he to point him out as a burning and shining light? Thus

much may serve to vindicate our Saviour’s example from the shocking

misapplication the Doctor has made of it.

35. Let us now see how he treats, and instructs the charitable

Christian in these words.

“What, says the _half-thinker_, is not charity to the poor, a most

excellent thing? And can I be too charitable? Can I therefore bestow

too much upon the poor? I answer, tho’ you cannot be too charitable,

yet you may bestow too much upon the poor, to the ruin of your wife

and children, which is not charity, but madness, and a great and _most

grievous sin_. Did you never hear that _charity begins at home_? Did

you never read that of St. _Paul_? _If any provide not for his own,

and especially those of his own house: he hath deny’d the faith, and is

worse than an infidel?_”

The Doctor’s proverb I shall leave to himself; but the text of St.

_Paul_, which he has as grosly misapplied, as he did our Saviour’s

miracle, I must take out of his hands. St. _Paul_’s words are quoted

to prove, that it is madness, a great and grievous sin, for any one

thro’ charity to the poor to render himself unable to provide for his

wife and children. Now the apostle in this place speaks no more about

this sin, than he speaks against the sin of watching and prayer. Nay,

what is more, there is not in all his writings, or in the whole New

Testament, the _least supposition_ or _hint_ that such a sin ever was,

or would be committed. The apostle was singly speaking of _such women_,

as were to be taken into the order of widows for the service of the

church, and to be maintained by it. Verse 4. he says, that such widows

as had children or nephews that could support them, were not to be

maintained by the church. And to such sons and nephews who have mothers

and aunts that thus want their assistance, he says, _If any one provide

not for his own, especially for those of his own house_, i. e. If any

sons or nephews have mothers or aunts become desolate widows, and take

not care to assist them, especially if they live with them, such have

renounced the piety of the gospel, and have not so much humanity as

infidels.

36. This alone is the plain doctrine of the apostle, which the Doctor

has grosly perverted, to the condemning of that which he never thought

of. On the contrary, the scripture abounds with passages which might

persuade us, that no family could ever be ruined by the alms and

charity of its father; _I have been young, and now am old_, saith the

psalmist, _Yet never saw I the righteous forsaken or his seed begging

their bread._

_The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth shall be

watered again._ They that cannot believe this, want the faith of

Christians. Had any one in the apostle’s time reduced his wife and

children to want, by his great charity to the poor, the apostle

would have been so far from rebuking him, as a half-thinking fool, or

exposing him to others, as guilty of madness, and grievous sin, that he

would have told them, that he had consecrated himself and family to the

church, that he and they were thereby become the dear objects of the

church’s care and love, since their present distress was brought upon

them by a boundless love and compassion for the poor.

I will now put the following _case_ in as high terms as the Doctor

can well desire. Let it be supposed that some good _bishop_, possessed

of as rich a _bishoprick_ as that of _Winchester_, should through his

extensive charity for the poor throughout the whole diocese, be forced

to use the utmost frugality in family expences, and to bring up his

children in employments of labour, to help themselves to food and

raiment; one a carpenter, in which business our Saviour is said to have

laboured in his youth; another a maker of tents, the trade of the great

apostle: and the rest in the like manner. Let it be supposed, that

when he died, he left only twenty pounds a year amongst them, not to

be _possessed_ by any one of them, but only to be used by every one

as sickness or age made them stand in need of it, with this injunction,

that it should be given to other sick and helpless people, when there

was no such amongst themselves: Let it be supposed that by his life

and conversation, he had filled his wife and children with the true

and perfect spirit of the gospel, that they loved and rejoiced in his

memory for all the good he had done to them, desiring nothing, but

to go through the world, in the same _humility_, _piety_, _charity_,

_love_ of God, and _renunciation_ of the world, as he had done. Will

the Doctor say that this _bishop_ had _ruined_ his wife and children;

that _half thinking_ had betrayed him into a most _grievous sin_,

that he had by this life _deny’d the faith_, and become _worse_ than

an infidel? I will venture to say, that if such a bishop should ever

appear in this kingdom, he would bid fair to put an end to infidelity

through all his diocese, though it were the largest in the nation.

Now if the Doctor does not know of any one either among the _laity_

or _clergy_, who is _ruining_ his wife and children by a greater and

more blameable charity than that of this bishop, it must be said, that

he has been in too much haste, that his zeal has not proceeded from

_knowledge_; and that he has been throwing _cold water_ upon charity,

before there was any flame in it.

37. I now proceed to shew in a more general way the blameable nature of

the Doctor’s discourse. The whole Christian world from the time of our

Saviour to this day, has been praying, _Thy kingdom come, thy will be

done on earth as it is in heaven._ Sacraments, divine worship, and the

order of the clergy, are appointed as ministerial helps for this end,

to raise, set up, and establish this kingdom of God on earth. The fall

of a man brought forth the kingdom of this world; sin in all shapes is

nothing else but the will of man, following the workings of a nature

_broken off_ from its dependency upon, and union with the divine will.

All the evil and misery in the creation arises _solely_ from this one

cause. There is not the smallest degree of pain or punishment either

within us, or without us, but is owing to this, viz. that man stands

out of his place, is not _in_, and _under_, and _united_ to God as he

should be, as the nature of things requires. God created every thing

to partake of his _own nature_, to have some share of his _own life_,

and happiness. Nothing can be good or evil, happy or unhappy, but as

it does or does not stand in the same _divine life_ in which it was

created, receiving in God, and from God, all that good that it is

capable of, and so co-operating with, and under him, according to the

nature of its powers and perfections. As soon as it turns to itself,

and would as it were have a sound of its _own_, it breaks off from

the _divine harmony_, and falls into the misery of its own _discord_;

and all its workings then are only so many sorts of torments. The

redemption of mankind can then only be effected, the harmony of the

creation can only then be restored when the will of God is the will of

every creature. For this reason our blessed Lord having taken upon him

a created nature, so continually declares against the doing any thing

of himself, and always appeals to the will of God, as the only motive

and end of every thing he did, saying, that it was his meat and drink,

to do the will of him that had sent him.

38. * What now can be so desirable to a sensible man, as to have the

vain, disorderly passions of his heart removed from him, to be filled

with such unity, love, and concord, as flow from God, to stand united

to, and co-operating with the divine goodness, willing nothing, but

what God wills, loving nothing, but what God loves, and doing all

the good he can to every creature, from the principle of love and

conformity to God. Then the kingdom of God is come and his will is

done in that soul, as it is done in heaven. Then heaven itself is in

the soul, and the life and conversation of the soul is in heaven. From

such a man the curse of the world is removed; he walks upon consecrated

ground, and every thing he meets, every thing that happens to him,

helps forward his union and communion with God. For when we receive

every thing from God, and do every thing for God, every thing does

us the _same good_, and helps us to the same degree of happiness.

_Sickness_, and _health_, _prosperity_ and _adversity_, bless and

purify such a soul; as it turns every thing _toward God_, so every

thing becomes _divine_ to it. For he that seeks God in every thing,

is sure to _find_ God in every thing. When we thus live wholly unto

God, God is wholly ours, and we are then happy in all the happiness of

God. This is the purity and perfection, that we pray for in the Lord’s

prayer, that _God’s kingdom may come_, and _his will be done in us, as

it is in heaven_.

39. And this we may be sure is not only _necessary_, but _attainable_

by us, or our Saviour would not have made it a part of our daily prayer.

It may then justly be asked, have we yet obtained that, which we have

been so long, and so universally praying for? Can we look upon the

church of this nation, as drawing _near_, or even _tending_ to this

state of perfection? Can we be carried to any one parish, either in

town or country where it can with truth be said of any _one pastor_

and his _flock_, that there the kingdom of God is _coming_ and his will

_begins_ to be done on earth, as it is done in heaven? Can we therefore

find any _one parish_, where the _pastor_ has not _great_ reason to

reject the Doctor’s discourse, and to pray both for himself and his

flock, that they may enter _much farther_ into the spirit and practice

of Christianity, than they have yet entered, that the gospel may have

_much greater_ power over them, than it hath yet had; and that they

may all _see_ what it is that has made so _divine_, and _powerful_

a religion, so without its _proper effect_ upon them? For if the

case be thus, if we stand at this amazing distance from that state of

perfection to which Christ has called us, do not _heaven_ and _earth_

seem to call upon _every minister_ of the gospel, to take _some share_

to himself of this _miserable state_ of things, and to endeavour to

convince both _himself_, and his _flock_, that they have not yet been

Christians in _true earnest_, that they have professed Christ with

the tempers of _Jews_ and _Heathens_, that they have not yet enough

_renounced_ the world, not enough _denied_ themselves, not enough

_emptied_ their hearts of passions hurtful to piety, not enough

_offered_ and devoted themselves to God, not enough made the spirit of

religion the spirit of their lives, not enough sought for strength and

deliverance from sin, by a _firm_ and _living faith_ in Jesus Christ;

not enough prayed and desired that they might be born again of God, so

that Christ may be truly formed in them; not enough prayed and desired

to be every where, and on all occasions under the perpetual influence

and guidance of the Holy Spirit, that they may think and say, and do

every thing by his holy inspiration; not enough looked to that first

and great commandment, of loving God with our whole heart and strength:

not enough endeavoured to keep the next, that of loving our neighbour,

as ourselves; not enough renounced such fashions, customs, and

conformities to the world, as corrupt the heart, and grieve and

separate the Holy Spirit from it.

40. Now which way soever we consider the lamentable state of religion

amongst us, no remedy can be procured by us of the _clergy_, but in

this one way, that every _individual_ of the order, from the highest

to the lowest, begin in right earnest with himself, open the book of

his own heart and life, and consider seriously, in the presence of God,

whether, according to his degree in the ecclesiastical function, the

world has its _due_ share of _salt_ and _light_ from him; whether all

that is in the world, the _lust of the flesh_, _the lust of the eyes_,

and the _pride of life_ have been so openly, so constantly discouraged,

and renounced by him, that the whole form of his life has been one kind,

continual call to all orders of Christians, to set their affections on

things above, to mind only the one thing needful, to have nothing at

heart, but to be in Christ new creatures, seeking, intending, desiring

nothing, thro’ the pilgrimage of this life, but to live _unspotted

from the world_, and to obtain every height of holiness, and heavenly

affections, which becomes those who are to be called sons, and heirs of

God with Christ Jesus.

41. If religion was at this time in a most flourishing state amongst

us, abounding with such congregations as made up the primitive church,

it would be great injustice to suppose that the clergy had not, under

God, been the chief instruments of building it up to such a state of

perfection. Seeing then an universal corruption of manners is on all

hands confessed, to have overspread this Christian nation, and the true

spirit of religion is hardly any where to be seen, nothing can be more

reasonable than for every _clergyman_, wherever his lot is fallen, to

suspect himself to have, in some degree, contributed to this common

calamity, and to try to discover his own state, by such questions as

these, laid _home_ to his conscience. If Christianity has not done that

to my flock which is the _only end_ of it, is there nothing of this

failure chargeable upon my conduct over it? Can my righteous Judge lay

nothing to my charge on that account? Can my own heart bear me witness

that I was not driven by _human passions_, but stayed and waited till

the Holy Spirit called me to this office? Have I not undertaken the

care of other souls, before I had any true and real care of my own?

Have I not presumed to convert and strengthen others, before I was

converted myself? To preach by hearsay of the grace, and mercy, and

salvation of the gospel, whilst I myself was an obedient slave to sin?

Have I not taken upon me to lay open the mysteries of God’s love in

Christ Jesus, before they had their _proper entrance_ into my own soul?

Have my own repentance, compunction, deep sense of the burden of sin,

and want of a Saviour taught me how to make the terrors of the Lord

known in the deep of every man’s heart, and to awaken and pierce the

consciences of sinners? Has, my own _true and living faith_ in Christ

my Saviour, my own experience of the atoning, cleansing, sanctifying

powers of his precious blood, enabled me with great boldness to tell

all sinners, that to the _faith which worketh by love_, Christ always

and infallibly saith, what he said in the gospel, _Thy sins are

forgiven; thy faith has saved thee; go in peace._

42. * Can my own heart, and God who is greater than our hearts, bear

me witness that in my sacred office I have not sought myself, or my

own things, but the things of Jesus Christ? If I have changed one flock

or station for another, or added one cure to another, have I done it

in _singleness of heart_, as unto the Lord and not for myself? Has all

that I have sought or done of this kind, been only from this motive,

that I might be more faithful to him that hath called me, and be more

and more spent and _sacrificed_ for the salvation of souls? Have I

neglected no means of fitting and preparing myself for the illumination

of God’s Holy Spirit, which alone can enable me in any measure to

speak to and work upon the hearts and consciences of men? Have I

earnestly longed, and laboured after every kind and degree of inward

and outward holiness, and purity of _body_, _soul_, and _spirit_,

that my standing at the altar may be acceptable to God, and my prayers

and intercessions for my flock avail much before him? Has my own

self-denial, renunciation of the world, and love of the cross of Christ,

enabled me to preach up those duties in their full extent? Has my own

strictly pious use of the things of this world, my own readiness to

assist every creature to the utmost of my ability fitted me to call

others to these things with power and authority? Have all ages and

conditions of people under my care had their proper instruction and

warning from me, so that I have spared no folly, vanity, indulgence,

or conformity to the world, that hurt mens souls, and hinder their

progress in piety? Have I done all that by my prayers and preaching,

life and example, which Christ expects from those whom he has enjoined

to feed his sheep? Can my flock by looking at me see what virtues they

want? Can they by following me, be led to every kind and degree of

Christian perfection! Lastly, has the will of God been the beginning

and end, the reason and motive, the rule and measure, of my liking or

disliking, doing or not doing ♦every thing among those people with whom

I have lived as their minister?

♦ removed duplicate word “every”

43. These are a few of such questions as the present state of religion

in this _island_ calls every minister to try himself by. For as

the order of the clergy is instituted for no other end, but for the

preserving of true piety in the world; so when any age is more than

ordinarily sunk in vice and impiety, the _whole order_ of the clergy,

and _every member_ of it, have great reason not only to be deeply

afflicted, but greatly affrighted at it, and to suspect their own

conduct, since that which is their particular work, has had so

_little_ success. They have great reason to apprehend, that it is

some degeneracy of spirit, some general negligence, some want of

example, some failure in doctrine, some defect in zeal and care of

their particular flocks, that _too much_ contributes to so _general a

corruption_ of manners. This does not suppose, that it is in the power

of our order to regulate the manners of people as we please; it only

supposes, that of all human means it has the _greatest effect_, and

that when any nation or people are _very bad_, it behoves the clergy,

who have any _right sense_ of the nature of our order, any _true love_

for our brethren of it, to awaken and stir up one another to a faithful

diligence in our callings; not such as may secure us from public

scandal, and the laws of the land, but such diligence as the nature of

our office, the spirit of the gospel, and the present decay of religion

call for. Let us beseech one another, deeply to consider the great

need that this poor nation hath of a _zealous_, _pious_, _exemplary_,

_disinterested_ and _laborious_ clergy; to consider the dreadful

judgments of God, that may justly be expected to fall first upon our

own heads, if this only remedy is not procured by all of us, according

to the utmost of our ability. It is now no time for ease, indulgence

or worldly repose; all is to be renounced, all is to be sacrificed.

Our religion is founded on this doctrine.――That we are to be born again

of the Holy Spirit;――that there is no sanctification of the heart, no

illumination of the mind, no knowledge of divine mysteries, no love

of holy things possible to be had, but in and by the motion and life

of this Holy Spirit in us;――that its life, motion and power in us,

increase according to our faith, prayers and desires of it.

44. * Is it not now a flat denial of all this to say, as do some,

that the establishment of the gospel in the world, together with the

assistances of _human learning_, and _languages_, has been the occasion

why the assistance of the Holy Ghost is abated? For if we consult

either scripture or experience, must it not be said, that _worldly

peace_ and _prosperity_ want _as much_ to be sanctified by the Holy

Spirit, as _persecution_ and _distress_? That _human learning_ and

_knowledge_ need as _high degrees_ of divine grace, as human ignorance?

Is not the blindness and corruption of _men of letters_, as notorious

as that of _unlearned_ men? Does an _editor of Terence, Horace_ or

_Virgil_, receive such illumination from _plays_ and _poetry_? Do

_cardinals_ and _pluralists_ receive so much _unction_ from human

establishments, as to need less to be governed by the Holy Spirit

of God? Or will we say, that a _critical study_ of divided languages,

and a religion established in worldly ease and peace, are not only

in themselves free from danger and corruption, but have so much of

the nature of the Holy Spirit in them, that they can be to us in _his

stead_, and make his sanctifying operations upon us needed in a _less

degree_?

45. On the part of God, our _redemption_ in Jesus Christ, and our

_sanctification_ by the Holy Ghost, stand always in the _same degree_

of _nearness_ and _fulness_ to all of us. There is hardly a chapter

in the New Testament that can be understood, but upon the supposition

of this great truth. If Christ is less formed in us than he was in

the first saints of the church, if we come not to the _perfect man_,

_to the measure of the stature_ of the _fulness of Christ_, it is not

because Christ is now become only our Redeemer in an ordinary way; but

it is because we have not so counted all things but _dung_, that we

might win Christ, as the first saints did. If the Holy Spirit does not

now in _such a degree_ renew, quicken, move, and sanctify our hearts,

and fill us with _such degrees_ of divine light and love, as was done

in the first age of the church, it is not because this sanctifying

spirit has committed _some part_ of his work to _human learning_, and

so is become only our sanctifier in a lesser and _ordinary degree_,

but it is because we ourselves have _forsaken this fountain of living

waters, and hewed out broken cisterns_ for ourselves; it is because

we have grieved this Holy Spirit, _resisted_ his motions, and under

an _outward profession_ of Christ have kept up that _old man, with his

deeds_, which cannot be the habitation of the Holy Spirit.

* If therefore we have any true sense of the nature and weight of

our ecclesiastical calling, any desire to do the _full work_ of the

ministry, to satisfy the necessities of our flocks; if we have any fear

of being condemned as _useless_ labourers in Christ’s vineyard, it is

high time to awake from this dream of an ordinary and extraordinary

sanctification of the Holy Spirit. It serves only to keep us

_unsanctified_, shut up in death, in our own corrupted nature, to

keep us _learnedly_ content with our state, as if we were _rich_ and

_increased_ in _goods_, and _had need_ of _nothing_: and hinders us

from knowing that we are _wretched_ and _miserable, and poor, and blind

and naked_.

46. * Several of the clergy, whose lot is fallen in this corrupt age,

may be supposed to have taken upon them the sacred office, and to

have lived in it, not enough according to the nature and spirit of it,

merely through the _degeneracy_ of the times, and from a consideration

that they are well enough, according to the religion that now

passes in the world. And perhaps there are few, if any of the order,

however eminent for good works, whose virtues have not receiv’d _some

abatement_ from the same cause――This therefore may be added as another

reason why all the clergy of this land must in the spirit of martyrdom

awaken the world into a faith and love of the gospel. Now is the time

that we must _give up_ all our worldly regards, _forsake all that

we have, that we must hate father and mother, wife and children, and

brothers and sisters, yea and our own lives also_, or we cannot be

faithful ministers of Jesus Christ. The same spirit which first planted

the gospel, is now required to _recover_ and _restore_ it amongst us.

We must break off our chains of worldly prudence, and come forth in the

spirit and power of the gospel: so live, and speak, and act, whether in

the pulpit or out of it, that all who see and hear us may be forced to

confess that God is in us of a truth. A _ministry_ that have not this

power, that have not _full proof_, both to themselves and others, that

the Holy Spirit is thus _with them_, opening the kingdom of God in

their own souls, and enabling them to preach it to others with spirit

and power, are to answer to God for their want of it.

47. To ask whether the assistance of the holy Spirit is to be

_ordinary_ or _extraordinary_, is as needless a distinction, as to

ask whether a _minister_ of the gospel ought to be an ordinary or

extraordinary man. The operation of the holy Spirit in us since the

fall, is a supernatural power, and therefore in a just sense always

extraordinary; because enabling us to be and do that, which the

ordinary power of fallen nature is insufficient for. But it is more

or less restored to us, as we are more or less fitted to receive it.

* The Christian religion has not had its proper effect, till it has so

set up the kingdom of God among us, that _his will is done on earth, as

it is done in heaven_.

* This is the perfection that every Christian is to _aspire_ after.

And if they who are to be taught, are to be thus emptied of all worldly

passions, thus dead to the workings of self-will, that the Spirit of

God may be all in all in them, what manner of men ought they to be,

who are to _teach_, _promote_, _advance_, and _lead_ the way to this

purity and perfection? At what a distance ought he to be from every

_appearance_ of pride, that is to draw others to live and practise

the profound humility of the blessed Jesus? How ought he to humble his

body, and be steady in all kinds of self-denial, who would convince his

flock, that _they who sow to the flesh reap_ destruction? How heavenly

minded, how devoted to God, how attentive to the one thing needful, how

unspotted from the world ought he to be, who is to persuade others that

they cannot possibly _serve God and mammon_? How empty ought he to be

of all _worldly_ policy, all arts and methods of _ambition_, who is to

fix it deep in the hearts of his hearers that _unless they become as

little children, they cannot enter into the kingdom of God_? What open

hands, and open heart ought he to have, what an extent of charity ought

to be visible in him, who is to bring his flock to this faith, that _it

is more blessed to give than to receive_? How remarkably, undeniably

plain, open, sincere, undesigning, and faithful should he be, who is

to plant, and establish sincerity, plainness, simplicity, truth and

innocence amongst his flock? There is such a necessary fitness in these

things, that the power of religion, must be much prevented, when its

precepts are recommended by such as excuse themselves from the plain

and open practice of them.

48. * The office of the ministry is of the highest nature; it is a

trust which no language can sufficiently express: and the unfaithful

discharge of it is of all conditions in life the most dreadful. To be

charged with the death and blood of souls, by that God who laid down

his life to redeem them, is a condemnation that will carry more of

guilt and punishment in it than any other. Would you know the office

of a Christian pastor, you must look at the office of Christ. Would

you know what manner of spirit he ought to be of, you must look at

the Spirit of Christ. For the work of the ministry is only the work

of Christ committed to other hands, who are to supply his absence, to

be here in his stead, to be doing the same things, and with the same

spirit that he did, till the end of the world.

* Nothing is so highly honourable as to bear a part in the priesthood

of Christ, and be employed in the work of the ministry. But then it

should be _well considered_, that it is only honourable in the _same

sense_, as it is honourable to suffer as a martyr. It is an honour that

is as different from all worldly figure and distinction, as the glory

of Christ upon the cross is different from the triumph of an earthly

prince. When therefore we think of the _honour_ and _dignity_ of the

pastoral function, we should be careful to remember, that it is only

the honour of dying a martyr, an honour of humbling, abasing, and

sacrificing ourselves with Christ, and continuing the exercise of his

suffering-priesthood for the salvation of the world. The holy function

is often considered only as an authoritative commission to minister in

holy things. But it is much more than this. It is a call and command to

act with the Spirit of Christ, to represent his purity, to continue his

holiness, to bear a part of his sacrifice, and devote themselves for

the good of others, as he did. A priest that has only his ordination to

distinguish him, wants as much to make him a true priest, as _Judas_

wanted to make him a true apostle. For tho’ holiness alone gives no man

a commission to exercise the pastoral office, yet all who are called to

it, are as much ordained to a peculiar holiness, as to the

administration of the sacraments.

49. For the sacred office is God’s appointment, to continue through all

ages, the spirit and power of Christ for reconciling men to God in the

same manner and by the same means of holiness, sacrifice and devotion,

which Christ exercised when he was upon earth. We need no other proofs

of this, than this one saying of our Lord: _As my Father hath sent

me, so send I you._ That is, for all the ends for which I am come into

the world, for all the same ends I send you into it; to be there in my

stead, to supply my absence, to carry on the work that I have begun,

to act with my spirit, to continue the exercise of my love, and labour,

and suffering for the salvation of mankind. Now to be sent by our Lord

for the same ends as he was sent into the world, is such an appointment

of us to all kinds of holiness, as can never be rightly discharged, but

by our devoting ourselves wholly and absolutely unto God.

Imagine that you had lived with our blessed Lord upon earth, that

you had learned the dignity and divinity of his person, that you had

seen the love which he bore to mankind, that you had entered into the

glorious designs of his kingdom, which was to convert the inhabitants

of the earth, poor creatures of flesh and blood, into sons of God and

heirs of eternal glory.

Imagine that you had seen him after his resurrection, when he had

redeemed the world, conquered sin, death and hell, and was about to

take possession of his throne; imagine that then, you had seen him

commission some of his followers to be priests and intercessors with

God on earth, as he had been, to feed and nourish, and watch over his

flock, as he had done, to go before them in such exemplary holiness,

such love of God, such compassion for sinners, such contempt of the

world, such poverty of spirit, such obedience, and resignation, as they

had him for an ensample. Had you been present at all this, how would

you then have felt these words, “As my Father hath sent me, so send I

you?”

50. * What sentiments of piety, what magnificence of spirit, what

exalted holiness, would you have expected of those, who were called

to succeed so great a master in so great a work? Could you think

they could be fit for this office, unless they had _renounced_ and

_sacrificed_ every thing for the sake of it? Could you think that any

care but that of the church of God was proper for them? Would you not

own that the conversion of sinners to God, ought to have been their

only labour and pains? That they were to seek for no other happiness in

this world, than such as their Lord and master had done, but consider

themselves as called from the common affairs, ease and pleasures of

life, to be in Christ’s stead towards the rest of mankind, to conduct

them safely to eternal happiness? Now when we consider the apostles in

this light, as being the first that were entrusted with the _care of

souls_ from Christ himself, we can see no degree of zeal, no height of

piety, no compassion for sinners, no concern for the honour of God, no

contempt of suffering, no disregard of worldly interest, no watchings

or mortifications, no fervours of devotion, to which we of the clergy

are not equally obliged. For the salvation of mankind is still the same

glorious, and necessary work that it was in their days; is still to

be carried on by the same means, and is now in the hands of the clergy

as it was then in theirs. If it was their happiness and glory to be

faithful to him that called them, to forget the little interests of

flesh and blood, and have nothing at heart, but the advancement of

God’s kingdom, we shall fail both of happiness and glory if we seek

it any other way. If an apostle considering the weight of reconciling

souls unto God, is forced to cry out, _Who is sufficient for these

things?_ Shall we think any care but that which is the greatest, will

make us stand uncondemned before God?

51. * It is a fatal deception to imagine, that the life of a minister

of God is ever to be a life of ease and worldly repose. For tho’ the

temporal sword be not always drawn against them, nor they forced to

flee from one city to another, yet the world, the flesh and the devil,

are never so difficult to be resisted, as in temporal prosperity; nor

have the ministers of Christ ever more occasion to put on all their

armour, than when the world is given up to ease, and peace, and plenty.

Swarms of vices steal in upon us in these seasons; the spirit and life

of religion is in danger of being lost, and the salvation of souls

is made more difficult, than in the most perilous times. And how is

such a state of temptation to be resisted, such a torrent of vice to

be suppressed, but by the clergy’s shewing themselves _visible_ and

_notorious_ examples of all the contrary virtues? When mankind are

wallowing in debauchery, wantoning in pleasures, and given up to vanity

and luxury in all shapes, it is then the duty of the faithful minister,

by his being crucified to the world, to proclaim himself a messenger

of a crucified Saviour, and to make his own self-denying, mortified,

and heavenly life, a plain, open, and constant reproof of all vain

indulgences.

But to proceed, “To what a height of fanatic madness in doctrine as

well as practice, says the Doctor, are some advanced, who set out at

first with an appearance of more than ordinary sanctity only.” Is not

this calling upon the clergy to beware, how they admit these beginnings

of a more than ordinary sanctity of life, either in themselves, or

those committed to their care? Is it not plainly telling them, that

they must stick _closely_ and _steadily_ to such sanctity of practice,

as may be called _ordinary_, or else they will be in fanatic madness?

Nay, it is no force put upon his words, to suppose, _a more than

ordinary sanctity in practice only_, is marked out as the genuine,

natural cause of _fanatic madness_, and therefore the cause is equally

condemned with the effect. Had he meant that his reader should not have

the same dislike of the one, as of the other, would he not have put in

a word in favour of a _more than ordinary_ sanctity of life? Would he

not have said, that he did not intend to _blame that_, or at least not

_so much_ as the other? But not a word of this. A more than ordinary

sanctity in _practice_ only, and fanatic _madness_ are considered as

cause and effect, and left in the same state of condemnation, to be

equally guarded against, and avoided, by the reader.

52. I can’t help here addressing myself with great affection to all my

younger brethren of the clergy. According to the course of nature, you

are likely to have the care of the church wholly upon your hands in a

short time; and therefore it is chiefly from you that the restoration

of true piety is to be expected in this nation. I beseech you,

therefore for your own sakes, for the gospel’s sake, for the sake of

mankind, to devote yourselves wholly to the love and service of God. As

you are yet but beginners in this great office, you have in your power

to make your lives the greatest happiness, both to yourselves and the

whole nation. You are entered into _holy orders_ in degenerate times,

where trade and traffic have seized upon all holy things; and it will

be easy for you without fear to swim along with the corrupt stream,

and to look upon him as an enemy or enthusiast, that would save you

from being lost in it. But think my dear brethren, think in time what

remorse you are treasuring up for yourselves, if you live to look back

upon a loose, negligent, worldly life, spent among those whose blood

will be required at your hands. Think on the other hand, how blessedly

your employment will end, if by your voices, your lives, and labours,

you put a stop to the overflowings of iniquity, restore the spirit of

the primitive clergy, and make all your flock bless and praise God, for

having sent you among them. * Lay this down as an infallible principle,

that _an entire, absolute renunciation_ of all worldly interest, is the

only possible foundation of that virtue which your station requires.

Without this all attempts after an exemplary piety are in vain. If

you want any thing from the world by way of figure and exaltation, you

shut the power of your Redeemer out of your own souls, and instead of

converting, you corrupt the hearts of those that are about you. Detest

therefore with the utmost abhorrence, all desires of making your

fortunes, either by preferments or rich marriages, and let it be your

only ambition to stand at the top of every virtue, as visible guides

and patterns to all that aspire after the perfection of holiness.

Consider yourselves merely as the messengers of God, that are solely

sent into the world, to bring the world to God.

53. I don’t call you from a sober use of human learning, but I would

fain persuade you to think nothing worthy of your notice in books and

study, but that which applies to the amendment of the heart, which

makes you more holy, more divine, more heavenly, than you would be

without it. You want nothing, but to have the corruption of your

natural birth removed, to have the nature, life, and spirit of Jesus

Christ derived into you. As this is all you want, so let this be all

that you seek from books, study, or men. This is the only certain way

to become eminent divines, instructed to the kingdom of heaven. And

above all, let me tell you that the book of all books is your own

heart, in which are written and engraven the deepest lessons of divine

instruction. Learn therefore to be deeply attentive to the presence of

God in your heart, who is always speaking, always instructing, always

illuminating that heart that is attentive to him: and be assured of

this, that so much as you have of inward attention to God, of love and

adherence to his holy light and Spirit, so much as you have of real,

unaffected humility and meekness; so much as you are dead to your own

will, so much as you have of purity of heart; so much and no more,

nor any further, do you see and know the truths of God. These virtues

are the only eyes, and ears and senses, by which you will understand

every thing in scripture, in that manner in which God would have it

understood, both for your own good, and the good of other people.

54. It was owing to this purity of heart, and attendance upon God, that

an ancient widow named _Anna_, knew him to be the true Messiah, whom

the rulers, chief priests, and doctors of the law, condemned as an

impostor. Had they, instead of their adherence to critical knowledge

and rabbinical learning, been devoted to God in such purity of heart

as she was, they had known as much of the kingdom of God, as she did.

Place therefore all your hope, all your learned help and skill, in the

ardent love and practice of _these virtues_. And then, you will be able

ministers, holy priests, and messengers of God; your cleansed hearts,

like so many purified mirrors, will be always penetrated, always

illuminated by the rays of divine light, and you will no more need the

critics, to tell you what God speaks to you in the scriptures. But of

all men in the world, the critical dealers in words and particles, know

the least of them, and make the vainest attempts to understand them.

Scripture considered as a doctrine of _life_, _faith_ and _salvation_

in Jesus Christ, is a sealed or unsealed, an open or shut up book to

every heart, in the same proportion as it stands turned to the world,

or turned to God. Nothing understands God, but the Spirit of God;

nothing brings the Spirit of God into any mind but the renouncing all

for it, the turning wholly unto it, and the depending wholly upon it.

* Human learning is by no means to be rejected from religion, for it is

of the same use, and affords the same assistance to religion, that the

_alphabet_, _writing_ and _printing_ does. But if it is raised from

this kind and degree of assistance, if it is considered as a key, or

the key to the mysteries of our redemption, instead of opening to us

the kingdom of God, it locks us up in our own darkness. God is an all

speaking, _all working_, _all illuminating_ essence, possessing the

depth of every creature according to its nature; and when we turn

from all impediments, this divine essence becomes as certainly the

true light of our minds here, as it will be hereafter. This is not

enthusiasm, but the words of truth and soberness; and it is the running

away from this enthusiasm, that has made so many great scholars as

useless to the church as tinkling cymbals, and Christendom a mere

_Babel_ of learned confusion.

Some ANIMADVERSIONS upon

Dr. ♦TRAPP’s late REPLY.

HAD I the spirit of an _adversary_, or were inclined to find

entertainment for the _satirical reader_, it would not be easy for

me to overlook the opportunity which Dr. _♦Trapp_’s Reply has put

into my hands; but as I don’t want to lessen any appearance of ability

which the Doctor has shewn on this occasion; so whatever _personally_

concerns him, either as a _writer_, a _scholar_, a _disputant_, a

_divine_, or a _Christian_, shall have no reflection from me; and tho’

by this means, some sort of readers may be less pleased, yet, the more

Christian reader will be glad to find, that thus I must leave _two

thirds_ of his reply untouched; and as I neither have, nor (by the

grace of God) ever will have any _personal contention_ with any man

whatever, so all the _triumph_ which the Doctor has gained over me by

that flow of wrath and contempt which he has let loose upon me, I shall

leave him quietly to enjoy.

♦ “Trap” replaced with “Trapp”

It would be no pleasure to me, nor benefit to the world, to discover

that _malignity_ of _spirit_, that _undistinguishing head_, that

_diabolical calumny_, that _shameful ignorance_, that _indecent

sufficiency_, that _unbecoming presumption_, that _nauseous_ dulness,

that _ignorance_ of _logic_, that _insensibility_ of argument, that

want of _grammar_, which he has so heartily laid to my charge; and if

he has any readers that thank him for this, I shall make no attempt to

lessen their number.

As I desire nothing for myself, or the reader, but good _eyes_, and a

good _heart_, seriously attentive to things useful, and always open to

the light and influence of the Holy Spirit of God, so I shall endeavour

to say nothing but what is suitable to such a state of mind, both in

myself and the reader.

* The thing of importance which I shall speak to, shall be with regard

to what I have said to the clergy. The miserable state of religion,

and the great corruption of manners, so incontestably apparent in this

island, gave me a just occasion to desire all the clergy, from the

highest to the lowest in the order, to consider their conduct, and see

how free they were from the common corruption, and how justly every one

could clear himself from having any share in this general depravity of

manners. I was not insensible that this was a dangerous attempt, that

would expose me to the resentment of not a few of my brethren: but as

I wrote for no other end but to do as much good as I could to those

who were capable of it, so I had no care but how to speak disagreeable

truths, in as inoffensive a manner as I could; how I have succeeded

in this, is left to the world to judge. And as it is but too apparent,

that the root of all the evil, which but too much spreads itself

through the whole body of the clergy, is owing to a worldly, trading

spirit, too visible from the top to the bottom of the order, so I

pointed at it in the softest manner that I could, in the following

words, grounded on a plain apostolical doctrine and practice.

St. _Paul_, I had observed, had said, it was lawful for those that

preach the gospel to live by the gospel, and yet makes it matter of

the greatest comfort to himself that he had wholly abstained from this

_lawful thing_; and declares it were better for him to die than that

_this_ rejoicing should be taken from him. He appeals to his daily and

nightly working with his own hands, that so he might preach the gospel

_freely_, and not be chargeable to those that heard him. And this he

said he did, not for want of authority to do otherwise, but that he

might make himself an example unto them to follow him. Here, I say,

“What awakening instructions are here given to us of the _clergy_,

in a practical matter of the greatest moment? How ought every one to

be frighted at the thoughts of desiring or seeking a _second living_,

or of rejoicing at great pay where there is but little duty, when the

apostle’s rejoicing consisted in this, that he had passed thro’ all

the fatigues and perils of preaching the gospel without any pay at all?

How cautious, nay, how fearful ought we to be, of going so far as the

secular laws permit, when the apostle thought it more desirable to lose

his life, than to go so far as the very law of the gospel would have

suffered him?

“It is looked upon as lawful to get several preferments, and to make a

gain of the gospel, by hiring others to do duty for us at a lower rate.

It is looked upon as lawful to quit a cure of souls of a small income,

for no other reason, but because we can get another of a greater. It

is looked upon as lawful for a clergyman to take the revenues of the

church, which he serves, to his _own use_, tho’ he has more than a

competency of his own, and much more than the apostle could get by his

labour. It is looked upon as lawful for the clergy to live in state

and equipage, to buy purple and fine linen out of the revenues of

the church. It is looked upon as lawful for clergymen to enrich their

families, to bring up their children in the fashionable vanities, and

corrupting methods of a worldly and expensive life, by money got by

preaching the gospel of Christ. But supposing all this _lawful_, what

comfort might we treasure up to ourselves, what honour might we bring

to religion, what force might we give to the gospel, what benefit

should we do to our neighbour, if we wholly abstained from all these

lawful things? Not by working day and night with our own hands, as the

great apostle did, but by limiting our wants and desires to the plain

demands of nature, and a religious self-denial.”

Now, there are but two possible ways of justly replying to this; first,

either by shewing that these observations are falsely drawn from the

apostle’s doctrine and practice, that I have mistaken the spirit of St.

_Paul_, and the genius of the gospel, that I am doing what the apostle

would not do, was he here in person, and representing such things as

corruptions, which the apostle would be glad to see flourishing in

the church of Christ: Or, secondly, that though these things are

condemnable from the apostle’s doctrine and practice, yet they are not

chargeable upon the temper and practice of the clergy of this land. But,

though not a word to the purpose could possibly be said, unless by one

of these two ways, yet the Doctor shuts his eyes to both of them, and

then pronounces sentence upon me, “That a Quaker or Infidel could not

well have reflected with more virulency upon the clergy of our church,

than I have done in these expressions.”

Must I then suppose, that the Doctor in his sermons never mentions any

failings that concern his auditors? If he does, I desire to know, how

he clears himself from virulently reflecting upon them? The Quakers

and Infidels are ready enough, and able enough to shew, that most

congregations of Christians are sadly fallen from the religion of the

gospel. But does the Doctor forbear this charge, is he ashamed to call

his flock to a more Christian life, or afraid to remind them of their

departure from the gospel, lest he should seem to join with Quakers and

Infidels? Or, how can the Doctor be thought to have any _true love_,

or _just esteem_ for those Christians, whom he is so often reminding

of the corruption of their manners, so contrary to the religion of

Jesus Christ? Now, if the Doctor knows how to untie this knot, and

to extricate himself from the charge of virulent reflecting upon his

parishoners, as Quakers and Infidels do, then he has dissolved his

charge against me into a mere nothing.

* If it was a thing required of me, I know no more how to raise in

myself the least spark of ill-will towards the clergy, as such, than I

know how to work myself up into a hatred of the light of the sun. It is

as natural to me, to wish them all their perfection, as to wish peace

and happiness to myself here and hereafter; and when I point at any

failings in their conduct, it is only with such a spirit as I would

pluck a brother out of the fire.

In that part of my answer, which is addressed to the younger clergy,

I said, “Lay this down for an infallible principle; that an entire,

absolute renunciation of all worldly interest, is the only possible

foundation of that exalted virtue, which your station requires; without

this, all attempts after an exemplary piety are vain: (_and then,

by way of limitation and explication of this, it thus immediately

follows_:) If you want any thing from the world by way of _figure_ and

_exaltation_, you shut the power of your Redeemer out of your own souls,

and instead of converting, you corrupt the hearts of those that are

about you. Detest therefore, with the _utmost abhorrence_, all desires

of making your fortunes, either by _preferments_, or _rich marriages_,

and let it be your only ambition, to stand at the top of every virtue,

as visible guides and patterns to all that aspire after the perfection

of holiness,” _p._ 61.

Now, one would imagine there was no part of the Christian world,

however corrupted, where this doctrine would not be admitted at least

in theory; or, that the gospel of Christ should be thought to be

reproached, where such advice as this was given to young divines:

and yet it is of this very advice, that Dr. _♦Trapp_ says, “he _hopes

they_ will have more _grace_ and sense _than to follow it_: that it is

_false doctrine, tending to the reproach and scandal of the Christian

religion_,” p. 87.

♦ “Trap” replaced with “Trapp”

Is it then come to this, that unless young divines chuse to serve

mammon as well as God, their profession is a renouncing of grace and

sense, and a reproach to religion? And must they that pretend to act

in Christ’s name, as successors in his office, take care that they

renounce not the politics of the kingdom of this world? For my part,

I thought it as consistent with the honour of the gospel, to give this

advice, to suppress all worldly views, as to resist the temptations of

the devil.

Had _Martin Luther_, when he gave his reasons for withdrawing from the

_Pope_, been able to have added this; that the advice here given, had

been formally condemned by the _Pope_ in a great council, the defenders

of that church would have found it as hard to have made such a decree

consistent with the gospel, as the selling of ♦indulgences: and it may

well be supposed, that no Protestant writer, when setting forth the

marks of antichrist, in that church, would have forgot to have made

this condemnation to be one of them.

♦ “indulgencies” replaced with “indulgences” for consistency

For who can shew it to be so contrary to the whole spirit of the gospel,

to call in the _assistance_ of the saints, or to deny the cup to the

laity, who can shew this to put so entire a stop to salvation by the

gospel, as to condemn this _advice_ to young divines, as a reproach to

Christianity? For all the ends of the gospel may be pursued, and men

may arise out of the corruption of their nature, notwithstanding these

two mistakes: but to condemn it as an error inconsistent with grace

and sense, a reproach to Christianity, for young divines to renounce

worldly views, and devote themselves wholly to God, is striking at the

whole root of all holiness, and a denial of the whole spirit of the

gospel.

Our church requires all its candidates for holy orders, to make

profession of their being moved and called by the Holy Ghost to enter

into the service of the church: this, I should think, is proof enough,

that the spirit of this world ought not to be alive in them, when they

make this profession; and yet, if any young persons should come to be

ordained, thus dead to all worldly views, thus wholly devoted to God,

they ought according to the Doctor, to be rejected by the bishop, as

being led by a spirit that has lost all _grace_ and _sense_, and is a

_reproach_ to the Christian religion.

It is needless to quote particular texts of scripture, teaching the

same that I have here taught; the whole nature of our redemption is

a standing proof of the same thing; for we want to be redeemed for no

other reason, but because we are born children of this world, ♦and have

by nature only the life, spirit and temper of this world, in us: this

is our fall, our curse, our separation from God; and therefore we can

have no redemption, but by a renunciation of all the workings of the

life of this world in us, by a total dying to, and denying ourselves;

because all that we are, as to our state, spirit and life in this world,

is a life that carries us from God, a life that should not have been

in us; ’tis a life begun by the fall, a life of sin and corruption,

which cannot enter into heaven. Indeed the life that we have in this

world, from _Adam_, is not to be _naturally_ destroyed, nor are the

necessaries and conveniences of life to be rejected, nor is any one to

renounce his share in the employments that are useful to social life:

the renunciation of this world reaches no farther than the renouncing

the spirit, and inclinations of it. We may stand in our stations,

when we stand in them as the servants of God, as citizens of the new

_Jerusalem_, who have amongst earthly things, our conversation in

heaven: we may keep our possessions, when we possess them as the things

of God, and use them not as nature, but as the Spirit directs us; when

we do thus, we have the poverty of spirit, which the gospel requires,

and come up to the sense of that command given to the young man, _to

sell all that he had, and give to the poor_.

♦ “ahd” replaced with “and”

But now, if our natural life is a corrupt, bestial, diabolical life

brought forth by the fall, if we want to be born again of the Holy

Spirit, because our natural birth is according to the spirit of this

world; if nothing of the beast, or the devil, no kind or degree of envy,

pride and vanity can enter into the kingdom of God, then it is plain,

that all religion which leaves this nature unrenounced, which lets

pride, wrath, and vanity subsist in us, which brings us to our graves

in the same nature in which we were born, is not the religion that

can save us. If this nature in all its most secret workings is not

renounced, it matters not what we are, or what we have been doing,

it signifies little in what chair we have sat, whether in _Italy_,

or _England_, how long we have been preachers, how many hereticks and

schismaticks we have opposed, or how many books we have written in

defence of orthodoxy; it is as vain to appeal to this, as to our having

preached and _prophesied_ in the name of Christ: for if this nature

is allowed to live in us, all our good works have been governed by it,

they are animated with pride, and only serve to gratify our own natural

passions. When therefore the Doctor calls upon young divines to have

_more grace_ and _sense_ than to be driven from thoughts of advancing

themselves by _preferments and rich marriages_, he would do well to

consider, how little short this is of calling them to break their very

baptismal vow, of _renouncing the pomps and vanities of the world_. And

if young candidates for holy orders, looking only at their baptismal

vow, should be led into this degree of self-denial and detachment from

the world, does the Doctor think, that the apostles, from whom this

baptismal vow is descended, will rise up in the day of judgment, and

condemn such abuse of it? Does he think, that there are any departed

saints that will join with him in saying, such a spirit is a _reproach_

to the gospel? What more favourable disposition could the adversary of

mankind wish to see, either in young or old divines, than a wanting and

desiring to have figure in the world, either by preferments or rich

marriages? Would he find it difficult to enter into those hearts, where

the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life has

thus entered? Or would he look upon such as but half fitted for him,

in comparison of those who entered into holy orders in a spirit of

self-denial, and renunciation of the pomps and vanities of the world?

* _John_ the _Baptist_ was but the preparer of the way for evangelical

purity of life; but does, the Doctor think that if the _Baptist_ was

now to come amongst us, he would look at things as the Doctor does,

that he would see such perfections and such corruptions, such orthodoxy

and such enthusiasm as the Doctor sees; that this _burning and shining

light_ would see no _generation of vipers_ but where the Doctor sees

them; that he would preach no where but in churches; that he would

spare no clergy, nor any church, but that which is established in this

island; that he would complain of the hardships of our clergy, and the

suffering spirit which they are forced to practise, that he would plead

for a priestly liberty of coveting preferments and rich marriages,

that he would recommend the Doctor’s discourse of the _folly, sin, and

danger of being righteous over-much_, as the true fruits of that spirit

which first preached the gospel? He that can believe this, must believe

that the Baptist was come to confess the errors of his first appearance

in the world.

I shall therefore proceed to tell young divines, that a total

renunciation of the spirit, and inclinations of this life, is the one

thing necessary to consecrate them to their holy office; that as sure

as the church of Christ is not a kingdom of this world, as sure as

Jesus Christ came to deliver us from this evil world, as sure as he

requires us to be born again, and to forsake all and follow him, so

sure is it that no one has the call of the Holy Spirit to the ministry,

nor the least ground of hoping to be led and governed by it in his

ministry, till he at least prays, desires, and heartily endeavours to

have all that disregard of worldly prosperity, figure, and distinction,

which the Spirit of Jesus Christ, the maxims of the gospel, and the

practice of the apostles set before him. Till this renunciation of the

world is made, we cannot enter into the ministry at its _own door_, but

like thieves and robbers, climb over its walls; and then it will be no

wonder if we do no more good to the church than thieves do the house

they break open and plunder. If a young minister wants to act the part

of a fine gentleman, to go on in the common spirit of the world, to

cover a secular spirit with an ecclesiastic garb, and make his fortune

in the church, he must be told that it is much safer to be a _publican_

and a _sinner_, than to be a _trader_ in spiritual things; that he

who with unsanctified hands attends at the altar, is farther from the

kingdom of God, than a _publican_.

Covetousness is idolatry; it is a heathenish, anti-christian vice, tho’

only trafficking in worldly matters; but when it takes possession of

the altar, and makes a trade of the mysteries of salvation, it has a

blackness of vice which much exceeds that of the worldly miser. The

spirit of an ♦ecclesiastic should be the spirit of heaven, knowing

nothing of this world, but how to escape its snares and temptations,

burning in the love of God, and holding out light to all that aspire

after every perfection of the Christian life.

♦ “acclesiastic” replaced with “ecclesiastic”

* ’Tis too commonly thought, that when a young student has taken his

degree, and shewn some signs of a genius for learning, he is well

prepared to enter into the service of the church. But alas! all the

accomplishments of human learning are but the ornaments of the _old

man_, which leave the soul in it slavery to sin, full of all the

disorders and corruptions of the fallen nature. If it were not thus,

how could the errors of all churches have the greatest scholars

for their champions? All the learned Catholic world is amazed at

the blindness, the perverseness, the weakness, the sophistry, the

unfairness of _Protestant critics_. All the Protestant world is in the

same degree of wonder at the same disorders in _Catholic disputants_.

Is not this a demonstration of the nature, power, and place of human

learning? Of its great uselessness to religion? Does not this enough

shew, that it is the offspring of the old man, and his nature and

qualities dwells in him, and is governed by him? Is not this a

demonstration, that the greatest degrees of historical, verbal,

critical knowledge are no real hinderance of spiritual blindness? That

human learning is as different from divine light as heaven is from

earth; and that considered in itself, it leaves us in our slavery to

blind and corrupt passions? Now nothing can deliver a man from this

state, but the Spirit of God derived into his soul, which alone can

bring forth a new man created in Christ Jesus. Nothing can make way

for this new birth, but a total dying to all that we are by our natural

birth. ’Tis only _this separation_ from things below, that can make us

partakers of the truth and light that comes from above. Take away all

selfishness from the Papist and the Protestant, let them be dead to the

workings of the Spirit, and they will be as fully agreed about gospel

truths, as they are in the form of a square or a circle. For nothing

stands in the way of divine truth, or hinders its full entrance into us,

but this selfishness, which adheres to every one who does not make it

his first maxim, prayer, and endeavour to die to, and deny himself in

all the tempers and inclinations of our fallen nature. This self-denial

is the continual doctrine of our Lord; it is by him made the beginning

of all conversion to God, and he that cannot, or will not begin there,

can make no beginning of that life, to which he is called in Christ

Jesus: therefore he that offers himself for holy orders, without this

spirit of self-denial, is a miserable intruder; he only hardens and

fixes himself in the corruptions of his own nature, and instead of

becoming an instrument of saving others, his very office makes his own

salvation more dangerous.

I doubt not but some will here charge me with pleading for poverty in

the ministry, and with enmity to that maintenance which they have both

from the law and the gospel. But this is so far from being true, that

I wish every good minister, whom the Spirit of God has called to this

office, and governs in it, had much more of this world’s goods than

are needful for his own subsistence; because it is certain, that such

a one’s money would all be put into the poor’s bag, and he would as

gladly administer to their temporal as to their spiritual necessities.

I write against nothing but _avarice_, _pride_, and _ambition_, and the

making the provisions of the church _subservient_ to these tempers. A

provision arising from the gospel, is _consecrated_ by the gospel, and

is profaned by being touched and used by a worldly spirit. And he who

turns this provision of the gospel into a gratification of worldly

passions, sins against the gospel more than he that pays his tithes

with reluctance.

I can easily believe, there are clergy in this land, who labour in the

gospel, without having a sufficient subsistence from it; but may not

much of this evil be charged upon _pluralities_, _commendams_, and such

like spiritual trading? If the inferior clergy had their labours only

undervalued by the laity, they would be in a much better condition than

they are.

When it is complained by what shameful _qualifications_, empty _titles_,

and unworthy pretences, numbers of persons get loaded and dignified

with variety of preferments; it is answered, that if preferments might

not be thus crowded together, distinguished abilities and eminent

labours for the service of religion, must go unrewarded.

As this answer is not fetched from the gospel, or the primitive church,

so it is as little supported by reason. For if this eminent labour

is truly pious labour, what state of life can so little want to be

rewarded? How can imagination itself place a man more _above_ the

thoughts and desires of worldly advancement? If such a one is full of

the spirit of the gospel, if his labours have been like those of an

apostle, must he not like an apostle, be _dead_ to the world? Can such

a one look upon his labour as a _hardship_, because it has left him

as low, and as far from the _pomp_ of the world as it found him? Can

he repine because the gospel has not proved a good _worldly bargain_

to him? If the Spirit of God has begun, and directed all his labours,

animated all his studies and designs, can such a one think it hard,

that he has not by such labours purchased to himself a share in the

state and pride of life?

* If by a _great divine_, is only meant a person well skilled in

_critical contention_, who can artfully defend a set of notions,

amongst which he happened to be born and bred, such a divine, I own,

may be very _impatient_, and _much cooled_ in his zeal, unless he finds

himself well rewarded. But if an eminent divine is to be understood

in a sense suitable to the gospel, he is that _particular person_ that

must needs have the greatest contempt and dislike of every thing, that

has but the appearance of the pomp and vanity of this world in it.

If therefore it was urged, that this conjunction of preferments and

dignifying rewards was necessary to bring _ambitious scholars_ into

the church, or to keep them in it, there would be some sense, tho’

no gospel in the pretence; but to talk of them as necessary to be the

rewards of eminent piety and apostolic labour, is as absurd, as to

say, that those who have truly put on Christ, who stand in the highest

degree of a renewed nature, who best know and feel the blessing of a

mortified, heavenly spirit, have less reason to be _content with food

and raiment_, than those who stand in a lower degree of the Christian

life; ’tis saying, that a _bishop_, because he has most of the spirit

and office of an apostle, may well desire more of the _pride_ and

_figure_ of this world, than the lower clergy, who have less of the

apostolic spirit and perfection in them.

To want to stand in some degree of worldly figure, is the state of a

_babe_ in the Christian life, and therefore can no way become those,

who are to lead others to fulness of stature in Christ Jesus.

A _great divine_ is but a _cant_ expression, unless it signifies a man

_greatly advanced_ in the divine life, whose own experience and example

is a demonstration of the _reality_ of all the graces of the gospel. No

divine has any more of the gospel in him, than that which proves itself

by the spirit, and form of his life: if therefore poverty of spirit,

a disregard of worldly figure, a total self-denial is any part of the

gospel, an eminent divine, can have no wish with regard to the figure,

pride and pomp of life, but to be placed out of every appearance of it:

and if the highest in divine knowledge are not the foremost in poverty

of spirit, and the outward humility of Christ and his apostles; if

they desire to have a dignity of worldly figure, to have respect by any

other means than by a divine evangelical spirit and conversation, and

are not content with all the contempt that such a life can expose them

to, they may be _great scholars_, but they are _little divines_, and

are wanting in that which is the chief part of the ministers of Jesus

Christ.

The next thing I said to the young clergy, was this; “Consider

yourselves _merely_ as the messengers of God, that are sent into the

world _solely_ on his errand; and think it happiness enough that you

are called to the same business for which the Son of God was born into

the world.” _p._ 81.

Now, I thought what I have said, was as unexceptionable, as unfit to

be condemned by a professor of Christian theology, as if I had only

recommended the loving of God with all our heart and soul, and mind

and strength; and that if any clergyman disliked it, he would be forced

to keep his dislike to himself; but the Doctor is very open in his

indignation at it; the same answer, he says, is to be given here, as

before, _viz._ _that it is false doctrine, tending to the scandal and

reproach_ of the Christian religion.

Our blessed Lord, when he sent the first preachers of the gospel

into the world, said unto them, _As my Father hath sent me, so send I

you――go ye and teach all nations_――and _lo I am with you to the end of

the world_. Now let it be supposed, that these first preachers of the

gospel fully believed, that from the time of their appointment to this

high office, they _were to consider themselves merely as the messengers

of God, sent into the world solely on his errand_, and that _it was

happiness enough for them to be called to that business_, for which

the Son of God was _born into the world_; if they had this belief,

what follows? Why, according to the Doctor, that they set out from the

very first in one of the greatest errors, had mistaken the nature and

intent of their mission, and had gone into the world upon a principle

that _was false_ in itself, and _scandalous_ and _reproachful_ to the

Christian religion.

But if this belief is not to be condemned in the first clergy, I desire

to know why those who claim their succession from the first, and expect

the presence of Christ in and with their ministry, are not to be called

upon to be of the same spirit and belief with them, or how can it be a

scandal to the gospel, for the modern clergy to be as wholly devoted to

the service of God, as the apostles were.

The Doctor sets it out as an extraordinary presumption in _such a man_

as I am, to pretend to give advice to young divines, when it is so

sufficiently done already by the _offices of our church, the charges,

instructions and exhortations of our bishops at their visitation,

and so many excellent ordination and visitation sermons_, p. 87. Now,

granting the plenty and excellency of all these, yet I have some hope,

my presumption may be found to be only like that of the _poor widow_,

who after so many rich oblations of great people, presumed to put

her little mite into the treasury. And if it be true, that the things

suggested by me, are only such as have been already set forth by so

many great bishops and excellent preachers, how will the Doctor come

off for condemning it, as false doctrine, scandalous, and reproachful

to the Christian religion?

Dr. _♦Trapp_ gives a reason for his condemning this advice, which is

thus expressed: “It is, says he, false to say, that clergymen ought

to mind nothing, in any degree, but their profession and duty, as

clergymen; they are husbands, parents, men, as well as clergymen, and

must in some measure be concerned in the affairs of the world. p. 88.”

♦ “Trap” replaced with “Trapp”

Part of this I own to be very true, _viz._ that they are men, and have

the wants of human nature which must be supplied; and for proof of this,

the Doctor might have appealed to St. _Paul_, who, tho’ miraculously

called to be an apostle, and separated from the world to be merely a

messenger and apostle of Jesus Christ; yet, after this high apostleship,

worked at his trade, and often spent part of the day and the night in

making tents: therefore, if all those whom I have exhorted to consider

themselves as set apart for the sole service of God, should shew such a

degree of worldly care as St. _Paul_ did, when he worked at his trade,

they might yet justly be said to act suitably to their station, as

the ministers of God, that are wholly devoted to his service; for who

can say that St. _Paul_ departed from his character, as a minister

of God, when he laboured with his own hands, that he might gloriously

and freely preach the gospel? For it was for the sake of the gospel,

to promote and recommend the gospel, to make his preaching the more

successful; it was to shew that he had fully renounced the world, and

desired nothing from it, but for the glory of God. And thus have all

the ministers of the gospel an example in St. _Paul_, how they may make

their care of a livelihood a part of their service to God.

But when the Doctor says, that clergymen are husbands and parents,

I must object a little; because no scripture or antiquity shews me,

that these characters _must_ belong to a preacher of the gospel; and

therefore, when a clergyman excuses himself from any heights of the

ministerial service, by saying, _he has married a wife_ and _therefore

cannot come_ up to them; it seems to be no better an excuse, than if he

had said, _he had hired a farm_, or _bought five yoke of oxen_.

I know very well, that the _reformation_ has allowed priests and

bishops not only to look out for wives, but to have as many as they

please, one after another: but this is only to be considered as a

bare allowance, and perhaps granted upon such a motive, as _Moses_

of old made one to the _Jews_, for _the hardness of their hearts_,

tho’ _from the beginning it was not so_; and therefore when eulogiums

are sometimes made from the pulpit on this matter, I think they had

better have been spared; an allowance granted to weakness is but an

indifferent subject to be made a matter of glory.

The Doctor should also have observed that my address was made to the

young clergy, and such as are only upon entering into holy orders, nine

in ten of whom may be supposed to be neither husbands nor fathers. He

should also have remembered that our universities are full of clergy,

who are obliged to live unmarried, that they may have proper leisure

and freedom to attend their studies without impediment from worldly

cares. And therefore, if I pointed at such a dedication of the clergy

to the service of God, as _husbands_ and _fathers_ cannot enter into,

yet the matter is not blameable, because here are so many that have not

yet entered into this state, but are at liberty to devote themselves

wholly to the service of the gospel. And therefore if to such as these,

I can so represent the weight, the duties, the heavenly nature of

the priesthood, as to prevent or extinguish in them all thoughts and

desires of being thus married to the world, what hurt have I done them,

or the married clergy, or the gospel of Jesus Christ?

* _Celibacy_, when entered into from a principle of divine love, from a

heart burning with the desire of living wholly to God, is a state that

gives wings to all our endeavours, and fits the soul for the highest

growth of every virtue: and if he that is consecrated to the service

of the altar, feels not such an ascent of his soul towards heaven, as

to have no wish, but that his _whole body_, _soul_, and _spirit_, may

be presented to God in its utmost degree of purity, he has his lamp

much less kindled, than many of the laity, both men and women have

had, in all ages of the church. Custom has too great a power over our

judgments, and reconciles us to any thing; but if a Christian, who

lived when Christianity was in its glory, when the first apologists for

it, appealed to the numbers of both sexes, devoted to a single life,

as an invincible proof of the power and divinity of the gospel; if a

Christian of those days was now to come into the world, he would be

more shocked at Reverend Doctors making love to women, than at seeing

a monk in his cell, kissing a wooden crucifix.

* The knowledge and love of the virgin state began with Christianity,

when the nature of our corruption, and the nature of our redemption

were so fully discovered by the gospel. Then it was, that a new degree

of heavenly love was kindled in the human nature, and brought forth

a state of life that had not been desired, till the son of the virgin

came into the world. _John_ the _Baptist_ was the beginner of the

gospel dispensation; this _burning and shining light_ was in his person,

the figure of _Judaism_ ending in Christianity. In his outward state

he was a _Jew_, in his inward spirit and character he belonged to the

gospel. He came out of the wilderness burning and shining, to preach

the kingdom of heaven _at hand_. This may shew us that heat and light

from above, kindled in a state of great self-denial, are necessary

to make us able ministers of the gospel; and that if we pretend to

the ministry, without these qualifications, and come only burning and

shining with the spirit of this world, we are as well fitted to hinder,

as the Baptist was to prepare the way to the kingdom of heaven. Look

at this great saint, all ye that desire to preach the gospel. He came

forth in the highest degrees of mortification and chastity of life. But

why did he so come? It was to shew the world that these virtues must

form the spirit of every preacher of the gospel. His character does

not call you to a wilderness beyond _Jordan_, or to be cloathed with

camel’s hair. Such circumstances are particular to himself; but it

calls you to his inward spirit of self-denial, to his death to the

world, and all carnal love, if you would not only preach, but prove the

perfection of the gospel: For if the _Baptist_ was to be thus dead to

the flesh and the world, that he might preach thus much, _the kingdom

of heaven is at hand_; can less self-denial be required of those, who

are to preach that which is much more, namely, that _the kingdom of

heaven is come_?

* Now if this holy _Baptist_, when he had preached awhile upon

penitence, and the kingdom of heaven _at hand_, had made an offering of

his heart to some fine _young lady of great accomplishments_, had not

this put an end to all that was burning and shining in his character?

And if those clergy who date their mission from Jesus Christ himself,

sent by him as he was by his Father, to stand as his representatives,

applying the means and mysteries of salvation to all that desire to be

_born again_; if they, whether they be vicars, rectors, arch-deacons,

deans, or bishops, should look upon their office to be as sacred, and

their station as high in the kingdom of God, as the _Baptist_’s was;

if they should look upon love addresses to the sex, as unbecoming, as

foreign, to their character, as to the _Baptist_’s, could any one say,

that they took too much upon them, or paid too great a reverence to the

holiness of the priesthood, which they derived from the very person and

office of Jesus Christ?

* Our blessed Lord improved upon these two articles of mortification

and chastity, and sets them before every preacher of the gospel in a

yet fuller light. It is needless to shew how much he speaks of the

nature and necessity of a total self-denial; but what he says of the

virgin life, as to be chosen by those who are able to chuse it, for

the kingdom of heaven’s sake, _Matthew_ xix. 12. is more than a volume

of human eloquence in praise of it. What wonder is it, if after this,

great numbers both of men and women were found in the first ages of the

church, that chose to know no love, but that of God in a single life?

* St. _Paul_ has done every thing to hinder a minister of Jesus Christ

from entering into marriage, except calling it a sinful state, when he

says, _He that is married careth for the things of the world, how he

may please his wife_; and how could he more powerfully press the virgin

life upon the clergy, than when he says, _He that is unmarried, careth

for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord_.

* I shall conclude this matter with a passage taken from the _Serious

Call to a devout and Holy Life_; it is a quotation from _Eusebius_, who

lived at the time of the first general council, when the faith of our

_Nicene Creed_ was established: his words are these, “There have been,

saith he, instituted in the church of Christ, two ways or manners of

living; the one raised above the ordinary state of nature, and common

ways of living, rejects wedlock, possessions, and worldly goods, and

being wholly separated and removed from the ordinary conversation of

common life, is appropriated and devoted solely to the worship and

service of God, through an _exceeding degree_ of _heavenly love_: they

who are of this order of people, seem dead to the life of this world,

and having their bodies only upon earth, are in their minds and

contemplations dwelling in heaven; from whence, like so many heavenly

inhabitants, they look down upon human life, making _intercessions_ and

_oblations_ for the whole race of mankind; and this, not with the blood

of beasts, or the fat, or smoak and burning of bodies, but with the

highest exercises of true piety, with cleansed and purified hearts,

and with a whole form of life strictly devoted to virtue: these are

their sacrifices, which they are continually offering unto God, and

implore his mercy and favour for themselves and their fellow-creatures.

Christianity receives this as the perfect manner of life.

“The other is of a lower form, and suiting itself more to the condition

of human nature, admits of chaste wedlock, the care of children and

families, of trade and business, and goes through all the employments

of life, under a sense of piety and fear of God: now, they who have

chosen this manner of life, have their set times for retirement and

spiritual exercise, and particular days are set apart for their hearing

and learning the word of God: and this order of people are considered

as in the second state of piety.”¹ Here you see the perfection of the

Christian life plainly set out, and how it was, what numbers of private

persons, men and women, who had no share in the ecclesiastical office,

yet, by their perfection of life, were _holy and heavenly intercessors_

for the whole race of mankind. * Now, may we not suppose, that the

clergy were in this number of people that were thus heavenly in the

whole form of their life, thus devoted to God and the edification of

the church, by embracing the perfect life of Christianity? If they were

not, do they not stand plainly condemned, since _Christianity held this

to be the perfect manner of life_? I shall only add, that till such

a degree of heavenly love, such a sense of the holiness and heavenly

nature of the sacred calling, till such a desire of perfection is

awakened in the clergy, as shuts out all carnal love and worldly

tempers from their hearts, they cannot be such priests and intercessors

with God, such patterns of holiness, such kindlers of divine love and

heavenly desires amongst men, as the nature of their office both

intends and requires of them.

¹ Serious Call, &c. p. 134.

* If a candidate for holy orders dares not make this total donation of

himself to God, to be an instrument of his good pleasure only in the

service of the gospel, if it is not his real state, to wish nothing

in this world but the most perfect purification of his nature, if

he desires any thing in and by his office, but a concurrence with

Jesus Christ in the salvation of souls; if he has any reserves of

self-seeking, or self-advancement in the world, and fleshly passions

which he hopes to make consistent with the duties of his profession:

if he is not separated in will and desire from all that is not God,

and the service of God, he must be said to want the best proofs of his

being called by the Holy Ghost.

But the Doctor has a _second reply, Whether you consider the |divinity|,

or the |sense| of this, could |George Fox| himself have outdone it_?

p. 48. This reply, considered in itself, might have its place amongst

those _algebraic quantities_, that are some degrees less than nothing;

but with regard to the Doctor’s purpose it has something in it, for it

is an appeal to that which is very powerful, which has suppressed many

a good truth: it is an appeal to vulgar prejudice; and shews that the

Doctor is not without his expectations from that quarter. And thus it

is, that the Catholic artist in his country plays a _Martin Luther_,

when he wants to reproach that which he knows not how to confute. What

degree of sense, or divinity _George Fox_ was possessed of, I cannot

pretend to say, having never read any of his writings; but if he has

said any divine truths, I should be as well pleased in seeing them in

his books, as in any of the fathers of the primitive church. For as the

gospel requires me to be as glad to see piety, equity, strict sobriety,

and extensive charity in a _Jew_ or a _Gentile_, as in a Christian; as

it obliges me to look with pleasure upon their virtues, and be thankful

to God, that such persons have so much of true and sound Christianity;

so it cannot be an unchristian spirit to be as glad to see truths in

one party of Christians as in another; and to look with pleasure upon

any good doctrines that are held by any sect of Christian people, and

be thankful to God, that they have so much of the genuine truths of the

gospel. * For if we have no complaint against those that are divided

from us, but what proceeds from a Christian fear, that what they hold

and practise will not be so beneficial to them, as our religion will be

to us, must we not have the utmost readiness and willingness to find,

own, and rejoice in those good doctrines and practices which they still

retain? If a poor pilgrim, under a necessity of travelling a dangerous

and difficult road, had, through his own perverseness lost the use of a

leg, and the sight of one eye, could we be said, to have any charitable

concern for his perverseness and misfortune, unless we were glad to

see that he had one good leg, and one good eye still left, and unless

we hoped and desired they might bring him at last to his journey’s

end? Now let every part of the church which takes itself to be sound

and good, and is only angry at every other part, because they have

_lessened the means_ of their own salvation; let her but have thus

much charity in her anger, and then she will be glad to see, in every

perverse division, something like the one good leg, and the one good

eye of the pilgrim, and which she will hope and wish may do them the

same good.

* _Selfishness_ and _partiality_ are very base qualities, even in the

things of this world; but in the doctrines of religion they are of a

baser nature. Now this is the _greatest evil_ that the division of

the church has brought forth; it raises in every communion a selfish,

partial orthodoxy, which consists in courageously defending all that

it has, and condemning all that it has not. And thus all champions are

trained up in defence of their own truth, their own learning, and their

own church; and he has the most merit, who likes every thing, defends

every thing among themselves, and leaves nothing uncensured in those

that are of a different communion. Now how can truth, and goodness, and

religion be more struck at, than by such defenders of it? If you ask

why the great bishop of _Meaux_ wrote so many learned books against all

parts of the _reformation_, it is because he was born in _France_, and

bred up in the bosom of _mother church_. Had he been born in _England_,

had _Oxford_, or _Cambridge_ been his _alma mater_, he might have

rivaled our great bishop _Stillingfleet_, and would have wrote as many

learned folios against the church of _Rome_ as he has done. And yet

I will venture to say, that if each church could produce but one man

a-piece that had the piety of an apostle, and the impartial love of the

first Christians, in the first church at _Jerusalem_, a Protestant and

a Papist of this stamp, would not want half a sheet of paper to hold

their articles of union, nor be half an hour before they were of one

religion. If therefore it should be said, that churches are divided,

and made unfriendly to one another, by learning, a logic, a history,

a criticism in the hands of partiality, it would be saying that which

every particular church too much proves to be true. Ask why even the

best amongst the Catholics are very shy of owning the validity of the

orders of our church; it is because they are afraid of removing any

odium from the reformation. Ask why no Protestants touch upon the

benefit of celibacy in those who are separated from worldly business

to preach the gospel, ’tis because that would be seeming to lessen the

Roman error of not suffering marriage in her clergy. Ask why even the

most pious amongst the clergy of the established church, are afraid to

assert, the necessity of seeking only to the guidance and inspiration

of the Holy Spirit; ’tis because the _Quakers_, who have broken off

from the church, have made this doctrine their corner stone.

If we loved truth as such; if we sought it for its own sake; if we

loved our neighbour as ourselves; if we desired nothing by our religion

but to be acceptable to God; if we equally desired the salvation of all

men; then nothing of this spirit could have any place in us.

* There is therefore a _Catholic_ spirit, a _communion of saints_ in

the love of God and all goodness, which no one can learn from that

which is called orthodoxy in particular churches. It is only to be had

by a total dying to all worldly views, by a pure love of God, and by

such an unction from above, as delivers the mind from all selfishness,

and makes it love truth and goodness with an equality of affection

in every man, whether he be _Christian_, _Jew_, or _Gentile_. He that

would obtain this divine spirit in this disordered state of things, and

live in a divided part of the church, without partaking of its division,

must have these three truths deeply fixed in his mind: _first_, that

universal love, which gives the whole strength of the heart to God, and

makes us love every man as we love ourselves, is the noblest, the most

God-like state of the soul, and the utmost perfection to which the most

perfect religion can raise us; and that no religion does any man any

good, but so far as it brings this love into him. This will shew us,

that true orthodoxy can no where be found, but in a pure disinterested

love of God and our neighbour. _Secondly_, That in the present divided

state of the church, truth itself is torn and divided asunder; and that

therefore he is the only true Catholic, who has more of truth, and less

of error, than is hedged in by any divided part. This truth will enable

us to live in a divided part, _unhurt_ by its division, and keep us in

a true liberty and fitness to be assisted by all the good that we hear

or see in any other part of the church. And thus uniting in heart and

spirit with all that is holy and good in all churches, we enter into

the true _communion of saints_, and become real members of the holy

Catholic church, tho’ we use the outward worship of only one part of it.

It is thus, that the angels, as ministring spirits, assist, unite and

co-operate with every thing that is holy and good, in every division of

mankind. _Thirdly_, he must always have in mind this great truth, that

it is the glory of the divine justice to have no respect of parties or

persons, but to stand equally disposed to that which is right and wrong,

in _Jew_ and _Gentile_. He therefore that would like as God likes,

and condemn as God condemns, must have neither the eyes of the Papist

nor the Protestant; he must like no truth the less because _Ignatius

Loyola_ or _John Bunyan_ were very zealous for it; nor have the less

aversion to any error, because Dr. _♦Trapp_ or _George Fox_ had brought

it forth. Now if this impartial justice, is the spirit which will judge

the world at the last day, how can this spirit be too soon or too much

in us? Or what can do us more hurt than that which is an hindrance

of it? When I was a young scholar of the university, I heard a great

religionist say, that if he could believe the late _king of France_ was

in heaven, he could not wish to go thither himself. This was exceeding

shocking: yet something of this temper must be more or less in those,

who have, as a point of orthodoxy, worked themselves up into a hearty

contempt and hatred of those that are divided from them. He that has

been all his life long used to look with great abhorrence upon those

whom he called _superstitious bigots_, _dreaming visionaries_, _false

saints_, _canting enthusiasts_, must naturally expect they will be

treated by God as they have been by him; and if he had the keys of the

kingdom of heaven, such people would find it hard to get a place in it.

But it stands us greatly in hand to get rid of this temper before we

die: since nothing but universal love can enter into the kingdom of God.

♦ “Trap” replaced with “Trapp”

We often hear of people of great zeal and orthodoxy, declaring on their

death-beds their strict attachment to the church of _England_, and

making solemn protestations against all other churches: but how much

better would it be, if such a person was to say, “In this divided

state of Christendom, I must conform to some divided part of it, and

therefore I live and die in communion with the church of _England_;

fully believing, that if I worship God in _spirit and in truth_ in

this divided part of the church, I shall be as acceptable to him, as

if I had been a faithful member of the one whole church, before it

was broken into separate parts. But as I am now going out of this

disordered division, into a more universal state of things, as I am now

falling into the hands of the great Creator and lover of all souls; as

I am going to the God of all churches, to a kingdom of universal love,

which must have its inhabitants from all people, nations, and languages

of the earth; so in this spirit of universal love, I desire to perform

my last act of communion in this divided church, uniting in heart with

all that is holy, good, and acceptable to God in all other churches;

praying, from the bottom of my soul, that every church may have its

saints; that God’s kingdom may come, his will be done in every division

of Christians and men, and that _every thing that hath breath may

praise the Lord_.”

We have often seen learned Protestants very zealous in pulling to

pieces the lives of the saints of the _Romish_ church, and casting all

the reproach and ridicule they can, upon their wondrous spirit; tho’

the lives of the saints of the primitive church may be exposed in the

same manner. Now, whence does this proceed? Why, from a secret touch

of that spirit which could not bear to have the late king of _France_

in heaven; it proceeds from a partial, selfish orthodoxy, which cannot

bear to hear, or own, that the spirit and blessing of God are so

visible in a church from which it is divided. But if a person be of

this spirit, what does it signify where he has his outward church? If

a _Romish priest_ in the north of _England_ could not bear the splendor

of a life so devoted to God, so fruitful in all good works, as was

that of the lady _Elizabeth Hastings_, if he should want to sully the

brightness of her Christian graces, and prove her to have been no saint,

lest it should appear, that the Spirit of God was not confined to the

_Romish_ church, would not such a zeal shew a worse spirit, than that

of superstition, a greater depravity of heart, than the saying now and

then an _Ave Mary_?

* The more we know of the corruptions and hindrances of piety in the

church of _Rome_, the more we should rejoice, that in every age so many

eminent saints, have appeared in it, whom we should thankfully behold

as so many great lights hung out by God, to shew the true way to heaven,

as so many joyful proofs that Christ is still present, even in that

church, and that the gates of hell have not quite prevailed against it.

Who that has the least spark of heaven in his soul, can help rejoicing

in this manner at the appearance of St. _Bernard_, a _Teresa_, a

_Francis_ de _Sales_, in that church? Who can help praising God, that

her invented devotions, superstitious use of images, and invocation of

saints, have not so suppressed the graces of an evangelical life, but

that amongst _cardinals_, _jesuits_, _priests_, _friars_, _monks_ and

_nuns_, some have been found, who seemed to live for no other end, but

to give glory to God and edification to men, and whose writings have

every thing in them, that can guide the soul out of the corruption of

this life into union with God? And he who through a partial orthodoxy

is diverted from feeding in these green pastures of life, whose

abhorrence of jesuitical craft, keeps him from reading the works of an

_Alvares du Pas_, a _Rodrigues_, a _Pere Surin_, and such like jesuits,

has a greater loss than he can easily imagine: and if any clergyman can

read the life of _Bartholomeus_ a _Martyribus_ a _Spanish_ archbishop,

who sat with great influence at the very council of _Trent_, without

being edified by it, and desiring to read it again and again, I know

not why he should like the lives of the apostolical fathers: and if

any Protestant bishop should read the _Stimulus Pastorum_ wrote by this

Popish prelate, he must confess it to be a book, that would have done

honour to the best archbishop, that the reformation has to boast of.

O my God, how shall I unlock this mystery? In the land of darkness,

over-run with superstition, where divine worship seems to be all shew

and ceremony, thou hast those, who are fired with the pure love of thee,

who renounce every thing for thee, who are devoted wholly to thee, who

think of nothing, write of nothing, desire nothing but the honour, and

praise, and adoration that is due to thee, and who call all the world

to the maxims of the gospel, the perfection of the life of Christ. But

in the regions where light is sprung up, whence superstition is fled,

where all that is outward in religion seems to be pruned, dressed,

and put in its true order; there a cleansed shell, a whited sepulchre,

seems too generally to cover a dead Christianity.

The error of all errors, and that which makes the blackest charge

against the _Romish_ church, is persecution, a religious sword drawn

against the liberty of serving God according to our best light. Now,

tho’ this is the frightful monster of that church, yet, even here, who,

except it be the church of _England_, can throw the first stone at her?

Where must we look for a church that has so renounced this persecuting

beast, as they have renounced the use of incense, the sprinklings of

holy water, or extreme unction? What part of the reformation abroad has

not practised and defended persecution? What sect of dissenters at home

have not, in their day of power dreadfully condemned toleration?

When it shall please God to dispose the hearts of all Christian princes,

entirely to destroy this anti-christian beast, and leave all their

subjects in that religious freedom which they have from God; then the

light of the gospel, the power of its ministers, the usefulness of

its rites, the benediction of its sacraments will have proper time

and place to shew themselves; and that religion which has the most of

a divine power in it, whose offices and services do most good to the

heart, whose ministers are most devoted to God, and have the most proof

of the presence of Christ with them, will become, as it ought, the most

universal. All that I have said on this matter, has been occasioned by

the Doctor’s appeal to vulgar prejudice; and is only to intimate, that

the greatest evil which the division of the church brings forth, is a

sectarian, selfish spirit, which with the orthodoxy of the _old Jews_,

would have God to be only their God, and themselves only, his chosen

people. If therefore we would be true Christians of the Catholic church,

we must put off this partiality of the carnal _Jew_; we must enter

into a Catholic affection for all men, love the spirit of the gospel

wherever we see it; not work ourselves up into an abhorrence of a

_George Fox_, or an _Ignatius Loyola_; but be equally glad of the

light of the gospel wherever it shines, or from whatever quarter it

comes; and give the same praise to God for an eminent example of piety,

wherever it appears, either in Papist or Protestant.

To return. Dr. _♦Trapp_ supposing the world running into a charity that

would ruin wife and family, asks his charitable _half-thinker_, “Did

you never hear that _charity begins_ at home? Did you never read that

of St. _Paul_, If any provide not for his own, and especially those of

his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an Infidel?”

The Doctor’s proverb I meddled not with, but the text of St. _Paul_ I

rescued from his gross misapplication. That text has no more relation

to an excessive charity, than to an excessive fasting. The apostle

neither thought of this sin in this place, nor in any other part of

his writings; nor does he ever give the smallest hint of the danger of

falling into it. The only question was, whether poor widows, who had

near relations, that could supply their wants, should be maintained

by the church? The apostle determines the matter thus; that if such

persons, who were thus able, did not thus provide for, that is, supply

the wants of their poor kindred, they were so far from having the faith

of Christians, that they wanted a goodness that was to be found amongst

Infidels: this is the whole of the apostle’s doctrine in this text. He

speaks of providing for those of our own house or family, in no other

sense, than as it signifies our charity to them, when they fall into

distress; but the Doctor, trusting to the sound of the _English_ word

_provide_, grafts all these errors upon this plain text. When it is

said, a person has provided well for his family, every one supposes

that he has _laid up well in store_, or got an _estate_ to be divided

amongst them for their future subsistance. From this use of the

_English_ word, _provide_; the Doctor would have it believed, that the

apostle teaches every head of a family to be carefully and continually

laying up in store for his kindred. But the apostle is as infinitely

distant from this thought, as from teaching them to get their cellars

filled with strong liquors: when he here says, _provide_, he says only

this, shut not your eyes to the wants of your poor kindred, but provide

them with what they have need of, and don’t let them fall to the charge

of the church. The Doctor’s second error is this; according to this

text, a Christian ought not to hinder himself from thus laying up

in store for his family, or leave them to live by their labour and

industry, thro’ an excess of charity to his poor neighbours. But the

apostle has not one single syllable about this; and is as far from

saying any thing like it, as from saying, that a Christian, when he

makes a feast, should only invite his rich kindred and acquaintance.

The one has as much of the apostle and the gospel for it, as the other.

The Doctor’s third error is this; that, according to this text, he, who

by a daily, continual charity, has incapacitated himself to lay up in

store, a fixed provision for the future maintenance of his family, is

condemned by the apostle as _denying the faith_, and _worse than an

Infidel_: tho’ the apostle speaks no more here against such a person,

than he speaks in the praise of _Ananias_ and _Sapphira_.

♦ “Trap” replaced with “Trapp”

The person here condemned, is not he who thro’ a continual charity, is

hindered from laying up in store; not he, who, thro’ a Christian love

of relieving the distressed members of Christ, is content with helping

his own family to food and raiment; but it is that Christian, who being

able, is yet unwilling to support his near relations, that are fallen

into poverty, and leaves them to be maintained by the church: this is

the only Christian the apostle here condemns, as having put off the

piety of the gospel, and wanting even the virtue of good-natured

Infidels.

I said further, Had the apostle known a parent in his days, who, thro’

his great charity for others, had reduced his own family to want of

relief, he would have been so far from rebuking him as an half-thinking

fool, or exposing him to others, as guilty of madness, that he would

have told them, such a one had consecrated himself and family to the

church, as the proper objects of their care. To which the Doctor gives

this answer, “This he affirms, and this I deny; and as he produces no

other proof, so I give no other answer,” p. 69. What I said, has its

proof from the common voice of Christianity in the apostles days; as

may sufficiently appear from the following passage of St. _Clement_,

fellow-labourer of the apostle, and bishop of no less a church than

that of _Rome_. “We have known many amongst us, who have delivered

themselves into bonds and slavery, that they might restore others to

their liberty; many who have hired out themselves servants unto others,

that by their wages they might feed and sustain them that wanted.”¹

¹ 1 Epistle to the Corinthians

Will the Doctor now say, that this is no proof of that which I affirmed

of the apostle, that he would have had a love for those who were become

sufferers by their own charity to others? Does not this apostolical

bishop make it his boast, and the glory of Christianity; not that they

had some, but many such among them?

It was not only in the first church at _Jerusalem_, that the Christians

had all things common. For St. _Barnabas_ writing to some converted

_Jews_, teaches them to call nothing their own in this world, because

they were called to the common enjoyment of the things of eternity.

_Communicabis in omnibus rebus proximo tuo; nihil dices quicquam tibi

proprium; si enim communicatis invicem, in bonis, incorruptibilibus,

quanto magis in corruptibilibus._¹

¹ Epistle to Barnabas. No. 10.

* An age after this, _Justin Martyr_ thus glories of the power of the

gospel-faith; “We, says he, who before we became Christians, loved

our wealth and possession above all things, now give up all property

in them, that they may be in common for all that want them. _Qui

pecuniarum & possessionum fructus ac proventus præ rebus omnibus

adamabamus, nunc etiam quæ habemus in commune conferimus, & cum

indigentibus quibuscunque communicamus._”¹ What a lean, heathenish

figure must the Doctor’s proverb of charity _beginning at home_, have

made in the days of St. _Barnabas_, _Clement_, or _Justin Martyr_? Or

who durst then have made such an use of the text of St. _Paul_, as the

Doctor has done, or coupled it with such a proverb? Were any of these

first saints to judge of this matter, the Doctor might, for ought I

know, have a worse reprimand from them for so doing, than if he had

only coupled Cardinals with Pluralists.

¹ 2 Apology

In order to shew the Doctor that he was very unseasonably preaching

against the sin and folly of an excessive charity, when yet every part

of the church wanted to be shewn how they were fallen from the gospel

degree of it, I set before him an imaginary Bishop of _Winchester_,

yet drawn according to the model of the holy Bishops of the first

ages. I supposed this Bishop so filled with the Spirit of Christ, that

he looked upon all the revenues of his see, with no other eyes, than

as our Saviour looked at that bag that was carried along with him by

his disciples, as so much for his own necessities and the necessities

of others. I supposed that in this spirit, he so expended his yearly

income, that he chose to bring up his children strangers to all worldly

figure, and in as low a state of labour as that to which our Lord

and his apostles had been used. I supposed, that by a piety of life

and conversation, equal to this exalted charity, he had instilled

such an heavenly spirit into his wife and children, as made them

highly thankful for their condition, and full of praise to God for

the blessing of such a relation. Dr. _♦Trapp_, tho’ an antient divine,

seems to start back with fright, at the sight of this apostolical

bishop, and supposes, that if such a monster of a man was now to get

into a bishoprick, he must needs make his children extraordinary wicked,

fill them with abhorrence of his memory, and spread infidelity in the

world, by making Christianity a jest to Infidels, p. 71.

♦ “Trap” replaced with “Trapp”

I say, says the Doctor, _very clearly and plainly_, that _such a bishop

must be a mad man_, p. 70. Now, if the Doctor will prove from the

scriptures this bishop to be a mad man, it must be for the following

reasons: _First_, because he had so mean a spirit, as to suffer the son

of a bishop to work under a carpenter, as the Redeemer of mankind had

done. _Secondly_, because he taught himself and his family to believe

that which St. _Paul_ believed, that _having food and raiment, we ought

to be therewith content_. _Thirdly_, because he came up to the very

letter of the great commandment, of _loving our neighbour as ourselves_.

_Fourthly_, because he imitated the spirit of the first Christians at

_Jerusalem_, who accounted nothing to be their own that they possessed.

_Fifthly_, because he had turned himself and family from all the vanity

of this world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the

pride of life. _Sixthly_, because he seemed to have this of the apostle

fixed in his mind, “He that saith, he abideth in Christ, ought so

to walk, as he walked.” _Seventhly_, because his life was fashioned

according to this doctrine of the Holy Jesus, “Learn of me, for I am

meek, and lowly of heart: I am among you, as he that serveth: whosoever

will be great among you, let him be your minister; even as the Son of

man came not to be ministred unto, but to minister.” For it may be said

with the greatest certainty, that if the Doctor will have any proof

from the scripture of the madness of this bishop, it must be as absurd

as the reasons here alledged.

Come we now to consider this bishop according to the spirit, practice

and laws of the church in all ages. Any one versed ever so little

in the history of the church, must see at the first sight, that this

supposed bishop is a true copy of the first apostolical fathers. And

if this bishop was to be accounted a madman, because of the manner of

his life, we must come down several ages after _Constantine_, to the

_mitre_ and triple crown, before we could find a bishop in his senses.

The _Clements_, the _Polycarps_, the _Ignatius’s_, the _Irenæus’s_, the

_Cyprian’s_, the _Basils_, the _Ambrose’s_, and a number that have long

graced our calenders, as saints, must take their place among bedlamites:

for they were all of them to a tittle, the very man I have supposed at

_Winchester_. They considered every penny that was brought in by the

gospel, as a provision for the poor, and themselves as only entitled

to their common share out of it. They durst no more raise any of their

relations to a splendor of life, or give them any figure from the

revenues of the church, than commit sacrilege. They gloried as much in

their own strict poverty and want of worldly figure, as in their having

totally renounced idols.

But we have much more than primitive example for our bishop of

_Winchester_: the doctrine and laws of the church have unanimously

from age to age, to the very council of _Trent_, required every bishop

to be of the same spirit of which we have supposed him. The church,

both by the doctrine of fathers, and the canons of councils, constantly

maintains; _First_, that the clergy are not proprietors, but barely

stewards of the benefices they enjoy: having them for no other end,

but for their own necessary, frugal subsistence, and the relief of the

poor.¹ _Secondly_, that a clergyman using his benefice for his _own

indulgence_, or the enriching his _own family_, is guilty of sacrilege,

and is a robber and murderer of the poor.² _Thirdly_, that if a

clergyman has a reasonable subsistence of his own, and is not in the

state of the poor, then let his benefice be what it will, he has no

right to use any part of it for himself, nor for his kindred, unless

they be fit to be considered among those poor that are to be relieved

by the church.³ _Fourthly_, that every bishop and clergyman is to live

in an humble, frugal, outward state of life, seeking for no honour or

dignity in the world, but that which arises from the distinction and

lustre of his virtues.⁴ _Fifthly_, that a beneficed clergyman using the

goods of the church for his own indulgence, or raising fortunes for his

children, or their expensive education, is sacrilegious, and a robber

of the poor.⁵ _Sixthly_, that every clergyman is to die out of the

church as poor as he entered into it.⁶ _Seventhly_, that a clergyman

dying, cannot leave or bequeath any thing to his children or friends,

but barely that which he had independently of the church.⁷

¹ Nihil ecclesia nisi Fidem possidet.――Possessio ecclesiæ est

Egenorum sumptus, _Ambrose, Epistle 31_.

² Si Pauperum Compauperes sumus, & _nostra_ sunt, & _illorum_.

Si autem privatim quæ nobis sufficiunt, possidemus, non

sunt illa _nostrum_, sed Pauperum _Procurationem_ gerimus,

non Proprietatem nobis Usurpatione damnabili vindicamus,

_Augustine Epistle 50 to Boniface._

³ Quoniam quicquid habent Clerici, Pauperum est――Qui bonis

Parentum & opibus sustentari possent, si quod Pauperum

est, accipiunt, _Sacrilegium profecto_ committunt, & per

Abusionem Talium, Judicium sibi manducant, & bibunt,

_Hieronymus, Epistle to Pope Damasus_.

⁴ Episcopus vilem _Suppellectilem_, & _Mensam_, ac _Victum

Pauperem_, habeat, & Dignitatis, sua Authoritatum Fide &

Vitæ meritis quærat, _Council of Carthage_, 4.

⁵ Memento quod _Pauperem Vitam_ Sacerdos gerere debet, & ideo

si superbiam habet, si magno gaudet Beneficio, præter victum

& vestitum _quod sperest_, Pauperibus dare non differat,

quia omnia _pauperum_ sunt. _Augustine, Sermon 37 to the

Brethren_.

⁶ Hujus tu e vicino sectare Vestigia, & cæterorum, qui Virtutum

illius similes sunt, quos Sacerdotium & _humiliores_ facit &

_pauperes_. _Hieronymus Epistle 4. to Rufinus._

⁷ Præcipimus ut in potestate sua Episcopus Ecclesiæ Res

habeat――ex iis autem quibus indiget, (si tamen indiget)

ad suas necessitates percipiat. _Canons of the Apostles_,

40.――――eas veluti Deo contemplante dispenset; nec ei liceat

ex iis aliquid contingere, aut Parentibus propriis (quæ dei

sunt) condonare. Quod si Pauperes sunt, tanquam Pauperibus

subministret, ne eorum occasione Ecclesiæ Res depredantur,

_Canons of the Apostles_, 39. Manifesta sint quæ pertinere

videntur ad Ecclesiam cum Notitia Presbiterorum & Diaconorum,

ut si contigerit Episcopo migare de Seculo, nec _Res

Ecclesiæ_ depereant, nec quæ _propria_ probantur Episcopi,

sub occasione Rerum Ecclesiæ pervadantur: justem enim est ut

sua Episcopus quibus voluerit, derelinquat, & quæ Ecclesiæ

sunt, eidem conservantur Ecclesiæ. _Council of Antioch_,

chapter 24. Quicunque Clerici, qui nihil habentes ordinantur,

& _tempore Episcopatus_, vel _Clericatus sui_, agros,

vel quæcunque predia nomine suo comparant, tanquam Rerum

dominiearum _Invisionis Crimini_ teneantur obnoxii, nisi

admoniti, Ecclesia eadem ipsa contulerint. (_N. B._)

Si autem ipsis proprie aliquid _liberalitate_ alicujus,

vel _Successione_ Cognationis obvenerit, faciant, inde

quod ipsorum Proposito congruit. Sacerdotes ipsis quoque

Filiis suis, quibus paterna debetur Hæreditas, nihil debent

derelinquere, nisi quod sibi a Parentibus derelictum est:

_Ergo_ qui _ditior est_ Sacerdos, quam venit ad Sacerdotium,

quicquid plus habuerit, _non filiis debet dare_, sed

Pauperibus, & Sanctis fratribus, ut reddat ea quæ Domini

sunt, Domino suo. _Hieronymus on Ezekiel_, chapter 46.

* May it not therefore well be wondered what could provoke Dr. _♦Trapp_

to censure our bishop as a madman, whose whole form of life, and use of

his bishoprick, is not only after the model of the first and greatest

saints that ever were bishops, but also such as the whole church from

the beginning, both in council and out of council, from age to age,

hath absolutely required of every beneficed clergyman, who would not be

condemned by her, as sacrilegious, and a robber of the poor? They who

would see the whole matter set in a clear light, may read an excellent

treatise of the learned _Dupin_, wrote near the end of his life, where

this truth is by him asserted and incontestably proved, _viz._ That

whatever changes have been made in the nature and tenure of the goods

and revenues of the church, or however they have been variously divided

amongst ecclesiasticks, yet this has remained _always unchangeable and

undeniable_, That a clergyman was no proprietor of his benefice; that

he could only take so much of it to his own use, as was necessary to

his subsistance, and then the remainder, be it what it would, belonged

to the poor. This, says he, is strictly maintained by the canons of

councils, both before and after the division of ecclesiastical revenues.

♦ “Trap” replaced with “Trapp”